The application for a site for travelling show people in Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh, was refused at the Development Committee tonight. Reasons for refusal were inappropriate use of the Green Belt, and poor access.
Chris Black was the main speaker against the application, and asked for the wording of the refusal to include the impact on nearby residential properties, he was supported in this by June Lumley. When it came to a vote they were backed by councillors from all parts of the council chamber.
The planning application at Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh for a site from Travelling Show People comes to the Development Committee next Thursday 30th.Officers are recommending refusal for Green Belt reasons and also poor access.
You can find the full report here
Here is the full officers recommendation:
7.1 It is proposed that the Committee RESOLVES To REFUSE planning
permission for the following reasons:-
(1) The saved Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) shows the
site to be within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Within the Green Belt
planning permission will not be given except in very special
circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of
use or extension of existing buildings (other than reasonable extensions
to existing buildings, as defined in Policies R2 and R5 of the saved Local
Plan). The proposal is considered to be inappropriate development
contrary to Green Belt Policy. Any development that is permitted shall be
of a scale, design and siting such that the appearance of the countryside
is not impaired.
The proposal does not come into any of the excepted categories and, if
allowed, would develop an existing open and undeveloped site with an
existing tall grass covering with development in the form of touring
caravans, mobile homes, commercial vehicle storage and maintenance
and a hardstanding area to some 56% of the site coverage, which taking
all these features together, would detract visually from the relative
undeveloped plotland appearance and character of that part of the Green
Belt in which the site would be situated and would introduce noise and
commercial repairs to show men’s equipment, detracting from the
amenity enjoyed to this location.
(2) The proposal would be served by a 117m length of unmade plotland
road to a width of 5m without footway and a poor surface. As such, the
site would not enjoy a direct access onto a metalled highway surface and
the proposal would instead encourage further commercial traffic onto the
sub standard highway network to the detriment of the safety to
pedestrians and other highway users and the flow of traffic.
Southend Airport already have planning permission for an extension to their terminal building. That extension is being built now.
The airport is now applying for another extension of their terminal. They say this would improve passenger facilities and allow the UK Border Agency to separate arriving international passengers from arriving domestic passengers.
Planning officers are in favour of the proposal, saying that although the site is in Green Belt, it is an airport and an exceptional circumstance.
It will be discussed by councillors at a committee meeting on March 21st
As always, we will keep an open mind in advance of the meeting.
At last Tuesday’s meeting the District Council pressed on with their plans for future development.
The six councillors on the sub-committee were all there –
5 Conservatives: Keith Hudson, Heather Glynn, Keith Gordon, Simon Smith and Colin Seagers
and 1 Lib Dem: Chris Black.
When you are outnumbered 5 to 1, you don’t expect to win many votes….
In addition two visiting members came along, Lib Dem Ron Oatham and Conservative Brian Hazlewood.
There were also about 17 members of the public present, mostly interested in Rayleigh Sports And Social Club. One of them walked out halfway, saying ‘this is a waste of time’.
Also there was a full team of planning officers, led by Shaun Scrutton.
The alarming phrases that mentioned a lot more potential housing were all removed. It seems that some of the Conservatives were as concerned as we were. So, for example the wording for ‘Land North of London Road’ was changed from:
The Core Strategy (Policy H2) identifies that the site in this general location should have the
capacity to accommodate a minimum of 550 dwellings during the plan period. A minimum
site size of 20.95 hectares would be required (if 75% of the site was developed at 35
dwellings per hectare).
The site identified in Figure 7 is 38.8 hectares (the gross site area, outside flood zone 3)
which could deliver between 582 and 873 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare
on a developable area of 50% and 75% respectively, and between 679 and 1019 dwellings
at a density of 35 dwellings per hectare on a developable area of 50% and 75% respectively.
The Core Strategy (Policy H2) identifies that the site in this general location should have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 550 dwellings during the plan period. The site identified in Figure 6 is capable of providing 550 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, plus a flexibility allowance of 5%, if required.
So the maximum amount of new housing ‘North of London Road’ has been changed from 1019 to 550 + 5%, which equals 578.
Changes were made in similar way for other sites such as SW Hullbridge, which now reads:
‘The Core Strategy (Policy H2 and H3) identifies that the site in this general location should have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 500 dwellings during the plan period. The site identified in Figure 12 is capable of providing 500 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, plus a flexibility allowance of 5%, if required.
Well, the Conservatives would probably say that everything that came out of the meeting was good, this was effectively their document! But from our perspective :
After a fair amount of discussion, it went through. Heather Glynn was concerned about certain aspects of the plan, Ron Oatham stressed the importance of leisure facilities such as the tenpin bowling.
The Council are sticking to their new policy of forcing the Rayleigh Sports & Social Club to move.
Heather Glynn and Keith Hudson moved an amendment that presumably was intended to calm the fears of the club:
The playing field to the south of the site along London Road should be relocated. A replacement sports field with new ancillary facilities together with a new club house will be required to be provided ahead of any removal of the existing facility so as to ensure the continued and uninterrupted operation of this valuable community facility. The new structure will be required to be built to the BREEAM (Very good) standard thus providing a new, efficient and environmentally friendly establishment which will be of great advantage to the community as a whole and to the operators of the Sports and Social club. It should be located within the green buffer to the west of the site, although the arrangement of the facility should be such that the clubhouse and associated development are positioned adjacent to the residential settlement to the east and integrated into the development. It is calculated that the new club house will be built within 340 metres of the existing location and will be served by a new road. Additionally this facility should be well connected to the pedestrian and cycling network.
Chris Black still objected to the proposal, saying it was being imposed on the club and he would only support a move if it was by agreement. Even in September the council was still staying that the sports pitches should be allocated as open space.
However the Conservatives forced this through.
Well, they went through. Chris Black got an amendment to look at the feasibility of having a through route between London Road and Rawreth Lane but stressed that traffic problems were a big concern in general, that extra development could bring London Road to gridlock and Rawreth Lane not far behind. He pointed out that with the proposals for the Rawreth Industrial Estate, Land North of London Road, eoN and a proposed new employment site near Swallows Nursery, there should be a Traffic Impact Assessment before going any further. This was important not only for Rayleigh residents, but for people living elsewhere in the district who also used these roads.
The proposals for Land North of London Road went through by 5 votes to 1. Chris Black voted against , mainly because of the traffic issue and the Sports and Social Club.
The proposals went through by 5 votes to 1 here as well. Chris Black voted against because of concerns about Watery Lane. The documents said that road improvements would be made, but despite all the thousands of pages of paperwork, there seemed to be no information on exactly what was needed to make the road suitable for all the extra traffic! So there was no guarantee that the necessary work would be done.
They each went through after a bit of discussion. This included the proposed Traveller site near the Fairglen Interchange. There was an amendment agreed to make this a council-owned site.
The whole document goes to an extraordinary meeting of the the Full Council for rubber-stamping. Then there’s a consultation period , and then all the responses go to a government inspector.
UPDATE, NOVEMBER 5TH -Just to make it clear, bearing in mind some of the comments below , we are advised by the council that there is no agreement or arrangements between the District Council and any developers or landowners regarding the Hockley Area Action Plan.
The latest District Council proposals aren’t yet agreed, but they involve building houses where Rayleigh Town football club currently play!
The club would be offered a new site.
If you don’t know much about the club, The Grounds For Concern Blog has a very thorough look at Rayleigh Town Football Club here and makes some positive comments:
“Most clubs in this division only have the most basic railed off pitches, so it was nice to see a small bit of cover here.”
Last week we showed the following figures for proposed housing in the Green Belt:
However the document going to councillors at the moment says these are only minimum figures, the council may allow more houysing if required to meet our five year supply. So if houses don’t get built in one location they may get built in another!
Here’s how the new ‘maximum’ figures look:
That’s an especially alarming situation for Rawreth….. and for anyone who uses London Road or Rawreth Lane…
The overall housing figures for Hockley have already been dropped by 50. The council says “Community involvement has suggested that large-scale residential development of this site would not be appropriate, consequently fewer dwellings are envisaged.” That’s nice for Hockley..
This is a table from the latest District Council ‘allocations’ document, showing where new homes are going to be built across the district in the Green Belt (you can double-click on it to enlarge it)
However here’s a few points to bear in mind:
The application opposite 2 Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh, for a site for travelling show people has just been refused.
You can download the officers report here
The reasons for refusal are as follows:
1 The saved Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) shows the site to be within
the Metropolitan Green Belt. Within the Green Belt, planning permission will not be given,
except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the
change of use or extension of existing buildings (other than reasonable extensions to
existing buildings, as defined in Policies R2 and R5 of the saved Local Plan). The
proposal in considered to be inappropriate development contrary to Green Belt Policy.
Any development which is permitted shall be of a scale design and siting such that the
appearance of the countryside is not impaired.
The proposal does not come into any of the excepted categories and if allowed would
develop an existing open and undeveloped site with an existing tall grass covering
with development in the form of touring caravans, mobile homes , commercial vehicle
storage and maintenance and a hardstanding area to some 56% of the site coverage
which taking all these features together would detract visually from the relative
undeveloped plotland appearance and character of that part of the Green Belt in which
the site would be situated and would introduce noise and commercial repairs to
showmen’s equipment detracting from the amenity enjoyed to this location.
2 The proposal would be served by a 117m length of unmade plotland road to a width
of 5m without footway and a poor surface. As such the site would not enjoy a direct
access onto a metalled highway surface and the proposal would instead encourage
further commercial traffic onto the substandard highway network to the detriment of
the safety to pedestrians and other highway users and the flow of traffic.
You can get a compost bin from the District Council for £15 , plus £5.49 delivery.
Find out more on the council website here.
“If you haven’t started yet in home composting, then autumn is the perfect time to get going” As this Australian video explains:
One of the ongoing Green Belt planning disputes of the past few years has been over the Rose Garden restaurant by the golf driving range by Alderman’s Hill , Hockley. The restaurant has a devoted following of diners, but doesn’t have planning permission, and was refused on Green Belt grounds and for the impact of vehicles on neighbours.
The matter has been to appeal, and the inspector has just upheld the District Council’s refusal.
There seems to be a problem with the planning inspectorate website tonight, so we can’t link to the decision, but here’s a image of the inspector’s conclusions:
A good-natured meeting of the Development Committee finished at 10:40 pm today. The chamber was overflowing with members of the public attending:
Here’s a very brief summary:
1. Two bungalows in Trenders Avenue, Rawreth – PASSED. Approval moved by Chris Black, seconded by Heather Glynn. Voting was tied at 9-9. it was then passed on Phil Capon’s chairman’s casting vote.
2. Microbrewery in Great Wakering – PASSED. Ward councillors Colin Seagers and Barbara Wilkins attempted refusal, but didn’t get enough support.
3. Takeaway in Spa Road, Hockley – REFUSED. Refusal was moved by Keith Hudson and seconded by Malcolm Maddocks.
4 and 5 – repairs and extension to 41 South Street Rochford. PASSED without debate.
6. Expansion of View Nursery Rawreth – PASSED. Approval was moved by Keith Gordon and seconded by Heather Glynn. Reasons stated were improved highways safety and protection of employment. Supported by Chris Black.
7. Traveller Site on the A1245, Rawreth – REFUSED. Lyn Hopkins and Alistir Matthews spoke on behalf of Rawreth residents at the start of the debate, Refusal was moved by Chris Black and seconded by Jackie Dillnutt, on grounds of a) impact on the openness of Green Belt b) highways safety c) lack of nearby amenities. Supported by numerous councillors including Joan Mockford and Keith Hudson.
8. 22 houses near Rectory Road, Hawkwell. – DEFERRED. Ward councillors Heather Glynn and Phil Capon wanted approval, but lost the vote. Councillors were concerned by issues such as sub-standard garden sizes but there didn’t seem to be a consensus for a refusal. Chris Black then moved deferral to see if removing 1 or 2 of the proposed houses would leave enough room to solve the issues. This was seconded by Heather Glynn.
9. 2 bungalows near Preston Gardens, Rayleigh – REFUSED Chris Black added two more reasons and got refusal – seconded by Jackie Dillnutt.
We are Liberal Democrat councillors and campaigners in Rochford District.
We want to improve local decision-making and we see onlineFOCUS as a good way of keep residents informed and involved.
Please click here to email us .
We welcome your comments, they are very important to us. However please note:
* We may not necessarily agree with the comments made by our readers
* We ask everyone to treat people with respect when making a comment. No personal abuse please.
Asda or Makro Council Budget Crime & Policing District Core Strategy District Wide Elections Essex & East Future Housing Green Belt Highways & Parking History and Culture Hockley Hullbridge Leisure and Sport Liberal Democrats Local Democracy Local Facilities National Politics No Category Planning Applications Rawreth Rayleigh Rochford Web Stuff YouTube and Video
If you want information on a particular planning application, you can find it on the District Council website here.
If you want to know what new planning applications have been submitted this week, click here.
If you want to report a problem, you can email Lib Dems councillors by clicking here.
There's also an independent website called FixMyStreet. It's very good for reporting minor street problems like holes in the road, grafitti or failed streetlights. You can find FixMyStreet here.
If you read onlineFOCUS for a while you can see the kind of things we are trying to achieve locally. Maybe you would like to help us?
If you fancy helping us deliver leaflets, or actively campaigning for us at election time, or simply just helping behind the scenes with paperwork, please contact the onlineFOCUS team here.