If you are interested in the big planning application or applications coming on the Hullbridge / Rawreth borders , you can find out more and offer comments (until June 30th) on Landhold Capital’s website here.
Here’s something on flooding:
And here’s what they say about transport (nothing very dramatic here….)
And these are their design principles:
We’ve been enquiring into the situation with primary school places in Rayleigh – why Essex County Council were originally asking for a new primary school “North of London Road”, and now they’re not.
It seems that on the basis of a planning application for 475 homes , ECC don’t believe an extra school is needed. Admissions to primary school places in Rayleigh for September 2014 are high, but future school intakes are projected to reduce (this is based on GP registrations).
Slightly surprising comments in the Echo from Councillor Keith Hudson, bearing in mind that the Conservative Group has already voted to allocate enough housing to double the population of the parish of Rawreth, that also causes a merger with both Hullbridge and Rayleigh:
ROCHFORD Council fears overdevelopment in Wickford could lead to it merging with Rawreth. Major development is in store for Wickford over the next 17 years, which campaigners claim could change the face of the town forever.About 2,800 homes are planned by 2031 as part of Basildon Council’s local plan, with 760 homes to the south, 620 to the north-west, 220 on the western edge and 150 to the north-east. Rochford Council shares residents’ concerns claiming the influx of new homes – particularly plans for 150 properties north east of Wickford – will lead to the town becoming indistinguishable from neighbouring Rawreth.
Apart from the full Council meeting next Tuesday, there is also a meeting of the Development Committee next Thursday. Three of the items are:
1) Application by Academy Soccer for 8 sports pitches and other facilities in Old London Road Rawreth, next to the A130. This is recommended for approval by officers.
2) Application by David Wilson Homes for their 176- home development in Hawkwell to have a revised Flood Risk Assessment and revised mitigation measures.
To quote from the report:
3.2 Environment Agency:
The original strategy was to provide two discharge points to the north of the
site. Since the original submission, a more detailed survey of the river has
been undertaken and it is now known that the discharge points, as originally
proposed, will not function adequately. The revised proposals do not alter the
scheme from that originally agreed, other than to alter the point of discharge
from the site. The discharge rates, storage volumes and methods for storage
have not been altered. We therefore have no comments to add in that regard.
3.3 However, the proposal is to discharge all surface water to a smaller water
course, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site, rather than to the
water course to the north, as originally proposed. We would advise that this
water course should be checked for its capacity for carrying flows discharged
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 27 February 2014 Item 5
from the site to ensure that this water course will not become overloaded and
increase flood risk to the surrounding areas. We recommend that you are
satisfied, through consultation with the developer, that there is capacity within
the water course to carry and store flows from the site, without compromising
the capacity of the system for flows that it may already receive from other
developed areas in the vicinity. We would recommend that the developer
demonstrates to you that there are no known capacity issues with this water
course that result in localised flood risk problems and that the additional flows
to this water course will not increase flood risk to the surrounding area, before
the condition is discharged.
3) Application by David Wilson Homes to waive one of the original planning conditions of their site, to allow 22 homes to be occupied before highways improvements have been completed.
We understand that if the inspector approves the allocation document, that sometime next year the house builder Countryside Developments will carry out a public consultation on the housing “North of London Road”.
It will involve leaflets to every home in Downhall and Rawreth, Sweyne Park and Grange Wards, exhibitions in 2 or 3 local venues, and a website…
There are two district council meetings next Thursday evening.
The first is a routine Development Committee meeting – the main items on the agenda are two planning applications that , by coincidence, are both for very small traveller sites. One is at The Pear Tree, 750 New Park Road, Hockley, and the other is at Land West of The Pumping Station, Watery Lane, Rawreth.
Officers are recommending that both are given temporary permission until the end of 2018.
The other meeting is an extra meeting of Full Council to deal with the proposed Allocations Document in the Core Strategy and also the proposed Hockley Area Action Plan. It will take place as soon as the first meeting is over.
Basically the Planning Inspector has suggested some changes to the allocations document; this meeting is to agree to lots of changes in wording to comply with his suggestions, and then there will be an eight-week public consultation period. However the consultation won’t be on the whole core strategy, just on the changes that the inspector wants. So the consultation won’t include the principle of 550 houses “North of London Road” or the proposed traveller site at ‘Michelins Farm, because the inspector seems happy with this. But the consultation will include removing the 5% cap on additional housing for each site – because the inspector wants to remove that upper limit! So the council is saying, for example, it is allocating 550 houses North of London Road, but if other sites fall short they would allow a maximum extra 5% here, to increase it to 578 homes. But the inspector doesn’t want an upper limit… Thats’s something that will worry a lot of people…
In a similar way there will be changes in wording to the Hockley Area Action Plan and an 8 week consultation period.
It’s useful to quote parts of the officer’s report.
On the allocations document:
3.3 The Inspector’s initial assessment into the soundness of the Plan was
received by the Council on 18 October 2013 and published on the Council’s
website. A number of observations were made, including to the proposed 5%
cap on housing numbers for residential extensions, Policy NEL3, Policy
SER7, Policy SER1, Policy NEL1 and Policy BFR4; and recommendations to
make the Plan sound and/or legally compliant were suggested by the
Inspector. These recommendations have been integrated into the schedule of
3.4 The schedule of modifications can be divided into main and additional
modifications. Main modifications are defined as those that are required to
satisfy legal or procedural requirements or to make the plan sound, and
additional modifications are those that do not materially affect the policies.
The Council is only required to consult on the main modifications agreed by
the Inspector, which would make the Plan sound and/or legally compliant.
3.5 Proposed main modifications in the schedule include, but are not limited to:-
Making reference to viability testing for brown field land development
(Policy BFR1, 3 and 4);
Removing the 5% cap for residential extensions (Policy SER1-9);
Aligning the western boundary for proposed development to the north of
London Road in Rayleigh with the pylon line (Policy SER1);
Amending the requirements for site access and relocation of the sports
pitch (Policy SER1);
Removing the land to the north of Lark Hill Road and to the west of
Church Lane in Canewdon from the proposed residential allocation (Policy
Reducing the housing numbers to be delivered over the plan period for
Canewdon to 49 (Policy SER7);
Removing proposed employment land to the south of London Road in
Rayleigh (Policy NEL1); and
Moving the proposed relocated employment site for Great Wakering
(Policy NEL3) northwards so that it abuts proposed residential
development at the brick works site (Policy BFR1).
3.6 If accepted by Full Council, it is proposed that the schedule of modifications
will be consulted on for approximately eight weeks (longer than the usual sixweek
period in order to take account of the Christmas period and ensure there
is sufficient time for interested parties to respond). Those who commented at
the pre-submission stage, as well as general and specific consultation bodies,
will be invited to comment on the schedule. This is a formal consultation
stage, which forms part of the examination process.
3.7 Following completion of the consultation, the results will be submitted to the
Inspector who will consider them before preparing his final report…
For Hockley centre:
3.5 Proposed main modifications in the schedule include, but are not limited to:-
Amendments to Policy 6, replacing the criterion that limited a new food store to a maximum of 3,000m² with one that sets a maximum overall additional retail capacity for the centre of 3,000m² (gross);
Additional text to Policy 6 to make clear that the Council will favour the development of smaller retail units in the centre; and
Additional text to Policy 6 setting out the criteria a larger retail store would need to meet in order to be considered acceptable.
So, today the planning inspector Mr David Smith looked at the various proposals for “West of Rayleigh”. Here’s a summary of the key points.
The District Council now has a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” on its website – about development to the West of Rayleigh. Whatever your views, its worth a read. Here are some key extracts:
I would like to be on the Council’s mailing list, so I am contacted whenever there is
an opportunity to have my say on future planning policy. How do I do this?
You can sign up to the Council’s consultation system at http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/ .
If you do not have access to the internet, please send your preferred contact details to the
following address, stating that you wish to be added to the mailing list:
Rochford District Council
Has Basildon Borough Council objected to the Gypsy and Traveller site? What does that mean?
Basildon Borough Council is not the Planning Authority for the area, but as a neighbour they were asked for their view on the proposed allocations and they have formally objected to the proposed allocation for a Gypsy and Traveller site. The Government-appointed Inspector will consider their objection. The Inspector may agree with Rochford District Council and decide that the current proposed site is sound; or he may agree with Basildon Borough Council and find that it is unsound, and that it consequently cannot be allocated.
If the Inspector does not recommend adoption, but recommends modifications to the Plan, the Council will have to decide whether to implement the Inspector’s recommendations in order to be allowed to adopt the Plan; or alternatively make its own modifications and re-submit the amended document to the Inspector for examination.
A change as significant as an alternative site for allocation would be a decision that could only be made by Rochford District Council through Full Council (i.e. all of the District’s Councillors would have a vote on such a decision).
What is the Allocations Document?
The Allocations Document will determine how land will be allocated, and is required to conform to the Core Strategy.
For example, as the Rochford Core Strategy identifies 550 dwellings (plus new primary school and other infrastructure) to be developed within the
general location of Land North of London Road, Rayleigh, the Allocations Document is required to allocate a specific site for this development…..
….Those wishing to develop the land will still be required to make a planning application to the Council, and for it to be granted permission before they can develop the land
What happens if the proposals are not approved –if the Inspector finds the Allocations Document unsound?
If the Allocations document is not adopted the District will still be required to accommodate development, and the Rochford Core Strategy will still form part of the plan for directing how much development goes where, but no specific sites will be allocated. The Council will have to consider making changes to the Allocations Document and resubmitting to the Government for examination
For everyone trying to understand what is proposed to the west of Rayleigh, here’s a map – hand-traced from a scale map. Double-click on it to enlarge.
It shows :
550 Houses “North of London Road” – the site also includes at least 4 hectares / 10 acres of open space, and land for a primary school.
222 houses where Rawreth Industrial Estate is now.
Employment land South of London Road, near Swallow Nurseries. Existing businesses there could continue, with a smallish area for light industy on western side ,and land for offices to the east.
An industrial site near the Fairglen interchange, for heavier industrial uses and maybe a civic amenity site. Behind a buffer would be the traveller site, council-owned and council-run.
The map also shows Rawreth Hall, Macro and Sweyne Park but these are just there as markers, they should not be affected in any way!
Going back to the council meeting on November 27th last year, we reported:
Last night the District Council approved the latest stage of the Core Strategy – the specific allocations for housing and other development. This will now go to public consultation, on whether it is sound and legal…
The Conservatives voted it through (although Cllr Angela Hale from Hullbridge abstained.)
The Lib Dems present and the Greens all voted against.
Setting out the Lib Dem objections, Chris Black said that
the council still couldn’t say what improvements were needed to Watery Lane,
there hadn’t been a traffic impact study on the cumulative effect of the sites to the west of Rayleigh,
the new open spaces were small compared with open places like Sweyne Park
Rayleigh Sports and Social Club were being bullied by the council – into being relocated so that houses could be built on their present site.
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.