August 12th, 2012 |
A Sobering Video
This video is on YouTube, showing Rayleigh at 2 am on Sunday Mornings in July
WARNING:There is quite a lot of swearing, some urination in the street and one violent incident at about 6 mins 15 secs in.
Hat-Tip: Rayleigh~Essex Facebook page
The police can be seen to arrive pretty quickly after the violent incident, and on the facebook page there’s a statement that
Thankfully the Police appear to have acted as all has been relatively quiet since this nasty incident took place.
DISCLAIMER FOR LEGAL REASONS: We have mentioned this video in case it provides an insight for our readers, including other councillors and council officers. However the video is not made by us, the written commentary is not from us, and we are not putting forward any view of our own here. Ron and Chris will of course keep an open mind and treat fairly any planning or licensing applications in accordance with the code of conduct. Please be very careful in any comments you make below – preferably NOT mentioning any particular premises and certainly not individuals.
Ron Oatham
Trevor Parrett
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley
Pam Waldie
Elena Black
Rochford District Council carries out grass cutting on behalf of the County Council.
If you see a grass verge that badly needs cutting, you can report it
This is the official master document for planning policy in our district! To download it, click here
August 12th, 2012 at 10:08
Who exactly gave permission for another “nightclub” to be opened in Rayleigh? This is only the beginning and already we have seen the damage caused by these cretinous morons. Personally I would like to capture a picture of every one of these idiots and send it to their employers and family. Get rid of these animals – we do not want them here.
August 13th, 2012 at 08:08
Ruthie, you are of course assuming that these yoofs (1) have human parents and (2) that someone would employ them in the first place.
August 14th, 2012 at 03:08
I also see that our local yoof artists have been busy recently. There is graffiti all over the street furniture, lampposts and telegraph poles on the Hockley Rd from Raleigh up to the Bull.
August 15th, 2012 at 08:08
Incidents like these are likely to be repeated as “Towie” tourists frequent the proposed new late opening bar in the old furniture shop on Eastwood Road. This has been opposed by residents whom have flats above the shop but “rumour” has it that plans have been approved? Any news on this development?
August 15th, 2012 at 07:08
The High Street and Eastwood Road area has too many drinking establishments. But there appears to be little that the Town Council or for that matter the District Council can do about it. The answer I received was that it is better that premises are being used. But it is just part of the total frustration I have today with things. Dog owners who do not clear up the mess their pets leave, residents who let their hedges block pavements particularly when they are brambles or spikey. Grafitti that is not now being removed with the speed it used to be, a street sign we were promised in May still not installed, the iron street sign that has been laying on the grass 6 weeks after it was reported, street lights in Kings Farm not working and the old stump still present. We are trying but the brick walls that are being hit are certainly having a effect. Is it worth all the effort. I have been waiting in vain for 2 promised phone calls on these matters today. Anyone from housing benefits/ council tax you are exempt from any of this. Top dept.
August 15th, 2012 at 10:08
TWR, do you mean this one – it has been passed, via the council’s ‘weekly list’
====================
Application No : 12/00350/COU Zoning :Secondary Shopping
Parish : Rayleigh Town Council
Ward :Whitehouse
Location : 131 High Street Rayleigh Essex
Proposal : Change of Use From Shop (Use Class A1) To Use As Restaurant ( Use Class A3) And Pubs And Bars ( Use Class A4)
NOTES
The application is for a change to non retail use of a unit within the Secondary Shopping Frontage Area. The unit has a 5m frontage and forms part of a commercial/retail building constructed in the mid 1960s.
The proposal is for a restaurant (Class A3) and/or a bar (Class A4) although there is no prospective tenant at this stage. The unit is currently vacant and until September 2011 served as an Oxfam charity shop. Although the landlord has received expressions of interest from potential retailers the lack of on site parking together with yellow lines on the service road which prohibit waiting from 9am to 6pm has proved unattractive to prospective tenants.
The next door unit at no.129 is occupied by Pancho’s Cantina and specialises in Mexican food. This unit was formerly a vacant retail unit prior to the consent reference10/00012/COU. No.133 is in A1 use as an off licence.
The unit has a gross internal floor space of 210m² and extends over two floors with stairs leading up to the first floor. This floor is the smaller of the two and is presently used for storage however it is intended to open this up for commercial use.
The applicant has not submitted a detailed floor plan showing how the proposed use would be laid out and has not provided any detail about how the proposed use may operate in terms of the balance between A3 and A4 use as a specific end user has not yet been confirmed. The applicant does however consider that there would likely be five full time employees. The proposed hours of use would be 9am to midnight with hours extended to 1am on Fridays and Saturdays. As there is no tenant these hours may vary but would be controlled by the licensing process. Details relating to waste storage and collection would be arranged at a later date.
Within Secondary Frontages Policy SAT5 requires that when a change in use is sought there should not be an undue dominance of non retail uses in the area as a whole or a concentration of non-A1 uses in an individual frontage or parade. Within the South West Secondary Frontage area as a whole the retail proportion is 55% with the majority of non retail located on the other side of the street or within the outermost units of the area. Of the 16 units within this part of the Frontage Area, on the south eastern side of the High Street between the police station and Castle Road there are 13 retail and 3 non retail units, with the retail frontage length being 83% of the total. Accordingly it is considered that a non retail use would be acceptable in this area.
=====================
I am not aware of any objections from residents – there was nothing in the report……
August 16th, 2012 at 08:08
I think you hve the wrong one admin. The one being referred to is the shop in Eastwood Road which is adjacent to Sue ryder and currently has closing down signs in it. There are flats above and residents understandable fear for noise, vadalism and the use of the rear of the properties for toiletry activities etc.
August 16th, 2012 at 07:08
Thanks Bruce – I wasn’t sure . This is the one, it was passed in May. The full officers report is below. As with the other site, there don’t appear to have been any objections from residents at the time – presumably some letters were sent out by the council ????
I don’t imagine that residents in the flats above have been reassured after seeing the goings on in the video, but hours for the wine bar would have to be agreed under “licensing.” If any of the Wheatley Ward councillors are reading this, perhaps they could update us on the latest situation?
I don’t know how much of a real connection there is going to be to ‘towie’ and it may attract a different type of of clientele. I happened to talk about it with one lady in her 30s today who said she liked the idea of having somewhere to have a quiet drink after work (she doesn’t like the High Street pubs).
This is an important subject for the town and a balance has to be struck. One of the plus points of the High Street (as opposed to online or out-of-town) is that there is a big range of places to eat or drink. So for example if you want to buy cosmetics, you can go to Boots and then have a coffee or an Italian meal etc. But this only works if there are enough shops actually worth visiting and if people don’t feel discomforted by car park payment system.
===========================
Application : 12/00113/COU
Proposal: Change of Use From Retail A1 to A3, A4 Use
Site Location: 27 – 29 Eastwood Road Rayleigh Essex
Legal Agreement: NO
Plan Numbers/Letters/Supporting Statements
Plans date stamped 26 MAR 2012, Drawing Numbers 1326/S1, 1362/200 and 1362/400.
Zoning:PRIMRY
Parish Council – Rayleigh Town Council
Officer Report:
Planning permission is sought to change the use of the ground floor of the premises from A1 to A3/A4
use. The ground floor is currently in use as a retail shop.
The building to which the application relates is part of a three storey building containing business units
at ground floor. The building is located with a frontage onto Eastwood Road in Rayleigh town centre
with parking provided to the rear accessed off Webster’s Way. The site lies within the primary
shopping area.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission for use of the first floor of the whole building was granted planning permission,
on appeal, for use as 12 residential flats in 2009 (reference 09/00024/COU). The first floor has
previously been used as offices and approved for use as training premises within Use Class D2 and
as a beauty salon before this. The second floor is understood to be in use as residential flats.
In 1999 (reference 99/00096/COU) planning permission was granted for use of the ground floor as a
coffee shop within the A3 Use Class.
PROPOSAL
This application seeks to change the use of the ground floor space which covers an area of some 214
square metres from retail within Use Class A1 to use within Use Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes)
and Use Class A4 (Drinking Establishments). The applicant has not submitted a detailed floor plan
showing how the proposed use would be laid out and has not provided any detail about how the
proposed use may operate in terms of the balance between A3 and A4 use as a specific end user has
not yet been confirmed.
The existing shop front would be retained as part of the proposal.
The unit to which the proposal relates benefits from two of the twenty parking spaces to the rear of the
site the others of which are utilised by the flats and other businesses within the building.
The applicant has indicated that refuse would continue to be stored using the sites existing storage
arrangements.
No hours of opening for the proposed use have been provided although the applicant has indicated
that these would have to be agreed with the Licensing Authority.
The applicant has not provided information on the anticipated level of employment from the proposal
as these are not yet known.
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal must be considered against Policy SAT4 of the Local Plan (2006) as the proposal seeks
to introduce a non-retail use within a Primary Shopping Area. The proposed use within the A3/A4 Use
Classes would be an appropriate use within the primary shopping area location which would support
the vitality and viability of the town centre, particularly if the use operated throughout the day and
night which would be possible within the proposed Use Classes which include restaurant/café and
drinking establishment uses.
It is considered that the proposal would not result in an over-concentration of non-retail uses within
that part of the Primary Shopping Area in which it is located or within the Primary Shopping Area as a
whole. Currently there are a mixture of uses within the parade of units at ground floor level in the
building of which the application unit is a part including retail (Use Class A1), a coffee shop (Use
Class A3) and an estate agent (Use Class A2). The proposal would not result in more than three non-
A1 uses adjacent to each other.
The proposal would not result in the removal of any independent means of accessing the upper floors
or prevent an effective use being made of the upper floors. It is possible that the proposal could
involve a drinking establishment opening in the evening which could give rise to an increased level of
noise and disturbance, particularly to nearby residential properties. However, such proximity of uses
within a town centre location would not be unusual. If the proposal were to involve a café/restaurant
use this would not be likely to give rise to a level of noise and disturbance which would be
unreasonable in such a location. It is recommended that details of any extract and venting equipment
be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation to guard against
nuisance to nearby residential units.
The existing shop frontage would be retained but would not likely be used for display purposes given
the nature of the proposed uses. The unit frontage would however be retained as an active frontage
with visibility through to the A3/A4 use within the unit from the street such that the proposal would not
have an adverse impact on the street scene.
Overall the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the criteria within Policy SAT4 and the
principle of the development is also not considered to be contrary to any policies within the National
Planning Policy Framework.
As the site is an existing employment site, Policy ED3 of the Core Strategy is also relevant. This
policy seeks to protect such sites, which are well used and sustainable, from uses which would
undermine their role as employment generators. The proposed use would however continue to
generate employment and as such the proposal would be in compliance with Policy ED3.
Policy ED1 of the Core Strategy seeks to encourage development that enables the economy to
diversify and modernise having regard to environmental and residential amenity issues. It is
considered, as discussed above, that the proposal would not give rise to any environmental or
amenity concerns that could not be adequately controlled by condition.
Policy T8 of the Core Strategy advises that maximum parking standards should be applied to trip
destinations but that such development would still need to include adequate parking provision.
Although only 2 parking spaces would be provided it is considered that this would not be
objectionable given the central town centre location with good public transport links.
Consultations and Representations:
HIGHWAYS: No objection.
RDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: No objection subject to the following conditions;
A mechanical extraction system shall be provided to the kitchen area in accordance with details
(previously) submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such agreed works
shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of any use hereby permitted and shall be
maintained in the approved form while the premises are in use for the permitted purpose.
Prior to the commencement of any development, details of any external equipment or openings in the
external walls or roofs of the building proposed at any time in connection with the permitted use, shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the L.P.A. before the machinery is installed or the opening
formed. The equipment shall be installed or the openings formed as approved and shall be
maintained in the approved form while the premises are in use for the permitted purpose.
Policies:
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan, Policy SAT4.
Rochford Core Strategy Policies ED1, T8.
NPPF
Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted
December 2010)
Conclusions:
APPROVE
CONDITIONS:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from
the date of this permission.
REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 A mechanical extraction system shall be provided to the kitchen area in accordance with
details (previously) submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such
agreed works shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of any use hereby
permitted and shall be maintained in the approved form while the premises are in use for the
permitted purpose.
REASON: In the interests of residential amenity.
3 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of any external
equipment or openings in the external walls or roofs of the building proposed at any time in
connection with the permitted use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the L.P.A.
before the machinery is installed or the opening formed. The equipment shall be installed or
the openings formed as approved and shall be maintained in the approved form while the
premises are in use for the permitted purpose.
REASON: In the interests of residential amenity.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal is considered not to cause significant demonstrable harm to any development
plan interests, other material considerations, to the character and appearance of the area, to
the street scene or residential amenity such as to justify refusing the application; nor to
surrounding occupiers in neighbouring streets.
Informatives:
1 The applicant should be made aware that any departure from the approved plan is likely to
result in the development being unauthorised with the requirement for a further application to
be submitted, which will be dealt with on a “without prejudice” basis. Early contact with the
planning department where a change is contemplated is strongly advised although even minor
changes are likely to require a new application.
2 The applicant is advised to contact the Head of Environmental Services at the earliest
opportunity to discuss the proposed layout of the kitchen and the requirements necessary to
meet current food hygiene legislation. This includes the submission of a food premises
registration application form. The applicant is advised that sanitary facilities must be supplied
in accordance with Table 10 of BS6465-1:2006. Further advice can be sought from the Head
of Environmental Services.
=============================
August 19th, 2012 at 08:08
Yes this is the one Chris. I have heard from a local resident (to the shop) and also another person (unconnected) that this shop is going to be turned into a bar with a closing time of 01:00 am. I was also told by both people that the new owner is connected to “Towie”. The local resident also claims that their letters of objection have been “ignored”? This will be an interesting development to watch….
August 24th, 2012 at 12:08
Mmm – just what our town needs. This is a direct lift from the Echo web site:
A TOWIE star and his businessman brother-in-law are hoping the only way is Rayleigh when they open a new wine bar in the town. Danny Salmon, 41, is joining Ricky Rayment, 21, who appears in the reality TV show the Only Way is Essex, in opening the new venue. Ricky is dating Jessica Wright who also features in the ITV2 show. Called Bar Blanco, it will replace the Home Furniture Boutique shop in Eastwood Road after a transformation expected to cost up to £400,000. The bar will be open before the end of the year.
Just think – every Sat night the town will be invaded by 100′s of orange half wits and “Diamond Geezers” just like Brentwood. Can’t wait….
August 30th, 2012 at 09:08
[...] the Echo picked up on this story, and the Yellow Advertiser on this [...]