September 1st, 2012 |
“The need for secondary school places in the area is great”
As we wrote yesterday , the application for housing off London Road, Rayleigh for a new care home and 43 houses has been refused.
At the meeting we learned something a little bit worrying:
As part of the consultation process, the County Council sent in the following response:
“Would like to make it very clear that the need for secondary school places in the area is great and, with the above, will only grow. All future applications will be requested to make a contribution to the secondary school need in the area.”
If 43 homes causes such concern, how is the County Council going to manage with the 770 planned in West Rayleigh / Rawreth?
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
September 2nd, 2012 at 04:09
There certainly could be a problem if under a S106 or CIL the total contribution needed could not be raised against all the sites chosen under the co-ordination and consolidation in the Allocation of Sites DPD.
Presumably that would mean that any planning application in this situation would be refused?
But would there be a housing shortfall that would need to be transferred from the West to the Central and East parts of the District?
What do the sustainability studies undertaken by RDC say about this issue?
I would be interested in reading what you find out.
September 2nd, 2012 at 04:09
PS.
Have you looked at the references to your area in the Rochford District Council – Local Development Framework Evidence Base Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2012 – SHLAA Review which is over 25B and over 300 pages? (nearly 400 I think !!).
September 2nd, 2012 at 07:09
Presumably ECC Highways will be the next to change direction and admit to a problem accommodating future growth?