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
modifications.
—
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
SER7);
? 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 3,000m? with one that sets a maximum overall additional retail capacity for the centre of 3,000m? (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.
Can you please define who qualifies as “interested parties” in your statement above ….”sufficient time for interested parties…”.
Thanks – Jim.
Jim, as far as I can see, this is a full public consultation.
Thanks , I attended the Council Meeting last night and witnessed the full Council capitulating to the Planning Inspector’s interim report.
I would like to thank ‘local’ Councillors Chris Black/Ron Oatham supported by Cllr Mason and a few
others – they tabled an amendment designed to retain the 5% cap on the 550 houses proposed North of London Rd (Rayleigh). This was defeated and the cap is now
removed in line with the Planning Inspectors intent.
We will now enter the ‘Consultation’ period, but what point that serves now is unclear to me – it seems
appeasing the Inspector is the RDC strategy. One man
is dictating the outcome despite a Council and Public opinion.
Can I revert to earlier comments about the Inspector’s findings?
I don’t think the issue is as simple as has been suggested. Take the example of Hockley.
The Inspector has correctly reverted to the findings of RDC’s external consultants in 2008 (note the date – 5 years wasted opportunity and cost). But the revised proposals mean that neither RDC or residents get want they wanted – everyone is a looser!
BUT there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the viability of the new proposals. Ultimately ‘the market’ will be the judge of this – will developers invest or not? Can anyone tell me what will happen if the market decides it doesn’t support the proposals and insufficient development is attracted? Do we start again?
I think you will find that ” Developers” already have their names pencilled in – that is
The way these things work , if you know what I mean……….
See # 5 above :-
And sure enough , despite no final Inspector’s report being made public as yet, in
just over 4 weeks time ( 3rd march) the Council / Developer will be launching ,at
the Mill Hall Rayleigh , the outline scheme for mass housing between London Rd
and Rawreth Lane.
This is the start of what they call the Consultation period , the findings of which are
Supposed to be included in the subsequent Planning Application ( which they of course approve). So it is massively important that all of us stand up and be counted
by attending the event and making clear our views on big issues created by this,ie:-
London Rd and Rawreth Lane uprated BEFORE five years of construction traffic.
Sufficient time given for a independent / professional review of the required Flood
Risk
WHOOPS , sent in error , continued”………..Assessments.
Sufficient time for an independent professional review of the required Environmental ,
Traffic and Social Infrastructure Assessments of a circa 800 + development.
An explanation on what liaison has taken place between other local mass developments ( Hullbridge / Hall Rd / Bullwood Hall / Blinking Owl / Basildon / Southend and so on – Hospitals , Roads, Emergency Services etc; etc;.
We all need to prepare our own questions it is not far off now ( 4 weeks – on a Monday
When most are away at work !!!! ).