Here We Go Again?

November

14

11 comments

If you look at the District Council’s “Key Decisions Document”? you will find this section:

 

key decisions documentAnd what does a ‘call for sites” mean? It means asking landowners and property companies etc. to submit suggestions for possible sites for development. This would normally be somewhere where they have a financial interestt.

 

This is how local plans begin, and we asked the council to explain ? – we? got the following? answer:

 

“This is part of the process of building the evidence base for the review of the local plan – the call for sites information will feed into the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, but it is important to bear in mind that the assessment does not allocate sites for development , or of course give planning consent -?? it simply provides information to be considered as the review of the plan progresses.”

About the author, admin

  • How / Who / by When is this call for sites implemented – presumably small plot land owners and larger Brown Field sites should be tabled otherwise it will be another incursion into the Green Belt , more explanation please ADMIN.

    • Well, it’s implemented by the council to see what sites could be available for development if additional sites are required for development.

      With the current plan landowners , agents, etc sent in their suggestions. Most were rejected, usually after a quick inspection and discussion by a subcommittee of councillors. Some went forward for further consideration. It’s not clear yet how much additional land, if any, will be required for a revised plan. But it’s something for the rayleigh action group, amongst others, to watch very closely.

  • Now this may seem like a really silly idea, but rather than put out a call for land, which almost guarantees green belt being put forward by those who see a chance to make a quick buck wouldn’t it be better if RDC sent their officers out round and about the whole district to identify brownfield sites, green sites that have had previous use that could possibly be considered, where any windfall sites could possibly be expected to come from, that sort of thing.

  • Christine @ 5 . Yes of course it would but they don’t even have to use any energy whatsoever because they had oodles of ‘brown field ‘ and ‘degraded greenfield’ sites put forward in the first round of the Core Strategy in 2007. They managed to misrepresented or ignored virtually all of them. Hence the adoption of land owned by ‘known key people’. 80% of all the planned housing in the Core Strategy is planned for open greenbelt farmland that farmers usually obtain annual retainers from Developers, in case it comes up for development. I only studied Rayleigh / Rawreth, in the exercise they ran, and found many such sites. I’m certain many more exist across the district. See my objection sent to the Government Inspector where I list many of these sites in the appendices.

  • Re. Objection sent in August 2013 as noted above. This document can be found in the http://www.Rayleighactiongroup.org website archive for August 2013. Many alternative ‘brownfield’ sites are listed. It might prove easier to find than trawling through the treacle/porridge site provided by RDC. I wonder if we could find someone to complain to the Local Authority Ombudsman regarding this RDC impenetrable information website that they claim ‘serves’ all the residents of Rochford as regards future planning for the district!

  • Of course green belt also gives greater profit to developers (not that that even crosses anyones mind of course!)
    Brownfield on the other hand, the land may need cleaning to get rid of industrial pollution etc. and usually sites are smaller so not so many houses can be built.

  • Yes Oz – up against a long established “club” (which includes the judiciary ) representing voted interests , anyone who still believes we are a democracy ,well
    Dream on…..

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >