The officers report on the big planning application “North of London Road” is now on the council website. You can download it by clicking here.
Officers are recommending approval, with a lot of conditions attached.We will put more details below sometime this evening, Please leave any comments or thoughts or questions below, this will be the main comments thread until after the meeting.
Here’s some? points from the report . We are highlighting highways stuff in red? , drainage and flooding in? blue? (apologies if we leave out something significant, please mention it in a comment):
Page 1 , paragraph 4.2 sets out what is up for discussion here: The principle of having housing on this site, the amount of housing, the principle of having other uses such as shops, restaurants, pubs, health facilities, care home, day nursery
Page 2, paragraph 2.4 – the council’s allocation plan already allocates 500 houses to this site. That was the key decision by the council in Feb 2014 so it’s very hard to argue now that there shouldn’t be housing on this site at all. It’s no longer Green Belt.
The Echo live-blogged the meeting in 2014 and you can read what they wrote here.The Council minutes are here.? Note that the Lib Dems, Greens and Rochford Residents present at the meeting all voted against.
Page 3, paragraph 4.1 . Rawreth Parish Council have written at great length to object, and their objections seem to be printed in full. Their key paragraphs:
?The Council still has very grave concerns about the effect that developing the land will have on an area that already suffers from flooding. Whilst Council notes that balancing ponds, basins and swales have been accounted for, the Parish of Rawreth is unique in that it suffers from fluvial, tidal and surface water flooding and the Council does not feel that adequate notice has been taken of these factors and the correct information gathered and analysed. The Parish has suffered from the ?one in a hundred years? event three times within eighteen months, however thadvice given to the developer from the Environment Agency asks them to work on the one in a hundred years scenario only; this is proven to be ineffective, vast areas of the Parish are cut off for days when these events happen, properties flood, roads are impassable and lives are devastated through loss and fear of it happening again.?
The Council is concerned that all the technical work is being done upstream of the site, but none is planned for downstream, Council believes this is because it is assumed there is no adverse effect downstream which is totally unacceptable and incorrect.
The Council also considers that the roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely inadequate to accommodate this proposed development as they are already full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and the proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On numerous occasions this year and last year incidents within and on the outskirts of the Parish have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ? hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge ? a distance of 1 ? miles. We strongly recommend that an independent Traffic Survey and assessment should be done before any approval of this scheme. Without a long term solution to existing transport needs then this and any new developments are unsustainable.?
Page 6 , paragraph 4.2 Rayleigh Town Council writes more briefly to object. This seems to be their full objection:
After discussions Cllr E Dray proposed and Cllr J Burton seconded that the Town Council objects to this application. All Members agreed.
Based on the information provided to this Planning Committee the Town Council objects to this outline application due to over- development of the site and inadequate road access. Improvements should be made before construction takes place to the junctions of Hambro Hill, Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road and London Road and Downhall Road. The Town Council recommends that a traffic management survey is carried out between Essex County Council Highways and Rochford District Council to include the suggested bus route and the implementation of mini roundabouts at junctions
Page 6 , paragraph 4.3 . Mark Francois MP has written at length, particularly about flooding, highways and medical facilities.
Page 23, paragraph 4.10 County Council write about a deficit of school places. The only pre-school and only Day Nursery within walking distance are both full. They may want to expand existing primary school(s) alternatively they may want a new primary school on the site. They also forecast a deficit in secondary school places in Rayleigh by 2018-2019.
Page 41 , paragraph 4.27 ? Six Hundred and Fifty-Nine letter of objection have been received from the public. The objections are summarised in the next 14 pages of the report!
Page 55, paragraph 5.1 onwards ? here the officer looks at the planning issues, in terms of the council?s planning policies.
Page 57, paragraph 5.12 . Key paragraph on infrastructure from the officer ? she concludes that the application would deliver the required infrastructure:
Policy H2 and Policy SER1 prescribe the infrastructure requirements which must be delivered in order to ensure that the new residential development is comprehensively planned; these areas follows:
? New primary school
? Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements;
? Public transport infrastructure improvements and service enhancements, including a link between Rawreth Lane and London Road;
? Link and enhancements to local pedestrian/cycling and bridleway network;
? Link to green grid greenway no.13;
? Public park land to provide a buffer between the built environment and the A1245;
? Youth and community facilities;
? Play space; and
? Sustainable drainage system
The proposal would deliver all of the identified infrastructure improvements, as discussed in detail under the sections below, save for a link to green grid greenway no. 13
Page 62, paragraph 5.39 ? density of housing. The proposed density is 33 dwellings per hectare, less than in Laburnum Way (which is 45 dwellings per hectare)
Page 85 ? OFFICERS RECOMMEND APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO LOTS OF CONDITIONS.
That the application be APPROVED, subject to the completion of a LEGAL AGREEMENT under Section 106 of the Act for the heads of terms set out below and subject to the heads of CONDITIONS as set out below ,subject to any reasonable changes the Head of Planning and Transportation shall deem fit: –
1) The option of transfer of the education land at the site to Essex County Council (ECC) and a pro rata financial contribution towards provision of a new primary school with early years and childcare provision on-site or a proportionate financial contribution towards expansion of existing primary, early years and childcare provision .A financial contributiontowards secondary provision. A total estimated education contribution of approximately ?5.1 million.
2) Prior to 50th occupation, a contribution of ?250,000 (Two hundred an fifty thousand pounds) for highway infrastructure improvement at the Rawreth Lane/Hullbridge Road/Hambro Hill junction.
3) Payment of a ?3000 Travel Plan Monitoring fee to ECC relating to the residential Travel Plan.
4) Provision and implementation of a Residential Travel Information Pack for every household
5) Provision of an extended bus service linking the development with Rayleigh railway station.
6) Bus service along the link road with the service to operate betwee0700 and 21 00 Monday to Friday with a minimum frequency of every 30 minutes and hourly on a Saturday and Sunday between 0900 and 1800 for a period of 5 years. Fallback requirement for financial contribution to ECC in the event that reasonable endeavours cannot secure provision of the service for use in the provision of a bus service.
7) Provision of 12 month season tickets for bus travel to all eligible occupiers of the development (maximum of2 per household).
8) A minimum of 35 per cent affordable housing shall be provided in each phase (Reserved Matters application site area) to a mix of 80 per cent affordable rent and 2 0 per cent intermediate housing subject to delivery triggers, appropriate location of units within the site, appropriate dwelling type/size, nomination rights and other relevant matters.
9) Youth facilities provision (subject to costs cap of ?140,000) and financial contribution for maintenance to be offered for transfer to RDC. In the event tha RDC declines the transfer, facilities to be maintained in perpetuity by a management company.
10) Land for provision of sports pitches to be offered for transfer to RDC ( if to be transferred to RDC, to be laid out by the developer to Sport England standards to a specification to be agreed by the LPA , including any necessary fencing/planting and provision of a footpath link from the new pitches to Rayleigh Sports and Social Club) . In the event RDC does not accept the transfer ? a requirement to lay the land out for informal recreation and be incorporated into the open space maintenance scheme.
11) Allotment land to be offered for transfer (with the necessary infrastructure for a water supply to the boundary, fencing around the boundaries and vehicular access to the boundary which shall provide route to connect to the adopted highway) to Rawreth Parish Council wit h a commuted sum for laying out . In the event that Rawreth Parish Council declines the land transfer the land would revert to public open green
space and be incorporated into the open space maintenance scheme.
12) Monies of ?200,000 set aside for contribution towards any flood mitigation scheme associated with flood alleviation of the Rawreth Brook in the Parish of Rawreth to be paid to RDC in the event that a scheme is finalised and approved/agreed by the EA.
Monies to be made available as follows; 50 per cent prior to 10th
occupation and 50 per cent prior to the 150 th occupation unless a scheme is agreed for
implementation earlier in which case the monies can be called on at an
earlier time.
13) Provision of a Sustainable Urban Drainage system in accordance with
details agreed by the relevant planning condition. Maintenance of
the system by a management company, statutory water undertaker or the
County Council (should the County Council become an approved body)
in perpetuity to be undertaken in accordance with a maintenance
schedule to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
14) Marketing of health care site for provision of health care services for a period of 2 years following commencement of development at the site.Payment of a financial contribution
of ?164,581.82) for capital projectsassociated with delivery of primary health care services in the vicinity of the sitein the event that the health care land at the site is not
developed to provide a facility which incorporates primary publically
available GP services within 4 years following commencement of development at the site.
15) A site of 0.38ha to the north east corner to be marketed for various non residential uses such as for retail, cr?che/nursery, health purposes, for a period of 2 years from occupation of the first dwelling at the site. Further applications/approvals would be required for any such uses.
16) Provision of public open green space in accordance with the requirements of the relevant
planning conditions and maintenance of these areas and any play equipment within these areas by a management company.
Page 88 another important condition; putting on a 500-home limit? The residentially developable area, as shown on the approved Parameters Plan , shall accommodate no more than 500 dwellings in total.
Page 89 ? Important Highways works to be provided along London Road :
8. Prior to the 50 th occupation at the site, the following highway works along the London Road Corridor shall have been completed entirely at the developer?s expense:
– a. Signalising and associated works of Dow Hall Road/London Road Junction,
b. Improved road markings and associated works at the London Hill /Lopndon Hill priority junction,
c. Signal upgrade at Victoria Avenue/ London junction to include but not limited to the provision of MOVA, associated enabling works and signal head upgrade.
9.Prior to the 50 th occupation details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for improvement of the existing public footpath number 23 up to its boundary with the St Nicholas Primary School. Once agreed ,the works shall be completed, as agreed and prior to first occupation.
10 Prior to the first occupation at the site, the priority junction with ghost right turn lane on Rawreth Lane shall be provided with a clear to ground visibility splay with dimensions of 4.5 metres by 180 metres to the east and west?
11.Prior to occupation of the 150th dwelling at the site or 5 years from the commencement of development, the priority junction with ghost right turn lane on London Road shall be provided?
Page 97 ? lengthy conditions about surface water drainage systems.
I have read it once through, so need more time to absorb the detail – but first impressions are that ECC Highways have ( as usual ) gone by formulae numbers rather than a real time/ conditions study in order to justify Tee junctions which will clearly impact rush hour traffic on both Rawreth Lane / London Rd – and I see no tangiable solution to Hambro Corner.
Loads of words / no firm committment from the developer and RDC minded to approve their own scheme ( it was their idea in the first place ) and who at RDC is
the expert who has agreed the ‘flooding scheme feasibility ‘ – no surprises then.
I will be interested to see how condition 14, relating to health services, works out in practice, have to say I am not sure I really understand what it means!
Given the scale and fundamental nature of the “conditions” placed upon the approval
it seems to me that RDC should be refusing until at least some of the key issues are
proven in the form of a re-submission which includes tangiable committments ( roads )
and guarantees ( flooding ).
The arbitrary sums of money banded about by RDC seem to be plucked from thin air ,
there is no definition ( ie: £250K on Rawreth Lane / Hullbridge Rd ) proving the amount or committing the Developer – yet approval is recommended.
In fact I don’t intend to comment anymore , there is no point , I now fully understand the “Done Deal” quoted by the then Head of Planning ( Cllr Hudson ) – RDC will approve what is their own plan regardless of what we all know will be a disaster ( traffic ) and all fear (more flooding ) .
The list of items being offered by the developer on this 500 house development amounts to the sale cost of just one house. Well done RDC Planning Department you have really excelled in this one. The first major accident at the ‘ghost’ junctions will be your total responsibility. The next flood adjacent to this site will be your total responsibility. When workers are stuck in miles of stationary traffic they will be able to thank you for your diligence. The developer stated, to Peter Scott at the Inspectors hearing, whatever we did they always got their development in the end. How did they know that?
I repeat my previous post:
As you know the Mighty Oz knows all, so here is my prediction….the new houses will get built come what may. No new roads, No new bus routes, No new schools, No new surgeries, in fact, no new nothing except houses. BUT if you personally have had children and contributed to the population growth, drive a car, get ill or need a bus, please don’t moan. You are the problem…….just like the rest of us. A fact that nobody has yet to challenge, nothing to do with me of course, it’s everybody else…..
Yep, that is the apathetic view that the ‘Establishment’ rely on to push through what a small vested interest want and yes the War is lost but some Battles have been won :-
The Architect of this scheme has resigned.
The financial contribution to Infrastructure now being demanded of the Developer would not have happened without us making a noise.
There is now so much on the record about potential flooding that if it does flood there
will be a direct line of culpability ( via negligence ) to those responsible.
People in general ( like you Oz ) have been made aware – so can’t complain in the future when it impacts you and yours.
Will you be going out on a cold and frosty evening and attending on the 29th Jan?,
when we requested a slip road to Hullbridge at Hambro Parade some years ago it was rejected on the grounds of costs. I think the sum was quoted as £250,000 to £300,000. Should be a very interesting meeting on Thursday with a lot of attention to who votes for or against.
I think the voting is very predictable, sadly John Mason & his wife will be missing so the Lib Dems / Independents/ Greens will muster maybe a token no vote – the Tory majority is so great that the Rayleigh Councillors will be able to abstain ( “we did’nt vote for it ” – like the Parking ) and they will still win.
Over the last year I’ve been there and seen them lose the argument but win the vote,
any number of times -It is a stacked deck I’m afraid.
I have it on good authority the whole proceedings are to be filmed and recorded for posterity. Everyone in the district will thus have a full record of the people that vote for this diabolical programme. They will know the Rayleigh Town Council objected, Rawreth Parish Council objected, Hullbridge Parish Council objected , our local Member of Parliament objected, our local District Councillors had the opportunity to comment in support of their people and that 700 residents sent in personal objections. They will learn that one thirty something medium ranking planner, employed by RDC, discounted all these people and recommended it for adoption. I am trying to see if a copy will be made available for the Town Museum for future generations to see just what this administration concocted. Unlike the now anonymous Councillors and Planners that produced the carbuncles developed at the top of the High Street, in the 1960/70’s, it will become a perfect record of exactly who the philistines were that voted to completely urbanise our lovely town.
Jim@ 6, not apathy, just realistic and for the record I don’t moan about traffic when I am sitting in it, I recognise ( unlike every other person that posts here, including you ) that I am as much part of the problem as everyone else.
Oz @ 10 – that is’nt the issue , the issue is quart into a pint pot , if the pot contained a pint it would be workable ( albeit crowded ) but it becomes unworkable and overcrowded with a quart in it – get it ?.
Jim, let’s call it a draw mate….
Okey Dokey – lets get back to MilliCamCleggy bashing ????????????……JIM.
What a farce, the member of the public called to speak is our M.P. Up to a 100 people unable to get in and no link to watch or listen despite being told on Weds that there would be a link to Comm room 4. Very disappointing.