The Rayleigh Boys YFC planning application for extra sports pitches is recommended by officers for refusal. You can download the report here (858k)
The reasons given are:
1 Notwithstanding that, prima facie, the proposed use of the land for outdoor sport falls within a category of development generally considered appropriate within the Metropolitan Green Belt, in this case, the scale of the use and the likely level of car parking being required to serve the use is considered to adversely affect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
2 The proposed intensification in the use of the site for football, taking into account the number of spectators, players and cars likely involved, is considered likely to result in a level of noise and activities detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents.
However the reports also states that:
2.15
The County Highway Authority previously raised a number of concerns that resulted in reasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the previous decision to refuse planning permission for the earlier scheme. The views of the County Highway Authority are awaited at the time of writing but District officers understand informally that the County Highway Authority are likely to recommend refusal for similar reasons as previously but with less or no emphasis on sustainability but still predominant concern at the accessibility of the site given the remote location.
2.16
District officers anticipate that the view of the County Highway Authority will be received in time for the Committee meeting and will be reported on the addendum.
As voting members on the development committee, we haven’t made our minds up yet, and will do so as individuals. But could someone please assist us with with the following question – which clubs or teams were playing there last Sunday morning?
off course it is recommended for refusal and her are the real two reasons………….
1. heaven forbid that RDC ever do anything for the youngsters of our community
2. If this piece of greenbelt land is taken by 2 green football pitches, they won’t be able to build any houses on it!
I do not know the teams who were playing but they were hireing them off of Sporting Events limited nothing to do with Rayleigh Boys. Rayleigh Boys have no teams playing at this venue and will not do so unless planning is passed.
Cjav
Thank you for your comments if you read the traffic report then nothing should ever be built in Rayleigh or Rawreth
If Highways have questions regarding accessibility due to the remote nature then how can another authority object on grounds of noise etc for residents. Weird? Rayleigh Boys have moved out of Rayleigh to search for a home surely somewhere can be found for this club in our locality?
cjav
Correction total extra 8 pitches plus existing 3 .It is not principle of pitches on that site but the sheer number which will swamp the inadequate road infrastructure.We accepted the 3 existing with conditions which were not adherred to at the time,The site now after each match is not cleaned of rubbish .For one match last week there were 30, cars for a maximum of 11 we can all do the maths .Albeit it is not RBFC who have destroyed some of the goodwill previously but the various matches on an adhoc basis .
Please note that we have not published one comment sent to us as it is a personal attack on someone – as it says in our sidebar:
“All comments will be checked before they appear.
When councillors are in the council chamber we often say how we disagree with someone else’s views but we don’t attack their characters. Please act the same way here – personal attacks will NOT be published. “
If we publish personal attacks we potentially face a 3 month suspension as councillors.
It is great shame that RDC are unable to support children and team coaches in Rayleigh.
I am sure that the subject of a Teen Shelter will be raised again in the very near future. Perhaps if time is invested now with our youngsters that it will better equip them to make good use of their leisure time when they are older?
BTW, I wonder if Basildon council have a more lenient approach to children’s sport? If any one has every been past Barleylands on a Sunday morning – there are acres and acres of pitches there in a similar environment.
It would be very interesting to know how many letters of support were received by RDC regarding this? I am guessing hundreds were received, but obviously ignored.
I understand that officers have to look at legal arguments and planning laws and grounds for refusal etc. However is there no place for strength of feeling in the community or local need to be taken in to account?
I agree Bruce that a home is needed for this football club staffed by volunteers (according to their website running since 1976 with 29+ teams), working for the good of literally hundreds of children and their families in Rayleigh. I guess yes ideally the home would be better more centrally in Rayleigh, but where?
Deanne, have just realised that we didn’t include a link to the report, sorry – it’s there now in the first line of the post. There were 58 individual letters of support and 32 copies of one basic letter. The key points of the letters are summarised in the report.
The planning officers have to make a recommendation based on planning policies and the evidence as they see it. It’s up to councillors at the meeting to decide whether to over-rule it.
The number of letters of support or objection give an indication of how serious a particular issue relating to a planning application is. For example, say someone alresdy runs a smelly business and wants to expand. If there are 30 houses nearby that might already be affected by the smell and only 4 respond, that might indicate to councillors that there really isn’t a problem. But if there are only 4 houses nearby, and there are four letters, that makes the smell issue more credible. (of course councillors might go and have a look themselves, but smells can be erratic. )
Mark, you are right, RDC have failed to support youth football in Rayleigh. For example:
1. When Park School closed, leaving a load of playing fields already there, the District Council deliberately set a policy of having a standard of sport pitch provision in Rayleigh below that recommended by Sport England. That allowed all the building to go ahead. Sport Engalnd eanted to oppose but I understand withdrew their objection within 48 hours of the planning meeting because an officer of the council went to their St Albans office to see them.
2. RDC then invited local sports clubs to apply to have the new sports pitches in Priory Chase as theirbase, and then reneged on that offer.
3. An officer of the council then allowed Wimpey to put their storage compound on the land where the new sports pitches were going, causing a massive delay in their creation. The pitches are likely to be ready for next autumn.
In a more thoughtful council, after RDC reneged on their offer, they would have helped find a new home for them. Did it happen? No.
However the faults of the council aren’t strictly relevant to making the decision on this planning application. And the residents nearby have also suffered stress from a council – they lost their original homes when the new A130 was built.
I think this is a simple question and one that the Conservatives are past master at posing. Do we accept that large housing developments are built on this land or would we rather that the land be used for sporting purposes? This town will thrive or not according to how we treat or allow our offspring to grow. I for one I applaud the people that put personal time and effort into helping youngsters to grow up responsibly. My son learnt so much from the coaches at Rayleigh Cricket club that I will always be grateful to them. Not just about cricket but the social responsibility that goes with the sport. He has grown into a responsible adult, someone I am proud of and will always be close to those who nurtured him. We never seem to appreciate these people who give time and effort to our youngsters.
Admin, two big questions, can RDC absolutely state that if approval is not given for a sports facility on designated land, that this land will not be given over to development, also is there any news on what the e-on land will be used for?
The comment made by Admin that someone made a personal comment has made me think – four years ago when I first came across this website, the comments made where as always geared to making Rochford District a better place to live in, there was light banter amongst posters but never anything offensive, or comments that could cause offence.
Here we are now four years later and comments are frequently posted by angry readers, (which is why I now rarely comment). This is either an extremely unfortunate sign of the times, which makes me then wonder what the future will hold, or, it is peoples disdain at the sheer incompetence of elected officials in this district, and their lack of listening to what their communities want.
Mike at 10 – if you are thinking of houses I think there is no likelihood at all of any built development on this land, it is too far into the green belt. Only possibilities would be something agricultural, or something related to recreation.
We have no more news on E-On.
Cjav – Intersting point you make. There have been comments in the past which we have edited or just not published. At the moment feelings are running high on both sides re the sports pitches application, and of course people ae really angry in Hullbridge.
We very much want to keep the positive feel of this, but there are always going to be some downbeat days.
E.ons 90 day consultation should end on Monday so they can then officially say and act that the site is closing. It may then be that they’ll make some moves about what to do with the site?
Admin, your stats regarding the number of support letters received maybe correct. However, what you are possibly not aware of is the number of letters sent in for the previous application, which was obviously rejected. Rather ridiculously we had to do fresh letters, etc when the club re-applied for the same use of the land, so there is considerably more support for this project than the stats above suggest. I know this is normal, letters are sent on a per application basis, but wanted to bring matters into context.
This whole process of trying to secure some pitch space has been extremely time consuming for the club, our chairman Martin has worked tirelessly and yes RDC should have helped us find somewhere. The club spend thousands per year on pitch hire, the quality of pitches recieved for that outlay of money collected by the way of mainly childrens registration fees is frankly disgraceful.
The whole handling of the Sweyne Park Extension (pitches behind Rayleigh leisure) was particularly poor, 5 clubs submitted applications to occupy the land, again more work by the our club and chairman in particular, for then RDC to say effectively, thanks for wasting 18 months but we are going to run these pitches ourselves and there available for hire!! I live 30 seconds walk from these pitches so I was disappointed as not only a member of the club but as a resident, as control of this area I forsee will be an issue. I wont bore you with the concerns as they have been posted many times before. But if a club is in control any issue can be dealt with, if Joe Boggs FC just use a pitch on an ad-hoc basis then there is no relationship to uphold with the local residents and wider community.
Right now I feel like a very disappointed, volunteer, resident and rate payer.
What I can say is, if our club do in the end finally secure the use of some land, then we will always look to work with our potential neighbours, so no disruption is caused.
A Matthews at 4 – If you are going to correct someone please ensure that you are accurate with the facts and do not mislead!! As an elected official I would have hoped for better from you (establish ALL the facts, then make informed comments rather than shoot from the hip). Reading the application (Schedule Item 2.5) it clearly states 8 additional pitches with removal of 1 of the existing 3. Also so we can all do the math; when you talk of 30 cars for a max of 11 players should that not be 22 players or were they playing 5.5 per side? On your calculations do you take into account or realise that 3 of the additional pitches are mini soccer (7 aside) and do you realisically expect all pitches to be in use simultaneously? Perhaps having a good neighbour like Rayleigh Boys (who I am sure would allow you to sit on their committee allowing you to serve the interests of residence) may result in the removal or improvement of a bad neighbour like Sporting Events Limited?
Admin at 8 – Please can you confirm numbers in favour of this, as it is my understanding that letters of support received, has gone through the 400 mark? This would indicate a very high level of interest across the Rochford electorate.
Kris at 14 – I take your point about previous letters.
Shane at 15, I’m, just going on what’s in the report. I suggest you click on the link and have a look at the report yourself….
Shane thanks for the minor correction. Yes you are right in one respect ,I know that RBFC ,will take a responsible attitude to governing the pitches ,but the fact remains ,that the existing users do not treat the field or the residents with the respect they should .If you do recieve permission for your pitches it will be on emotive grounds not on planning grounds ,that is fair enough because contrary to what you may think I know there is a need for facilities ,but I will represent the interests of the parishoners who will be affected .As chris has mentioned four of them were displaced by the A130 and suffered considerable stress at the time until RDC granted exceptional planning for their move .If you are not going to use all the pitches simultaneously why do you need so many? The debacle over the pitches at the Park site is an absolute disgrace .Again I repeat is there no capacity on Rawreth Rec on the back fields for junior pitches .
Admin at 16 – obviously I had read the report prior to my posting hence quoting (Schedule Item 2.5). My request for your confirmation was specifically associated that the figures in the report are only correct at the time of print. Since this has changed I thought you might want to keep a fair balanced view given you impartiality at this stage, given the shirty nature of your response I presume this is not the case!!
Kris at 14 – I have it on good authority that the letters of support have broken the 500 mark this time round. Admin may or may not want to confirm this!!
Shane, I phoned the council today but was unable to get a figure for the number of letters received.
Though I’m sure it’s very high.
I’m certainly not trying to be shirty – if I was to make any further comment it might be misinterpreted.