Make a point of visiting us weekly!
Local Government
Rochford District Council
Rochford District Council
To return to the Rochford District Council front page, please CLICK HERE
An Outsider’s View of the Planning Process – an informal report on the RDC Development Committee Meeting held in the Civic Chamber, Rayleigh on Wednesday 18th January 2012
Continuation 1
The Chief Planning Officer responded that their calculations for consultation, were just for that purpose, for consultation, but if you discount the buffer zone at the western end of the site the developed area is 22.6 hectares.
Councillor Black, suggested they had got themselves into difficulties by approving the local plan but was not sure where to go from there.
Councillor Hoy, declared his agreement with Councillor Lucas-Gill and reiterated the negative aspects contained in the Report, while also referring to Highway Agency guidelines which may put a question mark over parts of this scheme, and added his concern about Hall Road.
Councillor Thomas observed that whatever they decided they should ensure that it does not conflict with the Structure Plan they had previously approved. He added that if sentiment in the Chamber was leaning towards refusal, then they must make sure that any reasons for that refusal would stand up and thus avoid past experiences of rushing through a refusal on rather flimsy grounds so then that refusal could be overturned.
The Chief Planning Officer responded that their calculations for consultation, were just for that purpose, for consultation, but if you discount the buffer zone at the western end of the site the developed area is 22.6 hectares.
Councillor Black, suggested they had got themselves into difficulties by approving the local plan but was not sure where to go from there.
Councillor Hoy, declared his agreement with Councillor Lucas-
Councillor Thomas observed that whatever they decided they should ensure that it does not conflict with the Structure Plan they had previously approved. He added that if sentiment in the Chamber was leaning towards refusal, then they must make sure that any reasons for that refusal would stand up and thus avoid past experiences of rushing through a refusal on rather flimsy grounds so then that refusal could be overturned.
And Defeat
Councillor Lucas-Gill was invited by the Chairman, in the absence of any other councillor wishing to speak, to respond but she handed it over to Councillor Gordon who simply reiterated their opposition to the application.
After this the Chief Planning Officer was given time to make comments for the benefit of the Councillors as follows:
After this the Chief Planning Officer was given time to make comments for the benefit of the Councillors as follows:
1. The bottom line was for members to remember that they had adopted a Core Strategy including a sustainability assessment of that document at the end of a very long process. The Core Strategy has been found to be sound and that on the basis of the sustainability assessment .
2. The issue of prematurity is interesting but PPS3 is quite clear that applications should not be refused solely on the grounds of prematurity and the key issue is whether they want to deliver some dwellings towards the five year supply of housing for the district.
3. The infrastructure problems are all matters set out in the heads of S106 and are being addressed and there will be a substantial contribution, for example, towards the provision of a doctor’s surgery, recognising that there is an issue there to be addressed through the application process.
4. He also declared he was still slightly unclear about the reasons for refusal (laughter from the public) but assumed it was that the land is in Green Belt and no special circumstances had been demonstrated.
This last point was picked up by Councillor Gordon, that in fact no special circumstances had been demonstrated in terms of the sustainability of the infrastructure. Councillor Lucas-
The Chief Planning Officer responded that the councillors should remember that the process had involved a whole range of parties including the County Highways Department in some detail and were also involved in the public examination of the document. These issues were not set aside in the preparation of the Core Strategy document.
The Chairman then put it to a vote on the proposal to reject the application and the motion was defeated.
The meeting then moved to discuss the motion for approval.
Approval Discussion
At the start of the discussion, Councillor Smith asked about the proposal use of Ironwell Lane, whether it would be a footpath or a cycle way. He also asked for details about the phasing of the development. He also requested for a definition of ‘promptly’ in item 10 on page 83 in respect of the contractor’s duty to remove mud from the highway.
The Senior Planner gave responses which, regrettably were difficult to follow because of members of the public leaving or having their mobile phone going off! Adequate answers appeared to be provided.
Councillor Cutmore requested that the historic white mile markers be preserved while any work went on. He also noted a name correction that was necessary in the Report. Also referring to pages 17 and 18 of the report he asked that detailed plans would be produced over a phased period and the various concerns be adequately dealt with then. He also expressed disappointment that the Environment Agency looked like they had got their flood assessment wrong originally. He also expressed concern about the stage payments for the infrastructure and how they would actually fit with the phases of the development. He was pleased that the frontages along Hall Road would be first as they were the important ones, and the delivery of those must match what is around them and be of very high quality to ensure we provide something that is appropriate for the area.
The Senior Planner said conditions could be imposed for the mile markers and as far as the plans were concerned they would be in phases and all the concerns dealt with at each stage, in the Chamber. The flood matter was probably because it was a small site and depended on the topography, but the applicant had done a very detailed survey and the change probably arose there. As far as stage infrastructure payments they will be done in such a way as to ensure forward development can take place and also so that they can be accessed when necessary. Some might need to be up front and some conditional on the number of dwellings. Mention has already been made in the Report of the conditions for Hall Road frontage, reflecting the existing character of road as far is is possible. The density is pinned down to 12 dwelling per hectare maximum.
Councillor Cutmore followed up by asking about ‘Secure by Design’ in respect of the site.
The Senior Planner said they would probably highlight that to the developer to demonstrate how they would approach the issues of ‘Secure by Design’, and would look at the detailed plans for that.
The Chief Planning Officer brought the Core Strategy to the attention of the members again which does include design and the very points that they would be looking at in some detail around issues in the Essex Design Guide that are crucial to ensuring we end up with a high quality design.
Councillor Black also expressed concern about P.17 CABE and lack of quality, especially as this will be the biggest development in the District. In respect of infrastructure, one thing not mentioned was teenagers and their needs. Because it was such a big development, he proposed that they set up a non-political working party to interrogate the scheme as all the applications come through.
Councillor Seagers noted that density was described as generally 28 dwellings per hectare overall and as some would be less than that along Hall Road, other areas would clearly be more, and requested that the developer be informed that they would be required to provide the minimum amenity areas plus, and similarly complies with the minimum in all cases of dwellings on that site for parking and that all dwellings on that site conform to those two requirements.
Councillor Gordon expressed his concern that reserve matters may come in small packages, and he needed reassurance of achievement of the highest standard. It must be full certification of ‘Secure by Design’.
Top of page
Page 3 of report
Back to Page 1 of report
The Senior Planner gave responses which, regrettably were difficult to follow because of members of the public leaving or having their mobile phone going off! Adequate answers appeared to be provided.
Councillor Cutmore requested that the historic white mile markers be preserved while any work went on. He also noted a name correction that was necessary in the Report. Also referring to pages 17 and 18 of the report he asked that detailed plans would be produced over a phased period and the various concerns be adequately dealt with then. He also expressed disappointment that the Environment Agency looked like they had got their flood assessment wrong originally. He also expressed concern about the stage payments for the infrastructure and how they would actually fit with the phases of the development. He was pleased that the frontages along Hall Road would be first as they were the important ones, and the delivery of those must match what is around them and be of very high quality to ensure we provide something that is appropriate for the area.
The Senior Planner said conditions could be imposed for the mile markers and as far as the plans were concerned they would be in phases and all the concerns dealt with at each stage, in the Chamber. The flood matter was probably because it was a small site and depended on the topography, but the applicant had done a very detailed survey and the change probably arose there. As far as stage infrastructure payments they will be done in such a way as to ensure forward development can take place and also so that they can be accessed when necessary. Some might need to be up front and some conditional on the number of dwellings. Mention has already been made in the Report of the conditions for Hall Road frontage, reflecting the existing character of road as far is is possible. The density is pinned down to 12 dwelling per hectare maximum.
Councillor Cutmore followed up by asking about ‘Secure by Design’ in respect of the site.
The Senior Planner said they would probably highlight that to the developer to demonstrate how they would approach the issues of ‘Secure by Design’, and would look at the detailed plans for that.
The Chief Planning Officer brought the Core Strategy to the attention of the members again which does include design and the very points that they would be looking at in some detail around issues in the Essex Design Guide that are crucial to ensuring we end up with a high quality design.
Councillor Black also expressed concern about P.17 CABE and lack of quality, especially as this will be the biggest development in the District. In respect of infrastructure, one thing not mentioned was teenagers and their needs. Because it was such a big development, he proposed that they set up a non-
Councillor Seagers noted that density was described as generally 28 dwellings per hectare overall and as some would be less than that along Hall Road, other areas would clearly be more, and requested that the developer be informed that they would be required to provide the minimum amenity areas plus, and similarly complies with the minimum in all cases of dwellings on that site for parking and that all dwellings on that site conform to those two requirements.
Councillor Gordon expressed his concern that reserve matters may come in small packages, and he needed reassurance of achievement of the highest standard. It must be full certification of ‘Secure by Design’.
Top of page
Page 3 of report
Back to Page 1 of report