Top

Residents of Thorpe Road Have Had Enough !!

April 7, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

shmaResidents of the “Unmade End” of Thorpe Road. Hawkwell have suffered so much damage to the road surface that they have issued an Open Letter of Complaint to David Wilson Homes/Barratts at their Clements Gate (Christmas Tree Farm) Site.

We hope that Barratts will now listen to the these residents and put things right immediately.

Street Light Re-location in Rectory Road

Rochford District Council has also issued the following by email.

“Dear Councillor
It was apparent that the lamp columns along Rectory Road, which were required to be repositioned off of the footpath, had been installed by the power utilities company in the wrong place. They have been instructed accordingly and will put right their error.”

“FYI…there is an officer meeting on Tuesday morning to discuss the ‘correct’ position of the relocated lamp columns.”

Damage to the Verges in Rectory Road and Thorpe Road

Because of the above problem there will be a delay in seeing this damage put right as well !!

 Open Letter of Complaint from Residents to David Wilson Homes/Barratts at their Clements Gate (Christmas Tree Farm) Site.
Dear Sir

I write with regard to the unmade end of Thorpe Road opposite the four bungalows numbers 82,84,86, and 88 and along the side and front of the bungalow on the corner of Rectory Road number 400. The road has been dug up some four times now and left in the most appalling state by YOUR contractors and despite several complaints to your communications people nothing is being done to correct the damage, we are therefore asking you directly for the following:

The grass verge opposite the four bungalows has been dug up and just left as mud, as has the verge along the side of number 400 Rectory Road. We ask that the grass verge is reinstated.

The entrance to Thorpe Road either side is churned up with deep tyre tracks by YOUR contractors lorries and diggers and has been left in that state. We ask that the entrance to the road is cleaned up.

The unmade road fronting onto numbers 82,84,86 and 88 Thorpe Road was repaired last summer by the residents with hardcore provided by yourselves. This was extremely hard work and we do not see why we should have to do it all over again when the damage has been done by YOUR contractors lorries and heavy plant. Contributing to this is the number of lorries, big ones, that ignore the ‘No Access’ signs at the entrance to the road every single day. We have asked for a yellow ‘Construction Traffic’ sign with an arrow pointing up Rectory Road as this might help, but this has been refused!! We ask that potholes are repaired and the road reinstated to how it was last summer.

The grass verge and the driveway across the outside of number 400 Rectory Road has been left in a mess by YOUR contractors and despite several complaints nothing has been done to tidy it up. We ask that this work is done.

A line of Lavatera bushes along the right hand side of the entrance to the road, planted by residents, has been trashed and left. These need tidying up or replanting.

Every time we complain we get the answer ‘nothing to do with us’. These are YOUR contractors and YOU are responsible. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR MONEY, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR COMPENSATION, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THE AREA IS PUT BACK THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE YOU DUG IT ALL UP.

I have copied in our local Councillors Christine and John Mason and give them permission to publish this email on their website and to forward it on to anyone they think might be able to assist us. If nothing is done our next step is to go directly to Mr David Eardley who I am told is the Managing Director of Barratt Homes.

I look forward to hearing from someone in authority or perhaps it might be a good idea to send someone along to actually look at the mess!

Yours sincerely

Carol Dutton

84 Thorpe Road
Hawkwell

UPDATE FROM DWH/Barratts

In respect to the grass verge, this is the responsibility of one of our statutory service providers, Power On Connections. These works are still to be finished in this area and they are due to return and conclude works on the 17th and 18th April. They have a contractual obligation to reinstate the area of their works to its original state and this usually occurs within a month of work being completed.

In regards to the disturbances on the unmade section of Thorpe Road, I believe Nikki has explained that we are unable to repair these ourselves as not all of the residents want it repaired, out of a wish to deter non-residents from using the road as a thoroughfare. Therefore, we are happy to provide material for individuals to carry out the works on their own initiative. We can get you this material fairly quickly but believe it is best to wait until Power On Connections have finished their works.

Clements Gate – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 20

March 2, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

DSCF0680

GB_Rochford District Residents_254Development Committee was busy this week particularly for your Hawkwell West Councillors, John and Christine Mason, as two applications that affect our Ward were up for consideration. These were both for alterations to Conditions for the Housing Estate that is currently being built. Despite the developer receiving full, detailed approval in Dec 2012 our Officers seem to be constantly having to work on proposed alterations.

This time the first Application heard was for an alteration to the Flood Risk Assessment. Since last August John and I have been researching and studying the complex terminology and criteria that affect this issue, with help from local residents who have expertise in this field. We now feel we have an adequate understanding to ask the right questions of the appropriate authorities. In view of this and with the support of the Development Committee we have asked for a couple of important aspects of the revised proposal to be clarified and the Development Committee also determined that we, as Ward Members, should be involved before final approval to the revised scheme is given by our Head of Planning and Transportation. Flood prevention and surface water drainage are subjects that create considerable concern and whilst we are by no means experts we can at least communicate these concerns together with our intimate and extensive knowledge of the local area.

The second was another request for an alteration to a Condition that requires the alteration to the mini roundabout at Hall Road/Rectory Road to be complete before first occupation of any house on the new estate. The Developer wanted to be able to have 22 properties occupied before this was completed. However the mood of the Committee was unanimous in support of Refusal. Councillors felt that Conditions, which Members and Officers alike spend considerable time on agreeing to, should be adhered to. We also pointed out that there were other Pre-occupation Conditions that had not been fulfilled and that the work on the roundabout commenced on the 3rd February with, we understand, a very generous time scale of six weeks. Maybe this is due to the fact that there would appear to be a cessation of activity, certainly no work has been noted this last week despite equipment being left on the verge.

Let us hope that this work will be completed in a speedy manner, likewise the supposedly temporary closure to pedestrian access in Thorpe Road.

Clements Gate – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 19

January 30, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

DSCF0417eccA Brief Update

As ever your Ward Councillors, John and Christine Mason, have been busy dealing with issues and complaints and following a really helpful meeting with two of ECC engineers we are able to report the following;

  • Two badly damaged areas in Thorpe Road pavement are to receive a temporary a repair today, 30 January, and discussions will be taking place next week regarding more permanent remedial works.
  • The fence erected blocking a neighbour’s driveway is to be moved.
  • The damaged section of Thorpe Road carriageway is to be inspected with a view to a satisfactory reinstatement of the road surface.
  • Work is due to start on the mini roundabout at Nursery Corner/Hall Road junction on Monday the February 3rd and should take about 3 – 4 weeks.
  •  Despite promises the footpath access through Thorpe Road has yet to be reinstated but we are hopeful that this will be done before the end of March.

David Wilson Homes “hopes” to reopen a temporary path through Thorpe Road by Christmas – Quote – Unquote

December 6, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

DSCF0417Reported in the Echo 6 December 2013

Update on our Article, Thorpe Road Closure with less than 24 hrs Notice

A FOOTPATH which was closed,leaving residents with a half-mile detour to reach village amenities looks set to be reopened by Christmas.

The path at the unmade end of Thorpe Road, Hockley, was shut unexpectedly in October, as part of a development for 175 homes in the village.

The closure meant residents had to walk half-a-mile along narrow pavements on Main Road or Rectory Road to reach shops, a doctor’s surgery and Greensward and Westerings schools. At the time, the move left residents angry at the lack of communication from developers David Wilson Homes, who had told residents the path wouldn’t be shut and access would be maintained at all times.

Now, after intervention from County Hall, the path looks set to reopen.

Following a meeting with developers,a spokesman for Essex County Council said: “The developer was understanding and supportive of the council’s desire to have access through Thorpe Road fully restored for pedestrians as soon as possible. “An alternative diversion within the site is being considered by the developer, which will direct pedestrians from the north of Thorpe Road, and to the east of the site to join with the southern part of Thorpe Road.”

“A spokeswoman for David Wilson Homes confirmed that it hoped to reopen a temporary path by Christmas.”

Comment from District Councillors John and Christine Mason

“Let us hope that the promise made by Barratts is fulfilled because this has caused problems for residents for over a month now and by Christmas  is another month”  

“Whilst welcoming the position negotiated by Essex County Council Officers this has only been achieved after protest by Councillors and Residents.” 

“Essex County Council should never have allowed the agreement that it would not be closed to pedestrians, agreed with District Councillors by ECC and Barratts, to be reneged upon in the first place.” 

“People Power” or How Residents Can Carry Out DIY Flood Prevention

December 1, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

2013-11-30 10.27.21_DCEHawkwell Brook Saturday 30th November and Sunday 1st December

As featured in the ECHO DIY Flood Plan

No one told us how physically hard flood prevention would be.  John and I ache in muscles that “we did not know that we had and probably have not got”!  (Christine was heard saying “Charlie Dimmock I am not.  (Certainly John is not!))  That said it is a lot cheaper and more rewarding than the gym.

Saturday dawned cold, bright and above all dry.  Nearly 40 people turned up over the course of the session, it was impossible to keep track of everyone but all set to with a will.  Father and Son, Mother and Daughter, Family and friends from age 8 to 80 every one did what they could and more.

2013-11-30 13.39.04_DCE

 

As someone said the camaraderie was fantastic and they got to know their neighbours better.  The community support has been staggering from Rochford Hundred Rugby Club members to school children, young and old, fit and less physically able, residents and ‘outsiders’ side by side.  Some residents who could not help provided tea, coffee and biscuits for the volunteers, one lady brought round a tray of cakes.  Everyone has contributed. As tired limbs were failing we were further encouraged by the Rochford Hundred Rugby Club members who came along after their commitments and finished of the stretch we were all working on.  A massive improvement but better was yet to come.  Sunday saw more members of the Rochford Hundred Rugby Club and their strength and abilities saw the task finished.    With the support of yet more tea and cakes!

 

2013-11-30 10.27.27_DCE

As a Community, Hawkwell West owes a great deal to these willing volunteers for their assistance with this project, but we can also congratulate ourselves.   Let us hope that those residents that were so adversely affected by the floods can now approach winter with a greater sense of peace and that this effort will achieve its aim of helping to prevent a repetition of the August floods.  Everyone has contributed.  Our Hawkwell West Community has proved that the spirit of community is alive and well.

2013-12-01 10.25.14_DCE

 

 

2013-11-30 10.27.48_DCE

Thanks to Rochford District Council for the Gloves and Rubbish collection, DWH for the loan of two wheelbarrows and forks, Southend Hospital for the Hand Cleanser, Everyone who helped and…………………

Special Thanks to Rochford Hundred Rugby Club Members.

2013-12-01 11.15.34_DCE

2013-12-01 11.54.35_DCE

Clements Gate – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 18 – HGV Access to Thorpe Road

November 16, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

GB_Rochford District Residents_254  We returned home from our annual family holiday to find that David Wilson Homes (Barratts) had not ceased to use Thorpe Road for access of HGV Construction Traffic from the end of October.

Complaint to the Managing Director, David Wilson Homes (Barratts)

Dear Mr. Eardley

Several weeks ago Mr. Ruffy advised me personally, face to face, that HGV Construction Traffic would cease to use Thorpe Road from the end of October.

On the strength of this, and in response to a large number of complaints, Christine and I knocked on every door on Thorpe Road to pass on this assurance from Barratts. This was in good faith and an attempt to assuage the growing deterioration in the relationship between residents and Barratts.

It is evident from a complaint today that this promise has not been fulfilled.

I am advised that a large amount of clay has been deposited on the highway and all that has been done is turn this into a dangerous slurry.

The resident is as I write telephoning County Councillor Cutmore to complain and ask ECC Highways to send an Inspector immediately.

If the resident is unsuccessful then I shall contact the Chief Executive of Essex County Council personally.

I expect to receive a number of further complaints that HGV Construction Traffic has not ceased to use Thorpe Road from the end of October as promised.

I have copied in Mr. Amar Dave, Chief Executive of Rochford District Council because I believe that a resident of Thorpe Road has met with him recently.

Sincerely
Councillor John Mason
Hawkwell West Ward
Rochford District Council

Reply from David Wilson Homes

Dear Mr Mason

I am in receipt of your mail to David Eardley regarding concerns about the mud to Thorpe Road, caused by construction movements and he has asked me to respond as he is away from the office.

Recently we have experienced extremely heavy rainfall and this has made our processes to keep Thorpe Road mud free more challenging. We are making every effort to improve the situation and will continue to do so on a daily basis. We have had a number of discussions with residents locally and we continue to address their concerns.

We are moving the wheel wash over to the bottom half of the development next week and will be using the Clements Hall access exclusively for Construction traffic from Monday the 25th November, which is later than we had originally targeted and we apologise for the inconvenience this delay may have caused, but we can assure you that we are giving the matter our utmost attention.

Best regards

Peter Creighton
Construction Director
David Wilson Homes

Thorpe Road Closure with less than 24 hrs Notice

October 24, 2013 by · 1 Comment 

road-closedThis was permitted by Essex County Council with less than 24 hours Notice against promises that footpath access would never be closed for more than a few days at a time.

Closure of the footpath along the unmade end of Thorpe Road, Hawkwell.

“I am writing on behalf of Barratt Developments to let you know that due to safety reasons, Thorpe Road will be closed to pedestrians as from 10:00am tomorrow (23/10) until further notice.

It is already of our concern that there is currently no segregation between members of the public walking through our construction site and the construction plant, as well as delivery vehicles at the site entrance. We have decided that with this concern, and whilst the current stage of deep drainage, services and road construction is carried out, the safest way forward is to close Thorpe Road at our site entrance down to plot 57. This is in line with our current stopping up order for Thorpe Road which expires at the end of February, however we will of course re-open the road for pedestrians when we feel it is safe to do so.”

We have written to Joanna Killian, Chief Executive of Essex County Council.

“I have been trying to get an understanding of how ECC will be dealing with the fact that the Road Closure will cease on 1 November 2013 from Sarah Alcock. We have had no reply. This is unacceptable.  I shall be obliged if you would arrange for an Officer to call on the affected neighbours and explain why ECC has reneged.”

Residents have also written to County Councillor Terry Cutmore.

“As you will be aware by now, David Wilson Homes (DWH) have given local residents just 24 hours notice of the closure of the footpath along the unmade end of Thorpe Road, Hawkwell. Although I recognise that the path runs through the building site, I am astonished by the lack of consideration for local residents, this is a right of way and without it residents will have to make a half mile detour in either direction. My concern is mainly for the elderly and school children that use this cut through every day. When we asked ECC to pedestrianise the unmade end of the road to prevent it becoming a rat run (which it will), we were firmly told that right of way cannot be rescinded, so how come DWH can do it? I would ask why this was not considered within the plans when the Hawkwell Action Group and our two local Councillors were in consultation with the developers on behalf of local residents? “

“Make no mistake, closure of this path is devastating to local people, it is used constantly and closing it will affect many people’s lives. I have copied in both of our local Councillors for their information and also my three neighbours at this end of Thorpe Road who are all affected by the closure.”

“I hope you can step in and help us.”

 

 

Clements Gate – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 17 and Other Local Issues

October 18, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

DSCF0680

Clements Gate Development

A brief summary of where we are now with this development and other local issues.

 

 

Signs and Advertising

No more progress or information on the simple request for a ‘residents only parking sign’.  However David Wilson Homes have applied for permission for some of the signage at the Thorpe Road Marketing suite and although our last information on a site visit was that the application did not reflect what was on the ground the RDC Planning Officer was attempting to resolve this so that the retrospective application can be heard by the Development Committee on the 24th October.   As far as we are aware there has been no application for the flagpoles and advertisements at Clements Hall Way although I believe this has been ‘requested’ by Officers.

The abundance of signs appearing on the Rectory Road site entrance gate are growing but as we have not received any complaints we have not raised this with Officers.

The many signs at the unmade end of Thorpe Road seem to have eventually registered on delivery drivers and we have had only one recent report of a vehicle trying to access the site that way.

Rodents

This situation seems to have been satisfactorily resolved and we have had no more reports of infestations.  Now that the site clearance has been completed this problem should hopefully not reoccur.  Seven householders who jointly employed a consultant had to contribute £10 per household over and above the ex-gratia payment from Rochford District Council.  David Wilson Homes were approached to pay this amount but declined.  Other residents have dealt with this problem in different ways with different degrees of success in obtaining financial assistance from the Developer.

Road Names

We have still have not heard who the winners of the David Wilson Homes and Barratts Competition are although the street names were announced in July, and the site is well under way, however we are pleased that our suggestion of Aaron Lewis Close was included in recognition of his service and the sacrifice of his life for our Country.

Road Closure

Our original understanding of this closure was that it would be for a six month period in an 18 month window and this was originally confirmed by ECC.

The closure is required for the safety of the public and workforce while construction works of the new roads and sewers are undertaken.

The alternative route will be via Thorpe Road – Main Road – Rectory Road and vice versa. 

Access for pedestrians will be maintained at all times during the closure, pedestrians will need to follow the diversion as signed on site. 

The Order will come into effect on 1 April 2013 and may continue in force for 18 months or until the works have been completed, whichever is the earlier.’

This road should be almost ready to open now as the reason given for closure was to facilitate the installation of drainage and make up the road.  To our knowledge this work does not appear to have been started and the closure appears to be mainly facilitating construction traffic moving from one part of the site to another.  Thankfully the footpath has remained open for pedestrians and we have only had one report of a pedestrian (school child returning home) being denied passage but this was granted when another pedestrian pointed out that access was permitted.  I suspect this was a one off error as it is the only report we have received of any difficulty.

I chased this situation with ECC and the response on the 18th September was as follows.

‘I also asked for clarification regarding the road closure and can confirm that it was indeed originally for 6 months.  However this has just been extended  because of the following 2 main points

•         To enable heavy plant to cross between sites safely for public safety

•         Shortly, drainage will be installed which will involve very deep excavations and therefore it is not safe for the general public. This has been subject to a delay as changes needed to be made in regard to the drainage system being installed.

 Once the drainage is in place I have been advised this road closure will be removed and the Development Management Team will chase this up with the site once the drainage system is in place.’

Wheel Cleaning/Mud on Roads

On the 25th September John and I were visiting a resident in Thorpe Road and the state of mud on the road caused us such concern that I made the following report to ECC.

John and I have been visiting various residents in Thorpe road this afternoon and were disturbed to notice a JKS lorry remove its net by number 8 Thorpe Road whilst travelling at speed towards the site at around 3.45.  This resulted in a cloud of dust and various small (I hope) bits of hardcore flying of the back of the wagon onto the surrounding road/pavement and possibly adjacent parked vehicles.

Concerned I immediately walked down to the site and to speak to the ‘gate’ attendant.  Whilst walking another JKS lorry passed me and removed its net before entering the site although on the small stretch of road between the marketing suite and No 37 Thorpe Road.  This vehicle was at least travelling slower than its predecessor. 

I understand that DWH have spoken to their contractor about this and it should not reoccur.

At the same time I raised this problem:  Whilst visiting residents the most common concern was the state of the footway and road as a result of the heavy traffic.  Indeed we have witnessed lorries mounting the pavement on almost every occasion we have visited the site.  Residents do not want to wait for months or years to have this repaired and wish for the surfaces to be repaired before the icy weather.  The other common concern was that this was not done at a cost to the public purse as they feel strongly (or at least the ones we spoke to) that this damage was caused by DWH and they should be responsible for the repairs.

We have been advised that photographs were taken prior to construction and that the surfaces should be reinstated however we have asked that this is done sooner rather than later due to the obvious dangers to residents.  On the 8th Oct ECC advised they were undertaking a site visit…………………we are waiting to hear the outcome.

Construction Access

We have been advised that DWH will be moving the construction access to Clements Hall Way at the end of October which should alleviate some of the distress that has occurred.  If this has not stopped by the 10th November please advise us.

We are however concerned that the wheel washing facility is at the Thorpe Road end and although our Officer advised that there should be another one at Clements Hall Way end of the site we have never had confirmation that this is so.  Also we asked for an updated ecological report before the construction traffic was permitted to cross the Public Open Space as this disturbance to wildlife was not originally envisaged or assessed.  Whilst the Officer advised that he agreed with us we have not yet heard if that has been done.  As ever we are reliant on the efficiency of our Planners.

Site Road Construction

John has checked the Conditions that were made prior to construction starting and apparently the site roads should be made up to base level before house building in each Phase commences.  We do not think that this has been done. This has been checked by a Planning Officer at our request because we felt that this might partially explain the problem with mud on the road.  No Action will be taken!!

“Condition 17 of the consent does require the estate roads to be constructed up to base level prior to the commencement of any dwelling to gain access from that road.

 The purpose is so that any dwelling when occupied has a sensible means of access. The final wearing courses must be provided within 12 months of occupation.

 At our recent site visit a small number of houses had been constructed with the roof on. It was not clear to me as to whether the road construction was up to the requirements of the condition but it did not have visible inspection chambers and kerbing. That being said, the site manager anticipates selling the first few houses around Christmas. It may be that the road construction is not yet to road base level but as there are no houses to be soon occupied, it would not be expedient to take enforcement action at this early stage. The condition is worded the way it is so that there would be an opportunity and a measureable point in time. Clearly, it is in the applicants interests to make access provision in time for the first occupiers. With the extent of heavy plant on the site and the outstanding work still required on those first houses. It would not be expedient to pursue action at this early stage.”

 Site Visit

John and I had asked to visit the David Wilson Homes/Barratts site so that small issues could be raised, clarified and hopefully resolved either by fuller communication, better understanding or action.

However that appointment has been cancelled and no alternative offered.  Ever felt unwelcome!

Flooding

We are in the process of arranging a ‘volunteers’ group to help residents prevent future problems.  More information when the details are firmed up.

Application for 177 Main Road

Whilst this planning application was refused the nearby residents have taken the view that a new application would probably be made and wanted to discuss this with the developer so that their point of view could be incorporated, if possible, in any new application.  Resident’s wished for John and I to be present with them to assist an even and constructive discussion.  Unfortunately our Planning Department has not allowed an Officer to accompany us as the Standards and Planning Protocol that MUST be complied with by Councillors would indicate that we cannot get involved without an Officer present.  Both the residents and ourselves have contacted Mark Francois MP as we believe that the NPPF (Government Policy on Planning) encourages this dialogue but so far there appears to be an impasse with conflicting decisions between the Council’s Legal Officers (No) and Planning (Yes).  We have asked our Officers to determine this but are still waiting for a decision.  It seems a shame that such a simple, constructive approach is not officially supported in the dos’ and don’ts documentation.

Tree Preservation Orders

Whilst these Orders are put in place to protect trees and indeed some new ones have recently been put in place in our ward, we remain concerned that if a tree with a TPO is illegally felled that it should be, wherever possible ,with a similar sized and species tree.  If not the legal consequences should follow.  Are we out of touch here?

Contact

Please note our preferred contact details are our personal e mail addresses: Christine.mason@rochfordessex.net and john.mason@bigfoot.com

New Hawkwell Homes “Out of our Reach” is quite true

September 30, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

echo hawkwell 300913

The Echo published an Article today headed “Hawkwell homes “out of our reach”.

You can read it here.

 We have approximately 600 registrations on the Council’s Housing Register in a hierarchy of bands that are eligible for housing in our District.

 We hoped that the 35% Affordable Homes, presumably sold at rock bottom prices to Registered Social Landlords (RSL), would enable some of those residents that are on the Rochford District Council Housing Register to be housed at last.

 Councillor Keith Hudson, in charge of planning at Rochford, said to the Echo that he expected first time buyers would look to buy at the site, but would encourage people to use the shared ownership options available as a way of getting on the housing ladder. He added: “It’s an excellent way to get on the ladder. You share the burden with the housing association.“You can have a shared equity situation where you can buy a percentage of the property, and then pay a smaller amount of rent.”

 HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY.

 What Councillor Hudson did not say was how few of the Affordable Houses were available to be sold with “shared ownership”.

 It is only 20%. …………………….  Only 20% of the 35% Affordable Housing 

 Putting this into perspective this means for Hawkwell 20% of 62 Affordable Houses making just 12 available for Shared Ownership.

 Of the 35% Affordable Housing the rest, 50, are for rent only.

 According to Council Officers the Shared Ownership will be 50:50.  So, on a property of £300,000 a first time buyer of an Affordable Home would have to raise a Mortgage of £120,000 (80% of £150,000) and provide a cash deposit of £30,000 as the Government Help to Buy Scheme for 5% will not apply, plus continue to pay rent on the other 50%.

 “Out of our reach” is quite true.

 Buying a new home direct from a developer under the Government “Help to Buy Scheme” you look at, even with the 5% cash and the remaining deposit of 15% Guaranteed by Mr. Cameron announced today, you still need an 80% Mortgage.  Even with a property costing £300,000 you still need a Mortgage of £240,000.  Plus £45,000 provided by the Government on the 15% Deposit making a 95% Loan of £285,000. Can young adults with or without  University Debts of £ 20,000 – £40,000 EACH afford a Loan of £285,000 on top?

 How can these new houses be for our kids?

 “Out of our reach” is quite true.

Clements Gate – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 16 and Other Local Issues

September 15, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Putty Road

Clements Gate Development

A brief summary of where we are now with this development and other local issues; Flooding, Noise & Pollution, Highways and Parking

Signs and Advertising

Residents in the unmade section of Thorpe Road have still not achieved success in the simple request for a ‘residents only parking sign’ yet David Wilson Homes appear to be able to erect as many signs as they want without Highways permission from Essex County Council or compliance with advertising regulations.  David Wilson Homes and Barratts have now applied again for retrospective planning for the signs around the Show Homes and the greater number of flagpoles than normally allowed around the whole site.  On the day the original application was to be heard, (Officers had recommended Refusal) the application was withdrawn. The new retrospective planning application should be heard in October and we hope to visit residents for your views once we have reviewed the position with Officers.

No 352 Rectory Road has been sold which resolved the issue of the enormous ‘For Sale’ board, which should have had permission and did not.

Rodents

David Wilson Homes and Barratts help did not materialise in an effective way so in extremis we approached Rochford District Council who have agreed to provide £50 towards the cost per affected household.  The residents are now requesting David Wilson Homes and Barratts to cover the additional £10 per household and await their response.  There is much appreciation for the assistance that RDC provided residents in this difficult situation.

Official Opening

The Show Homes are open and maybe the resulting traffic has created a problem so please advise us if you have experienced any problems. The Official Launch of Clements Gate is on the 23rd September at 11.00 am in the Sales and Marketing Suite (by invitation of course!).

Road Names

We still have not heard who the winners of the David Wilson Homes and Barratts Competition are although the street names were announced in July.

Noise and Air Pollution Concerns – Clements Gate and Clements Gardens

Prior to planning approval we raised concerns regarding potential high and invasive noise and hours of working with the Head of Planning.

Although hours and days of working are in the formal documentation we now gather that decisions on enforcement could be made by RDC Officers on a subjective basis leaning towards leniency.

The Head of Planning did inform us that any issues could be more effectively controlled by Environmental Health Statutes which provide adequate powers to deal with environmental issues.

However when issues of noise from the construction were raised it transpired that these powers do not provide the expected protection. The noise from construction is not covered.

Issues of ‘dust’ from building materials blowing onto adjacent properties and across Rectory Road from the compounding on the Vega Nurseries Site (Christmas Tree Farm), was another environmental concern, but it was, however, investigated and dealt with by RDC.  We were given to understand that the material should have been dampened to prevent this issue.

We had understood at the pre-planning stage that the storage compound would be to the right hand side of the new Clements Hall Way access and not on the Christmas Tree Farm accessed direct from Rectory Road. Indeed there is, apparently, provision for the Christmas Tree Farm to still sell trees this year. Because Officers had apparently not noticed, and certainly did not point out to Members, the possibility of the use of this entrance by the Developer, it was not covered in any agreements.  Unfortunately the Christmas Tree Farm access from Rectory Road is now yet another construction access despite intentions to the contrary.  Apparently our Officers are powerless to prevent this despite the amount of time and money spent on this application.

On the issue of pollution we were notified of an issue at Clements Gardens (not David Wilson Homes and Barratts) this Saturday, 14th September.  After visiting the site we realised that apart from the clearing of vegetation and trees it appeared that tyres were being burnt on the site.  An environmental “No No!”  Although we and residents contacted the Council’s Out of Hours Service, the Police and, we believe, the Fire Service was called, little happened.

An RDC Officer attended and asked the people responsible to stop but was apparently ignored.

What is the point of rules, regulations (laws?) if they cannot be enforced and do not protect the public?  We live some way from the burning but could smell it outside our house and inside where windows were open.  We wait with interest to see what action, if any RDC will take.

Wheel Cleaning/Mud on Roads

We have not had any recent complaints regarding this activity but with autumn approaching the difficulties originally experienced at the beginning of the year may resurface (no pun intended).  Mud on the road is potentially dangerous so if you do see any please photograph it and telephone Rochford District Council on 546366 or contact us straight away.  Prevention is always better than an accident!

Planning/Highways/parking

Recently we have been busy looking at two local planning applications that have caused distress and concern.  One at 177 Main Road was Refused but we are puzzled that although the County Council Highway Authority is the statutory expert on accident blackspots and what it says carries full weight in planning decisions the information they gave was different to that given by the Police and residents.

It would appear that only accidents which cause certain injuries are recorded by Essex County Council Highways.  Surely the number of collisions is more appropriate?  It is for schools. If you think this is wrong please ask your County Councillor to investigate.

Parking on pavements is seen more and more these days.  We can understand the temptation to ‘remove’ your vehicle from the highway and potential danger but parking on the verges causes other, sometimes hidden, problems.  Apart from the unsightly aspect of killed grass, mud can be slippery for pedestrians.  Pedestrians with mobility issues or pushchairs and prams can be caused difficulty, damage is often caused to underground services and the sight splay for drivers coming out of nearby driveways may be compromised.  So please think twice before parking inconsiderately.

Flooding

Our hearts go out to all those residents affected by the recent storms.  Please consider checking all your storm drains and nearby water courses for blockages to try and prevent future trauma.  We will be writing more on this at a later date.

Contact

We have been told that RDC is, as required by the Government, adopting the utmost security of emails sent to Members by The Council.  The small Ipads that the Conservatives have decided will be supplied to Councillors, for Council email use only, are not satisfactory in operation for either of us due to certain personal issues. Unfortunately rather than accepting our word The Council is now insisting that we will be required to obtain a medical report at our cost before alternative arrangements can be made. We have refused because we see no reason to have to pay personally for medical reports or to waste the time of our GP.  Our personal email addresses are Christine.mason@rochfordessex.net and john.mason@bigfoot.com

Advertising Flags, Posters, Hoardings at the Barratts/David Wilson Homes Sales Office, Thorpe Road

July 27, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

By John Mason

A resident and I were talking in the street yesterday morning and during the conversation they expressed their shock and surprise at the amount of advertising material that had been allowed at Clements Gate.

Advertising in Thorpe Road, 25 July 2013

Advertising in Thorpe Road, 25 July 2013

I explained that this did not actually have permission because the planning application had been withdrawn by the applicant on the day that the planning application was to be determined at Development Committee the previous day, Thursday 25th July.

Earlier in the day, prior to the Development Committee Meeting that evening, Members were advised that revised plans had been received that day, reducing the amount of advertising material and reducing the size of the site hoardings and that Officers would be presenting those changes for Members to consider at the Development Committee that evening.

The original planning application had actually had been recommended for refusal as follows;

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is proposed that the Committee RESOLVES to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed signage would be extensive throughout that part of the site of four plots given over to the selling of the approved housing. The use of two hoardings, eleven free standing signs, five flags and graphics to fencing would be excessive resulting in a proliferation of advertising material on the site contrary to Policy SAT11 to the saved Rochford District Council Replacement Local Plan (2006). If allowed, the extent of advertising material proposed would detract from the character and appearance of the street to the detriment of the visual amenity nearby residents ought reasonably expect to enjoy.

As Ward Councillor’s Christine and I were concerned that adequate time was not being allowed to consider any changed proposals and their impact. We were also concerned that Statutory Consultees did not have the opportunity to see or comment on the revised plans and made appropriate representation to our Officers to consider these points.

At the Development committee meeting Members were advised that the Application had been withdrawn.

We understand that there will be a new Application !!

Clements Gate Street Names – David Wilson Homes & Barratts – Update 15

July 23, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Fir trees sprouting

We are pleased to advise you that as Ward Members we have been involved in a process of sifting and approving Street Names for the Christmas Tree Farm Development.

The Developer has been informed on the decisions made.

We put forward  Aaron Lewis Close to mark the life and sacrifice of Lieutenant Aaron Lewis, from Rectory Avenue in Hawkwell Parish who died while serving with the 29 Commando Regiment of the Royal Artillery, in the Gereshk area of Helmand Province, in December 2008.

His family approved the suggestion made by Ward Members, Christine and John Mason.

Street Description Plot numbers Street Name
Right Hand cul-de-sac off Main Loop Road 160, 161, 170, 172, 173 Fir Tree Drive
Main Loop Road 106, 111 to 113, 116 to 159, 162 to 165, 168,  169 Christmas Tree Crescent
Left Hand cul-de-sac off Main Loop Road 103 to 105, 107 to 110 Spruce Drive
Clements Hall Way (existing) 166, 167, 171, 174, 175 Clements Hall Way
Right Side off Thorpe Road cul-de-sac 62, 73 to 77, 82 to 102 Beehive Lane
Thorpe Road (existing) 43 to 46, 55 to 61, 78 to 81 Thorpe Road
Cul-de-sac off Right Side Thorpe Road cul-de-sac 63 to 72 Primrose Place
Left Side off Thorpe Road Top cul-de-sac 1 to 12 Aaron Lewis Close
Left Side off Thorpe Road Bottom cul-de-sac 13, 14, 36, 37 to 42, 47 to 54 Nursery Drive
Cul-de-sac off Bottom cul-de-sac 15 to 35 Badgers Walk

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Positives or Planning Negatives?

June 12, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Choices



Despite our recent experiences with Planning Conditions on the David Wilson Homes/Barratts planning permission not all the results of our negotiations are negative.

With the David Wilson Homes/Barratts development there was even the potential of Community benefits through a Public Open Space if Rochford District Council, Hawkwell Parish Council, and The Hawkwell Residents Association had the same vision as ourselves, HAG and CTFDAG. A Private Open Space isolated from the Spencers Park Open Space, which is owned by Hawkwell Parish Council, is not a Community benefit. We negotiated for the provision of a bridge to join the two spaces, to be paid for by the developer but as permission by Hawkwell Parish Council was refused this cannot go ahead. So there are no benefits there which seems hardly reasonable given the loss of greenbelt.

But there are the benefits required by a Planning Inspector and embodied in the Section 106 Legal Agreement. In this case the retention of the ‘Paddocks’ as a green buffer zone.

Okay part of the Paddocks, The Christmas Tree Farm, is being used as a builders yard/ compound, contrary in our opinion to the Legal Agreement, but we have asked our Head of Planning to see if something can be done bearing in mind the estimated 5 year build/sales time and the adverse effect on the scene from the road which was not expected by the Planning Inspector. No response as yet from Shaun Scrutton.

It is argued that there is tangible benefit to the Community by provision of 60 new homes as affordable housing stock. We will let you decide if that is a positive or a negative.

The New Homes Bonus (£200,0000 from the Government to compensate the Community), which we had hoped would be used primarily for the benefit of those adversely affected residents could have been another plus but no benefit for Hawkwell. Unfortunately this money is expected to go into the general Rochford District Council “pot” to enable the Council Tax for the whole District to be kept lower. Again we will let you decide if that is a positive or a negative.

It was a regrettable decision, in our opinion, of Rochford District Council (we voted against) to allow two David Wilson Homes/Barratts commercial sales and marketing offices in a residential area but it should bring in additional business rates as Non-Domestic Rates, or business rates, are collected by local authorities. This is how businesses using non-domestic property contribute.

Under the business rates retention arrangements introduced from 1 April 2013, local authorities keep a proportion of the business rates paid locally. We have alerted our Head of Finance at Rochford District Council and she is going to take the necessary action to bring these Offices into the business rating list. This would not have been captured as a positive if your Ward Members had not raised this opportunity with the Council.

On a smaller but equally important scale when as Ward Councillors when we are made aware of potential problems with Planning Applications we can ask for Conditions to be put in place that protect the affected parties as far as possible.

Conditions are only of use in this way if they are known about and communicated so we do try and ensure that those potentially involved know about the restrictions.

On one property recently, with an issue of overlooking where windows not shown on the original plan had been incorporated, a simple condition requiring the retention of the dividing fence to prevent potential future overlooking resolved the issue and ensuring the affected neighbour was aware of the Condition will hopefully prevent any future disputes.

On a similar small but important build the neighbour concerns about bulk and potential ungainly effects of a fence on what had been an attractive green vista was overcome by the simple addition of a condition requiring a small fence wall with evergreen planting to soften the impact.

Neither of these interventions would have occurred without action  by your Ward Councillors.

Our main concern is that the Planning Officers do ensure that the Planning Conditions are kept and whilst we are busy looking at the DWH/Barratts site more than others at the moment we do keep our eye on the small developments as well.

“To Condition or Not to Condition” – Planning

January 13, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

By Christine Mason

The Path Most Traveled

Planning is probably the one issue that is always most controversial and creates strong opposing opinions and yet one of the most Government regulated areas of Rochford District Council’s powers and responsibilities.

Planning Applications are determined within an accepted and published set of procedures. Most of these decisions are delegated to the Council’s experienced Planning Officers but some are referred to the Council’s Development Committee for decision.  Once a PlanningApplication is Approved it usually has a series of conditions attached to it, some of which are pre-conditions which are required to be signed off and agreed by the Council’s Officers before any building commences.

However there is nothing to prevent a developer commencing building works even when there are outstanding conditions to discharge. It is always disappointing when this is the case, but any developer progressing a scheme in this way does so at their own risk and the remedy of such a breach is subject to the laws of planning enforcement of the Condition by the Council.

On larger developments, formal legal agreements are often referred to as S106 agreements which detail any contribution required by a developer towards the infrastructure and other community costs that the development may create and deliver e.g. costs towards schools, road and junction improvements and even bus services.  Otherwise Conditions can be anything from a simple ‘sight splay’ preventing high planting and fencing to ensure safe visibility for traffic to the details of design and materials and working practices.  Needless to say all Conditions are important is as the act of ensuring that they are carried out.

It has been reported in the National Press hat some Council’s fail to ‘collect’ the agreed financial contributions under Section 106 Agreements in the time frame reported and therefore lose the community benefit that had been negotiated.  RDC keeps a very close watch on these.

Other more usual Conditions that are equally as important as the financial ones are those that seek to prevent an unreasonable impact on neighbours whilst the development is in progress. These often detail times of work, storage of materials and parking arrangements.

Not very exciting but if flouted can have a disproportionately negative effect on the locality.

One of these that I have received most complaints about in my short time on the Council are those regarding parking of operatives vehicles whilst construction is in progress.  Mostly these are pre-conditions which are required to be signed off by the Council before any building commences.  The agreement to be met between the Council and the Developer usually states that the storage of material and parking arrangements should be agreed prior to commencement of the building works.

Unfortunately the Officers have to rely on the developer contacting them as they do not have the time to check on when a development starts and to a great extent there is a large element of trust placed onto the builder’s integrity.  This sometimes works but when it does not the disruption to the neighbouring properties, pedestrians when vehicles are parked on the footway and possibly to the traffic flows on the more main through roads is unacceptable.

At the moment Rochford has just under 500 enforcement cases outstanding. There are delays in proceeding these because of sheer numbers versus the resource of available Enforcement Officers!

Once the Council is aware that planning conditions are breached it can take enforcement procedures.  Unfortunately this can take months to pursue, especially if there is a back log and by the time these procedures are enacted the situation is past and there is no redress on the builder for failure to comply but the Council has often still incurred costs, and ultimately the Council Tax payers foot the bill!

Damage to the footway is a charge to Essex County Council unless watchful Councillors and residents inform ECC so that it can recover costs from the developer, if not again it is the Council Tax payers who foot the bill.

So whilst we can inform the Council of a pre-condition breach that is causing residents problems it may be that nothing is actually done in practice.  So what was the point of all the effort in making such a pre-condition?

None.  The proposal for storage of material and parking arrangements should be examined carefully before planning permission is given and if satisfactory arrangements are not possible then planning permission should be Refused.

Alternatively perhaps Government should find a way of giving Council’s Planning Authorities the power to invoke punitive fines when such breaches occur to ensure compliance?

I see no point in having a situation where the remedy for failure to comply is for further costs to be placed onto the victim (the Council and the Council Tax Payer) and the offender receives no penalty for ignoring an agreement that is made in the public interest.

Garden Grabbing,Housing Density,PPS3 and The David Wilson Homes Appeal Hawkwell

June 15, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 

The Rochford Lib Dem web site “OnlineFOCUS” has published an interesting article here .

Summary of the Article:

Recent changes have been made by the Coalition Government to Planning Policy PPS3 where the previous requirement  that new housing was supposed to be built at a minimum density of 30 units per hectare has now been dropped. Gardens are no longer classified as ‘brownfield’ sites and that will reduce any incentive for councils to rely on garden land for development sites. Our local planners at Rochford District Council have been asked  by how much the rules have changed. The answer is : not very much, so far.

Conclusion of the Article:

If you have a big garden and want to build a couple of houses in it you will still be able to apply for planning permission. And if your proposal is properly designed, with adequate garden sizes, suitable parking places, no overlooking etc, you will probably still get permission.

The Rochford Independent found this very interesting because a number of acres of “garden” had, on the face of things, been included in the land that had been put forward in the David Wilson Homes Planning Application.

So What is Garden Grabbing?  

Garden grabbing refers to the practice of building homes on open land attached to existing urban or suburban houses, which increases population density and, campaigners say, damages the character of an area.

In the run up to the General Election the Conservatives said the problem had arisen because of changes to planning policy drawn up by former deputy prime minister John Prescott in 2000, classifying gardens as brownfield, rather than greenfield, land.

Leafy gardens across the country are being dug up, and replaced with blocks of flats and high-density buildings that spell disaster for the local environment and local infrastructure.

The definition of brownfield land had not changed since the 1980s, what had changed were the targets for developing brownfield sites.

So what can residents do to get this issue looked at again now that the DWH Appeal has closed and The Planning Inspector had on, 8 June, submitted his Recommendation to Secretary of State, Eric Pickles who has the ultimate decision.

Well it looks as if the Announcement on the removal of the minimum housing density and the changes to garden grabbing were made on the same day so this might not have been considered by The Planning Inspector.

If you wish to help stop the 330 David Wilson Homes in Hawkwell please consider writing another letter to Mr. Pickles and his Planning Casework Team at email address PCC@communities.gsi.gov.uk
 
The Planning Casework team at Communities and Local Government will be issuing the Decision Letter.

Suggested Letter

Dear Mr Pickles

PINS Reference APP/B1550/A/09/2118700/NWF

I understand that your Government has very recently made changes to PPS3 in
respect of a minimum housing density and garden grabbing.

I further understand from The Planning Inspectorate that The Planning
Inspector’s Recommendation was forwarded to you on 8 June on the very day that
your Government was making changes to PPS3 and that The Planning Inspector
might not have taken this into account as material changes in planning
considerations that affect this Appeal.

A number of acres of “garden” have, on the face of things, been included in the
land that had been put forward in the David Wilson Homes Planning Application
and at, it could be, a density greater than 30 dwellings per hectare. One of
these gardens is in Thorpe Road  and the other is at the Chalet in Rectory
Road.

In view of the change in Government Policy the implications are that the Appeal
should now be Dismissed for these reasons and further to the fact that the
proposed development at 330 is way in excess of the 175 recommended by Rochford
District Council in its Core Strategy which lower figure was not even based on
local needs but the RSS which you intend to abolish.

Thank you for your attention to this letter and I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

END OF LETTER

New Homes Start in Rayleigh

June 12, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 

Carter and Ward, owner of the site opposite Rayleigh Cemetery, in Hockley Road, Rayleigh, won planning permission to build 65 two, three and four-bedroomed houses on the land in the late Seventies.

Planning law says if a development is started within a set period of time, the planning permission remains valid.

The full article from the Echo on 11 June is here carterward

Car Wash Outrage In Hockley

December 29, 2009 by · Leave a Comment 

Echo Report 21st December 2009 – Outrage as car wash is built without approval

A car wash is being put up without planning permission in Hockley.  Rochford District Council has called on those building the car wash, at the site of a former vehicle rental firm in Alderman’s Hill, to stop work immediately.  But yesterday the Echo saw workers continuing the development and digging a drain.  Residents got suspicious after a 12ft sign went up outside the site advertising James Hand Carwash and Valeting Service.  One resident, who did not wish to be named, said: “It is an outrage this is still being built. It is on top of a hill, so our concern is the water and chemicals will run off into the drainage system.  “It will be dangerous at this time of year, creating black ice.  “Also, the emergency services use this as a main route into Hullbridge, causing further concern over accidents from the slippery conditions the valeting service will create. If there is an accident on the road caused by the valeting service, will it be to blame or the council?”  A board has been put up around the site, with work going on behind it.  Shaun Scrutton, the council’s head of planning and transportation, said: “The operator has been informed that works on the site are unauthorised and undertaken at their own risk.  “It has been recommended all works cease until planning issues are resolved. The council has been told a planning application is being prepared for the use of the site as a car wash, and consent will also be sought for the erection of a wall alongside Folly Lane.  “It is understood the underground petrol tanks have been filled with foam and made safe to the satisfaction of the petroleum officer.”  The Echo tried to talk to the workers yesterday, but our questions went unanswered. Residents with concerns have been told to contact the council’s planning department by email, letter or phone.

Council Officers Recommend Refusal of 330 houses in Hawkwell

November 29, 2009 by · Leave a Comment 

Rochford District Council Officers are recommending that The Development Control Committee refuse a Planning Application from David Wilson Homes for 330 new houses in Hawkwell on the site known as the Christmas Tree Farm, Rectory Road and Thorpe Road.

The Hawkwell Action Group has advised residents by leaflet this weekend that Mr. John Dagg QC will also be speaking on behalf of residents who have campaigned over several years against a proposal from either the Council in the form of its Core Strategy or this specific planning application.

The decision will be made by Councillors at the Civic Suite in Rayleigh commencing at 19.30 hours.  For residents unable to get into the Council Chamber the debate will be broadcast outside in the front of the building.

Here is the Recommendation for Refusal. (The full 60 page Report is here.)

RECOMMENDATION

It is proposed that this committee RESOLVES to REFUSE the application
for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development of up to 330 residential dwellings and associated
infrastructure would not accord with the adopted development plan – the
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006)- and would also not accord
with the emerging Core Strategy submission which is currently at an advanced
stage with submission to the government scheduled to occur before the end of
2009. There are no material planning considerations which indicate that this
proposal should be determined favourably and not in accordance with the
adopted development plan.

2 The Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) shows the site to be
within the Metropolitan Green Belt .Within the Green Belt as defined in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, planning permission will not be
given for inappropriate development, except in very special circumstances. The
proposal by way of the excessive number of dwellings over and above that
advocated in the emerging Rochford Core Strategy would result in
inappropriate development leading to the unnecessary urbanisation and over
development of the site to the detriment of the open character and appearance
of the location.

3 Notwithstanding the indicative nature of the submitted layout, it is considered
the development would result in an overall form of development
uncharacteristic and poorly related to the surrounding development pattern.
The lack of integration by design and lack of sensitivity to the semi rural
character of the site locality would fail to become part of the greater area of
which it would adjoin to the detriment of the visual appearance and local
distinctiveness of the area.

4 The proposal by way of the introduction of three storey built form in prominent
positions in the locality would provide a sharp contrast to the notable single
storey character of the Rectory Road and Thorpe Road areas, that would, if
allowed, prove over dominant and ill-fitting alongside established dwellings
failing to respect local distinctiveness to the detriment of the character and
appearance of the site locality.

5 As far as can be determined from the submitted plans the proposal includes
the upgrade to adoptable standards of a section of Thorpe Road. This would
encourage the inappropriate use of Thorpe Road by vehicles wishing to bypass
the B1013/Rectory Road junction. The movement of vehicles associated with
this use would lead to conflict and interference with the passage of vehicles to
the detriment of that principle function and introduce a further point of possible
conflict, being detrimental to road safety.

6 It has not been demonstrated that there are no reasonably available alternative
sites in areas with lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the
type of development proposed and therefore the application in relation to that
part of the site within Flood Zones 2 and 3 fails the sequential test as required
by paragraph D5 to PPS25.

7 The Flood Risk Assessment is considered inadequate in that it has indicated
that the surface water system shall be split into two systems. It has been
demonstrated that surface water shall be attenuated on site for the 1 in 30 year
storm event with an oversized pipe system which may be adopted; and the 1 in
100 year storm event contained within the private systems on site. This would
be acceptable in the outline stage of planning however confirmation should be
offered by the Authority as to who shall adopt the 1 in 30 year storm event
system. If this information is not obtained then confirmation relating to the
responsibility of future maintenance should be included.

8 The surface water drainage system being split into two areas has been stated
as having a run off rate for one area of 58 l /s while the other has 53 l/s rate. It
is indicated in paragraph 6.14 within the Flood Risk Assessment that the flow
shall be matching the 1 in 100 year rate. The Flood Risk Assessment is
inadequate in that the site should in fact mimic present rates. This means these
rates should be no higher than the current 1 in 1 year rate during 1 in 1 year
storm event and the development would if allowed result in surface water
flooding.

As a Ward Councillor for Hawkwell West I will be speaking at the Development Control Committee on Thursday evening, 3 December.
 
As you know I have by the Code of Conduct still to remain impartial until I have received the benefit of the Presentation by Officers on 3 December and listened to the Public Speakers registered with the Council.  I understand that Mr. John Dagg QC will be speaking on behalf of residents and that most likely he will be addressing the concerns of objectors.
 
I know that it must be very frustrating for everyone to see an elected Ward Member still not being able to comment especially when The Council has published an Officer recommendation for Refusal.

So What Do Councillors do when they cannot comment?

Firstly they listen to both objectors and supporters.
 
And  I hope that everyone can appreciate that I have read the whole application very carefully over many hours and asked many questions and received answers and advice direct from Shaun Scrutton who I have exchanged emails with and engaged in detailed and lengthy telephone conversations. I have also undertaken my own detailed review of the planning application against Government Planning Policy Statement 3, Housing,
PPS3.

I can assure everyone that I have prepared very fully in order to participate in the debate and the vote to determine the decision. But as the HAG leaflet says that you read to me the position is that despite the recommendation the decision is determined by a majority vote of Members present and able to vote.
 
You also may not know that I have a personal interest in ecology by virtue of my first degree and election as a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London.  In my private capacity as a Fellow I have had a conversation with another Fellow who is an expert in Bats. Because Shaun Scrutton advised me that I could not pass the thoughts from this initiative to the Applicant via the Council, because only the EWT and Natural England have the status of Official Consultee to determine or negotiate ecological actions, I engaged directly with the Applicant’s Consultants in my private capacity. As well as the Bats I also raised concerns about the deer present on the development site.
 
You might like to see, the reply and proposals made by the Applicant in response to my initiative. It is
here.

I have also spent time during my enforced interregnum answering many questions from The Hawkwell Action Group and residents about planning procedures which I hope has been helpful.

Bottom