Rochford District Council Minutes

INDEX

1982

January - December MINUTE INDEX 1982

ALLOTMENTS

Competition 1982 305, 570

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY

Liaison Meeting 179, 556

AUDIT

Audit of Accounts 1980/81 230, 231, 351 cash in Transit/Cash Collection 649 Final Audit 1981/82 649 Audit and the Policy Maker 746 BOROUGH STATUS 649

BUILDING CONTROL

Building Regulations 1976 — Revised fee structure 519

BULLW000 HALL, HOCKLEY 654

BUSES

Ferry Road/Pooles Lane, Flulibridge - Improved facilities 37, 325 Hilltop Farm Estate 324, 518 Service 65 - Ashingdon—South Fambridge link 324, 518 Services 4C and BA 'Cross District' 324, 518 Bus Timetables 523 CAR PARKING

Websters Way Car Park - Sponsored Dog Jog 55 Castle Road Car Park — Band Practice 57, 448 Castle Road - Sale/lease of land 345, 368, 534, 640 Staffing Structure 437 Christmas Amnesty 440 Rayleigh Market - Antiques Fair 441 Websters Way Car Park — Band Practice 448 Ashingdon Road Car Parking 41, 138, 202, 624, 714 Christmas Amnesty 651 Supermarket Trolleys 430, 685 The Approach Car Park 734 Weekly Season Tickets — The Approach Car Park 735 Charges 743 Transferable Tickets 743

CARAVAN SITES ACT 1960

Brandy Hole Yacht Station, Pooles Lane, Hulibridge 98 Unauthorised Caravan on land adjoining 'The Olive Branch' Magnolia Road, Hawkwell 585 Site Licence 2 - Crouch Caravan Park 590 Site Licence Condition - Distance between caravans 591 266 Plumberow Avenue, Hockley 669

CHARGES

Bowls 25, 152, 242 Rayleigh Civic Suite 58 Housing Rents 69 Guest Rooms — OAP units 91 Rochford Fair — charges 116 Hackney Carriage Licensing fees 12? Clements Hall Phase III. Scale of charges 243 The Freight House Community Centre 701 Annual Review — 1983/84 743

CHRISTMAS LIGHTS 651, 661

CIVIC PRIDE 264, 295, 309, 32?, 343 352, 371, 388, 396, 413

CLEMENTS HALL SPORTS CENTRE

Phase III — Progress 30 Phase IV 62, 74, 437, 705 Proposed Swimming Gala — 2/10/82 114 Snooker Exhibition and Demonstration Evening 191 Official Opening 230 Phase III — Charges 243 Phase IV — Main surface water drainage works 418 Bar Arrangements 509 Quarterly Report 604,700 Liquor Licensing 705 COMMITTEES AND REPORTS OF Roach Valley Conservation Zone — Group of Representatives 38, 128, 203, 425, 612 Joint Staff and Safety Panel 52, 140, 636 Joint Works and Safety Panel 53, 145, 342, 661, 636, 729 Cycle of Meetings 1982/83 70, 239 Keep Britain Tidy group — see card of that title Hackney Carriage Panel 127, 522, 662, 708 Highways Agency Panel 145 Rochford Computer Panel 742 District Plan Working Party 717 Appointments Panel 549, 739 Chairman's Panel 62, 230, 351, 549, 649, 739 Audit Panel 62, 230, 351 , 649 Community Centres Panel 62, 351, 549, 739 Annual Appointments 254 — 260 Action Panel for the Disabled 354, 551 Planning Services Committee — 24th June 1982 — Inquest 457, 469 Appeals Panel 538, 643 Housing Benefit Appeal Panel 536, 548 Nssex Games Steering Committee 415, 449, 739

COMMUNITY CENTRES

Revised Strategy for 549

Rayleigh Grange Charges 25, 351 Liquor Licence 62, 549, 705 Provision of Club facilities 351 Administration/Management of 549 Community Association 549 Management Committee 741

Rochford Community Centre — The Freight House Development of 62 Deemed Consent 62 Progress 351 Management of 549 Supplementary Capital Estimate 549 Withdrawal of Rochford Parish Council 557, 739, 758 Scale of Charges 701 Liquor Licence 705 Management Committee 741

Great Wakering Development of 62, 351, 549, 739

COMPULSORY IMPROVEMENT see Unfit Houses

CONCESSIONARY SCHEMES

Revised Conditions 731 CONFERENCES

County Social Services/District Councils 13, 174 ADC Planning Committee - out of town meetings 39 An Alternative to a Work Study Bonus Scheme — Seminar 66 Hazardous Waste Disposal 1 04 National Housing and Town Planning 146 Environmental Health Congress 1982 17? CIFFA, Harrogate 1982 357 ADC Annual Meeting and Conference 1982 358, 443 Institute of Housing 1982 391 Town & Country Planning Association — Weekend School for Councillors 520 Rating & Valuation Association 639 Contracting Out 653, 745 London & South East Regional Planning 721

CONSERVATION GRANTS

Priests House, Ashingdon Road, Rochford 168, 215, 232 2 Weir Pond Road, Rochford 168 Gore House, Ballards Gore, Stambridge 168 53 West Street, Rochford 168 Women's Institute Hall, Rochford 168 309 Ferry Road, Hullbridge 168 4 Church Road, Barling t4agna 378 21 West Street, Rochford 378 2 Chase Cottages, East End, Paglesham 378 67—69 West Street, Rochford 378 3—15 South Street, Rochford 378, 382 Grants Scheme 521 26 South Street, Rochford 476 Halesville Cottage, Ballards Gore,Canewdon 476 21 West Street, Rochford 476 Glebe Farm, Barling 476

CONTRACTS

Aged Persons Grouped Flatlets, High Street, Great Wakering — lift 498 Mill Lane Pump Station reconstruction 498 Fooles Lane, Section 16 Soil Sewer 498 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 593 Refuse Sacks 684 Keswick Avenue Foul Sewer 684 The Esplanade Foul Sewer Replacement 684

CONTRAV ENT IONS

See Town & Country Planning - Contraventions COUNCIL PREMISES

SEE ALSO+ Community Centres Clements Hall Park Sports Centre Wakering Sports Centre Mill Hall

Staff Car Park 52 Energy Conservation 62 Rochford Old People's Day Centre 233 Purchase of 1? South Street, Rochford 246, 362, 442 1"Barringtons' Council Offices, Rayleigh 24? 19 London Hill, Rayleigh 248 Refurbishing Exterior Elevation of Council Offices at 3—15 South Street, Rochford 378, 382, 433 Dutch Cottage, Crown Hill, Rayleigh 438, 465, 550 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 492, 542, 593 Grant Aid — 17 South Street, Rochford 641 Office Extension, Council Offices 649 Goods left in Council Buildings 673 Depot — Cleansing Standards 729

COUNCI LLORS

Councillor E V Maton 1 Visits to Low Cost Homes 12 Royal Garden Parties 158 Members' Room - Press 230, 355 Correspondence 452 Support Services 649 —--I-

DEEMED PLANNING CONSENTS

Rawreth Playing Field 4, 22, 64, 78 Rochford Community Centre — The Freight House 62 36 Pulpits Close, Hockley 280, 474, 483 Computer Centre Accommodation - Portakabin for Audit 362, 373, 383 17 South Street, Rochford 362, 472, 553 Park Sports Centre — Alterations 417, 460, 504 Mill Hall — Office Extension 310 BMX Track — Grove Road Open Space 411, 472, 504 Temporary Pavillion, Gt. Wakering Playing Field 472, 504 Public Conveniences, Southend Road, Hockley 492, 542, 575 Clements Hall Phase IV — Re-alignment of Tennis Courts 739

DELEGATION SCHEME

Scrap Metal Dealers — Exemption Orders CDLS/DHH) 176 Increase in rate of Intermediate and Repairs Grants (Dliii) 282 Recovery of Rates — Authorised Officers 339 Matters which will not admit of delay (CE) 361 Historic Building Grants (DTP) 521 Building Preservation Notices (DLS ) 650 Public Entertainment Licensing (DLS) 673 Public Entertainment Licensing — Authorised Officers 673 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 673 Unified Housing Benefits 760

DIRECT LABOUR ORGANISATION

Setting up 455 ECCLESIASTICAL PARISHES

Ashingdon & South Fambridge - Proposed Union 740

ELECTIONS

May 1982 - Results 258

E24PLOYMENT, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL 238, 290, 304, 322, 340 DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 353, 372, 390, 502, 730

Matchbox, Rochford 544 Seminar 730, 748

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

Administrative Alterations . 363

ESTIMATES

Expenditure Targets 1982/83 62 Capital Programme 1982/83 62, 68 Energy Conservation 62 Rechargeable Works 62 Capital Programme 1981/82 — Other Services Block 67 Mill Hall — Alterations 310, 338 Housing Investment Programme 530 Site Investigation — School Site, Great Wakering 727 Fencing - Nobles Green Culvert 727 Computer Panel 742 Crouch Harbour Authority 744

ESTIMATES - VIREMENTS

From To Amount Pembroke House Grested Court £7,000 300, 337 Central Heating Central Heating

Castle Hall Mill Hall £12,000 310, 338 Refurbishing Alterations

Conservation Admin.Bldgs. £5,160 382 Grants Repairs

House Purchase Aged Persons £50,000 732 Loans Alarm Schemes FOOD HYGIENE

Contravention - Vehicle Reg. WHK 768W 15 Training Course 394 301 Ferry Road, E-Iullbriclge 679

FOOTPATHS

Council Policy 126 Purdeys Industrial Estate 317 Diversion of 4 (Hawkwell) & 32 (Bochford) 318 Diversion of 41 Doggetts, Rochford 319, 613 St. Peter's Road, Hockley 621 Unadopted Footpaths 710 Diversion of Footpaths 4 and 7 (Rayleigh) 711 Management and Protection of Public Bights of Way 723 GRANT & LOAN REQUESTS

Hulibridge Community Association 147 Chelmsford Cathedral 214 Priests House, Ashingdon Road, Rochford 168, 215, 232 Pitsea Land—fill Site, Scientific Investigations 397 St. Nicholas Church, Great Walcering - Tower Appeal 532 Kennet District Council 533 Rayleigh Grange Community Association 549 Hullbridge Sports & Social Club 555 Crouch Harbour Authority 744 HACKNEY CARRIAGES

See also Sewers

Rawkwell Brook 101 Kingsmans Farm Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme 180 Factory Site rio 8 St Johns Road, Ct. Wakering 181 Nobles Green Culvert 676, 727 TOWN & COUNTRY PUNNING

See also Conservation Grants Roach Valley Conservation Zone T & CPA Contraventions Trees

Historic Towns in Essex — Consultation Draft 40 510 Ashingdon Road, Rochford 107 Erection of CB Aerials within curtilate of Residential Dwellings 129, 144 Essex Design Guide Household Survey 130 Development Control Statistics 131, 426, 616 Planning Gain 132 Regal Cinema Site, Bellingham Lane 148 Developments at Wickford 165, 618, 720 Planning Inquiries - The Award of Costs 166 Essex Structure Plan 193, 326 Consideration of Draft T P f 9 1983/84 195, 229 Public Transport Plan 1983/84 204 Enforcement & Planning Appeals 206 ROC/463/80 — Land adjacent to Lillyville Walk, Rayleigh 209 South Fambridge Works 225, 564, 572 Building Preservation — Ropers Farm, Barling Magna 267 Planning Fees 270 Land adj. Buena Vista, Riverview Gardens, Hullbridge 271 308 Greensward Lane, Hockley 224(13c), 274 Employment Generation - Interim Policy 321 Conservation Grants 322 Development Control Policy Ifl Green Belt 332 Forward Plan Programme 333A, 480 Paragraph 19 Consultations with the County Council 375 Hockley Downs Stables, Lower Road, Hockley 376 Rochford Branch Library — 26 West Street 473 'Little Brays' Brays Lane, Canewdon 475 34 Etern Road, Rayleigh 476 Local Plans, The Need for Change 479 BPN — Gore Farmhouse, Stambridge 524 BPN — Pickerells, Rawreth 524 BPN — Buckland House, East End, Pagleshain 524 Rochford Branch Library — 26 West Street 541 'The Cabi&, Lyndhurst Road, Ashingdon 545 BPN — Breade House, Apton Fall Road, Stambridge 572 Rayleigh Conservation Zone — Telegraph Pole at top end of High Street 622 BPN — Bay Tree Cottage, 50 Main Road, Hockley 629 BFN — Mayfair, High Street, Canewdon 629 BPN — 50 Hockley Road, Rayleigh 629 BPN — Millers Farmhouse, The Common, Great Wakering 629 BPN — Winfell, High Street, Canewdon 629 BPN — Roach Farmhouse, Barling Magna 629 ROC/730/81 — Goads Meadow, Church Road, Hockley 689 Land r/o Council Offices, Rochford 253, 691, 747, 758 Computerisation of Systems 716 Essex Coast Protection Subject Plan 718 Wickford District Plan 719 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT - CONTRAVENTIONS

5k Castle Road, Rayleigh — Castle Alarm Services 16 Perrys/Devenish, Hambro Hill, Rayleigh 48, 437, 454, 467 250 Greensward Lane, Hoclcley 84 22 Elm Grove, Hullbridge 164 Land between Ferndale Road & Blounts Wood, Rayleigh 223 Rye Thermoplastics, Swaines Industrial Est. Rocrrd 183, 268 Cedar Mews, Hockley 268 Rose Garden, Aldermans Hill, Hockley 268 Franelle, Church Road, Rawreth 269, 461 308 Greensward Lane, 1-Tockley 274, 374 Bramblehurst Farm, [-lydewood Lane, Canewdon 374 Fly Posting 525 2A Woodside Chase, Hawkwell 688 Spur Aquatics, London Road, Rayleigh 688 Blue House Farm, Chelmsford Road, Rawreth 688

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS

Waiting Restrictions, Southend Road, Hockley 42 Love Lane (part), Rayleigh — Proposed "One Way" 199 Lancaster Road (part), Rayleigh - Stopping Up 209 Temporary Closure of Bellingham Lane (part) Rayleigh - May Day Fair 226 Waiting Restrictions — Great Wakering 314 Battlesbridge By—Pass 431, 465 Proposed Extension and Variation of Waiting Restrictions, Hockley & Hawkwell 713 Waiting Restrictions - Meadow Way and Spa Close, Hockley 722

TWINNING 649 UNIFIED HOUSING BENEFITS

New Procedure 341 Financial and Staffing Implications 341, 536 Appeal Panel 548 Delegation 760

UNFIT HOUSES

234 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh 8 37 West Street, Rochford 9 5A Spa+Road,Hockley 95 Townfleld Bungalow, Southend Road, Great Wakering 95 4 Olive Cottages, Mucking Hall Road, Barling 95 Chase Cottage, East End, Paglesham 171 'Four Winds' Wood Avenue, Hockley 281, 583 285 Rectory Road, Hawkwell 490, 584 Pickerells Farmhouse, Highlands Road, Battlesbridge 582, 668 WAKERING SPORTS CENTRE

Caravan Rally 118

WALLASEA FERRY 35, 323 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES

1982

February (Part 2) ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Health and Housin Services Committee

La Meeting held on 18th February, 1982. Present: Couneillors Miss B.G.J. Lovett (Vice—Chairman in the Chair), E.H. Adcock, R.H. Boyd, Mrs. L.M.A. Campbell—Daley, B.A. Crick, E.E. Daley, A.J. Harvey, Mrs. P.E. Hawke, R.H. Holman, Mrs. 3. M. Jones, A.L. Tate, J.P, Taylor and R.A. Taylor.

Apologies: Councillors L.K. Cope, Mrs. P. Cooke, and D.C. Wood.

MINUTES

88. Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting of 14th January, 1982 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

MONITORING OP PERFORMANCE — MEETINGS OF 10TH SEPTEMBER AND 26TH NOVEMBER

89. The Committee were satisfied that all necessary action had been taken. (21210)

CONTRACTS PROGRESS

90. The Committee noted the report from the Director of Technical Services on the progress of a number of contracts. (647)

GUEST ROOMS — OAP UNITS (Minute 791/77)

91. The Director of Finance reported that the current charge of 75p per night set in 1977 for the use of the guest room at each of the warden controlled OAF units no longer covered the cost of laundering and cleaning.

RECOMMENDED (1) That the charge for the use of guest rooms be increased to £1.50 per night with effect from 1st April, 1982.

(2) That this facility be included in the scale of charges reviewed annually by this Committee. (225) (DP)

RENT COLLECTION AND ARREARS

92. The Committee noted the report from the Director of Health and Housing that current arrears stood at £17,097. (615)

HOUSE PURCHASE LOANS — ARREARS (Minute 11/82)

93. The Committee noted the report from the Director of Finance on House Purchase Loans arrears as at 31st January, 1982. (612)

00 1Si Health & Housing Services Committee

LOCAL AUThORITY INTEIWST RATES (Minute 495181)

Note: Councillors LA. Crick and R.A. Taylor disclosed a pecuniary interest as holders of a Council mortgage and being invited to remain in the meeting took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

94. In accordance with Section 110(6) of the Housing Act 1980 it was

RECOMMENDED That the Council declares its local average rate of inteféli for house purchase loans advances and sums left €e Muuua, outstanding on the sale of Council houses for the period 1st 157 April, 1982 to 30th September, 1982 to be 13¾?., being a abovia -ths 19*2/83 ceot4aatad Loans_Pnnl rpte thQ nra t borrowers_remaining at tha—aatiional obandar-d—F-ckte—ef--15%. (612) (DF & DLS)

HOUSING ACT 1957 — SECTION 9 (1B) — REPAIR OF HOUSES FLAT 5A SPA ROAD, HOCKLEY TOWNPIELD BUNGALOW, SOTJTIIEND ROAD !_9!jT WAKERING 4 OLIVE COTTAGES, MUCKING HALL ROAD, BARLING Note: Councillor E.H. Adcock disclosed a pencuniary interest by way of business connection and being invited to remain in the meeting took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

95. The Director of Health end Housing reported that the attention of the owners had been drawn to a number of defects at the above premises but that to date the works detailed below had not been carried out.

Resolved That the Director of Health and Rousing he auth3j[ied to serve Notices under Section 9(1B) of the Housing Act 1957 upon the owners of the following properties requiring the execution of the works detailed within 28 days and, failing compliance with any of the Notices, the Director of Health and Housing be authorised to carry out the works in default and recover the expenses so incurred:—

Flat SA Spa Road, — Properly repair the defective roof Hockley over the rear, middle and front rooms to prevent penetration of dampness to walls and ceilings.

Hack off the loose and defective ceiling plaster in the rear room and replaster to a smooth finish. . 000186 Health & Housing Services Committee

Townfield Bungalow, — Ascertain cause of and effect remedy Southend Road, to dampness to walls. Great Wakering. Hack off perished and blown plasterwork to walls and replaster to a smooth finish.

4, Olive Cottages, — Ascertain cause of and effect remedy Mucking Hall Road, to dampness to wall in W.C. Bar ling. Ascertain cause of and effect remedy to dampness under window in ground floor front room.

Overhaul front door.

Overhaul window to ground floor front room, repairing or renewing rotted members as necessary.

Overhaul window to first floor front room, repairing or renewing rotted members as necessary.

Repair main roof and make fully weathertight.

(8702/26342/9859) (D & DLS)

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION ACT 1977 — 15 LEICESTER AVENIJEL ROCHFORD

96. The Director of Legal Services reported a complaint from the tenant which complaint appeared to be justified.

RECOMMENDED That the Director of Legal Services be authorised to take such action as may be necessary including Court proceedings against the landlord of 15 Leicester Avenue, concerning the alleged contravention of Section 1 of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977. (1.371) (DLS)

DEVELOPMENT OF Al' FLATLETS WITHIN EXISTING-- COUNCIL ESTATES (Minutes 61Thi5

97. The Director of Health and Housing reported that a survey had been carried out at Hambro Hill and Weir Gardens, Rayleigh to ascertain the demand if A? flatlets were to be provided by conversion or new build in these estates. Only one tenant had been interested, the majority being reluctant to give up the spare rooms and gardens they possessed.

RECOMMENDED That no action be taken at the present time to proide Al' flats on existing estates but that the Director of Health and Housing continue to monitor transfer requests and should the need arise a further report be made to the

Committee. (5868) (Dliii)

OUOISI Health & Housijervices Committee

REVISION OF CARAVAN SITE LICENCE NO. 22 — BRANDY HOLE YACHT !TAT10N, POOLES LANE, HULLBRIDGE 98. The Director of Health and Housing reported in full on desirable and necessary modifications to the Site Licence.

Resolved (1) That in accordance with Section 8 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, notice be given to the holder of Caravan Site Licence No. 22 to effect the modifications to the Site Licence as specified on the Agenda.

(2) That in the event of no appeal being made within 28 days of the service of the Notice, the modifications shall become effective. (1468) (01111)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1936 — SECTION 17, ADOPTION OF FOUL AND SURFACE WATER SEWERS AT PURDEYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ROCHFORD

99. The Director of Technical Services reported an application £ or the adoption of foul and surface water sewers.

Resolved that the Council acting as agent to the Anglian Water Authority secure the vesting of the above sewers in accordance with the provision of Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936. (11723) (DTS)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1936 — SECTION 18 — DEVELOPMENT AT HIGHANS ROAD, HOCKLEY

100. The Director of Technical Services reported an application for the construction and vesting of certain lengths of foul and surface water sewers at the above site. The proposals were satisfactory and the contractor had paid the Council £230 towards the supervision charges.

RECOMMENDED That the Council, acting as agents to the S Anglian Water Authority, enter into an Agreement under Section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936 in order to secure the satisfactory construction and vesting on completion of the length of sewer as detailed on Drawing No. 539O.2E. (11723) (DTS)

HAWKWELL BROOK (Minute 7/82)

101. The Director of Technical Services reported in full on the origin, the flow, the piping of sections, riparian responsibilities, maintenance and improvement works since the last known flooding incident in 1968. Generally the capacity of the brook was thought adequate even though minor incidents did occur, mainly as a result of debris building up at the grill to the piped section in Elmwood Avenue. .

UQOISS Health & Housing Services Committee

RECOMMENDED That having regard to the limited flooding problems associated with Hawkwell Brook above Main Road in relation to the rest of the district, no further action be taken until the full report on privately maintained ditches is available. (6686) (UTS)

KEEP BRITAIN TIDY GROUP (Minute 602/81)

102. Members noted with pleasure the report of the inaugural meeting held on 18th February, 1982 and adopted the recommendations.

RECOMMENDED That the Chairman and the Vice—Chairman of this Committee be appointed to serve on the Steering Committee. (213) (DLS)

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PLASTICISED P.V.C. AND EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE ROOF INSULATION (Minute 13/82)

O3. The Committee noted the draft of a letter from Mr. Wakeham H.P. to constituents and the report of the Chief Executive on a meeting held on 22nd January, 1982 attended by Mr. John Wakeham H.P., representatives of the residents of the Rectory Green Estate, the Eastern Electricity Board and the Council. (1243)

CONFERENCE — HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

104. The Director of Legal Services reportec* that the above Conference would be held at the Police Headquarters, Springfield, on Friday, 2nd April, 1982.

RECOMMENDED That the Chairman of the Health and Housing Services Committee and the Director of Health and Housing or their nominees be authorised to attend. (218) (DHH)

009189 ¶ Agenda Item 17

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

HEALTh & HOUSING SERVICES COMMITTEE — 18TH FEBRUARY, 1982

REPORT OF TilE KEEP BRITAIN TIDY GROUP

At the Inaugural meetins held on 4th February, 1982. Present:—

Mr. A.J. Avery - Glebe Junior School Mr. N. Bishop — Roach Group Parish Council Mr. H. Buck — Clensing Chargehand R.D.C. Mr. P. Butt — Sweyne School Mrs. S. Buckon — Great Wakering County Primary School Mr. D. Coleman — Lions Club of Rayleigh Councillor L.K. Cope — Chairman, Health & Housing Committee Mr. P.3. Cordicott — King Edmund School Mr. G.F. Cox — Rochford Hundred — Amenities Society Mrs. B. Crampin — Rayleigh N,rth Division Girl Guides Mr. S. Creevy — The Greensward School B.A. Crick — Astiingdon Parish Council Mr. H.' Pawkins - Wyburns County Primary School Mrs. D.t. Donaldson — W.R.V.S. Mr. t.M. Edwards — Director of Town Planning Mrs. K.S. Gee — Rayleigh Civic Society Mrs. P. Hgwke — Roach Group Pariph Council Councillor R.H. Holman — Chairman, Rochford District Council Mrs. A. Tiolman Mrs. D. How — Rochford Hundred Townswomens Guild Mr. J.N. Jones — Cleansing Superintendent, R.D.C. Mrs. H. KiLn. — Riverside Junior School Mr. W.K. Lay — Great Wakering Primary School Mr. B. McLintock — Principal Assistant (Leisure) Mr. C.F. Millington — Great Wakering Parish Council Mrs. M.C.A. Monteith — Rochford County Primary School Mr. D. Nash — Sweyne School Mrs. E. Newbury — Rochford Hundred Townswomens Guild Mr. J. Orr — Rayleigh & District Chamber of Trade Mr. B. O'Shea — Hockley Ratepayers Association Mr. B. Parish — Hawkwell Parish Council Mrs. L.A. Parish — Rochford Parish Council Mr. B.A. Payne — Chief Assistant (Operations) Mr. R,A. Rowson — Director of Technical Services Mrs. B. Stevens — Grove Junior School Mr. C.P. Sage — Rochford Chamber of Trade - Mr. A. Thompson — Cleansing Chargehand R.D.C. Mrs. Varty — Roach Group Parish Council Mr. C. Wastell — Louis Drive Estate Residents Association Mr. G. Wilkin — Rochford Hundred Amenity Society Mrs. P. Weeks — Riverside County Junior School Mr. C.E. Wheeler — Park School Councillor D.C. Wood — Rochford District Council Mrs. C. Whitbread — Ilockley Womens Institute Keep Britain Tidy Group . INTRODUCTION

The Chairman of the Council, Councillor R.11. Holman, warmly welcomed representatives of the various organisations to the meeting and introduced Councillor L.K. Cope, Chairman of the Health and Housing Services Committee, who was to Chair the meeting.

LAUNCHING A SCHEME FOR TILE ROCHFORI) DISTRICT

Councillor Cope reported that the Keep Britain Tidy System was an entirely new concept for reducing litter in town and country which aimed at identifying the sources of litter and the cause for it being discarded. The general public were responsible for the problem and an improvement could only be achieved by a change in their behaviour and attitudes towards the handling of rubbish and to littering. It was noted that the Council's Cleansing Section did the best possible job, given the resources avallb].e in town centre areas but, rural areas often remained neglected, with rubbish deposited in ditches, watercourses and on the roadside.

Mr. Sweeny, the Keep Britain Tidy Group representative, then discussed the underlying principles of the project which was not a clean up campaign or publicity exercise but a system designed to educate people to keep the country tidy themselves. Those present were very much aware of the problem of apathy in modern society. The System attempted to bring back a caring society.

Mr. Sweeny added that the System was carried out under local authority supervision and involved the co—operaticin of leaders from each sector of the community as well as voluntary groups. It was with this essential factor of co- operation in mind that the representatives had been invited to the meeting. Several local authorities had already adopted the System which, though slow to start, achieved positive results in the long term.

The Chairman then invited the views of the meeting and the following points emerged from the discussion.

(a) That the Keep Britain Tidy Group were taking steps to reduce excess packaging and were currently in negotiations with the Packaging Council who had resolved to use the Keep Britain Tidy logo and not to use unnecessary packaging.

(b) That over the past two years a Keep Britain Tidy Schools' Environment Project had been introduced and had already been accepted and used by teachers. Fifth formers had also carried out studies into the problem of litter and had discussed their findings with the local authority. S oooiai Keep Britain Tidy Group

(d) That the Keep Britain Tidy Group recognised the problem of rubbish being washed ashore and were at present conducting a "Litter at Sea" campaign and seeking United Nations support to a total ban on litter dropping at sea.

(e) That the question of disposable drink cans was to be raised with the Packaging Council by the Keep Britain Tidy Group.

(f) That whilst generally speaking there was a lack of enforcement of the Litter Act by the Police in Great Wakering, 14 prosecutions were made in 1961.

(g) That litter also arose through the operation of the refuse collection service and that public transport should also be included in the scheme.

As regards refuse collection, the Director of Technical Services mentioned that apart from the sheer volume of rubbish involved the main problem was caused by insecure sacks and interference from domestic animals. With public transport, cleaner vehicles would mean higher fares.

Councillor Cope reported that the first stage of a plan of action would be the establishment of a Steering Committee and sought nominations from representatives so as to achieve as wide a cross—section as possible. It was felt that as litter was a community problem each Parish Council should be represented. It was also thought that the schools should be represented through the establishment of a separate Education Sub—Committee and that this Sub—Committee be requested to make two nominations to the Steering Committee.

RECOMMENDED (1) That a Steering Committee be appointed consisting of one representative from each of the following organisations (except as shown in parenthesis):—

Ashingdon Parish Council Canewdon Parish Council Rawkwefl Parish Council Hockley Parish Council Hullbridge Parish Council Roach Group Parish Council Rochford Parish Council Stambridge Parish Council Sutton Parish Council Great Wakering Parish Council Education Sub—Committee (2) Rochford District Council (2) Keep Britain Tidy Group . Girl Guides Association Boy Scouts Association Hockley Ratepayers Association Rayleigh Ratepayers Association Police Rochford Hundred Townswomen's Guild Womens Royal Voluntary Services Rayleigh Lions Club Rayleigh Chamber of Trade Rochford Chamber of Trade and Commerce (2) That the appointment of an Education Sub- Committee be considered at the first meeting of the Steering Committee.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING — WEDNESDAY 24Th FEBRUARY AT 7.30 P.M. IN ROOM 3 AT RAYLEIGH CIVIC SUITE (BARRINCTONS) .

. 0001C3 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Plannin& Services Committee

At an adjourned meetin& held on 22nd February, 1982. isent: Councillors F.E.C. Jopson (Chairman), EJI. Adcock, • Barnard, Mrs. L.M.A. Campbell—Daley, Mrs. P. Cooke, L.K. Cope, B.A. Crick, E.E. Daley, R.D. Foster, Mrs. P.E. Iiawke, D.R. Helson, R.FI. Holman, Miss B.G.J. Lovett, Mrs. J.M. Munson, J.E. Nokes, R.A. Pearson, J.A. Sheaf, G.J. Skinner, R.T. Stephens, A.L. Tate, B. Taylor, J.P. Taylor, and D.C. Wood.

Apologies: Councillors T. Fawell, Mrs. M. Garlick, J.A. Gibson and E.S. Whitworth.

SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Minute 85/82)

105. The Committee resumed consideration of the Schedule dated 16th February.

Resolved that decisions be made in accordance with the recommendations in the appended Schedule subject to:—

Para. 26 — ROC/89O/81

Planning Services Committee

The Director of Legal Services and the Director of Town Planning reported that there had been discussions since the matter was last before the Committee and that there was an urgent need to reach a decision on the application.

Resolved that, because of the urgency now reported, Standing Order 13 be suspended to allow immediate consideration of urgent reports.

The Director of Town Planning reported that the Civil Aviation Authority had no objection to the proposed floodlighting provided that the "cut—off" ensured that no light was visible from the airport.

The Chairman read a letter from Councillor Mrs. 14. Garlick.

Authority be delegated to the Director of Town Planning to decide the application after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and subject to adequate and satisfactory arrangements for car parking.

Para. 36 — ROC/88O/8l

The Director of Town Planning gave further details of the objections received.

191 Planning Services Committee

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

106. Resolved that, in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Public Eodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, the public be now excluded front the tneeting for the reason that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest, the business about to be discussed being the subject of confidential reports.

510 ASHINGDON ROAD, ROCUFORD

107. The Director of Legal Services reported that the planning condition prohibiting vehicular access on to Church Road did not seem appropriate to stop access for a touring caravan from the rear garden where, in planning terms, the caravan would be better sited. The Director suggested a legal agreement that would allow access but rigidly restrict its use. I Resolved that the Director of Legal Services be authorised to conclude a legal agreement on the terms suggested and subsequently invite the Secretary of State to allow the appeal against refusal of planning permission. (ROC/55/S1) (DLS)

aft ba& 7 3r .

S OQOiTh ROCFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Leisure Services Committee

At a Meeting held on 23rd February 1982: Present: Councillors J.A. Sheaf (Chairman), E.H. Adcock, SW. Barnard, L.Tc. Cope, E.E. Daley, Mrs. M. Garlick, 'UT!. Ilolinan, F.B.G. Jopson, Mrs. J.14. Munson, J.E. Nokes, R.k. Pearson. G.J. Skinner, liT. Stephens, C. Stephenson, B. Taylor, T.J. Warner and D.C. Wood.

Apoloies: Councillors B.A. Crick, A.J. Harvey and Mrs. E.M. heath.

Visiting: Counciltor Mrs. L.H.A. Campbell—Daley.

MINUTES

108. Resolved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19th January, 1982 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE — MEETINGS OF 26TH MAY & 24TH NOVEMBER 109. The Committee were satisfied that all necessary action had been taken. Minute 665/81 was carried forward. (21210)

CHILDRENS' PLAY SPACE ABBEY ROAD, HULLBRIDGE (Minute 586/81)

110. The Director of Technical Services reported that he had been unable to discover any available site for the above use but assured the Committee that the search would continue. (91) (OTS)

PLAY SPACE - MANNS WAYL RAYLEIGH Note: Councillor R.T. Stephens disclosed a pecuniary interest as a resident of Manns Way and being invited to remain in the meeting took no part in the discussions or voting thereon.

111. The Director of Technical Services reported that following discussions with the Headmaster and staff of the Park School it appeared that they did not feel able to use the area as part of their child care course- hut were willing to assist in works such as fencing, hedging and gardening to compliment the Council's own maintenance schedules. A Member reported that he had canvassed local residents and that they favoured the retention of the play space but had suggested the use of the land for residents allotments might be considered at some future stage. RECOMMENDED (1) That the area continues to be used as a play space and maintained by the Council with assistance from Park School. (2) That the suggested allotment use of the site he noted. (91) (lflS)

00U196 Leisure Services

CYCLE RACE IN RAYLEIGH ANT) OTHER CYCLING EVENTS (Minute 582181)

112. The Director of Technical Services reported that the Police had agreed to close the one—way system to other traffic between 2.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on the 13th June, 1982 for the scheduled cycle event. There would be two cycling events, a static display of custom cars in King George's Playing Field and musical entertainment prior to the racing. A Member suggested that the progranne might include a special race involving Members of the Council and the Director of Technical Services agreed to give this consideration.

The Committee noted the proposal to pool efforts with the Southend Wheelers Cycling Club in the promotion of a regional cyclocross event to be held in the Autumn/Winter 1982/83.

RECOMMENDED That the organisation of both events continue. (45) (TIN)

CEIILDRENS' SATURDAY MORNING FILM MATINEES

113. The Committee welcomed proposals for a pilot scheme to hold 4 — 8 Saturday morning childrens' film shows at the Mill Hall commencing on 6th March between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. in order to gauge the demand for these facilities. An admission charge of 50p per child had been suggested but Members felt that 40p was a more reasonable sum.

RECOMMENDED That 4 — 8 Saturday morning childrens' film sessions run at the Mill [tall at a charge of 40p per child and a report made to the Committee on the popularity of the arrangements. (6643) (DTS) PROPOSED SWIMMING GALA ON SATURDAY 2ND OCTOBER 1982 a 114. The Committee considered an application from the Rochford and w District Swimming Club for the hire of Cleinents Hall Sports Centre swimming pool on Saturday, 2nd October, 1982 from 2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. for an open age group Grade B Gala.

RECOMMENDED (1) That the application be approved and the Club charged at the appropriate rate.

(2) That the swimming pool be closed to the general public on 2nd October, 1981 from 12 noon onwards. (6771) (DTS)

ROCHFORD PAIR 1982

115. The Director of Technical Services reported that in order to promote this event it was intended to hold a competition to design the cover for the 1982 Rochford Fair programme. All school children within the District would be invited to enter and to attract as many entrants as possible it was suggested a prize of a year's free swimming be given to the winning entrant. aw 000197 Leisure Services

RECOYIMENDED That a competition to design the cover of the 1982 Rochford Fair programme be arranged and the winning entrant presented with a ticket equivalent to a year's free swimming. (5745) (DTS)

ROCTIFORD FAIR 1982 — CHARGES (Minute 671/81) 116. The Director of Finance submitted the following admission, vendors' and pitch charges for this yearts Fair;—

1) Admission Charges Day Ticket (Satiday or Sunday) Adult or Child SOp

Evening ticket (Saturday) Adult or Child £1.00

ii) Stall and Pitch Charge8 (for the two day event) Pitch and stalF(E?ading) £30.00 (Registered Charity) £15.00 Pitch only (trading) £25.00 (Registered Charity) £10.00

iii)Other Charges (for the two day event) lceCream, Hot—bog, etc., Vendors Pitch £50.00 Kiddies Rides site £100.d0

Members discussed the ability of charitable organisations to meet the stall and pitch charges in advance of the event but noted that it was not the Council's practice to insist on the payment of these charges prior to the Fair and that they could therefore meet the expense from their proceeds.

RECOMMENDED That the above scale of charges be adopted for the Rochford Fair 1982. (869) (DF)

SPONSORSHIP OF EVENTS 0

117. The Director of Technical Services reported that a number of scheduled events for 1982 as detailed in the Agenda were receiving sponsorship from local and national organisations. The Chairman added that considerable interest was being shown in programme advertising space and that he hoped for more commercial sponsorship in the future. The Committee noted that the date of the Rochford Marathon was Sunday, 25th July and not Saturday 24th as shown in the Agenda. Arising from the debate a Member asked that consideration be given to a junior road race and the Committee congratulated the officers on the initiative they had shown in arranging the programme of events for 1982.

RECOMMENDED (1) That efforts continue to obtain sponsorship for such events. (2) That the Director of Technical Services report on the possibility of staging a junior road race. (6643 & 6771) (DTS)

009193 Leisure Services

CARAVAN RALLY — GREAT WARERING SPORTS CENTRE

118. The Director of Technical Services suggested that the Caravan Club of-—C-v-oat Britain might be allowed to hold a weekend caravan rally for about 50 vans on the recreation ground Great Wakering utilising the Sports Centre as part of their programmed activities so as to maximise the use and income from the building.

In the Summer the Centre is usually closed on a Saturday evening 692i iAiittue, and on Sunday the caravanner3 would share the facilities with the (57 public. The proposal would not therefore interfere to any great extent with the! normal use of the Centre.

Members favoured the proposal but thought that care would need to be taken over signposting the route to the recreation ground, the access to be used, giving advance warning of the event to the regular users of the Sports Centre and over adequate washing and toilet provision.

RECOMMENDED That approval be given to the Caravan Club of Greet Britain holding a caravan rally on land at the Sports Centre, Great Wakering subject to hire charges and insurance regarding damage being considered by the Finance and Personnel Committee at the appropriate time. (10287) (DTS)

SPORTS FACILITIES USERS FORUM

119. The Director of Technical Services reported that with the ever increasing provision for sport being made by the Council it might be beneficial to establish an organisation representative of the Council and the users of these sports facilities to act as a formal basis of liaison on the service provided, as well as airing any difficulties which might be experienced and identifying any additional facilities which might be required. It would also afford the opportunity of encouraging contact between different sports.

The Committee noted that if established the new body would meet appro>imately twice yearly and could appreciate the need for its consumer consultative role. Some Members thought that the liaison could be undertaken through the Rochford Sports Council but the Committee accepted that the membership of the Sports Council was not necessarily representative of the users of the Council's facilities which was the whole object of the new organisation. It might he however that representatives of the users forum could attend meetings of the Sports Council.

RECOMMENDED That posters advertising a users meeting be displayed at the Sports Centres and circulated to outdoor sports users and a meeting convened to gain public reaction to the proposal. (6006) (DTS)

aw 000119 Leisure Services

PROVIDE A TREE FOR 83 CANI'AIGN

120. The Committee received a report from the Director of Technical Services that there were areas in the District's playing fields and open spaces where additional tree planting would be of value. In the Campaign details of species, sites and costs would be made available to any individual, groups or organisations who had declared a willingness to donate a tree. A record of trees donated could be displayed on the notice board at the site and donors could assist in planting their tree.

The Chairman mentioned that earlier in the day the Chairman of the Council had assisted in a tree planting ceremony at Clements Hall, to mark the centenary of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

RECOMMENDED That a "Provide a Tree for 83 Campaignt' be instigated iI:id appropriate advertisements and details made available. (164) (DTS)

VANDALISM TO PAVILIONS

121. The Director of Technical Services reported on an incident of vandalism at one of the Council's pavilions involving a football team hiring Council facilities and the action taken, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, in refusing the use of facilities for their next two home fixtures so as to discourage any further such incidents.

The Director suggested that a condition be added to the conditions of hire of football pitches indicating that in the event of vandalism by the team or their opponents, the hiring team would be charged the cost of repair and cleaning and its future use of the facilities reviewed.

Members were generally of the opinion that the Council should take a firm line with any Club causing damage and that the immediate denial of the use of the facilities was the best course of action. It was necessary however to allow officers some discretion in dealing with such cases as the punishment should be seen to fit the crime. The Committee noted that the football leagues were already notified of teams causing problems and if persistent the teams had been expelled.

RECOMMENDED That the following condition be added to the terms andconditions for the hire of 4ootbal-l pitches Saa. (tM&&. 157 "Should your team or your opponents be deemed responsible for vandalism in a pavilion, your Club and members will be charged for the required repair and cleaning and may be barred from using Council facilities for up to two years whereupon the situation will be reviewed". (2 ) (DTS)

000290 'tOCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Development Services Committee

&t a Meeting held on 25th February, 1982. Present: CotiTuctIlors R.'J. Foster (Clntrman), E.J-I. kdcock, 3.14. Barinr-1, 11.9. 3udge, Mr.. '. Cooke, Mrs. 14 Garltck, Mrs. P.E. Hawke, D.R. '-lelson, R.H. t-Iol'qan, Uiss 3.C.J. Loveti, J.E. NTnkes, R.A. pearson, I.. Sheaf, G.J. Skinner, C. Stephenson, A.L. Tate, E.S. Whitworth and D.C. Wood.

Counctl.lor T. Pawell. Visiting: Councillor L.K. Cope.

MINUTES

122. Resolved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26th January, 1982, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair-nan.

MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE — t4EETTNGS OF 22ND SEPTEMBER DECEMBER

123. The Committee -tern satisfied that ut necessary action had been taken. Minute 544/51 was carried forward. (21210)

LAND AT TFIE PROMENADE, IIULLBRTDGE (Minute 403/81)

124. The Direutor of Legal Services reported that the Licence referred to in the above Minute had not been entered into by the applicant and that a request had been received from the adjoining landowner for a Licence to he granted to her. The new applicant wished to erect fencing and carry out certain modest bank stahilisation works to prevent her adjoining land from landalip and Lu view -f the capital cost of the works had requested that the Licence period be for two years initially.

REC0NENDED (1) That the applicant be granted a 2 year Licence to use the land, situated approximately 83 feet east of Ufreda Avenue, Ilulibricige at a fee to be agreed by the District Valuer (2) That the! applicant be required to meet the Council's legal costs. (70536) (DLS)

FORESHORE AND BED OF RIVER CROUCH, HULLBRIDGE

125. The Director of Legal Services reported that in 1967 an area of foreshore an.! bed of the River Crouch fronting the esplanade was leased to the former Rochforri Rural District Council by the Crown 1Thtate Commissioners for a veriod expiring on 1st August, 1981. IThen responsibility for the Development Services Committee

area became vested in the Crouch Harbour &uthority the lease was sent to them, but, for technical reasons, a formal surrender oC the lease was now necessary by the Council before a new lease could be granted to the tiarhour ALuthority.

RECOMMENDED That the Director of Legal Services complete the formal surrender of the lease. (4558) (DLS)

PUBLIC PAThS

126. The Director of Legal Services introduced the appended report of the Management Team, the Committee noting that the proposed Code of Practice would need to take account of the Council's statutory responsibilities to the public and to the County as the Highway Authority as exercised by the Director of Technical Services.

Members thought that it was a well presented report and welcomed the initiative to use Manpower Services Commission financed under voluntary labour but were concerned at the suggestion of up—grading footpaths to bridleways. Attention was drawn to the damage caused by horse—riders to the surface of paths which became impassable in bad weather. The Director of Legal Services assured Members that this suggestion only related to those paths which were not used by walkers and that the proposal was presented for the purpose of consultation. A Member mentioned the significant increase in the popularity of horseriding in the area and the fact that the problem could well become worse if no action was taken.

Members welcomed the proposed scheme to improve the surface of Ironwell Lane and separate walkers and horseriders, especially since the Council's costs would be reduced by using voluntary labour with the Council tending technical support and materials.

RECOMMENDED That, subject to the word "approvalt' in the last P line of Recommendation (2) being amended to read "appraisal" the report and the Recommendations contained therein he adopted. (46) (OLS, DTP, 0Th) HACKNEY CARRIAGE PANEL (Minute 44/S2

127. Resolved that the appended report of a meeting held on 26th January, 1982 be adopted.

As regards the allegations of a poor taxi service at Rayleigh Station, a local Member drew attention to the problem and with the agreement of the Chairman of the Hackney Carriag Panel it was . 000202 Development Services Committee

RECOMt1ENDEI) That the matter be taken up again with British Rail and the outcome reported to the next meeting of the Panel. (231) (IThS)

1tOACHVALL'Y CONSERVATION ZONE (Minute 38/82)

128. Resolved that the appended report of a meeting of all three Groups held on 8th February be adopted.

krislng from the previous report (iinnte 126) on Public Paths and the increasing popularity of horseriding as an activity with he Zone it was

RECOMMENDED That the nect meeting of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Group of Representatives he invited to consider the appointment of a member of HORSE to their Group. (16349) (IRS)

THE ERECTION OF C.B. RADIO AERIALS WITHIN TUE CURTILAGE OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS

129. The lirector of Town 7ianning submitted the appended report containing a suggested Code of Practice for dealing with this recent and rapidly growing pastime.

Members drew on their own personal experience with the operation of Citizens' Band Radio both by themselves and their constituents from which it was clear that the least interference occurred with higher aerials. With the proposed i.5m height limit ft would he virtually impossible for home— based radios to work effectively. s it was suggested that the principal consideraLion effecting the erection of aerials was the visual impact, attention was drawn to T.V. aerials, many of which were certainly over l.5m in tieight. It Was not thought that C.B. aerials would be any more obtrusive than T.V. aerials and it was therefore proposed that the maxiuun permitted height of C.3. aerials without the benefit of planning permission be increased to 3m (l.5m aerial on l.5n pole with ground planes) and the code amended accordingly.

RECOMMENDED That subject to the "l.5m" height limit referred to in line 6 of (I) being amended to read lt3IT the Code of Practice be adopted, subject to review after 12 months. (UT?) aJoo Mwu, J4Z ESSEX DESIGN GUIDE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

130. The Director of Town Planning submitted the appended report and the Committee welcomed the high response fron the public to the survey. Members congraLulated the Officers on the report hut were concerned at the suggestion in paragraph 12.4 that the OQi2 Development Services Committee

provision of playspaces on. new estates was not really necessary. Attention was also drawn to the inadequacy of the car parking for householders with two or more cars arid those with a caravan or boat.

RECOMMENDED (1) That the second sentence in paragraph 12.4 be amended to read "that it could be said that playspaces are not really necessary"

(2) That the report, as amended, be adopted and the conclusion irt Section 12 used as a basis for negotiation in the control of residential development

(3) That a copy of the report he sent to the County Council

(4) That the Director of Town Planning examine the provision which might be made in new residential development for the additional parking of cars as well as caravans and boats and report thereon to a future meeting. (158) (DTP)

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL STATISTICS: JULY — SEPTEMBER 1981

131. Members received the Development Control Statistics for the above quarter and noted that 86% of all applications were dealt with in under 8 weeks — an iraproveruent of 3% over the previous quarter. (158)

PLANNING GAIN

132. The Directors of Legal 3ervices and Town Planning submitted the appended report commenting on a recent publication by the Department of the Environment's Property Advisory Group on planning gain. Members were in full accord with the views and reservations expressed by the Directors that as the Property Advisory Group contained only one planner it was extremely biased on the whole subject. It was felt that the material consideration in deciding the acceptability of planning gain was the suitability of the proposed development and that there was every reason to try to achieve as much benefit for the community as possible within the legal framework.

RECOMMENDED (1) That the reservations expressed by the Director of Town Planning in his letter to the Department of the Environment dated 27th January be endorsed and the Department be so informed

(2) That the views expressed by the Royal Town Planning Institute in paragraph 8 of the report he also strongly supported. . 000204 Development Services Committee

ESSEX DEVEL0PMNT PLAN SCHEME — CONSULTkTION DRAFT 133. The Director of Town Planning submitted the appended report

RECO1MENDEO That the report and Recommendations contained therein be adopted. (158) (DFP)

IIOCKLEY ROAD, RAYLEIGH

134. Following a recent accident along this Road the Ward Member detailed theadloc,lLncern for the provision of crossing facilities Victoria Road/Uplands jnd liambro I-Jill junctions. It was noted that 12 hour traffic surveys had been undertaken and that the matter had been considered by the County's Traffic and Road SaEety Sub—Committee that afternoon who had apparently decided to discuss the situation with the District Council when Members met to consider the problem of "rat—running".

RECOMMENDED (1) That the opportunity for discussion with the County he welcomed

(2) That: the Trinity Ward Members be invited to participate in the discuss ions also. (45) (DTS) ba2 Muaxfr 157

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS — FERRY ROAD, RULLERIDGE

135. The Director of Technical Services reported that the County Council had invited tnformal consultations on a proposal to extend waiting restrictions as follows

Ferry Road Current Restriction proposed

Pooles Lane to No Waiting lot March — No Waiting River Crouch 1st September 9.00 a.'u. Monday — 8.00 p.m. Sunday 8.00 a.m. — 6.00 p.m.

The Drive to No Waiting Monday — No Waiting Pooles Lane Saturday 8.00 a.m. — Monday — 6.00 p.m. Sunday 8.00 n.m. — 6,00 p.m.

RECOMMENDED That the proposals be welcomed subject to the layby outstde the parade of shops being ecclivled. (45 (DTS) . tHH2O5 Development Services Committee . EXCLUSION 0F THE PUBLIC

136. Resolved that, in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, the public be now excluded from the meeting for the reason that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest, the business about to be discussed being the subject of confidential reports.

SALE OF LAND AT BEKE HALL CHASE - ST. JOHNS DRtVE. RAWRE PH

137. The Director of Legal Services reported on the sale for grazing or agricultural purposes of two parcels of land at Beke Hall Chase. RECOMMENDED That fresh Tenders be invited. (6373) (DLS) . ASFIINGDON ROAD CAR PARKING SCHEME (Minute 41/82)

138. The Director of Technical Services reported on the tenders received for the above scheme.

RECOMMENDED That, subject to the Director of Legal Services securing either the ownership or the rights of entry to the land as required, the lowest Tender submitted by Roadworks (1952) Limited in the sum of £15,215.80 be accepted. (18957) (DTS/DLS)

3ot ____ . a

. 00 (U 08 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item 7

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE — 25TH FEBRUARY, 1982

REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT TEAM

PUBLIC PATHS 1. Introduction (a) Following discussion at a number of Committees of the leisure potential of the public paths tn the District an Inter—departmental Working Party of Officers was established by the Management Team to

(i) Identify footpaths of primary and secondary importance (ii) Report on ways of encouraging the public to make better use of footpaths (iii)Suggest any new paths that tight be created to improve access to the countryside (iv) Advise on the establishment of a network of bridleways.

(b) The Working Party also had in mind the establishment of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone and the need to undertake projects in this area to promote and encourage public awareness of the Zone. There is however a conflict of interests between public access to the countryside/improved maintenance standards and nature conservation.

(c) Additionally there is the question of the resources which the Council can make available for such purposes which in the current circumstances is the most important consideration in framing a policy for the future.

(d) It is suggested that this report, whilst' making some recommendations as to the course which might be adopted, forms the basis of ponsultations with the Parish Councils, the Roach Valley Conservation Zone representatives and other interested organiLsations.

2. Maintenance and Finance Generallj

(a) The identification of primary paths and encouraging the public into the countryside may be thought to presume a higher standard of maintenance of the paths generally than is at present the case. The maintenance of paths is one of the highways functions claimed from the County Council. Within the County's cash limits for these functions expenditure on the paths in the District in 1981/82 is estimated to amount to £8,OOO Bearing in mind the number of paths and the extent of the network, it will be appreciated that the level of maintenance is minimal, the majority of paths receiving no attention at all. This is not as bad as it sounds as the view of the Ramblers Association which is shared by the Officers is that if a footpath is well used by pedestrians, that use is sufficient to keep it in reasonable condition although much will depend on the weather and the terraln Most of the Council's maintenance work is in fact complaint initiated but the Parish Councils and the Ramblers Association clearance parties do undertake some excellent works of their own volition. There is no prospect of any material increase in the County's cash limit and any greater expenditure on public paths would have to be at the expense of reduced maintenance to roads and footways. The Council has the option of supplementing such expenditure but the Management Team believe that there are higher priorities than public paths generally among the other services the Council administers. Moreover they doubt that increased expenditure by OG92I7t

I the Council would result in a much heavier use of the facilities by the public and that this would not therefore represent value for money.

(b) Opportunities do exist however for a more efficient use of the current resources:

(i) In the new financial year the Council is acquiring a rear—mounted tractor flail for trimming banks and hedgerows in suitable locations. This will produce considerable savings over the present manual operation.

(ii) A Manpower Services Commission project is under negotiation which will involve the Council in providing the necessary tools and materials for a maintenance team with the Government meeting the wages bill.

(iii)Greater' use must be made of volunteers with the Council obtaining the permission of the landowners involved, providing the necessary materials and insurance cover. It may be that the Parish Councils could organise parties of volunteers as part of their Community Pride scheme and it is suggested that the views of the Parish Councils be obtained on this proposal.

(c) There is a growing public awareness of nature conservation. Prom discussions with representatives of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone groups it is apparent that for them a higher standard of maintenance of paths in the countryside is neither necessary or desirable in that it could well disturb or destroy natural habitats. The only exceptions are drainage work and repairs to stiles and bridges. The Ramblers Association have a code of practice for footpath clearance which indicates that no work should be undertaken during the nesting season. With regard to the Roach Valley Conservation Zone surveys are proceeding to identify those areas which have natural history significance and care needs to be taken that paths are surveyed prior to any works being undertaken whether by the Council or by a voluntary Working Party. Clearly there should not be double standards in the Councilts approach and the same degree of caution should therefore be applied to paths in the countryside outside the Zone. tt is suggested therefore that the Council should recognise the need to have regard to nature conservation in this connection and that it should establish a code of practice for the whole of the District in consultation with the Roach Valley Conservation Zone representatives which would embrace the principle that all proposals for works to paths should be submitted to the Director of Town Planning for approval in the first instance.

3. Primary Paths

As a start on the identification of primary paths and as a means of deciding the method to be employed for the District overall, a pilot survey was undertaken by the Ramblers Association of the area known as the Hockley Valley, some five square miles of scenically attractive landscape occupying the western section of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone. All of the 34 paths in this area are considered by the Ramblers to be of recreational value and falling within the primary path definition. Minor attention to drainage is required on some paths as well as some repairs to stiles and bridges. The main need however is for en route wayinarking. The Ramblers Associations have devised a simple and effective yellow arrow on a laminate disc which would be adopted for this purpose. The results of the survey have yet to be considered by the Roach Valley Conservation Zone group.

It is seen as important that the Council should itself unde ta some such 000208 projects in the Zone in order to promote public interest and to encourage Parishes and voluntary groups to submit conservation projects. The Director of Town 2lanning Is examining the possibility of introducing an award scheme and will be reporting to the Coimnittee in due course.

The advantage of using the Ramblers Associacion for such surveys is that they have a first—hand knowledge of all the paths and it is suggested that they be asked to advise on improving the en route wayrnarking in the remaining parts of the Zone so that a programme can be prepared for consideration by the Group and the Parish Councils involved.

4. Encouraging Public Use

It is proposed to issue a series of leaflets. The first ten leaflets have been drafted describing circular walks of varying lengths and covering different areas of the District including the Ilockley Valley. These were designed initially to guide the walker along the particular route drawing attention to fine views and landmarks. It is now thought that the leaflets should be widened in their appeal to include sketches of indigenous flora along the route and also give basic information on the fauna. In this way the Council would be introducing the concept of nature trails which further the aims of conservation. These leaflets would be available free of charge and apart from engendering an interest from the general public in the local countryside it is to be hoped that these nature trails would be utilised by local Schools for nature studies.

The draft leaflets are therefore being passed to the experts on the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Group for them to undertake the necessary research and provide the descriptions and sketches. The Director of Town Planning will then arrange printing and distribution' and once the publicts reaction has been assessed, consult with the Ramblers and other organisations as appropriate on the next series of leaflets.

The routes of these circular walks would be wayniarked in advance of publication of the leaflets.

5. New Pootyaths I Fortunately the District is extremely well endowed with footpaths and the need for new paths is considered to be minimal. This will be a factor in the review of the network. Members will appreciate that the law does protect landowners and that it is exceedingly difficult to create a right of way against their wishes. If the overall aims of access to the countryside and conservation are to succeed, then the co—operation of landowners is essential. Attempts at the creation of new public rights by compulsion could well jeopardise these aims and any proposal for a new footpath will need to be weighed very carefully indeed. The landowner can however grant rights to the public without any dedication or fear of prescriptive rights being claimed. Such paths would not appear on the Definitive Map and would be subject to closure on one day a year. It would also allow the owner to withdraw the right. The Director of Legal Services is negotiating such rights alongside Ironwell Lane which is dealt with later in the report.

6. A Network of Bridleways

There are very few bridleways in the District and these have to be reached via the normal road system which for young riders particularly has serious road safety implications. There is rio doubt that horse riding is a popular leisure time activity in the District and that more public riding 000209 facilities are needed. The Council has provided trotting trails in Hockley Woods and these are heavily used but there is no other suitable land in the Council's ownership where similar provision can be made.

Powers exist for the Highway Authority to provide grass "margins" for riders alongside highways where in its view it i8 necessary or desirable in the interests of safety. The Officers thought that where suitable roadside verges already existed outside the centres of population, these might be defined as "margins". This would involve little expense and could be achieved relatively quickly. The matter was broached with the County but they did not consider that this would result in an improvement in road safty.

It seems fair to say that as things stand at present no farmer would co- operate in the creation of a bridleway over his land because of the loss of land involved and the damage to crops which can result from an abuse of the right. The Council has compulsory powers but these provide for the payment of compensation for the loss of the use of the land taken up by the bridleway (a 12 foot strip of say at least ZOO yards in length) and for the path to be fenced — to prevent riders from straying onto the adjoining land and so protect the interests of agriculture. As with footpaths the law protects the landowner, the legal procedure is protracted and has little chance of success.

The public bridleways which are available require improvement and serve as a warning to landowners not to grant riding facilities. Generally speaking bridleways become impassable in heavy weather both to pedestrians and horses and this is due largely to poor drainage and lack of maintenance. If the Council is to achieve any success in providing new riding routes it must first bring the existing public bridleways up to a reasonable standard by providing a well drained surface and fencing.

In 1.980 it was estimated that it would cost £30,000 for the Council to upgrade the surface of Ironwell Lane whereas Members will recall that the annual budget is only £8,000 for all the paths in the District. Whilst the cosis to the Council of undertaking these improvements itself are clearly prohibitive, preliminary discussions have taken place with HORSE (the successor organisation to RADAR) on the possibility of their members doing much of the work on a voluntary basis with the Council lending technical support on drainage requirements, supplying materials to dress the surface and timber from Hockley Woods for post and rail fencing. Once the fencing is installed the pedestrian right of way referred to under the "new footpaths" paragraph could be brought into use and would run alongside the full length of Ironwell Lane (which is well over a mile long) in the fields to the north.

The initial reaction of IIORSE was enthusiastic and the proposal is presented to the Committee for approval in principle before a detailed scheme with estimated costs is prepared.

If the scheme is successful a programme could be agreed with HORSE for the other bridleways to be dealt with in the same way over a number of years.

The scheme has other factors to commend it:

(I) It is a scheme within the Conservation Zone (ii) It would involve the horse—riding fraternity in improving facilities for themselves a (iii)It would establish a usable route between Rochford (&shingdon Road) w and Hawkwell (Rectory Road) and to Clements Hall Sports C n e. 009flO As to new riding routes the Officers consider that the best chance of success off the highway will be the upgrading of public footpaths again utilising voluntary labour to undertake the accommodation works — surface consolidation and fencing. The amount of work involved (because of the distances required for a ride) would preclude the negotiation of any undedicated rights which might be withdrawn. New bridleways will have to be created through the Order making procedure. Many of the footpaths are not used by walkers and it is these paths which it is thought might be upgraded. It is suggested that in the first instance the Parish Councils be asked for their views on this proposal and if their reaction is favourable, for them to identify the footpaths in their area which might be upgraded.

The co—operation of the landowner and the Parish Council would of course be vital as would that of the Ramblers Association, if the proposals were not to be frustrated in the Order making process. The Council may have to pay compensation to the landowner but not as much as with an entirely new path and there would be fencing required again supplied from Hockley Woods. Members should not be too optimistic that this exercise will meet with any great success and it may be that it will prove abortive.

It is also suggested that the Director of Technical Services identifies those highway verges in the out—of—town areas of the District which might be considered suitable for use as margins for riders and reports to the Committee thereon. Consultations could then take place with HORSE and the other horse—riding organisations and the Parishes prior to final proposals being approved by the Council for submission to the County.

RECOMMENDED (1) That the Parish Councils be asked whether they could organise volunteer footpath clearance parties as part of the Community Pride scheme

(2) That a code of practice for clearance works to paths in the countryside be prepared by the Director of Town Planning in consultation with the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Group and that he he responsible for the approval of all such works

(3) That subject to consultation with the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Group, minor improvement works and en route waymarking be undertaken to the paths in the Hockley Valley

(4) That the Ramblers Association be asked to advise on the improvement of en route waymarking in the remaining parts of the Zone and a programme prepared for consideration by the Group and the Parish Councils involved

(5) That the proposals for establishing nature trails and explanatory leaflets for issue by the Director of Town Planning be noted

(6) That the proposed scheme for tronwell Lane be approved in principle and that a further report be submitted on the likely cost

(7) That the Parish Councils be asked whether they would favour the upgrading of certain footpaths to bridleways and if so which footpaths

(8) That the Director of Technical Services report to the Committee on those highway verges in out—of—town areas which might be considered suitable for use as "margins" for riders.

000211 ROCITFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ONMITThE 25TH FEBRUARY 1982

REPORT OF THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE PANEL

At a meeting held on 26th January, 1982. Present:— Councillors A.L. Tate (Chairman), S.W Barnard, W.H. Budge, R. H. ilolman, Mrs. J.M. Jones and D.C. Wood.

Apologies: Councillor A.J. Harvey.

1. PROGRESS REPORT

The Panel noted the action taken since their last meeting.

Arising from views expressed by Members of the Chairman's Panel about the need for an inaprovement in the taxi service at Rayleigh Station, Mr. Clark reported that he had written to British Rail with the following suggestions.

(a) That the rank be re—sited nearer the station entrance parallel to the kerb.

(b) That "free" taxi facilities should be available to enable any Rochford Hackney Carriage to stand on the rank.

A reply had been received from the Area Manager who appeared reluctant to accept the allegations of a 'poor service" or that Mr. Clark's suggestions would result in an improvement at all times. British Rail were not prepared to lose the revenue from the present arrangement or to carry out further alterations to the Station layout.

2. HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE LIRE VEHICLE LICENSING FEES

The Panel considered proposals for an 11 increase in licensing fees.

RECOMMENDED (1) That, in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Hackney Carriage and private hire vehicle licensing fees for the Rochford District be increased by 11% as set out in the appended schedule.

(2) That, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, public notice be given of the proposed increases in vehicle licensing fees. (DLS)

(Note: This paragraph was reported to the Development Services Committee on 26th January, 1982 — Minute 44/82.) 212 3. HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCES

Hr. Clark reported that during the year ending 30th June, 1982, 38 Hackney Carriage Licences had been issued and that he was satisfied that this number provided an adequate taxi service for the District. He also mentioned that Pre— Licensing Standards imposed a five year age limit on vehicles and that in view of the present economic climate the Panel might wish to allow the use of vehicles up to six years old.

Resolved (1) that 38 Hackney Carriage Licences be issued throughout the District for the period 1st July 1982 to 30th June, 1983.

(2) that, subject to the vehicles being mechanically sound, the pre—licensing condition limiting the age of vehicles be relaxed from five to six years insofar as the re—issue of licences on 1st July 1982 is concerned.

(3) that, subject to compliance with conditions, Hr. Clark be authorised to re—issue the Hackney Carriage Licences for the period 1st July 1982 to 30th June 1983 as set out in the appended schedule.

wa 000213 Hackney Carriages Roohforc3. District aooil

To: The Chairman and Me1nbera of the Hackney Carriage Panel

Eaokneçr and Private Hire Vehialn Lioensiff Jes

The Local Goverment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 permits the Council to recoup by way of licence tees the cost of the service. The existing fees were set by the Hackney Carriage Panel in April 1981 and came into force on $th June 1981. The following increased fees ooui.d come into operation on 1st April 1982 and would produce additional inocce in 1982—83 of £j00. All fees are oolleoted and retained by Southend Bcrou Council but a sun of £550 from this inocce is handed over to Rcohford Council to cover administrative coats.

Private Hire Vehicle Operators licences expire on 30th September 1982 and are due for re—issue on let October 1982 for a five year period.

All Drivers licences expire on 31st December 1982 and. era due for re—issue on 1st January 1983 for a three year period. LICEIE I

1. Hackney Carriage Licence ...... , £140 (e36) the licence to be for a period of one year or less expiring on the fixed date of 30th June A substitute licence issued for a replacement vehicle to cost 50% of licence fee.

Estimated increased annual ince ...... £150

2. Private Hire Vehicle Licence ...... £140 (f36) the licence to be for a period of one year ox' less expiring on the fixed date of 30th September. Licenoes issued for a period of between four and eigtit months to cost 76 of licence fee and for less than four months to cost 50% of licence fee. A substitute licence issued for a replacement vehicle to cost 50% of licence fee.

Estimated inoreased avrua,l income ...... £20 U .1.. —9-- PRIVATE HIDE VEHICLE OPEaATORS LICENSED wa

Licence No Name Address

I H H Snow Cheldon House, Barrow Hall Road Great Wakerin,g

2 Alpine Oars 65 Spa Road Hookley

t4. H C Cox t/a Telecars 36a West Street Roclkord

Grantoraft Limited t/a .Andrews Meter Cabs 37 North Street Roohfcrd

7 AR Hnmerson t/a Hockley Wedding Oars RD Emnerson 18 Hockley Rise A Ehnmerson Hockley

I 000215 ROGUFORD DISTBIT COUNCIL

Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing

RmIsnIE

12th November 1981

003216 wa

. LICthuJ__

Hac)mey Carriages Pages 3 and Lj. Private Hire Vehicles Page S

Hackney Carriage Drivers Pages 6 and 7 Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Page 8 Private Hire Vehicle Operators Page 9 I

I 00 1' 21 7 —2—

3. Hackney Carriage Driver's Licence ...... €20 (€16) the lioenne to be for a period of three years or less expiring on the fixed date of 31st December 1982 and every third year thereafter. Licences issued for a period of between one and two years to cost 7 of licence fee and licences isstd for less than one year to cost 50% of licence fee. Est1ted increased annual income ...... £60

4. Private Hire Vehicle Driver's Licence ... €20 (€18) the licence to be for a period of three years or lees expiring on the fixed date of 31st Deoeiiber 1982 and. every third year thereafter.

Licenoes issued for a period of between one and two years to cost 7 of lioence fee and lioences issued for less than one year to cost 50% of licence fee. Estimated increased annual income ...... €10 5. Private Hire Vehicle Operator's Licence ... £100 (€90) the licence to be for a period of five years or lees expiring on the fixed date of 30th September 1962 and every fifth year thereafter. Lioences issued for a period of between two and three years to cost 7 of licence fee and for less than two years to cost 50% of licence fee.

An Operator who has under his control one vehiole only the private hire vehicle licence of which is in his own name ne opt to have an Operator's licence for a period of one year or less expiring on 30th September at a cost of 10% of the licence fee. Estimated increased annual income ... .,...... £10

Estimated total increased annual income from all licence fees €250

As the proposed vehicle licence tee is in excess of £25 there will have to be compliance with certain procedures laid down in the Act. The increase in licence fees is 11%

JANFE GOLDIE CLARK

18th December 1981 t100218 —3—

HACKNEY CAJIRIAGES LICBNSE])

Plate No Maine Address Vehicl. Regj(o

1 G R Bannister 124 Ashingdon Rpad Chrysler NWC 1o5 P Rochf era

2 R Darnell & 0/0 24 Hhlary Close Ford. AJBLthUS G Bass Rayleigh

3 B E Willsher 72 Abbey Road Ford. TEL 436 H Thillbridge

LI A H 0 Cock 38 Kingsley Lane Vauxhall KTh 706 V Thundereley

B W Corkett *(2) 51 Somerset Avenue Norris FNO 965 T Roohi'ord

6 B C Bowhay 229 Eastwood. Old Road Ford. WIt 687 5 Leigh on Sea

7 B C Benge 7 Oakleigh Avenue Ford 1Th'O 474 V Hullbridge

8 S A Charters *(3) 31 Rutland Avenue Hilirman PHK 817 Ii Southend on Sea

9 R B Ricks 29 Rectory Road Datsun WPU 829 S Rochtord

10 ROCox 170 Eastwood. Old Road Fiat TLW 755 R Leigh on Sea

11 S II Merrett 217 Manor Road Port SW64S 5th Benfleet

12 A N S Williams*(2) 9 Common Lane Port RVS 922 H Thund.ereley

13 H Billiard 39 Bellevae Road Ford. TJW 285 w Southend on Sea

114 B A Osler 50 Crown Hill Austin XWC 842 S Rayleigh 15 R S Osler 46 Crown Hill Port EOY 84 T RayJ. eigh 16 S B Polley 104 Lower Road Ford rQN53 P Eullbridge

17 B L Reed 4 Hillcrest Avenue Ford 5kB 176 H Rulibridge

18 3 Wheeler 9a Longtield Close Fort 9E3 813 5 Wickford

19 S B Rowden 42 Perndale Road Fiat SNI 327 5 Rayleigh 000219 -4- HaoknerOarria?es Cont, Plate No Name Address Vehicle cg N •

20 B N Bettell (Jnr) 3 FtLsenbam Court Ford KIN Ø91i. P Rayleigh

21 J A Charters *(3) 31 Rutland Avenue Fiat RBJ 860 W Southend. on Sea

22 A N J Williams *(2) 9 Common Lane Ford TJHK 666 V Thunderaley

23 D E Wiflaher Ji(2) 72 Abbey Road Ford AND 304 S Rullbridge

- 24 3 A Charters *(3) 31 Rutland Avenue Ford EVil 268 V Southend. on Sea

25 B Fox *(2) 102 Stambridge Road Ford MOO 910 p Roohiord

26 N Grant (Nra) 25 Spring Gardens Ford MVX 997 V Rayleigh

27 K N Kelsey 55 The Rundels Ford VEIl 1447 S Benfleet

28 0 0 Morgan 414 Wilflngale Way Datsun UN 256 V Soutbend on Sea

29 F V Argent 37 Philmead Rd., 5th Down Ford SRJ 712 V Estate, 5th Benfleet

30 B Fox *(2) 102 Stambridge Road Ford VRJ 702 5 Rochford

31 N 3 Mooney 5 Wellington Road Ford EVX 558 P Rayleigh

32 B E Willsher *(2) 72 Abbey Road Ford CTW 27 P Ru.llbrid,ge

33 Fl W Corkett *(2) 51 Somerset Avenue Ford KW 745 It Roobford

34 0 N Patching 28 Avondale Road Ford ROP 714 P Rayleigh

35 N B Street *(2) 18 Everest Ford ThY 707 S Rayleigh

36 3 R Parley 2 Everest Morris flO 94 P Rayleigh 37 N D Street *(2) 18 Everest Ford VOW 203 P Rayleigh

38 B N Bettell (Snr) 31 Wiflingale Avenue Ford ITS 859 S Rayleigh /

* Indicates how many plates are held. —5-

PRIVATE DIRE ypCLE LI0PES

Disc No Nane Address Vehicle Reg

1 R G SouthwoQd 187 The Broadway Datsun XYX 96 X Thorpe Bay

2 1) Young 29 Leicester Avenue Ford LEt 8814 P Roohford.

9 H Snow Oheldon Rae, Barrow Ford BAR 1.O1 W Hall lid, Great Wakering

21 T Llnga.rd 3 Oakleigh Avenue Ford AMIJ 31}O ¶r Enflbridge 22 J S Edwards 8 Broadlands Road Ford PS!' 580 P Hockley 25 A H merson 18 Hockley Rise Rolls TED 987 Hockley Royce

26 A R muneraon 18 Hockley Rise Rolls IWO 82 Hockley Royce —6— RACnmy CARRIAGE imivais flCINSB2) . Licpce No Name Address

I C H Bannister 1214 Ashingdon Road, Roohford 2 E Pranks 'Broadoaks' Stambridge Road, Rochford 3 B B Lawson 68 Lincoln Road, Basildon Li A H G Cock 38 Kingsley Lane, Thundersley 5 E W Corkett 51 Somerset Avenue, Rochford 6 P S Watkins 41 Kennington Avenue, Roohford 8 C Shields (Miss) 66 Hamlet Road, Southend on Sea 9 B E Ricks 29 Rectory Road, Rochford 10 H Grant (Hr) 25, Spring Gardens, Rayleigh 11 B Pox 102 Stambridge Road, Rochford. 13 B C Bowbay 229 Eastwood Old Road, Leigh on Sea 14 D .6. Osler 50 Crown Hill, Rayleigh 15 B J Osler 46 Crown Hill, Rayleigh 16 J B Polley 1014 Lower Road, Hullbridge 17 D L Reed 14. Hillcrest Avenue, Hullbrid.ge 18 3 H Parley 2 Everest, Rayleigh 19 J D Rowden 42 Fenidale Road, Rayleigh 20 B B Sbadbolt 3 Kings Close, Rayleigh 21 H H Turner I Appleyard. Avenue, llookley 22 A N 3 Williams 9 Common Lane, Thundersley 23 B B Willsher 72 Abbey Road, Rullbridge 25 B 3 Burgess 25 Western Road, Thunderaley 26 K P Hortia 30 Orchard Side, Leigh on Sea 27 N Barnes 22 Thorpedene Avenue, Hullbridge 28 K L Ambrose 27 Southview Close, Rayleigh 29 P W Argent 37 Philmead Road, South Benfleet 31 S J Ii Chaplin 33 Sir Walter Raleigh Drive, Rayleigh 32 B P Wild. 14 Aberdeen Gardens, Leigh on Sea 33 A Beokwith 42 Windermere Avenue, Rullbridge 314 H Reed (Mra) L4 Hockley Nobile Homes, Lower Rd, Rockley 35 3 H Wheeler 9á Long±'ield Close, Wiokford 36 B 3 Elaton 78 Keswiok Avenue, Hullbridge 37 K N Kelsey 55 The Rundels, Beafleet 40 o G Norgan 14 Willingale Way, Thorpe Bay 141 A 3 B Davis 6 Chaucer Walk, Wiokford 42 G A Fish 51 Cagefield Road, Canewdon 143 Wart 20 Tillingham Way, Rayleigh "5 S E Tryhorn 'Kerensa' Rawretb Lane, Rayleigh 46 H B Renwick 5 Hamley Close, Benfleet 147 B 3 Hociper 121 The Chase, Rayleigh 14.8 H P Hilliard 39 Bellevue Road, Southend on Sea 51 S P Tappin 73 Canewdon Viev Road, Rochtord 52 3 A Allen 12 Abbey Close, Hullbridge 53 B P Norris 23 Warwick Road, Rayleigh 55 P Lingard 3 Oakleigh Avenue, Hullbridge 57 K 3 Starling 90 Anson Close, Shoeburyness 58 G M Hutton 263 Perry Road, Hulibridge 59 A Newman 9 The Chimes, Benfleet 60 H B Street 18 Everest, Rayleigh 6i B N Slade 26 Nicholson Road, Thundersley 62 P B Baldock 203 Ambleside Drive, Soutbend on Sea 65 C Graham 9 Oliffsea Grove, Leigh on Sea 66 3 Charters 31 Rutland Avenue, Southend on Sea 67 J H Merrett 217 Nanor Road, South Benfleet 69 H C Cox 170 Eastwood Old Road, Leigh on Sea 71 H H Darnell 3 Great Hayes, Leigh 000222 .. ./. S I —7-.

Licensed Hackney Carriage Drivers Cont.

Licence No Name Address

73 P E Ramsey 421 Arterial Road, Leigh on Sea 74 A L Driver 16 8± Clements Close, South Betifleet 75 C J Deary 43 Essex Close, Rayleigh 76 A R Smith 168 Brightwell Avenue, Westcliff on Sea 77 EL C Mynott 58 Lower Lsnibrioks, Rayleigh 79 3 3 Pettit 22 Coombat Grove, Roohford 80 B Gale 14 Windsor Way, Rayleigh 81 G Walkington 3 Silverdale, Rayleigh 86 B J Bolton 8 Western Road, Leigh on Sea G N Patching 28 Avondale Road, Rayleigh 95 R A Dickel 35 Essex Close, Rayleigh 96 T F Von Ranken 176b Brightwell Avenue, Westoliff on Sea 102 W Rudd 8 Church Road, Rayleigh - 103 G Bass 214. Hilary Crescent, Rayleigh 106 C 5 Wilisber (wrs) 72 Abbey Road, Hullbridge 107 A J Cullwn 'Clovelly' High Street, Canewdon 110 B N Bettell (Snr) 31 Willingale Avenue, Rayleigh 114 I 3 Seiffert 13 Giebe Drive, Rayleigh 115 B C Benge 7 Oakleigh Avenue, Hullbridge 116 G B] Brinkley 58 Wimborne Road, Southend on Sea 117 V F Gunn 2 Telford Cottages, Battlesbridge 118 B Needhaxn 29 Weir Pond Lane, Roobford 119 P B Chapman 227 Greensward Lane, Hockley 123 3 C Window 135 Steeplefield, Scuthend. on Sea 148 D K Bull 35 Warwick Drive, Rochford 169 0 NcLean 136 Rochford Garden Way, Rochford 170 H S Ferguson 143 Downhall Road, Rayleigh 171 M P Hill 217 Royston Avenue, Southend. on Sea 172 3 B Taylor 'Brookside' Napier Road, Rayleigh 173 A A Fisher 26 Wimarc Crescent, Rayleigh 174 A B Heather 117 Chalkwell Park Drive, Leigh on Sea 176 P Barker �7 Olivia Drive, Leigh on Sea 177 D Stroud 1 Dene Close, Rayleigh 178 J A Bryan 6 Linden Close, Benfleet 179 J Pagenos 3 Bracken Dell, Louise Road, Rayleigh 180 W 0 Reneson 29 Church Road, Rayleigh 181 N L Jones 74 Eversley Road, Benfleet 183 P Mathews 14 .Ambleside Walk, Canvey Island 185 R S Cross 31 Dalmatia Road, Southend on Sea 186 EL 0 Guiver 3 Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh 187 J B Jenkins 16 The Liohfields, Basildon 188 E Luahey 17 Everest, Rayleigh 189 V R Gord.ine 240a Eastwood Road, Rayleigh 190 P Richmond 468 Ashingdon Road, Ashingdon 191 B] L Steeples 105 The Rundels, Thundersley 192 N Mooney 5 Wellington Road, Rayleigh 193 B N Bettell (Jnr) 3 Elsenham Court, Rayleigh 1914. R W Adams 49 Crouch Avenue, Hullbridgo 195 L 3 Loughborough 155 Ashingdon Road, Rochford. 196 J S Gay 141 Lynington Avenue, Leigh on Sea 197 N R Thick 238 North Avenue, Southend. on Sea 198 S A Hopson 14 Wallace Close, Rullbridge 199 R Stephenson 27 Coombes Close, Roohford.

O9Q22i N

—8— a PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIV IIICEINS]ll) W

Licence 14o Name Address

901 B A Young 29 Leiceater Avenue Rochford

905 J A Charters 31 Rutland Avenue Southend on Sea

907 R G Southwood L12bMountdale Gardens Leigh on Sea

- 911 R A H Snow Cheldon House, Bano\i Hall Road - Great Wakering

912 T Lingard 3 Oakleigh Avenue Hullbridge

915 W H krthy 226 Aahingdon Road Roohford

922 B Needham 29 Weir Pond Road Rocliford

925 R E Ricks 29 Rectory Road Roohford

935 G M Hutton 263 Perry Road Hulibridge

203 Ambleside Drive 936 ¶1? R Baldook Thorpe Bay

937 G S Baker 79 Hillcrest Avenue HuJ.lbridge

939 L J Loughborough 155 Aahixigdon Road Roehford

9L0 J S Edwards 8 BroadJ.ands Road Hockley

A R Smith 168 Brightwell Avenue Westoliff on

U U U AGENDA ITEliI 9.

ROCJIFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE—25TH FEBRUARY 1982

ROACH VALLEY CONSERVATION ZONE

At a Joint Meeting of phel'prking Groujs held on 8th February 1982 Present: Councillor R.D. Foster (Chairman), Mr. E.W. Amos, Mr. I. Ashton, Mr. N. Bishop, Mr. D. Charles, Mr. A. Crystall, Mr. C. Gammon, Councillor Mrs. P. B. Rawke, Mr. N.J. Hill, Mr. C. Horncastle, Mrs. S. Horncastle, Miss J. MacConnell, Mr. P. G. Philpot, Mr. D.1-1. Rayner, Councillor C. Stephenson, Mrs. A. Varty and Councillor D.C. Wood.

WORKING GROUPS

The Chairman of the Council's Development Services Committee, Councillor R.D. Poster, welcomed members of the three Groups and reminded them that the meeting of the Roach Valley Conservation Zone Group of Representatives held on 17th December last had asked that a Joint Meeting of all three Working Groups be held to review the progress and effectiveness of the Groups and whether experience over the past year suggested any improvement to the existing division of responsibilities. As it was the Members of the Working Groups who had to put the arrangements into practice it seemed only right that they should play a part in deciding its future organisation. Councillor Foster then sought the views of the meeting.

It was apparent from the discussion that followed that, apart from Access and Footpaths, the Working Groups had not lived up to their initial expectations and that the responsibilities of the Groups overlapped.

Several methods of reform were suggested such as dividing the Group on an area basis or more frequent joint meetingp to achieve a more co—ordinated approach but, the concensus of opinion was that the three Groups should be merged. Although dividing the Group on an area basis might stimulate local interest it was thought desirable to deal with the Zone as a single entity.

Some criticism was levied at the apparent lack of progress so far, the need for the work of the Group to be properly co- ordinated and for consultation to take place on any planning applications affecting the Zone.

Uaving reviewed the organisation of the Groups it was thought that the representatives should decide themselves how the work of the Group was to be administered, the view having been expressed that a co—ordinator was needed as well as the allocation of specific responsibilities to acknowledged experts on the Group.

The first priority for the future of the Zone should be to identify sites of greater or lesser importance to natural history. The information collated from this survey could then be made available to Parish Councils, farmers and Roach Valley Conservation Zone

landowners etc., so that they would be aware of the S implications on their operations.

The meeting considered that until the Zone was recognised formally by the Essex County Council publicity promoting the conservation concepts of it would be premature. In conclusion the Chairman mentioned that a report on the policy to be followed with regard to the public paths in the District would be presented to the meeting of the Development Services Committee on 25th March and would be the subject of consultations with the Group after that time.

RECOMMENDED (1) That as a matter of priority the three Working Groups establish themselves as one group.

(2) That consideration be given to publicity once the Council has obtained formal recognition to e Roach Valley Conservation Zone. (16349)

a w 000226 Agenda Item 10

ROCEFOB]) DIRIOT COUNCIL

REPORT OF TEE DIRECTOR OF T(MN PLANNING TO THE PLANNING SERVICES CCkMNIT1Th1E - 16th FEtUARY, 1962.

The Rcection of CB. Radio Aerials within the curtilage of residential dwellings.

Since the recent lega].isation of the use of Citizens Band (C.B.) radio by central government, my officers, and indeed individual members of this Committee, have received a considerable number of complaints concerning the erection of C.B. radio aerials within residential curtilages. The objective of this report is to clarify as far as is possible, the statutory requirements and material considerations surrounding this type of development.

Firstly, do aerials of this type re;uire planning permission? Under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 to 1981, (LB. aerials already have deemed planning permission as long as:—

(a) if freestanding they are not placed beyond the forwardmost part of any wall of the original dwellinghouse which fronts on a highway; and do not exceed 3 metres in height;

(b) if attached to the dwelling they do not exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwelling.

Experience to date indicates that aerials proposed are varying in height from 6 metres to in excess of 15 metres. I am advised by the Executive Engineer to the Radio Group of British Telecom that the maximum legal aerial height for use with an approved 27 NEz P.M. set is a single element rod of 1.5 metres on a pole not exceeding 7 metres in height. An aerial of this type attached to end projecting above the ridge of a dwellinghouse, would cause no more visual objection than a television aerial, and further, that its use with an P.M. set would not normally result in interference being caused to the electrical equipment of nearby residents.

—1— O(flfl27 S The bigger aerials being proposed are almost invariably illegal in themselves and are being used in conjunction with illegal LM. sets. Such apparatus does cause significant interference. The scale of the problem is indicated by the fact that British Telecom has over 1,000 complaints outstanding in respect of such interference, and new complaints are being lodged at the rate of over 250 per month in S.E. Essex alone.

Clearly, the majority of aerial installations will exceed the criteria à.efined above and will therefore require to be the subject of a formal application for planning permission to this authority.

What criteria should be considered in arriving at a decision on applications of this type? Recent case law and Ministerial pronouncements suggest that the principal material consideration relates to the visual impact of the proposal, but that interference can also become a material consideration if proven over time. The following extract from the professional press may serve to both high:Light and clarify the problem for Members:—

to televisions and hi—fi sets caused by radio masts can be a material consideration in planning decisions, according to the Department of the Thivironment.

The clarification of this confused area of development control oame in a reply from the D.O.E. to a letter from Castle Morpeth Borough Council. The Council wrote to Tollgate House after an Inspector dealing with an appeal over a radio mast in the borough had dealt with the matter purely on visual grounds. It was concerned about the inconsistency with an earlier appeal decision in Kirklees where the Inspector had rejected an appeal because there was evidence of interference.

In its reply to the Council, the D.O.E. said that where it was not possible to test the interference from radio masts "there seem to be good grounds for not regarding it as a material consideration."

But the letter backed the approach adopted by Kirklees where the authority had allowed a mast for a trial period during aotual 0082Z3 -2- interference could be recorded. .A5ded the D.O.E.: "There was evidence given to the inquiry of interference recording during that trial period and this was an element the Inspector took into account in reaching his decision to dismiss that particular appeal."

The department's letter continued "On that occasion the Inspector took certain specific evidence into account in reaching his decision, but as a general rule I think it would be safer to invite the Post Office to carry out investigations during any trial period and to invite them to express a view as to whether any radio interference noted was not a temporary phenomenon which could be overcome by a simple remedial measure. Substantial evidence of this nature, indicating interference which cannot reasonably be overcome, might well in such circumstances become a material consideration." (Planning Newspaper 451, 15th January, 1982, Page 3).

With regard to visual matters, case law indicates that this must depend very much on the particular circumstances under consideration, but that factors such as density of buildings and existing density of "wirescape" are relevant.

In order to ensure consistenoy in dealing with this recent and rapidly growing phenomenon, the Director commends the following code of practice:—

1. That, notwithstanding that aerials attached to a dwellinghouse and projecting above the ridge require the benefit of planning permission, this Council would not consider it expedient to initiate enforcement action under Section 87 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 against such installations, providing that they do not project more than 1.5 metres above the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwelling. This recommendation is in accord with the general advice containad in D.O.E. Circular 22/80 (Development Control — Policy and practice) and 26/81 (Local Government and Planning (Am dment) Actl9Sl).

229 . 2. That where planning permission is otherwise recpired the principal material consideration in the determination of the application should. be the visual impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the area.

3. That where tbis Authority is minded to approve such an application, it should normally do so for a limited period. of 1 year initially. During that time, if complaints of interference to neighbouring properties are received, the Executive Engineer to the Radio Group of British Telecom be consulted and asked to advise. If his advise indicates that the offending interference cannot reasonably be overcome then the question of interference become a material consideration at the renewal of the planning consent.

RECOMMEThIIThD: That the foregoing code of practice (158) eje.

—4.- . . JWC/YH/3.2.82. 000230 Agenda Item 11

ROOEFDBD DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVI1OPME1T SERflCEE CONMI'ftEllil - 25th FEBRUARY 1982

REPORT OF TUE DThECTOR OF TOW PLANNING

ESSEX DESIGN (WIDE ESTATRS - HOIJSIEOLD S1JRYBY (Minute 342/81 refers)

LU Introduction

At the meeting of the Development Services Committee on 9th June 1981 it was resolved to monitor the impact of layout considerations on recent housing development by sample household surveys. This report is based on the findings of a questionnaire delivered in August 1981 to every household within the housing developments built to the broad principles of the Essex Design Guide. Residents were asked for their experience of living on such developments and the results used to oritioally examine the design guide character- istics, and in particular the use of a 'esqs Court" type of layout. In order to obtain formulated opinion rather than first impressions, only those estates, or parts of estates which have been inhabited fpr at least a year, were chosen, as indicated below:— Area Tenure Betts Farm: Zone A. Rockley Private Little Wheatleys Rayleigh Private Little \4heatleys tayleigh Council Pearsons Farm Rayleigh Council Moons Close Ashingdon Private Dene Gardens Rayleigh Private Lcdgelands Close Rayleigh Private Gloucester Avenue Rayleigh Private Mariners Court Great Wakering Housing Association.

2.0 Response, Table 1.

Table 1 illustrates the response rate as a total, subdivided as Mews Court/Private Drive development and all other forms of layout. The estates as a whole are also subdivided between the large estates greater than 100 dwellings, and the smaller developments of less than 30 dwellings. The total response rate of 60% from a total of 646 questionnaires issued, is felt to be very satisfactory, perhaps reflecting a chance welcomed by many people to voice the opinions. 000232 3.0

- the the the

Sub Table Betta cases Farm. Table 3ette access nature oases, estate drives. Vehicle 2 General 1: problems 3.1__The Total: >earsono severity - 1ariners to of had Isodgelands estate Farm Pedestrian Gloucester SubTotaj Tote]. of general (oonsClose t.Qheatleys had The. DeneQardene t.\4heatleys Farm to the residents except ease shows Layout — Court these PariuZone of where caused movement of Close use been main for the Avenue A Response Mews access layout end movement the was the the and (Council)(Private) through was damage --- rate. Court ramps vehicle

problem Mews. to Mews footpaths to Mews 31 by to 162 31 17 3 35 131 18 4933 percentage 3 -S -S

encountered routes had 4eaxanoe, to the considered 17 1616 Court 92 18 33 74 25 228 228 ilb Mews is Courts appearance -S— — This movement. once considered vehiole to hJ been as Mews of 100 60 94 51 5248 encountered be response 58 58 47 6767 56 — bad areas good encouraging - gained again at the to of Table — Court rate 439 109 59 195 76 in 484 45 . 18 95 13 by in 2 - ' through provided between to to underaides. people removed Betts - — the moet 221 Betts 293 22 11434 271 73 32 119 47 Rb Other —S for -4- -S-S areas, estates. the fair from Farm — routes. 67 61 62 crossing Mews Farm 61 49 6144 6031 62 54 cases, and w which questions through and — 127 228107 other being 76 17 21 12 8 18 570 108 Court in intimate good — to the . 'private' 385 90 57 135 in 40 8 13 66 7 Total parts access although some flfl1 -- areas relating Pearsons of to 60 53 47 62 7550 39 61 71 53 5959 Additionafly, of most to — — enclosed. I . S 3' 1L?L!LP2E!E-!_2!_2332 2?L Surface materials were considered good. to fair; the only comments being a dislike of 'tarmac' footpaths from residents at Betta Pam and Gloucester Avenue, and the added problem at Bette Farm that the reflective quality of the road surface dazzles drivers and pedestrians in bright suziligtit. __ ___ Table 2 Road safety aspects were generally cons idered fair, although some drivers did express concern with the non segregation of traffic and pedestrians in News Court areas. Concern was also expressed at the speed of some traffic, particularly along Bardfield Way at Little lheatleys. Although many roads have been dasigued to slow traffic by use of sharp bends or obstructions,it does not seem to Blow traffic, but merely accentuate the problem. Many residents felt that the only solution was to provide speed ramps at strategic points.

Table 2

Landscaping was considered between poor and fair, attributable iii some cases to a general lack of maintenance, but mainly to the inadequacy of tree or shrub planting. The privately aimed area of Little Wheatleys was severely criticised for the inadequate amount of landscaping, making it look very monotonous and spartan. Table 2 Although the general opinion regarding appearance was fair throughout, the reasons varied between the different estates. Many Betts Pan residents welcomed the use of different building styles and materials, but felt that the overall appearance of the estate was too cramped, and that a slightly lower density would look far more attractive. The main criticism concerning appearance in the privately owned part of Little Wheatleys was the landscaping element, although many people to the east of the development considered the Council development to be inferior copies of their oiin houses, so detracting from the overall attractiveness. People from the Council development however, felt that the private development was inferior in appearance. The main criticism voiced by most people in the Council development though, was the use of black paint on the windowframes, 'which, in their opinion did 'cheapen' the appearance of the houses. The main criticism from within the small estates came from Gloucester Avenue and Lodgeland Close, where people liked the appearance of the individual houses, but thought they were too close together. This point was illustrated by one resident of Gloucester Avenue who ol&tmed that it was very difficult to clear the gutters since there was not enough space between the houses to safely erect a ladder.

000Z33 Table 2: General layout and appearance of estate. I Qtegorie.R Betts Pan Lt. W. (Pr) Lt. W. (a) Pearsons Fm Small Eats1 Mews Other News [ther Mew] Other Mews Other News Other

Vehicle No'crt. Good 19 49 37 53 40 37 24 49 39 41 Pair 56 40 50 38 48 50 41 34 44 36 Poor 25 8 12 9 8 12 36 12 17 23 Pedestrian Novt. Good 87 83 69 75 84 84 41 81 78 73 Pair 19 15 31 22 12 16 36 18 22 18 Poor — — — 3 — — 18 1 — 9 Surface Matis. Good 25 40 44 43 60 56 65 82 50 41 Pair 56 45 31 41 36 37 29 16 44 45 . PQor 19 15 25 16 4 3 18 1 6 14 Safety Good 56 34 25 34 40 22 24 45 33 27 Fair 19 45 69 49 40 53 24 38 44 41 Poor 19 19 6 18 16 25 52 15 22 32 Landsoapiug Good 12 30 6 8 20 25 29 30 22 14 Pair 56 43 19 29 28 44 41 49 44 45 Poor 31 26 69 64 44 31 29 19 28 36 Appearance Good 37 51 37 24 36 44 47 47 33 41 Pair 50 40 50 63 64 47 47 47 61 55 Poor 12 4 12 13 — 9 6 5 6 —

No.of respondents 16 47 16 119 25 32 17 73 18 22

MB. All percentage figures rounded. 4.0 Adequacy of Children's Playspaces. Table 3,

Views rega±ding playspaces vary greatly between the different estates, with a large majority of people living at Betta Fan stating that there are not enough playspaces provided at present, whereas a large majority of people living at Little %Qheatleys stated that they had enough space. Among the small estates only one — Moons Close — had a majority stating that they had enough playspace. It is interesting to note that only two estates have purpose built playing areas incorporated: the Council developments of Little \Qheatleys and Pearsons Farm. None of the other areas studied have any facilities provided, although Little \Qbeatleya is situated next to the existing playing fields at Little tkJheatleys Chase, and Moons Close is situated olose to King George's P eld, Ashingdon. I a O 0 9 41 - Nuisance caused by children Table 3

It may be expected that figures regarding the nuisance caused by children would be directly related to the availability of play areas, but this is not necessarily the came. At Noons Close 57% of residents thought that there was adequate playspace, yet 71% were bothered by children. From the evidence provided by people from all estates it appears that the problem is caused by children who are not allowed to play very far from the home unsupervised: generally tl under—5 age group. Consequently, they tend to play together in groups in the relative safety of the Mews Courts where they are never too far from home. The many footpaths and access routes provide an ideal environment for the older children on bicycles, roller skates and skateboards, creating a hazard for drivers, pedeqtrians and small children.

Finally, it must be remembered that this survey was at the beginning of August in the piddle of the pchool holidays, when the problems created by children were at their worst.

Table3 Children's playppace.

Categories Betta Farm Lt. W. (Pr) Lt. W. (a) Pearsons Pm Small ests.

News Other News Other News Other News Other News Other 1

% Adequacy of Playspace Yes 6 19 62 56 84 87 82 89 22 18 No 94 79 38 44 12 12 18 11 78 73 Nuisance created Yes 50 64 12 43 20 28 65 42 67 59 No 44 36 88 55 72 72 35 59 33 41 No. of respondents 16 47 16 119 25 32 17 73 18 22 a -- — — - 1IB. All percentage figures rounded.

5.0 Car Parking and Garaging. Table 4. Opinion was divided on whether or not there is adequate provision of parking and garaging space, but overall 58% stated that they had enough space, and 41% stated they bad not. The two areas which stand out with a high proportion of people with not enough space are Pearsons Farm and Betts Farm. Many people at Pearsons Farm stated that they would appreciate some garaging facilities, as did a fair proportion of those at the Council development at Little Wheatleys. Parking provision on the Council developments was reduced to 100% to get within the housing costs yardstick. Residents at Betts Farm, however, felt that parking was severely limited for visitors, and claimed that with such a high proportion of three and four bedroom houses there are inevitably a high proportion of people with two or more oars with garaging and parking for only one car. They did not think that a garage could be classified as a parking space as it is only usually used at night. It was also felt at Betta Farm that t)i* garages were of insufficient size for an average faily saloon. 0011235 Table 4 None of the areas studied had any special facilities provided for parking caravans, and very few d.weflings had space to park a caravan off the road without obstructing their own driveways. This is not a situation unique to desigu guide estates. S. 5#_!2!_252Lath22#.t_2R22: E?22_t Of those people who had no facilities for jarking a caravan, few required it: 72% not requiring it and 27% requiring it. The hi&iest proportion of people wishing to have space made available were the 5( at Betts Farm, althou apparently when purchasing a property on the estate, a covenant is signed prohibiting caravan parking. Table 4: Car parking and garaging.

- Categories Betts Pan Lt. W. (Pr) Lt. W. (a) Pearsons Pm Small Eats. Other Newel Other News Other Mews Other News Other

Sufficient garage/ parking space Yes 25 51 81 68 60 66 29 49 78 50 No 75 47 19 32 40 34 71 48 17 45 Space for caravan/boat Yes 12 4 25 24 12 9 18 22 22 14 No 88 94 75 76 84 91 76 73 78 86

No. of respondents 16 47 16 119 25 32 17 73 18 22

Is facility required? Yes 50 34 17 22 19 31 31 26 7 32 No 50 64 83 76 81 69 69 74 83 58 • No. of respondents 12 88 21 14 65 29 13 53__-_14 17 NB. All percentage figures rounded. 6.0 Erberior Desii and Appearance of Houses. Table 5. LS?22 2�a2J Most people thought that their houses rated from good to fair, with very few thinking them poor. Many people thought that the appearance of the Counoil development at Little Wheatleys was marred by the black window frames, and that Pearsons Fan was let down by the plain front doors.

. 000236 6.2 Maintenance. Table 5

People were generally less impressed by the maintenance aspects of their homes than they were by the appearance, due mainly to the large quantities of wood and plaster used externally. Generally the brick faced houses within estates rated higher regarding maintenance. Overall very few houses were rated as poor (14%) and many of these were the result of aspects such as poor quality worSanship during construction. Table 4peanoe and maintenance.

Opt egories Betts Farm Lt • W. (Pr) Lt • W. (a) Pearsons Pm Small Eats.

News Other News 1oter Mews[Other News Other News J Other

Appearance Good 56 47 62 33 56 47 76 49 61 68 Fair 38 51 38 57 28 34 18 44 28 23 Poor 6 2 — 10 12 19 6 4 11 9 Maintenance Good 52 44 65 37 44 38 50 42 33 50 Fair 16 38 29 44 25 47 38 41 50 41 Poor 12 9 6 15 31 13 12 16 17 5

No. of respondents 16 47 16 119 25 32 17 73 18 22

NB. All percentage figures rounded.

7.0 Accettability of Hjgh Level Bedroom Windows om a total of 385 people 31% found high level bedroom windows acceptable, 12% did not and 46% had no such windows. Unfortunately, some people interpreted the question as meaning all high level windows in general. As a result some people from Little Wheatleys complained about high level landing windows which were difficult to reach in order to clean.

Regarding the des1 of windows, an important point was raised by one person from Mariners Court who discovered that small children were able to open the upstairs bedroom windows which swivel outwards at the bottom, so creating a hazardous situation. The most consistent comment regarding windows came from both parts of the Little Wheatleys estate where no fanlights are provided. Many people found that they could not ventilate the house xroperly without fully opening the windows. Most other estates had small pane windows which people generally thought look attractive, but which requ1djre extensive painting, and are often rather small.

OtU232 8.0 Internal Aspects of the Home. Table 6. 8.1 Size of living rooms. I In general, living room sizes were considered from good to fair with no exceptions. The least satisfied response came from Pearsons Farm with 18% from Mews Court areas and 26% from other areas respectively considering living room size to be poor1 8.2 Size of bedrooms. Table 6

Opinion regarding bedroom size varied between fair and good in most oases except for Betts Farm where it was considered between fair and poor. Many people at Betts Farm stated that,although the main bedrooms were usually of a good size, the overall opinion was poor because of the inadequate size of the third or fourth bedroom. 8. 3Layofrooms. Table 6

Most people considered the layout good, although many suggested minor alterations such as the repositioning of doors to achieve maximum room usage. 8.4 Storage apace. Table 6 Storage space was considered poor in all but the Council development at Little Wheatleys and Pearsons Farm where the dwellings were designed to comply with Parker Morris standards. Again, minor alterations, such as the use of under—stair areas,were suggested which could greatly increase storage space. 8.5 Sound insulation. Table 6

Opinion was fairly evenly divided between fair and poor regarding sound insulation. It was found to be exceptionally poor, however, at the three blocks of flats at Pearsons Farm.

Despite the small size of some windows, sunlight to rooms was considered good. Some people pointed out, however, that sunlight to all rooms in general was good, but living rooms alone were often rather dark.

Sunlight to gardens was generally considered good despite the many walls at estates such as Betts Farm, and the generally high densities at the developments.

8.8 Size of gardens. Table 6

Opinion was fairly evenly divided throughout regarding the size of gardens. Many people from Betts Farm stated that they considered their rear gardens to be barely adequate, but their biggest complaint regarded the size of their front gardens which many of them thought ridiculous. This opinion was also shared by the residents of Gloucester Avenue and Lodgelands Close. Most people who were satisfied with their garden size stated that they w,quld still a prefer a larger garden. / 000L!33 Table 6

Most people appeared satisfied. with privacy indoors except for those whose bedrooms or living rooms were directly overlooked by neighbours as had happened in a few cases.

2a&j2aEL I Surprisingly, privacy was considered poor at Betts Fern where screen fences are provided, and good at Little Wheatleys where the gardens are open plan.

Table 6; Aqpeots of the horn!.

Oateories Bette Farm Lt. W. (Pr) Lt. w. (o) Pearsona Fm Small Ests. Mews [Other Mews I Other Mews Lother Mewsjpther Mews Other 9' Size of living rms Good 63 51 25 61 72 91 53 45 72 59 Pair 37 40 75 35 20 6 29 29 28 36 Poor 6 3 8 3 18 26 5 Size of bedrooms Good 6 13 31 60 72 91 59 42 44 36 Pair 50 53 63 33 12 9 35 32 50 50 Poor 44 32 6 7 16 6 26 6 14 Layout of rooms Good 44 40 44 6o 64 69 59 49 72 64 Pair 37 45 50 34 24 28 35 34 28 32 Poor 19 11 6 5 12 3' 6 16 4 Storage space Good 12 13 31 29 6o 62 41 56 17 14 Fair 44 34 31 26 24 19 47 26 28 45 Poor 44 49 37 45 16 19 12 18 55 41 Sound insulation Good 37 4 19 18 20 34 41 26 28 32 Fair 44 43 31 41 44 25 29 33 33 32 Poor 19 38 50 40 36 41 29 41 39 36 Sunlight to rooms Good 50 57 75 64 68 50 66 61 50 Fair 25 23, 19 29 28 25 24 25 33 36 Poor 19 17 6 6 4 25 9 6 14 Sunlight to garden Rz.17 flats Good 63 55' 81 68 68 72 59 64 67 54 Fair 25 38 6 27 24 28 29 16 22 41 Poor 6 4 12 4 8 12 5 11 5 Size of gardens Ex. 17 flats Good 6 28 44 46 6o 66 52 6 56 27 Fair 50 36 44 41 32 22 25 50 33 50 Poor 44 32 12 12 8 12 7 44 11 23

/contd....

090239 Table 6 continued. S — V Categories Betts Farm Lt. W. (Pr) lit. W. (C) Pearsons Fm Small Ests. News Other News] Other Mews Other News Other News Other

%_____ Privacy indoors Good 56 47 69 43 72 72 53 59 78 64 Fair 19 36 25 44 20 22 18 25 11 27 Poor 25 13 6 13 8 6 29 12 11 9 Privacy in garden Ex.17 flats Good 12 19 44 21 28 12 12 23 67 45 Fair 50 23 31 39 32 41 41 18 22 36 Poor 31 53 25 38 40 47 47 59 11 18

No. of respondents 16 47 16 119 25 32 17 73 18 22

NB. Ill percentage fig-ares rounded

9.0 Comments Regarding Concept of News Courts and Private Drives.

Althoui this question was directed at people living in such areas, many people with ordinary 'private' drives to their garages thought that this question applied to them.

One resident at Betts Farm stated that the News Court concept was borrowed from more affluent areas and did not work in a working class environment, whereas the majority of people from the Council development at Little 'Wheatleys thought the idea worked very well in their environment. Amongst the estates with private ownership, problems arose such as where the responsibility lies for maintaining shared driveways where no dividing line can be found between the properties. Overall opinion regarding News Courts could easily be divided into groups; those who require privacy for whom the lack of privacy and disturbance caused by children cause problems, and those who wish to socialise, for whom the News Court idea works very well.

10.0 Choice of Similar Development Main. Table 7.

There was very little difference of opinion between the people from News Court areas and those from other parts of the estates; 59% and 6c respectively in favour of living in a similar development again. Of the people who said 'no', some stated that they would in future be looking for a completely different type of house due to financial or other reason, but were they to be in the same position they were in when they purchased their house they would not mind living in the same type of development again. Some people answered that they may possibly live in a similar development again ii' improvementwere made as a result of this questionnaire.

000Z49 Table 7. Choice of similar development again.

- - Categories Betts Fan Lt. W. (Pr) Lt. W. (C) Pearsons Thu Small Eats. Total

News Other Mows Other News J Other News Other Mews Other News J Other %

Yes 56157 63 55 64 72 53 59 56 77 59 60 No 37 43 20 22 35 38 44 23 35 37 44138 -'----

NB. All percentages figures rounded.

11.0 Knowlege of Essex Desjgn Guide

Prior to the questionnaire only 17% of the peopie questioned had any knowledge of the Essex Design Guide, and of these 96% came from owner occupiers.

12.0 Conclusions

12.1 General layout and appearance. The general layout of design u.ide estates has been well received by the public. The revised Essex Design Guide — Highway Standards will now allow for greater flexibility, especially in the reduction of carriageway widths and in the elimination of one or both footways. The concept of the modern News Courts was the product of the Design Guide, but certain design faults have prevented them from being more popular than. the traditional street. One possible lesson to be learnt is that they must always be closed courts: footpath links between courts or between courts and street, tend to attract children and give rise to nuisance through both play and increased conflict with vehicles • There are also problems of parking, which can be overcome if each dwelling has an individual access to its own garage and parking space; a minimum of two spaces,or one garage plus one space,is essential in News Courts because of the severely restricted area for 'on street' parking.

The square mews with central parking area, as used on the Little heatleys Council estate, would be less successful in private developments because of the difficulties in getting the ighway Authority to adopt the parking spaces due to the width of road exceeding 5.5 metres. It is considered that this type of court would not be considered desirable by either developer, hcuseowner or local authorities.

The current policy of not insisting on News Courts in new schemes appears to be the right approach, but where developers wish to provide them they must be closed courts and serve a maximum of 12 unit (i.e. type 53 in the Design Guide Highways Standards).

903241 The only private drives surveyed, were in Done Close. No problems were revealed and. they are being favoured in the recent developments More experience in the . e.g. Hilltop Close and Higholiff Crescent. management aM maintenance of private drives is required before any conclusions can be drawn, and there is a case for e'reinlning these at a future date.

The main criticisms voiced were related to people's driving habits, and in particular, excessive speed. It seems that driving habits are slow to respond to the changes in highway standards. There was some concern over the limited sight splays and the steepness of ramps at the entrance to Mews Courts, but the safety aspect can be improved 'by limiting the number of dwellings in News Courts. The desigu of ramps is a matter of detail which can be taken up with the County Surveyor in future developments.

12.3 Landscaping. It has been proved difficult to achieve a high level of tree planting S in desigu guide estates because of the limited space available on the public side of the dwellings. Young trees 'which are planted may take several years to make an impact on the appearance of estates, but on the other hand semi—mature trees require greater maintenance and these is less space for them under the new highway standards because of the close proximity of buildings. It would be an improvement if areas were designed and planted to compliment layout. A compromise solution may be to seek more shrub planting on private land and so achieve an instant impact without causing struoturaj. problems for buildings. 12. 4Playpaco. No clear relationship was found between the availability of children's playspace and the nuisance caused by children. It is fair to say that playspaces are not really necessary because of the reasonable garden sizes which are required by this Authority. Playspaces cause problems of mtintenance and supervision; playing in gardens allows for greater parental control. As a matter of policy, public open space should be available within a reasonable walking distance, but I where developments do not comply with this standard the provision of playspace should still be sought. 12. 5GarinSpaing

'Whilst generally the provision is good on private estates, certain conclusions were drawn from the survey:—

i) problems were experienced in News Courts, as described in 12.1 above; ii) some people tend to use their space unwisely and effectively only use 50% of their space. This is particularly so where the garage size is inadequate for the size of the oar to be garaged. The usual standard for a garage or space is 5 metres x 2.5 metres, but ideally this should be as measured internally for garages. In view of Circular 22/80 this may now be difficult to but should be sought where possible. . OODz42 iii) households in 4—bedroom properties often possess two or more cars and consequently do not have room for 100% on—site parking. Consideration should be given to requiring an additional parking space for 4—bedroom dwellings to ensure that visitors spaces are not used by residents. The survey revealed that the majority of householders do not require a space for a boat or caravan, and of course it is up to caravan or boat o'wners to seek property on which these items can be parked or to seek storage space elsewhere. Despite the growing minority who wish to keep a boat or caravan, there is no justification for making developers provide space for them, but there are ways in which the problem could be reduced:- i) provide communal caravaWboat parking areas — not recommended because of problems of supervision, although perhaps this provision could be a source of revenue if the Council owns suitable sites in residential areas; ii) use non—integral garages for access to the side or rear of dwellings by designing them with rear doom; this would enable boats to be parked at the side or rear, but not caravans.

12.6 Do e i of dwefl lags

Generally, the design conoepts have proved popular with the public even where respondents considered that the use of certain materials led to greater maintenance requirements.

Windows provoked the most comments, especially where there are no fanlights as on the Little Wheatleys estate. This is a practical criticism, and since there is a place for fanlights in the design guide concept, we should concede consumer demands in this respect in the future. High level windows gained a mixed response, although in most circumstances were considered appropriate. They are criticised by the Fire Brigade because they cannot act as a means of escape and they are now avoided wherever possible. Most householders were satisfied with the internal arrangement of dwellings, as well as the daylight, sunlight and privacy thus obtained. It was consistently stated that storage space is Inadequate, and sound insu.lation poor, but there is no real control over the internal arrangement or space standards of dwellings; Parker Norris standards have not been applicable to private dwellings since 1975. All insulation is, of course, provided to Building Regulation requirements. 13.0 Reocmmendation

That the conclusions in Section 12 above be noted and used as a basis for negotiation in the control of residential development. ROCEFORD DISWHICT COUNCIL

rEVLaEfti1ENT SRVICES CQMMIWTRI - 25t1itThEHUARY, 1982.

BEPOWfl OF '2BE DIBECY2OR OF TthIN PLANNING. & DIRECTOR OF IEGL SERVICEB.

Planning Gain.

1.00. Introduction

The Department of the Environment has published, a recent report 'by the Property Advisory Group on "Planning Gain" for comment. This report is a follow up from a previous report of the Group to the Minister on the "Structure and Activity of the Construction Industry" that drew attention to the problem in their viewpoint of planning gain, i.e. "the arrangements whereby local auThorities, in granting planning permissions, achieve planning or other community gains at the expense ol' developers." The Minister subsequently asked the group to examine the matter and report back to him. The report is available to all interested parties for their views which were requested by 31st January, 1982. A formal report has not sofar been presented to the Council because of a number of local meetings of professional bodies to consider the report in detail. However, a letter has been sent to the Department of Environment and a copy of this dated 27th January, 1982 is appended for Members' information.

2.00. Composition of the Group

Members of the Property Advisory Group comprise;— / 8 Chartered Surveyors, 3 Legal People, 2 Accountants and 1 Planner.

3.00. General Conclusion

The position of the group which is set out in their covering letter to the Minister is that basically as a matter of general practice and with specific exceptions they state, they are unable to accept that planning gain has any place in the system of planning control.

4.00. Synopsis of the Report

The report has some nine sections and following a short discussion on the need to separate the concept of planning gain from the use of appropriate conditions attached to planning permissions attempts to define planning gain:— 4.01. Definition of Planning Gain

"3.01. Accordingly we have directed our attention to those cases in which the gain in ayestion cannot be obtained by the inzposi'±pn of valid planning conditions, or where there is doubt -1- 000244 . as to whether it could be so achieved. This we believe to be the real area of current concern. Therefore, for the purpose of this Report we take the view that a planning gain accrues when, in connection with the obtatnigof aplanninpernission, a developer offers, agrees or is oblige4 to incur some expenditure, surrenders some right or concede some other benefit which could not, or arguably could not, be embodied in a. valid planning conditt9fl,.

3.02. The machinery by which this type of plnnning gain is achieved varies. Very often it is contained in an agreement made under Section 52 of the Wown and Country Planning Act 1971, Section III of the Local Government Act 1972. However, we do not regard the choice of machinery as important to the general issue of principle which is under discussion."

4.02. Typical I2xamples

The report then goes on to examine seven typical examples of plnnni-rig gain. (i) Infrastructure i.e. the provision of services or other essential public utilities off the development site itself.

(ii) Public Amenities i.e. the provision of public open space, recreational or social facilities.

(iii) Discontinuance of Use i.e. a developer agrees to relinquish a non—conforming user site in return for a planning permission on a new "acceptable" site. (iv) Rehabilitation of Bui1ding i.e. a developer is asked in return for permission to change the use of an architecturally meritorious but run down building to carry out works of restoration to its external facade. (v) Binvironmental Theatinent i.e. a local authority indicates that it will grant planning permission for a scheme if the developer agrees to lay the scheme out in a particular 'wty or design it in accordance with a particular style so as to open up a view or to achieve some other aesthetic or visual effect unconnected with the scheme itself.

(vi) Public Rights i.e. a developer owns a site near an area of scenic or other interest, or a river or some other amenity, and agrees, in return for a consent to dedicate part of the land as public open space, riverside walk, etc.

(vii) Payments of Ivloney i.e. a local authority asks the developer to make a payment, if permission is granted, towards the restoration of a Listed Building or to some other worthy public case which does not bear any relation to the,oposed development.

—2- OOO24i The report in other chapters then examines the questions of who proposed plmnning gain? and is plnnning gain an acceptable practice? The group considers all the originators of planning gain and expresses concern over its wider useage including its introduction into policy statements and plans. The report then argues strongly against the practice indicating that it is fundamentally wrong, inconsistent with the principles of sound administration, it goes on to argue that if local authorities get into the habit of erbractin.g planning gain, "they may unconsciously encourage them— selves to give excessively favourable consideration to applications of doubtful planning merit because they know that, if permission is granted, they will be'receiving some wholly extraneous benefit."

5.00. Acceptable cçptions 1. Where a gain mi< be achieved by agreement if the purpose of the agreement is to overcome what migtt be a legitimate ground for refusing planning permission altogether, but for some technical legal reason cannot form or arguably may not form, the subj act matter of a valid planning permission. 2. In applications containing a "mixed" variety of elements the Group would counsel great caution, and advises that if any element is so contrary to policy or damaging to amenity it should be refused. However, where there is no fundamental planning objection and a more even balance between benefits and disadvantages, it would be legitimate for the local planning authority to look at the total effect of the scheme as a whole and grant planning permission if it were satisfied that the proposed advantages outweighed the disadvantages and provided the developer is legally bound to implement the total scheme. The report also briefly examines the question of contributions by developers towards the provision of off—site car parking and provided such contributions relate entirely to the needs of the development and is subsequently provided by the authority elsewhere this practice would seem to have been endorsed.

6.00 The Conclusions

The report concludes that there is a strong demand from the development industry, professional institutions and local authorities for a code of practice which will indicate what is and what is not acceptable in the future and advocates that the Seoretary of State should provide some form of central guidance. Whilst they do not think it is necessary to go so far as to draw up an elaborate Code of Practice they suggest five guidelines as follows:— (i) when a local authority receives an application for planning permission, it should be considered on its own m its, and as a whole.

- - 000246 . (ii) if the proposal is one to which no legitimate planning objection can be raised, the authority should grant permission. (iii) if there are objections to the proposal which can be overcome by the imposition of valid planning conditions, permission should be granted subject to those conditions.

(iv) if there are objections to the proposal which, but for some technical legal objection, could be overcome by the imposition of a valid planning condition, the local authority should be willing to grant permission subject to the developer's entering into an agreement, under Section 52 of the 1971 Act or other powers, which will overcome the legitimate planning objection.

(v) if the application is a "mixed" application which contains a number of elements, some of which are, by themselves, objectionable, but others of which promote positive planning advantages, the separate elements should be looked at individually as well as collectively so that, in the final result, the decision on the application, which must be a decision on the applicaticn as a whole, will achieve a just balance which cannot be characterised as the mere "sale" of development rights.

They also suggest that the practice of seeking contributions from developers towards the cost of providing car—parking spaces should be governed by the same principles and reiterates the view that the practice of bargaining for planning gain is unacceptable and should be firmly discouraged.

7.00. Views of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

Not mentioned in the Group's report is a preliminary report from. the R.I.C.S. in response to a request by the Secretary of the Group for 'views on the practise relating to planning gains.

The 11.1.0.5. report recognised a need for guidelines which are less narrow and legalistic than those defined in Property Advisory Groups Report:—

(a) Community benefits should not be sought unless they are directly related to the development in question.

(b) Planning decisions must conform with existing planning policies and standards. Thus, an application which is acceptable in principle on planning grounds must not be refused simply because a gain is not attached. Conversely, the offer by a developer of a planning gain should not be regarded as means of maHng totally unacceptable delopment worthy of approval.

k Wa 4 O)G24'7 (a) The pursuit of planning gains mast not be used as a form of tax or fund-raising device and as such should not be specifically related to the profitability of development, though the ability of a development to generate a profit mast clearly affect its ability to finance a planning gain or pay for infrastruoture. (d) Where a oath contribution is required from a developer, the sum paid should be used. for the purposes for whioh it was paid. If it is not intended to use the money at the time it is paid by the developer, then the sum should remwin on deposit and should carry interest. This interest should ultimately accrue to the local authority.

The 11.1.0.8. also conclude that "while it is fairly easy to be clear about examples such as these, we recogeise that there will be many cases falling somewhere in between these extremes and it will not be possible for the guidelines to be precise about every circumstance that can arise. In the final analysis, the question of what is reasonable in the circumstances must prevail."

8.00. Views of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

The RPT.P.I. accepts that there can be a disparity of negotiating strength between a developer and a local authority. It argues that neither legislative change nor the restrictions suggested by Property thvisory Group would put the matter right. The Institute adds that "the power to negotiate planning gain is an integral part of our planning legislation and cannot be abandoned without reconsidering the whole system of planning". The R.T.P.I. proposes that;—

(a) it should be clearly established that pajment of planning gain should never lead to an unacceptable development being given permission.

(b) Section 52 procedures should be reviewed to see if they can be simplified to minimise delay. (a) the situation should be reached where local authorities would not normally seek planning gain not mentioned in a development plan or brief. (a) a practice advice note should be drawn up to help local authorities establish policies for planning gain requirenents in such areas as off—site road works, sewerage, community land or buildings, and revocations of permissions, or of existing use rights in exchange for new permis o

—5—

009243 . 9.00. Views of the Association of Distriot Councils.

The A.B.C's Planning Committee concluded that "tilst the Association supports the five guidelines set out on page 12 of the P. A. (1. report on "Planning Gain" in principle, it considers that many of the 'views expressed elsewhere in the document, particularly in relation to the provision of open space and conimu.ted payments for car parking are unduly biased and unreasonably restrictive in their interpretation of legitimate planning gains." The Association's Planning Committee also resolved that the Department be advised that the general principles set cut in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the revised R.I.C.S. discussion paper entitled "An Approach to Planning Gains" are considered to be far more acceptable and are therefore being commended to all member authorities. It is understood that the LI.0.S. discussion paper was submitted to P.A.G. and considered by then, but the Association's members could see little evidence of this in their report. In the most general terms, members feel that the report is narrowly conceived and tends to be legalistically framed and. worded, as well as being extremely biased, possibly due to the composition of the group.

Additionally, ooients are made in more detail on the report which conclude generally that it takes a far too narrow view and suggests that an alternative definition could include the words "the achievement of a communityeneflt tbroua voluntay aeement with a developer prior to the issue of a planning permission." The cited cases fail to cover the total panorama of planning gait' and no development can be viewed in isolation as the report attempts to suggest. The A.B.C. also draws attention to the authorities which mitigate against excesses by "black sheep" by (i) Appeals procedures and the added impetus of costs being 1 awarded by Inspectors against improper decisions, and (ii) The Ombudsman neither of which is mentioned in the P.A.G. Report.

10.00. Comment

In our view whilst there is no strong objections to the five guidelines set out in the conclusions the report is extremely biased against the whole siject, it is too narrowly conceived and tends to be legalistically framed and worded. Many of the views expressed in the document, particularly in relation to the provision of open space and commuted payments for car parking are unduly biased and. unreasonably restrictive in their interpretation of legitinte planning gains. The attempts to define planning gain resft a far a WI w 000249 -6- too narrow view and whilst other parts of the report amplify the final sentence of the definition in paragraph 3.01, this does set the work tone of the document.

Reference to community benefit is missing from the P.A.CL's definition. The AD.O. strongly criticised the report and stress that the oases cited in the report fail to cover the total panorana of gain and the reports biased interpretation against gain by suggesting that local planning authorities use this as a method of blac:knailing developers into meeting unreasonable demands does not reflect what is actually happening.

In the Director of Town Planning's experience, apart from the question of time scale (i.e. length of time to get a decision) no developer can be coerced into giving planning gain. The developer can refuse outright, then the local authority has to either refuse permission or impose conditions — both of' which are open to question on appeal or judicial review. The appeals procedure with the awarding of costs against "black—shee:p" authorities or the role of the Ombudsman in such a matter are important safeguards.

The Director of Town Planning also feels that there is a definite role for local plans to clearly state areas in which a local planning authority would expect to see contributions, such a note incorporated into a policy document would be a timely warning to developers. Om the question of permissible 'planning gains, the Directors agree with the limited approval of Case 1 but would not agree with the remainder, apart from (vii — Page 2) where a developer would be TtjyjngII a planning permission. 'n any agreement relating to payments to a local authority, the intended use of the money should be absolutely clear, e.g. off—site car parking, and there must be a firm intention by the authority to provide the development. The A.D.O. suggest a 10 year time limit should be put to the completion of the project and if it does not come to fruition, then the money ouit to be returned with interest. This in our view could be the correct approach and would certainly overcome the apprehensions expressed in the Report.

With regard to the recommendations in the Report, the Directors agree that a formal code of practice is inappropriate and whilst the guidelines suggested are acceptable, & 1—3 are in the narrow sense perfectly correct, they are in the words of the A. B. C. "merely truisms in relation to the determination of planning applications."

The Directors wish to reiterate the views expressed by letter dated 27th January from Director of Town Planning and additionally support the conclusions and recommendations of the R.T.P.I.

RECOIMEUED That (i) the reservations expressed by the Director of Town Planning in the letter to the Department of the Ekivironment dated 27th January, 1982 be strongly endorsed and the D.O.E. be informed;

(ii) the reservations expressed by the LT.P.I. be also strongly supported together with their suggestions listed in par • 800 ofthisreport. O25O IME/YH/16. 2.82. CW'T: 3oiUors Jops & Poster, llarvey, Ho].man & Wood. ifi )1ee of Mnngent Team. •

Mr. I,M. Edwards 27th January, 1982.

Dear Sir, Report by the Property M.vi wary Group a Planning Gain. In resjnlae to the invitation for all interested parties to suit views on the abre Report by the 31st January, 1982, 1 have to Inform you that in view of several locally arranged meetings which have only recently taken place concerning the document, this Authority will be unable to formally reply Store the above date. I an writing to register the intention of the Council to forward its observations to you once due consideration has been given through the Coinittee system, which should be some time towards the end of February or the beginning of March. I have nevertheless discussed the matter in the Council'a Management ¶1eam and with several, leading Members of' Council and feel I must register the Council's strong reservations about the document at this stage. The reservations relate to:— 1. The Property Advisory Group although reporting cut a subject which is likely to radically affect the planning process has only one representative of the Royal Town Plezin.ing Institute within its body of 14 Members; 2. This seems to have conditioned the approach to the report which has defined planning gain in unduly narrow and legalistic tern's. The report makes no reference to the discussion paper "An ñpproadh to Planning Gains" by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in response to a request from the Property Advisory Group. The guidelines suggested hers would initially seem far cre acceptable. 5. No reference is made to the original source of the report toll arose from & previous report of the Group to the Minister on the Structure and Activities of the Constriction Industry. This drew attention to the problem in their viewpoint on planing gain. This original report seems unfortunately to have pre-oonditioned the definition of planning gain by the Group as something wadesirable. In actual fact it ii 'bad end illegal practices' Thidb shotid be discouraged and not the incorporation of merit and conffnun.ity benefit into applications. The latter oezt legitimately be achieved for the moat part within the existing planning framework.

continuedJA.... S 00 2 5 jepartment of the ivironment, 013/12, 2 Msrehi Street, - rn-,,rnr F!t.'TP VR —2- 27th January, 1982.

4. Th. report fails to mention the Appeals procedure with the ewarding or cot ts eainat "hi ack—sheep" authorities or the rol a o th%& (budcn Ln such matters. 5. By definin€ p1amitrg gain in xch a wa as to discredit a hitherto undefined, practise which can lagitisately produod merit ex4 bsnetit in a soheat,, the report win tend. to discredit plaxiniag practise generally, however legitimate, and is heavily biased to this end. 6. The reservations expressed by the Association of District Councils in thair letter of 21st December, 1981 initially appear appropriate.

These are initial reactions only and 'will be followed up in due course. However, I will be pleased to be available should aziy aspect require djsouosion Yours faithfully,

Dliector of Town Blunting,

Department of the Pbvironment, Room cij/i�, 2 Nersham Street, LONDON, 6WI 3EB.

009252 ROCFIFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE — 25TH FEBRUARY, 1982

REPORT OF ThE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING

ESSEX DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME — CONSULTATION DRAFT

The Director of Town Planning reports receipt of the above document, and the extract relating to Rochford District is attached to this report. The description of the two local plans which are in course of preparation are in accord with the Project Reports previously approved by the Committee. No objection is raised, except that in the case of the Rochford District Plan, the major involvement of County Officers indicated by the two asterisks in the "Responsibility" column should be changed to a minor involvement.

A letter has also been received from the County Planner regarding the Countryside Conservation Plan which was reported to Committee on 27th October, 1981 (Minute 616/81). Apparently the Department of the Environment has suggested that the Plan should be given full local plan status and not be regarded as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Plan has been downgraded by the County Council because of objections raised by the Department to the way in which the Green Belt Subject Plan had previously been proposed as a formal local plan.

The Department recognises however that the provisions of the Countryside Conservation Plan should eventually be incorporated in District local plans, and this is the case as far as two thirds of Essex Districts are concerned including Rochford, where the intention is to include countryside conservation matters in the Rochford District Plan.

In view of the fact that any local plan prepared by the County Council is unlikely to be finalised before the Rochford District Plan, there is no need for the County to prepare a formal Countryside Conservation Plan as far as this District is concerned, and in view of the situation in local plan programmes countywide there seems to be no justification on any grounds.

It is therefore

RECOMMENDED That the County Council be informed:—

(1) That no objection is raised to the 1982 Review of the Essex Development Plan Scheme, except that the involvement of the County Council in the Rochford ,.-. District Plan should be dei'toted as minor and nox I major.

OOO25 (ii) That it is the opinion of this Council that the upgrading of the Countryside Conservation Plan cannot be justified for the County as a whole or this District in particular, since in the latter case the necessary material will be incorporated in the Rochford District Plan which is in course of preparation.

I .

I 0032:ji S SCHEDULE 'A - S S S DISTRICT ROCORD

SHEET 1

TITLE SCOPE ,CONIENTS. BASIC AIMS

and D.P. ROC'ORD TOWN CEIIRE A comprehensive plan containing policies proposals to provide a framework for all towi aspects of the development of the centre to inolud.e the improvement of its viability as a shopping centre particularly by realising residential and recreational potential, solving transportation problems, the increasing employment and recognising need to protect and enhance the Conservation Area. This plan may be treated as an inset to the Rocblord District Plan. D.P. D.P.A. * ROCEFORD DISTRICT PLAN A District wide district plan to supersede parts of the Review Development Plan by redefining the boundaries of the Green Belt and foalating associated policies for the control of development (with particular regard to the plotlands sal redundant fai of buildings), by defining the boundaries the Roach Valley Conservation Zone, by defining all nature conservation and landscape quality areas, and by promoting the development of land for housing, the industry and offices in accordance with Plan. The provisions of the Structure plan centre may contain insets for Rochford town and for other major settlements.