INDEX

1994

January - December Anqlian Water Company Stambridge Sewage Treatment Works 462 Ashingdon Park Estate - Section 71 Water Act 1999 53.8 Animals Display of Animals from Jakapeni Rare Breeds Farm Park 73, b Assets Safeguarding Sites:- Lower Wyburns Farm, Rayleigh 4f,297 Hollytree Gardens P.O.S., Rayleigh 4f ; Grove Road P.O.S., Rayleigh 4f Plumberow Mount P.O.S., Hockley 4f Millview Meadows P.O.S., Rochford 4f i Little Wheatleys, Rayleigh 4f,297 Rochford Recreation Ground 4f Wyburns Farm, Little Wheatleys - Woodlands Trust 156d Hambro Hill, Rayleigh - Woodlands Trust 156d Sweyne Park, Rochford Recreation Ground, Millview Meadows, Grove Road Public Open Space, Hollytree i Gardens Public Open Space - Transfer to,NPFA 156d Plumberow Mount, Hockley Leased to Hockley Parish 156d Brays Lane 156d More Business in Rayleigh High Street 156d Websters Way Car Park, Rayleigh 156d Former Playground, Mayfield Avenue, Hullbridge 523 Association of District Councils ADC Annual Meeting and Conference - June 1994 Notices of Motion 79d,85 Economic Initiative 296 22nd Annual Meeting and Conference - June 1995 418 Consultation Paper on a Single Local Authority Assoc. 419 Audit VFM Reports 79c External Auditors Findings - Issue Press Release 79c External Auditors Reports 157 Boundaries Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Essex 421 Southend/Rochford: Boundary Adjustments 427 Budset Budget 1994/95 80,104 Chairmans Speech 100 Revised Estimates 1993/94. Review of the Structure of Local Government 101 Budget 1995/96 600 Budget 1995/96 - Leisure Services 625 Budget 1995/96 - Development Services 627 Budget 1995/96 - Health & Housing Services 629 Budget 1995/96 - Transportation 632 Buildinss Notice of Motion - Youth Centre, Rayleigh Grange 3O(ii1),75,146 Saturday Market Mill Hall, Rayleigh 79e Saturday Cinema Mill Hall, Rayleigh 79e Sports Pavilions - Great Wakering 250(i) - Canewdon 25O(ii) Car Parks Penalty Fines - Unlicenced Vehicles in Car Parks 11 Increase Free Parking in Rayleigh High Street 79e More Signs Re: Trader Refund Schemes 79e Car Fair - Websters Way Car Park 380 Increase in Car Parking Charges at Southend Hospital 387,447 Car Parking - Trader Refund Scheme 514

Caravan Sites Caravan Sites Working Party 461 Spacing of Caravans, Progress Report 466,590

Cemeteries Closure of St. Andrews Churchyard, Rochford 9 Chairmans Announcements Sweyne Choral Society Concert 28 Hoist for Disabled Swimmers, Clements Hall 28 Memorial Service to Late Sir Andrew Lewis, former Lord Lieutenant of Essex 28 Field Lane Trust Sponsorship for Charity Walk 28 Stranger/Danger Signs 103 Annual Dinner of Rayleigh Air Training Corps 103 Army Presentation Display 103 Visit by Trevor Brooking - Chairman of Eastern Council for Sport and Recreation 103 Russian All Stars on Ice 103 Forthcoming Wedding of Cllr C. Black 103 Civic Banquets 183 South East Essex Music Festival at Freight House 183 Poster Competition - Crime Prevention 183 Essex & Suffolk Water Companies 183 Announcements for May and June 306 Sunset Ceremony. Shoeburyness 385 Tour of MOD Establishment, Shoeburyness 385 Festival Sport - King Georges Playing Field 385 Gt. Wakering Parish Council Centenary 385 Charity Bonfire/Fireworks, Castle Point Borough Council 621 Reception for Neighbourhood Watch 621 Launch of Paper Bank Websters Way Car Park 621 Bazaar at The Cedars 621 Thanksgiving Service at Chelmsford Cathedral 621 Remembrance Service at Holy Trinity Church 621 Palace Theatre Production 621 South East Essex Chamber of Commerce Trainee of the Year Awards 621 Arthritic Care Luncheon 621 Performance by Rock On Choir 621 Switching on of Festive Lights Rayleigh 621 Unofficial Opening of North Door, Holy Trinity Church 621 Speed Reduction Seminar 621 Charqes Charges 1995/96 - Leisure Services 626 Charges 1995/96 - Development Services 628 Charges 1995/96 - Health & Housing Services 630 Charges 1995/96 - Transportation 633 Charitres Public Charitable Collections 450 Citizens Advice Bureau National Associatron of Citizens Advice Bureaux ­ Accounts 1992/93 83,288 Lease of Premises - CAB, Rochford 527 Citrzens Charter PublIshed Performance Standards 522 Clements u Leisure Centre Proposed Canopy Scheme 70 Clements Hall Filtration Plant 497,610 Closing Orders Pickerells Farm, Rawreth 238 Committee Structure Terms of Reference - Leisure Services 542 Terms of Reference - Transportation 554 Terms of Reference - Health & Housing Services 574 Computers Computer Hardware - Housing Department 584 Consultatron Documents Paying For Our Past - Department of the Environment 166 White Collar CCT, Proposed Statutory Accountrng Framework - Department of the Environment 172 Access to Local Authority Housing and Association Tenancies 115,184 Planning Policy Guidance on Green Belts 194 Shaping Mental Health Services 323 A Single Local Authority Association 419 Ministry of Defence - The Way Forward for Test and Evaluatron 480 Essex County Council Road Safety Plan 1995/96 602 Consultations from Neishbourins Authorities Southend B.C. - Warehouse/Distribution Facility, Land , North of Prince Avenue, Southend 23 Transport Policres and Programmes and Public Transport Plan - Annual Consultation from the County Council 60 Southend B.C. - sos/94/0504 394 Southend B.C. - sos/94/0751 443 Southend On Sea Borough Local Plan, First Alteration, Pre Deposit Consultation Draft 474 Castle Point D.C. - Childrens Hospice, Lower Wyburns Farm 532 Southend B.C. - SOS/94/0959 - Junction at Proposed New B1013 Access to Southend 617 Contracts No.1727 - ExtensLon to Day Centre, Back Lane, Rochford 17,378 No 1747 - Provision of Conservatory and Porch, Hardwick House, Rayleigh * 18 No.1735 - Cyclical Repairs and External Painting, Hullbridge 48 Approval for Contractors Selected to Tender for-window Replacement 49 VFM Study on Client Side Management 141 No.1736 175 No.1761 - Supply of Wheeled Refuse Containers 176 No.1767 - Conversion of Bedsits to 3. & 2 Bedroom Flats at Pembroke House, Warwick Drive, Rochford - Frnal Phase 177 Approval of Contractors Selected to Tender for External Insulation to Council Houses 178 No.1738 180 Tenders for Contracts 184 No.1650 Office Cleaning 190 No.1770 - General Cleaning at Elderly Persons Schemes, Flatted Estate Blocks and Temporary Accommodation 241 Approval of Contractors to tender for Central Heating and Boiler Replacement Works 242 No.1644 - Hullbridge Foreshore Revetment Works 366,386 Contracts Progress Report 458,583 No.1779A - Central Heating and Boiler Replacement Works - Little Wheatleys, Rayleigh and Bobbing Close 468 Grounds Maintenance Contract 320,549 Castle Point Deposit Draft Local Plan 563 Annual Programme of Pre Painting, Repairs and Decoration of Council Dwellings 1995/96 587 Approval of Contractors Selected to Tender For The Schedule of Rates for General Building & Repairs 592 No.1788 - Conversion of Bed-Sits to Self Contained Flats At Chignal House, Tendring Avenue, Rayleigh 593

Coroorate Plan Annual Review - Leisure 312 Annual Review - Health & Housing 325 Annual Review - Policy & Resources 371 I.

Councillors Members Allowances 84 Councillor Miss B G J Lovett 147 Counclllor R A Pearson - Nomination to National Housing & Town Planning Conference 152 Election of the Chairman of the Council 1994/95 203 Appointment of Vice Chairman of the Council 1994/95 204 Appointment of Chairman of Policy & Resources 205 Appointment of Chairmans Chaplain 206 Results of the District/Parish Council Elections 207 Record of Attendances 208 Suspension of Standing Order 46 209 Constitution and Structure of Committees 210 Appointment of Standing Committees 211 Appointment of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Committees, Panels and Sub Committees 212 Appqintment of Representatives, on Outside aodies 214,413 Appointment for Special Responsibility for the Disabled 215 Appointment of Rochford Sports Council 215 Group Protocol 216 Resignation of Councillor S N Jarvis 186 Tributes to Retiring Members 188 Appointment of Dependent Panels 28O(i),307 Appointment of Reps to OutsIde Bodies 28O(ii),307 NotIce of Motion - Meetings of Sub Committees & Panels308(ii), Rochford Hundred Association of Local Councils 414 Members Rights of Attendance 422 Chairmans Hospitality Allowance 426 Appointment of Chairman to Transportation Committee 552 . Appointment of Vice ChaIrman of Planning Services 613

Compulsorv Competitive Tenderinq Extension to CCT - Legal Services 173 Council Tax Setting the Council Tax Base 5 Notice of Motion - Council Tax 1994/9 3O(ii) Setting the Level of Council Tax 1994/95 99 Council Tax - Appeals Against Valuation 170,289 Crouch Harbour Crouch Harbour Authority - Draft Management Plan 481

Cycle of Meetlnqs 1994/95 8 Dates of Meetings 213

- Additional Changing Rooms, Gt. Wakering Pavilion 250 New Changing Pavilion at Canewdon Playing Field 250 Tylney Avenue Play Space & Fyfield Path Open Space 314 Kicking Wall, Ashingdon Memorial Field 315 Chignal House, Rayleigh 335 Romney House, Rochford 335 Garages, Wimarc Crescent, Rayleigh 586 Delesation of Authoritv Environmental Protection Act 1990, Schedule 3(2A) - Authorised Officers to Enter 37 Review of Delegations 168 Review of Delegations to Officers - Environmental Health 230 Scheme of Delegations to Officers - Rights of Entry Onto Site 400 Develoument Control Statistics Quarter Ending September 1993 95 Quarter Ending March 1994 392 Quarter Ending June 1994 533 District Plan Workinq Party Rochford Hospital Site 428 Inspectors Report - First Review 473 District Plan Working Party Recommendations 473 Education Nursery School Provision in Rochford 463 Emerqencv Plan Flood Recovery Seminar 279,307 Employment Employment Initiatives 254,412 Youth Employment 601 The Environment National Sustainable Development Report Local Agenda 21 12 Environment Agency - Proposed Structure 449 Environment Claims Bill 576 Environmental Health General Noise & Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 37 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Schedule 3(2a) - Authorised Officers 37 Pet Animals Act 1951 - Prosecution 46 Closing Order - Pickerells Farm, Rawreth 238 The Future National Blood Service 521

Entertainment Licences Renewal of Licence - Smugglers Den, Hullbridge 237 Vary Licence - The Pink Toothbrush, Rayleigh 415 Ernie Adcock Trophv The Golf Team 544 Flood Defences Wallasea Island 306,381 Footpaths Footways - Provision and Maintenance 55 Proposed Diversion of Footpath 22 (Part), Rayleigh 268,641 Financial Matters Aggregate Credit Limits and Treasury Management 161 Revenues Division - Outreach Programme 286 Request for Assistance with Litigation Costs, Preston Borough Council 379 Charging for AO/Al Plan Size Copies 408 Replacement Council Tax/Benefits Systems 432 Capital Programme Post 1995 509 Reorganisation - Financial Issues 528 Housing Benefit Claims 579 standard Spending Assessment 1995/96 624 Business Rates - 1995 Evaluation 598 Accounting for the Use of Assets 599 Hockley Community Centre Association 611,623

- Grants And Loans Grant Aid to Outside Bodies - Organisations Receiving Grant 1994/95 83,162 Rochford & Rayleigh CAB's 104 Increased Grant Aid 156b, Rochford Sports Council 156b Spearhead 156b Stepping Out 156b Rochford Old Peoples Welfare Committee 156b Rayleigh Association of Voluntary Services 156b Rayleigh & District Chamber of Trade 162 Supplementary Grant to Rayleigh CAB 187,372(i),386 Essex Racial Equality Council 229 Hullbridge Senior Citizens Welfare Council 229 Grants to Community Centres 245 Rayleigh Antiquarian Society 245 Rawreth Village Hall 245,37Z(ii) Stambridge Community Centre 245 Riverside Gymnastics Club 245 South East Economic Development Strategy (SEEDS) 269 Greensward School - National Finals in Sheffield 317,386 The National Market Traders Federation 406(i) Litigation Costs - Waverley BC v Fletcher 406(ii) Inward Investment Visit to Essex from Taiwan 406(iii) Business Link 406(iv) Holt Farm County Infants School 520 Foulness Parish Council 548

Grounds Maintenance Grounds Maintenance - Quality Control 258,307,320,386 Grounds Maintenance Contract 320,549 Health Tabacco Advertising - Private Members Bill ­ Notice of Motion 3O(i),34 Essex Family Primary Health Care 33 No Smoking Policy 35 Shaping Mental Health Services - Consultation 323,386 Social Services - Service Improvement Strategy 324 Hishwavs Town Police Clauses Act 1847 - Section 21, Proposed Temporary Closure of West Street, Rochford 10 County Highways Matters 54,262,411 Hockley Parking Review 56 Transport Policies and Programmes and Public Transport Plan - Annual Consultation 60 Highways Act 1980 - Section 116 - Proposed Removal of Highways Rights: Land Adjacent to 40 The Westerings And 1 Claybrick Avenue, Hawkwell 66 Decrimalised Parking Enforcement and Permitted Parking Areas - Opportunities for Local Authorities 165 Review of Ravleish On Street Parking 128.184 Police Traffic Management - Attendance at Meetings 263 Town Police Clauses Act - Proposed Temporary Closure of Streets for Ashingdon Carnival 264 Town Police Clauses Act - Essex FM Roadshow - Rayleigh 265 Naming of Streets - Canterbury Close 266 Pedestrian Access - Back Lane Car Park, Rochford 267 A130 Chelmsford to Al3 Meeting with ECC 444 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 - Section 21 - Proposed Temporary Closure of West Street and Market Square, Rochford 472 Kill Your Speed Campaign 485 Attendance at Transportation by County Members 553 Essex Highways & Transportation Services 555 Sutton Road/ Sutton Court Drive, Rochford - Proposed Junction Protection 556 Consultation on the New Route for the Al27 557 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 - Section 21 - Temporary Closure of Lay By Opp. 63/81 High Street, Rayleigh 605 Meeting with Premises in Rochford Town Centre ­ Improving the carriageway 606 B1013 Access to Southend 637 A127: M25 to Rayleigh Weir Improvement, Public Consultation 639 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 - Section 21 - Temporary Closure of Louis Drive East (Part), Rayleigh 640 Horse Ridinq Little Wheatleys, Rayleigh 61 Marylands Avenue, Hockley - Riding Facilities 62a Magnolia Road, Hawkwell 62a Housinq Closing Order - 454 Ashingdon Road, Ashingdon 38 Tenant Consultation 39 Housing & Relationship Breakdowns - DOE Working Party 40 Housing Rents 1994/95 42 Bed & Breakfast Hotels 44,104,120,457 Housing Lettings 50 National Housing & Town Planning Conference 152 Conditions of Tenancy - Additional Clause 121,184 Housing Associations as Managing Agents 235 Minor Works Assistance Grants 236 Minutes of the Housing Benefit User Panel 290 Notice of Motion - Springboard Housing Association 308(i),336 The Secure Tenants of Local Authorities Regulations 1994 331 Mobile Homes Within the District 332 Cash Incentive Schemes - Supplementary Credit Applications 333 Meetins Future Housins Needs 334.369.386 Programme for the Upgrading of Sheltered Housing Bedsitters 1994/95: Chignal House, Rayleigh and Romney House, Rochford 335 House Renovation Grant - The Flat, Trenders Avenue, Rayleigh 340 The Ives, Trenders Avenue, Rayleigh 341 Right To Buy Application Affecting Private Property 434 Springboard Housing Association 455 Adaptations for Physically Handicapped Tenants 456,573 Right to Buy Aged Persons Bungalow 467 Bed Spaces for the Elderly 572 Housing Benefit Review Board 579,623 Essex Partnership Initiative - Housing Protocol 580 Good Neighbour Award Scheme 581 Proposed Appointment System for Maintenance Repairs 582 Garages, Wimarc Crescent, Rayleigh 586 Hullbridqe Foreshore Revetment Works - Contract No.1644 366,386 Information Items Complaints Received 294,423 Insurance, external financing and car loans 294,377,423 Council House Sales, Property Services and Environmental Health licences and notices 233,329,460 Hackney Carriage Licenclng 484 Land at Althorne Way, Canewdon 15 Rayleigh Grange Village 20 Little Wheatleys, Rayleigh 61 Marylands Avenue, Hockley - Horse Riding Facilities 62a Magnolia Road, Hawkwell - Horse Riding Facilities 62a Magnolia Road - Drainage 65 King Georges Playing Field - Rayleigh Town Fair 73 Proposed Golf Course Adjoining Clements Hall Leisure Centre, Hawkwell 142,375 Wyburns Farm, Little Wheatleys, Rayleigh 156 Hambro Hill, Hockley 156 Sweyne Park, Rochford Recreation Ground, Millview Meadows, Grove Road Public Open Sapce and Hollytree Gardens Public Open Space - NPFA 156 Plumberow Mount,,Rayleigh 156 Websters Way Car Park, Rayleigh 156 Blackmore Walk Amenity Area, Rayleigh 256 Sweyne Park Improvements 251 Improvements to Play Spaces 253 Antiques and Craft Market, Rochford 293 Woodlands Trust - Lower Wyburns & Little Wheatleys 297 Ropers Farm, Barling Magna 355,3%5,389,431 Leisure Rochford Activities Programme (RAP) 71 Skateboard Facilities 72 Rayleigh Town Fair - Warehouse Project 73 Proposed Golf Course Adjoining Clements Hall Leisure Centre, Hawkwell 142,375 Clements Hall Leisure Centre, Visit by Chairman, Eastern Region for Sport & Recreation 143 Rochford Arts Council 144 Community Development Initiative 145 Commando Venture Trust - King Georges Playing Field 146(i) Youth Centre - Ravleiqh Grange 146(ii),1%4,374,416 Performance by Rock On Choir- 246,307 GP Referral Scheme 247 Minutes of Rochford Sports Council 248,543 Rochford Hockey Club - Clubhouse Facilities 249 Sports Pavilion - Great Wakering 250(i) Sports Pavilion - Canewdon 250 (ii) Sweyne Park Improvements 251 Play Equipment - Sweyne Park 252 Improvements to Play Spaces 253 Employment Initiatives at Open Spaces 254.307 Blackmore Walk Amenity Area, Rayleigh 256,307;318 Park Sports Centre 259 Recreation Grounds - Fencing 314 Kicking Wall - Ashingdon Memorial Playing Field 315 Young People and Sports 316 Swimming Lessons for Junior School Pupils 370 Swimming Pool in Rayleigh 80,417 Ernie Adcock Trophy 544 Leisure Strategy 545 Charges for Football Pitches 503,546 Use of Football Pitches 500 (ii),547 Bar'n Bus 550 Leisure Services & The Arts 551 Meals a Wheels Meals on Wheels Service

Mininq Coalfield Communities Campaign Naminq of Streets Little Wheatleys Estate, Rayleigh 395 Graysons Close, Rayleigh 479 Deepdene Avenue, Rayleigh 479,567 The Westerings, Hawkwell 479 Alexandra Road, Gt. Wakering 567 National Non Domestic Ratinq Mandatory & Discretionary Rate Relief 6,163,283,410,512 Hardship 174,383,433,526 Consultation 411 National Rivers Authority Crouch Harbour Authority - Draft Management Plan 481 Flood Defence Proposals 279,482,607,623 Noise Noise Information Booklet 36 Noise & Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 37 Notices of Motion Tabacco Advertising - Private Members Bill 30i Council Tax 30ii Youth Centre, Rayleigh Grange 3Oiii,75 Police Checks on Adults Working with Children in Schools 105i Child Support Agency 105ii Local Government Re-organisation 105iii Police Checks on Adults Working with Children in Schools 169(i) Child Support Agency 169(ii) Local Government Reorganisation 169(iii) Springboard Housing Association 3O%(i),336 Meetings of Sub Committees and Panels 308(ii),376 Provisions of the Local Government (Misc. Prov.) Act 1982, Section 3, Schedule 4 to control the Extent of Street Trading 464 (i) Endorse ADC's Recommendations on street trading 464ci.i) Post Office 538,604 Tax System 538,604,623 Code of Conduct 538,604,623 Members Interests 538,604 ODen Spaces Development Proqramme Marylands Avenue, Hockley 19 Outside Bodies Essex & Herts Provincial Employers Organisation - A Member's Report 89 Panel Mintues Personnel Sub 79a,79b,156a,279b,508(A),508(B) Performance Review 79c,156b,279a,508(d),597(a) Group Leaders Panel 4a,4c,79d,156c, NNDR 4d DPWP 473ci.i) Horse Riding W.P. 62a, Waste Disposal W.P. 62b,104b, Asset Management Review 4f,I56d, Emergency 279c,405,597(b) Leisure Liaison 70, Rochford Hospital Panel 4b, Joint Performance and Personnel 4e, Unemployment h EC Initiatives 79e,508(c) Recycling Panel 337,585 Caravan Sites Working Party 461 Music & Dancing Panel 578 Parish Matters District/Parish Liaison Meetings 87 Revised Parish Council Involvement - Planning Process 565 Transfer of Bus Shelters to Rawreth Parish Council 566 Performance Indicators Quarterly Performance Reports - Housing 41,234,459 Quarterly Performance Reports - Development 64,270,483 Quarterly Performance Reports - Leisure 74,255 Quarterly Performance Reports - Policy 88,295,424 Plannins Appeals Analysis of Planning Appeal Decisions April - Dee 1993 93 m Office Rayleigh Post Office - Internal Layout 53 Public Ooen Snaces Magnolia Road - Drainage 65 Brooklands Gardens, Rayleigh 146 (iii) Land at Little Wheatleys Public Open Space, Rayleigh ­ Water Easement 569

- Ravleiqh Co-Ordinatins Committee - Membership and Attendance 90 Ravleiqh Weir !_\ Rayleigh Weir Improvement Scheme 325,454,575,623 Recvclinq c Recycling Glass and Waste Paper 47 Cornposting Schemes 47,62b Waste Disposal Minutes 62b,104b Public Recycling 62b Waste Disposal Plan 62b L Horticultural Traders Association - Green Releaf 63 Waste Paper and Home Composting 231,307 Recycling Panel - Minutes 337 Refuse c Review of Civic Amenity Sites - Common Road, Wakering 167 Refuse Collection Quality Control 240,307,339,452 Roach Vallev Withdraw of Officer Servicing - RVCZ Panel 476 Rochford District Local Plan First Review - Programme to Adoption 67 Charge for Inspectors Report 67 Inspectors Report 192 Consideration of the Inspectors Report 273,307 School Governinq Bodies Proposed Rayleigh County Primary School 292 t Special Proiects ! \ Dial A Ride Service 282(l) Travel Concessions 282(ii) Progress Report 282(1ri) b StandIns Orders Standing Order 46 209 Amendments to Standing Orders 281 Action Under Standing Order 18 448 c Amendments to Standing Orders 21.1,21.16 510 Staff Revised Establishment - Revenues Division 79b Director of Finance - SEEBRA 287 Y Street Collections Revision of Street Collection Regulations 43 Street Tradinq Notice of Motion - Street Trading Legrslation 464 Sunday Tradinq Reform of Sunday Trading Law, Sunday Trading Act 1994 453 Subscriptions Subscriptions 1994/95 81,373 Taxi Rank Facilities in Rayleigh 57 Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles 58 Information Items on Hackney Carriage Matters 271 Dial A Ride Service 409 Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Vehicles ­ Advertisements 478,560

Teach Ins and Seminars Housing Benefit Review Board Training 16 Function of Local Review Board 158 Essex Waste Seminar 199 Housing for People with Special Needs Seminar 330 Member Attendance at Seminars and Day Conferences 330,386 Enforcement Policy Seminar 577 Development Control Teach In 616 Town & Country Planning Contraventions Breach of Planning Control at:- Beckney Wood & Adjoining Land, Etheldore Avenue, Hockley 22 14 Station Road, Hockley 96 2 & 2A Eldon Way, Hockley 97 Land on the Northern Side of Vanderbilt Avenue at its Junction with Trenders Avenue, Rayleigh 195 Land at Beke Hall and an Adjoining Site Immediately South of the Railway Line, Off A130, Rayleigh 393 9 Hillview Road, Rayleigh 398 Bright Sparks Nursery, 170 London Road, Rayleigh 534 Underwood Lodge, Etheldore Avenue, Hockley 534 Town & Country Planninq Visit to Sites & Developments of Planning Interest 25,98 lla Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell - Weekly List 26 124/126 High Street, Rayleigh - CU/0363/93/ROC 150 Charging for Research 159 Costs Awarded - 124/126 High Street, Rayleigh 196,399 Invitations to Site Visits 156,198 . Essex Waste Seminar 199 61/65 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh 201 Pond beside Former Farmhouse at Little Wheatleys Chase, Rayleigh 202 Town Centre Enhancement Schemes 272 8 Plumberow Mount Avenue, Discharge of Section 106 Agreement 442 Planning Control Over Telecommunications Development 561 Land at Fossetts Farm, Sutton Road, Southend on Sea 562 Customer Surveys - Planning, Building Control and Acacia House Reception 564 Lantac Indemnity Resolution and Level of Service For Local Authority Building Control 568 Traininq Food Hygiene Training 589

Transportation : Multi-Purpose Transport Tickets 125,515,618,638 Essex Highways & Transportation Services 555 D Financial Allocations 634 Traffic Regulations 635 South East Essex Traffic Study 636 A127 - M25 to Rayleigh Weir Improvement 639

)I Town Centres Town Centre Enhancement Schemes - Rayleigh & Rochford 272,475 Warehouse Proiect Crime Prevention Panel 284 Waste Disoosal Licensinq Arterial Car Breakers, Rayleigh 13 Review of Civic Amenity Sites - Common Road, Great Wakering 167,200 Y Convoy Commercials, Rawreth Ind. Est., Rayleigh 327 Woodlands

Community Development Initiative 145 Local Nature Reserves in Rochford District 477 4 Write Offs

I3 Items under Community Charge 7 Housing Benefit, Community Charge, Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rating 164,285,407 Sundry Debtor Accounts 164 Local Government Review Unitary Status 4a Incorporation of Wickford, Billericay, Brentwood and Rochford 29 Local Government Re-organisation - Notice of Motion 105iii Code of Practice on a Prudential Approach to Financial Management Prior to Local Government Reorganisation under the Local Government Act 1992 160 v Meeting of Review Group Leaders 171 Options for Rochford 181 The Three Bids 185 The Essex Partnership Approach 291,382,386 Commission for Local Democracy - Consultation Paper 298,307 Consultation Paper on a Single Local Authority Assoc. 419 . Essex Partnership - Progress Towards Implementation 420 Timetable and Staffing Related Issues 425 Nominations to Transportation Committee 511 ADC Essex Branch Reserve Account 513 Petitions to the Secretary of State 519 Paper to all Essex MP's 524 Leases & Licences Plumberow Mount, Hockley - Hockley Parish Council 156d(3) Scout Hut, Land off Magnolia Road, Hawkwell 275 The Pavilion, Rochford Playing Field, Rochford 311 Shop Premises - 174 Rochford Garden Way 486 Post Office Act 1969 - Sections 134 and 135 Issue of Licences to Kill & Deal in Game 516 Citizens Advice Bureau, Back Lane, Rochford 527 Old Peoples Welfare Committee, Rochford 527 Librarv

Mobile Library Service Review 603 Litter

Litter Consultative Panel 232 Litter Control 328 Review of Litter Provisions 451 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES

1994

April a ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the comc~l

At an Extraordlnarv Meetins held on 7th April 1994. Present. COUKEillOE3 T. Fawell (Chairman), R.S. Allen, C. Askew, P.A. Beckers, C I. Black, M.C Brown, Mrs. V.E. Clark, B.A. Crick, S. Cumberland, Mrs. J. Fawell, D.F Flack, Mrs. J.M. Gales, Mrs. H.L.A Glynn, M J. Handford, N. Harris, Mrs. E.M. Hart, Mrs. J Helson, Mrs. M. Hunnable, Mrs. A.R. Hutchings, Mrs. V.G. Keensn, Mrs. S.J. Lemon, C.R. Morgan, R.A. Pearson, T.A. Powell, J.M. Roden, S.A. Skinner, A. Stephens, Mrs. M.W. Stevenson, S.R. Tellx, R.E. Vlngoe, Mrs. L Walker, P.F.A. Webster and D.A. Weir.

Apolosles: Councillors R.A. Amner and Miss B.G.J. Lovett.

181. REvI~oFTHE.sTRucruREoPIccALGo-- OPTIONS FOR P.OCHFORD

a: Councillor Mrs. E.M. Hart declared a non-pecuniary interest by a vutue of being a County Councillor but remaned m the Meeting and partxlpated in the dzzcusslon and voting thereon.

The Chief Executive advised Council that the responses received from the household questxonnaire had been analysed and the results had been laid round that evening. It was now necessary to determine the order of preoedence of the optIons available to Rochford in the light of that 3.nformatlon. The bids themselves would then be considered at Councxl on 12th April.

It had become clear that there were only three optIons acceptable to Rochford, the status quo or two unitary optlons. The fuzst of those "as am east/west link to Brentwood (the so-called I'string of pearls" option) and the second was a merger with Castle Point. That latter unitary option featured in the core bid whxh had been prepared by all the Essex authorities. It "as also apparent that neither a South East Essex unitary authority nor a merger with Southend would be in any way acceptable, to Rochford, and that this Authority could not achieve unitary status on its own.

Tummg to the core bid the Chief Executive said the Commission "as required to look for conseneus and that they therefore regarded proposals from groups of authorxtxes as an important starting point. Indeed one of the Commissioners for Essex had stated that if there "as consensus they would "tick the box". The process of arrrvxng at a consensus had involved other Essex authorities m decxsions affecting Rochford's future. They had consIdered many options including that of a merger with Southend, and Rochford had been involved in those discussions, which had been long and dLffxult, in order to ensure that Its own position was safeguarded. As a result two merger options had been chosen out of an original field of 16 entries, namely - I 9 authorltlea which would prdvide for Rochford and Castle Point to be merged.

8 authorltxes which would provide for Rochford to be merged with Southend and Castle Point. The Chief Executive then detalled the tImetable for the preparatvan of the core brd and that each partlclppatmg authorxty would be requxed to sign the document and lndlcate their preference for either the 8 or the 9 authonty optxon. All of the authorities involved had other optxns - sonle several, and some were opposed to both merger optxons in the core bid There were problems in both the east and the west of the County There were therefore many permutatIons which would be put forward to the Conun~ss~on III addltlon to the two core options. Even Wickford, which had an xwolvement in the "string of pearls" option, was pursuing other avenues also.

The Chief Executive advised Members therefore that they should consider the o+ons for Rochford against the wider dimension of the County. Viewed in that perspective it became clear that It would be dangerous not to be m the core brd or to have only one unitary option, because a South East Essex unitary authority "as a ample solution. The first table III the core bid underlIned the point, namely that by participatng III the document authorities could Indicate their order of preference for the two options contained thereln. For that purpose Council would need to consider their preference ranking for the 9 authority option and to affirm then? total opposition to the 8 authority option.

Finally the Chief Executive outlined the decisions that would be required that evening, namely -

(i) that Rochford should not bid for urntary status on its OWI boundarIes.

(11) that the order of precedence should be agreed as fxrst the status quo; and then either the 'String of Pearls’ or a merger with Castle Point xn that order.

(iii) that Rochford should sign the core bid on the basis that It supported the nine authority optlon and reJected the eight authority option.

The Chairman first ascertamed that Council accepted Rochford should not pursue untary status on Its o"n boundarIes and that the first choice should be the status quo. consideration "aa then given to the order of precedence of the two remaining optuxs.

Some Members expressed reservations about the 'String of Pearls' optlon, as foll0w.e:

that it did not conform with the Government's guidelines for the Review, namely that existing Districta should be used as building blocks, and would be rejected by the Comm~ssux~ "ho would favour the eight authority opt+ instead.

that some of the communltles Involved were seeking to urnte III a new lnear authority as an alternative to remaunng within their existing Districts, and that the bid "o d lack support from those Districts. that Brentwood had yet to formally determine whether or not they would support the option.

that the dxtance involved from east to west would militate agaznst the effective governance of the proposed unitary authority.

that Rochford would have equal representation in a merger with Castle Point but only one-third of the seats under the 'string of pearls' optloll.

that less than 30% of the survey forms had been returned and that ' Members should make the fznal ludgement and see the merger with Castle Point as the more sensible option.

They therefore urged that the Castle Point merger optlon should be selected as this Council's second preference.

Other Members expressed support for the 'String of Pearla' option as uniting established towns with a pride in their heritage, sharing a common culture of conservation and Qreen Belt and recogn~ri~ng the role of Paruh c0unc11s. The Al27 was seen as a sqnlflcant dividing line from those Boroughs to the south whxh did not share that philosophy. As regards the size of the resultant unitary authority there were existing Dxstricts in Essex whxch involved similar distances. Furthermore If the 'String of Pearls' bid were reJected the Castle Point option would still be identlfled as this Council's thxrd preference.

Reference was also made to the questionnaire results which were quite unequvocal. Almost six out of ten people supported the 'Strmg of Pearls' optlon whereas the merger with Castle Pant was supported by only one in three. Furthermore there was an overwhelming majority against a merger with Southend. Council having decided to undertake a survey and what questions should be asked it could not now disregard those responses.

It was accordingly moved by Councillor Mrs. J. Helson and seconded by Counclllor C.I. Black that after the status quo the order of precedence should be the 'String of Pearls' and Castle Pant in that order. On a requlsltion pursuant to Standing Order 14 voting on that order of precedence was recorded as follows:

For the 'Stnng of Pearls' option (22) Counclllora C. Askew, P.A. Beckers, C.I. Black, M.C. Brown, B.A. Crxk, S. Cumberland, Mrs. J. Fawell, T. Fawell, Mrs. J.M. Oiles, Mrs H.L.A. Qlynn, M.J. Handford, I N. Harris, Mrs. J. Helson, I Mrs. M. Hunnable, Mrs!. A.R. Hutchlngs, Mr*. S.J. Lemon, T.A. Powell, J.M. Roden. S.A. Skinner, A. Stephens, S.R. Tellu and R.E. Vingoe. For the merger with Castle Pant (11) COunClllOrS R.S Allen, Mrs. V.E Clark, D.F. Flack, Mrs. E.M. Hart, Mrs. V.G. Keenan, C.R. Morgan, R.A. Pearson, Mrs. M W Stevenson, Mrs. L. Walker, P.F.A. Webster and D A. WeIr.

Council then gave consideratxn to Rochford's partxlpation in the core bid. Some Members considered that would compromise the decxsions whxch had already been taken by virtue of the fact that the document did not support the status quo and proposed rnstead two options, one of which was Rochf&d's third choxe and the other was unacceptable. The Chief ­ Executive cautioned Council that the Commission were seeking a core b1.d under the rules governing the Review and that there was speclfxc provision for partlclpating authoritxes to submit a separate document setting out their Individual posltlon The Counc~l~s spokesman for the Review Group Leaders said Rochford's partxzpation in the preparation of the Essex core bid had been instrumental Ln arriving at one option which could be supported by the Council, whereas at the out.net the larger authorxtles had been advocating only six unitaries. There was a very real danger that they would revert to the original proposal If the Council now chose not to partxipate m the submission. A proposition that the Council should not sqn the Essex core bid was put to the vote and heavily defeated on a show of hands.

Resolved (1) that this Council do not pursue a bid for unitary status for Rochford on its own boundarIes.

(2) that the order of preference of the Council's three chosen optlons be -

(1) statue quo as set out in the County Council's draft submission

(11) a new unitary authority as set out in the,draft submIssion by Brentwood Borough and BasIldon and Rochford District Councils

(iii) a new unitary authority formed by a merger between Rochford Distrxt and Castle Point Borough Councils.

(3) that approval be given for thrs Council to be a signatory to the core bid by the Essex Drstrict Councils on the basis that the nine unitary authority option 1s this Council's third choice and that the eight authorxty option 18 not supported. (30756) (CE) ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Council,

At a Meetina held on 12th April 1994. present: Councillors T. Fawell (Chairman), R.S. Allen, R.A. Amnar, P.A. Beckers, C.I. Black, Mrs. J.A. Christie, Mrs. V.E. Clark, B A. Crick, S. Cumberland, Mrs. J. Fawell, D.F. Flack, G. Fox, Mrs. J.M. GIles, Mrs. H.L.A. Glynn, M.J. Handford, N. Harris, Mrs. E.M. Hart, Mrs. J. Helson, Mrs. M. Hunnable, Mrs. A.R. Hutchings, Mrs. V.G. Keenan, Mrs. S.J. Lemon, Miss B.G.J. Lwett, C.R. Morgan, R.A. Pearson. T.A. Powell, J.M. Roden, S.A. Skinner, A. Stephens, Mrs. M.W. Stevenson, S.R. Tellis, R.E. Vingoe, Mrs. L. Walker, P.F.A. Webster and D.A. Weir.

A~oloeies: Councillors C. Askew, M.C. Brown and G.C.A. Jones.

182. MNDTES

Pesolved that the Minutes of the Meeting of 1st March and Extraordinary l Meeting of 7th April 1994 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

183. CHAIRMAN'S ANNouNcBMJwTs

The Chairman advised Council that he had continued to fulfil a busy calendar of engagements which included the Civic Banquets of both Brentwood and Chelmsford Borough Councils, the South East Essex Infants Music Festival at the Freight House, the opening of the new Day Centre at the Field Lane Home at Eastwood Lodge and the 105th birthday celebrations for Mrs Fulcher.

He had recently judged the Poster Competition, the theme of which had been based upon the High Sheriff's Crime Prevention Campaign, and the awards would be made later in the week. He had also welcomed two parties of students to Rochford - one from Japan, the other from America - both of whom had been most impressed with the District. He had also attended a reception given by the newly-merged Essex and Suffolk Water Companies. l Finally he thanked all those who had supported him at the Civic Banquet. 184. COKKITPEE MINUTES

Resolved (1) that the Minutes of Committees be received and the recommendations contained therein as amended be adopted.

(2) that the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any documents necessary to give effect to decisions taken or approved by Council in these Minutes.

Committee Date Hinute No%.

Health and Housing Services . 8th March 1994 106 - 121

Minute 115 : DOE Consultation Paper "Access to Local Authorltv and Housiw Association Tenancies"

NOTF.: Councillor A. Stephens declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of being a Council tenant but remained in the Meeting and participated in l the discussion and voting thereon. Council

It was moved by Councillor D.F. Flack end seconded by Councillor D.A Weir that the response should be augmented by the following preamble:

"Rochford District Council believes that a home is a basic human right and rejects the Government's efforts to artificially restrict the supply of social housing and to inflate both Council and Housing Association rents in an attempt to rig the market to create a private rented sector. This goes against the Government's own professed belief in free and unfettered markets and offends against standards long maintained by our society.

This Council believes that tenants of social rented housing should have cast iron statutory rights that empower them in the housing market. They should have statutory security of tenure and the absolute right to decide who their landlord should be and be able to transfer their home to another provider if they are dissatisfied with their landlord. Providers should include private landlords, Housing Associations and Councils. We are confident that on such a level playing field Councils would again emerge as the most efficient providers and would be chosen by the majority of tenants.

The Government's proposals to virtually repeal Part 3 of the Housing Act 1985 is an ongoing part of its campaign to scapegoat the vulnerable and homeless for its own failure to meet the supply need for social housing. If this proposal were to be carried into law it would inflict misery and oppressive hardship upon many citizens.

This Council urges the Government to abandon its failed policies and restore the supply of social housing by allowing this Council to use the capital receipts that it holds from Council house sales to replenish the available stock. This measure would achieve a rapid reduction in those waiting on housing lists, allow the homeless to be treated with dignity and above all begin to restore social stability and families' confidence in the housing market whether it be rented or owner occupied."

In support it was argued that the Council's response was inadequate since it did not address the root cause of the problem, namely the grave lack of social housing provision. Other Members, whilst sympathetic to the problem highlighted, saw it as an issue which should be addressed separately end which was not appropriate to the consultation document. Reference was made to the fact that the recommendation had already bean implemented under Standing Order 18 in order to meet the deadline. Concern was expressed also that no notice had been given of a long and complex amendment and copies had not been made available to Members which militated against its proper consideration.

In response to a request for an adjournment, the Chairman ruled that it was for Council to consider the motion as it had been presented and to determine whether or not to a&ment the response which had already been sent. On a requisition pursuant to Standing Order 14 voting on the amendment was recorded as follows:-

For the Amendment (7) Councillors Mrs J.A. Christie, D.F. Flack, G. Fox, Mrs M. Hunnable, C.R. Morgan, Mrs M.W. Stevenson end D.A. Weir. council

Against the Amendment (23) Councillors R.S. Allen, R.A. Amner, . P.A. Becker*. C.I. Black, Mrs V.E. Clark, Mrs J Fawell, T. Fawell, Mrs H.L A Glynn, M.J. Handford, N. Harris, Mrs E.M. Hart, Mrs J. Helson, Mrs A.R. Hutchings, Mrs V.G. Keenan, Mrs S.J.Lemon. Miss B.G.J. Lovett, R.A. Pearson, T.A. Powell, J.M. Roden, S.R Tellis, R.E. Vingoa, Mrs L. Walker and P.F.A. Webster.

Abstaining (5) Councillors B.A. Crick, S. Cumberland, Mrs J.M. Giles, S.A. Skinner and A Stephens.

The amendment was declared m and Minute 115 was adopted.

-ta 121: Conditions of Tenancv - Additional Clause

In moving this Minute for adoption, the Chairman of the Committee asked Members to emend the first recommendation to read:

"That the Chief Housing Manager undertake a consultation exercise with all of the tenants".

Resolved that Minute 121 be adopted as amended above.

Development Services 10th March 1994 122 - 138

NOTE: Councillor G. Fox reiterated his interests under Minute 125 and 126 and left the Meeting while the recommendations thereunder were adopted,

Minute 128: Review of Ravlaish On-Street Parking

Reference was made to the four amendments that had been accepted by the Committee and Council accepted that for the sake of clarity, the commencement of sub-paragraph (iii) should be amended to read "An early survey of residents also to be undertaken...".

Council also concurred with suggestions from Members that two further amendments be made as follows:

(v) that no action be taken on the proposal to prohibit parking at any time in Downhall Road until County has undertaken an early survey of residents to ascertain their views.

(vi) that junction protection be provided at the junction of Weir Gardens with Hilltop Close.

Resolved that Minute 128 be adopted as amended above.(933)(DD,CE)

Leisure Services 15th March 1994 139 - 147

Minute 146(ii): Youth Centre - Rayleigh Grange

In moving the Minute for adoption, the Chairman of the Committee advised

b b 0 4 0 9 Council

Council that it would be necessary to seek deemed planning consent for th8 change of use involved and for the avoidance of any delay during recess, it was

resolved that pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 permission be sought for the use of the football pavilion at John Fisher Playing Field as a youth club for Rayleigh Grange. (131)(ACE,DD,CE)

Planning Services 17th March 1994 148 - 152 Policy and Resources 29th March 1994 153 - 180

Minute 180. Tenders for Contracts.

Consideration of this matter having been deferred to Council the Director of Development reported in confidence on the arrangements which had been made to secure the most advantageous price in both cases and it was accordingly

Resolved that the lowest tenders submitted by GRS Decorators Ltd in the sum of f28,023.00 for Contract No. 17368 and f56,711.00 in respect of Contract No. 1738 be accepted subject to contract. (SOL)

185. pwIJ%J OF THF. STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVEZNMEW (Minute 180/94)

Members had before them the reports of the Chief Executive setting out the three bids in which the Council were participating, which documents had been distributed with the Council Agenda, an update on discussfons with Castle Point, a draft of Rochford's Additional Material entitled "The Review From Rochford" and the financial appraisal by CSL of the "string of pearls" option which had been laid round at the Meeting.

The Chief Executive reminded Members of the Commission's role and of the key criteria which the bids would need to address. The order of precedence of those three bids had already been determined by Extraordinary Council but the documents themselves were joint submissions. - In considering the contents therefore it had to be borne in mind that any comments which Council wished to make would need to be conveyed to the Commission as part of Rochford's Additional Material. It was pertinent to mention that the reference to Financial Implications on page 4 of the core bid had been amended in the light of advice from CSL and that the revised paragraph would now read as follows:

"Estimates based on the Ernst & Young financial model show that a unitary solution in the ranga of eight or nine authorities would save between f58M and f29M over a 15 year period on the basis suggested by the Commission. Payback will be achieved in a period between 26 and 39 months. This is in marked contrast to the County.Council projection, the validity of which we believe to be weak. The financial case is made in Section 1B of Part 2 of this submission."

The documents were then considered in order of precedence, the main points arising being as follows:

- (i) that the doubts expressed in the County Council's financial appraisal over the viability of an acceptable unitary solution l needed to be included. l COWCi~

(ii) that the case for the second option should be strengthened by a . passage to emphasise the shared values of the communities concerned, a proposition to that effect being moved by ~ouncillor S.R. Tellis and seconded by Councillor C.I. Black and supported on balance on a show of hands.

(iii) that the electoral arrangements set out in Appendix 7 of the second preference bid were unsatisfactory and should be re-assessed using a less crude mechanism so as to arrive at a more balanced representation.

(iv) that the case against the core submission eight authority option should be augmented.

A proposition that the wording of the motion on Local Government Reorganisation under Minute 169(iii) es adopted earlier should be incorporated within the Additional Material was overwhelmingly rejected on a show of hands. The Council's spokesman on the Review Group Leaders Panel praised the Officers concerned for the enormous amount of work that had been put into preparing Rochford's case, in particular by the Chief Executive who had kept all Members fully appraised throughout the process and the Solicitor who had acted as Rochford's Project Officer.

Resolved that the three bids and the Additional Material as amended above be approved by this Council for submission to the Local Government Commission for Essex. (30756) (CE)

m A copy of the revised document "The Review From Rochford" is appended and has been underlined to indicate the new passages requested.

186. COUNCILLOR'S RESIGNATION

The Chief Executive reported that Mr. S. Jarvis had resigned with effect from 11th March 1994 and that arrangements had been made for a by-election in Lodge Ward on 5th May 1994.

187. GRANT 41D TO OUTSIDE BODIES: .fMinute 82/94)

m: Councillor Mrs. J. Helson declared a substantial non-pecuniary interest in this matter by virtue of being the Authority's representative on the Rayleigh CAB and left the Meeting while the matter was discussed.

The Director of Finance reminded Members that in approving the core funding to the Rayleigh CAB Council had asked for their request for a supplementary grant for en improved management service to be referred to the Performance Review Panel for consideration. That referral had however been overtaken by a proposal from the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux for a joint funding arrangement to take effect from 1st June 1994 tapering over B period of three years with the full amount falling to the Council from 1997/98. Some Members expressed concern that the Council were having to shoulder en increasing financial burden but the Council considered that the work of the Bureau was of high priority end should continue to be supported. It wee accordingly l Council

Resolvef.$ that the offer of joint funding on a tapering basis be accepted. end that a supplementary grant be made to the Rayleigh CAB with effect from 1st June 1994. (567) (W

NOTE: At the conclusion of consideration of the foregoing item it was

pesolved that Standing Order 1.8 be suspended to enable the remaining business to be transacted.

188. TRIBUTES TO RETIRING MEMIXRS

During the course of the Meeting the Chairman end a number of leading Members paid tribute to those Members who were not standing again for election, namely former Councillor S.N. Jarvis end Councillors Miss B.G.J. Lovett end S.A. Skinner. Both Members present reciprocated by thanking Council for its good wishes end expressing their pride et having been associated with the Authority over a period of years.

The opportunity was also taken to thank the Chairmen of the Council for his impartiality in filling that role within the Chamber end his ambassadorship elsewhere.

189. EXCLUSION OF THE FTJBLIC

msolved that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of Exempt Information es defined in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

190. CONTRACT NO. 1650 - OFFICE CLEANING

The Solicitor reported in confidence that ten tenders had been received for the above contract end Council having been assured of the arrangements made to monitor the standards specified it was

Resolved that subject to receipt of satisfactory references the lowest tender submitted by Essex County Council Cleaning Services in the sum of f19,904.28 be accepted subject to contract. (CON165O)(SOL) ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

ROCHFORD DISTRTCT COUNCIL fJbti.3.43 k

ROCHYORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

“The Review from Rbchford”

PUBLIC CONSULTATION - THE ROCHPORD SURVEY

Rochford District Council has polled every household in the Rochford Distnct achieving a l 27.87% response. The results of thus survey, which enhances the mformation provided by MORI, is appended. The returned questionnaires are available for mspection at Rochford District Councrl.

THE CASE FOR CHANGE

Rochford District Council and its people do not believe that the case for change from the two-tier system of local government has been made III Essex. It is a very large County with no very large centres of population, and at the extremes is an uneven nux between established conurbahons and substantially rural communities. l There are, therefore, inherent difficulties in the process of seeking a consensus over how a unitary structure might be achieved in Essex. Rochford and its people are totally opposed to a merger with Southend because of the recognised confhcts of interest between a continuous conurbation and a substantially green belt authority. Whilst Rochford has from the outset of the review maintained its complete opposition to any merger with Southend other Essex authorities, in order to realise their own ambrttons for unitary status, have ignored Rochford’s positton and the very characteristics which make a forced marriage with Southend unacceptable. The Essex . District core submission actuatly includes an eight authority option whmh mvolves a merger l between Southend, Castle Pomt and Rochford to which both Castle Point and Rochford are opposed and which totally disregards the results of research by the Districts’ own advisers into service and community issues. Rochford does not, therefore, believe that the review process is actually capable of delivering a unitary structure for Essex which is in the best interests of local government or local people. It wrll also lead to marriages with dominant partners. 0

In looking at the financial implications of the unitary options for Essex, using the Districts~ figures, the savings attributable on the total costs of local government which exceed El.9 billion a year are extremely marginal at between S2m and %12mand throw into serious doubt whether the disruption which will be an inevitable consequenceof re-organisation can be justified. Indeed, there are also major assumptions on transitional costs which can be challenged.

However; from the County Council’s financial appraisal of the unitary options, the costs of restructunng increase dramatically in proportion to the number of authontms. If County is l correct then this would not permit a unitary solution for Essex withm the Commission’s criteria.

,5TATUS OUO

Rochford has serious doubts over whether an acceptable unitary solutton for Essex is achievable. Rochford’s residents have demonstrated an overwhelming degree of support for the retention of the existing two-tier system. The Council joined with the County Council and three other District Councils m re-designing the two-tier relauonship to provide a more effective means of servme delivery, better democratic accountability and local decision making and more responsivenessto local needs. This was a conscious effort on the part of the County Councrl and the four Districts to discover new ways of working together which would answer the critmisms of the current two-tier arrangements whilst at the same time drawmg on its strengths. The retention of the two-her system in this way will involve no additional cost and recognises the Commission’s desire to see a greater role for Parish Councils m the local government process.

As far as Essex is concerned, maintenance of the status quo will avoid for Rochford and a number of other Essex Districts the forced marriages of the 1974 reorganisation which the Government is so keen not to repeat.

L 2 The public consultation exercise showed that a great majority of respondents favoured continuation of the present two-trer system (7034 in favour and 1925 agamst). l Retention of the status quo based on the E&sexPartnership Approach and the County Council’s submission is Rocbford’s first preference.

UNITARY SOLUTIONS

Whilst Rochford and its people do not believe that the case for change has been made, it recognisesthat the Commssion’s job is to seeka unitary solutron and the Council has, therefore, participated fully with other Essex Districts in the option generation process, albeit with the clear mtention of avoiding any proposal which would merge Rochford with Southend. As the review a process progressed Rochford was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that it could not achieve unitary statuson its own boundaries even though its rural and green belt characteristics are unique in South Fast Essex. It wiU be noted that the public consultation overwhelmingly rejected a merger with Southend (against a merger 8357 and for 671 ) and under no circumstances, given the vast support for Rocbford to remain under the status quo, could the Council countenanceany division of the District.

As a result of its work with other Essex Authorities, Rochford has concluded that there are only two options that could be justified which are dealt with below in order of precedence-

Brentwocd/Billericay/Wickford/Rochford (The “Strmg of Pearls”)

Castle PoinWRochford

Brentwocd/Billericav/Wickford/Rochford.

The Commission will already be aware of public opinion in the Billericay and Wickford areasof Basildon against remaining with that Drstnct and will have received a joint submission from Brenhvood, Basildon and Rochford Councils. 3 _--­ I q’rfl

Rochford believes that the towns of Billermay and Wrckford and also the Borough of Brentwood -a share with Rochford Drstrict extensive mterlmked areas of ---green belt, a shared Iroad _--r-e and rail system,sLmilarI-- .-I___I_-__social/economrc groupmgs_m__.. _ populatton and values emanating from small town communities that.- are .- -_._- totally -_-drfferent _--. --from __--their _-. large - urban--.. neighbours._ _.

As far as the submission is concerned, Rochford Council is worried that whilst its area has the largest population with sparsely inhabited rural areas, rt has only an equal share of the seatson the proposed new umtary authority. It 1s also concerned that the Basildon Wards appear to be over-representedm comparison. On electoral arrangements generally, however, Rochford is very perturbed at the reductions proposed in levels of elected representation and would ask the Commission to recogmse the rural nature of much of the new unitary authority in allowing a l departure from the 1.4000 ratio and an increase in total membership. Rochford considers the methodology employed in Appendix 7 of the submission to be crude and would suggest to the Commission that a more practicable approach would be to use combinations of District Wards in Brenhvood and Rochford rather than use the County electoral divrsions.

As mentioned in the joint submission, it 1s hoped that the Commission would review the electoral arrangements.

The public consultation exercise demonstrated that there was a majority of households in favour of this unitary option (in favour 5312 and against 3662).

Rochford views this unitary option as its 2nd choice.

Castle PoiNRcchford

This unitary authority was the most popular in the main Essex District submission and recognises the clear differences which research showed were present in likely patterns of service need and in commumty assessmentin South East Essex. This research demonstrates a clear case for not combinmg Southend with Castle Pomt and Rochford. l

4 be ir (s. : 23 Rochford does not believe that the Essex District core submission adequately reflects the requirement to give local people the opportunity to be represented at parish or town council level l and wishes the Commissron to know that Rochford would support the creation of new local councils wherever that was the ~111of the people. Indeed, Rochford would not want a centralist administration for any new authority. It sees area service pomts mirrored by Area Committees and local councils as the best means of mvolving local communities in their own affairs.

In Rochford’s public consultation exercise a majority of respondents mdicated they were against this merger option (6060 agamst and 2921 for).

There were a number of other options considered by the Essex Districts mvolving seven, eight or l nine unitary authorities, all of which placed Rochford and Castle Point together and which did not resort to population ranges which under the Guidance are regarded as extraordmary.

A merger between Castle Point and Rochford is the Council’s 3rd option.

OPPOSITION TO THE ESSEX CORE BID SUBMISSION - 8 UNITARY OPTION

Prouosals for a Castle Point/Rochford/Southend Unitarv,

l Whist this proposed new unitary is included in the Essex core submission, it does not enjoy the support of either Castle Point or Rochford. Indeed, as already mentioned, Rochford is fundamentally opposed to any merger with Southend becauseof the divisions between town and country. Such a merger was not supported by the research into patterns of service need and community assessment. When measured against the Guidance and the Commission’s own population ranges, Rochford belreves that these factors militate against any argument that an extraordinary umtary with a population of 326,ooO is in any way justrtiable.

The Commission will have concluded from the weight of opposition in the public consultation exercise that by far the great malonty of Rochford people are against a merger with Southend. a TOWN COUNCIL FOR RAYLEIGH

The public consultation exercise has shown that a great majority of respondents from Rayleigh l favoured the creation of a Town Council for Rayleigh (3375 in favour and 651 agamst). Rochford would wish the Commission to take this clear expression of the will of the people of Rayleigh for a town council mto account in its recommendations whatever the outcome of the review might be in other respects.

PIZERW. HUGHE!S CHIEF- ROCHFORD DISTRICT CODNCIL

6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION - THE ROCHFORD SURVEY l QUESTIONS lQ!x AGAINST D.K.

1. Should Rochford District bid for unitary status? 3323 5587 163

2. Would you prefer no change in the present system of County Council and 14 Districts? 7034 1925 124 l 3. Do you agree that Rochford District should m be merged with Southend-on-Sea? 8357 671 55

4. Would you support a merger between Rochford and Castle Point? 2921 6060 102

5. Would you rather see a new Rochfordl Wickford/ BiBericay/Brentwood unitary authority? 5312 3662 109 l

6. Are you opposed to a merger with the whole of Basildon D’ktrict? 7862 1164 57

For Ravleieh residents -

Do you want a Town Council for Rayleigh? 3373 651 66 WCHFCKD DISTRICT COUNCII, 0 ~ tes of the Planninu Services Committee At a Meetinv held on 14th A~ril 1994. Present: Councillors R.E. Vingoe ' (Chairman), R.A. Amner, C. Askew, C.I. Black, M.C. Brown, Mrs. V.E. Clark, B.A. Crick, S. Cumberland, Mrs. J. Fawell, T. Fawell, Mrs. J.M. Giles, Mrs. H.L.A. Glynn, N. Harris, Mrs. E.M. Hart, Mrs. A.R. Hutchings, Mrs. S.J. Lemon, Miss B.G.J. Lovett, C.R. Morgan, T.A. Powell, J.M. Roden. S.A. Skinner, Mrs. M.W. Stevenson, S.R. Tellis, P.F.A. Webster and D.A. Weir.

Apologies: Councillors P.A. Beckers, Mrs. J.A. Christie, D.F. Flack, G. Fox, M.J. Handford, Mrs. J. Helson, Mrs. M. Hunnable, Mrs, V.G. Keenan and Mrs. L. Walker.

191. HINDTKS

Resolved that the Minutes of the Meeting of 17th March 1994 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 0 192. ROCHFORDLOCAL PL&N FIRST REVIEW - INSPECTOR'S REPORT The Chairman advised Members that the Inspector's Report on Rochford's First Review had been received in the office earlier that week.

193. MONITORING OF PmRMANCE - NEETINGS OF 25TH NOVEMBER 1993 AND 17TH FEBRUARY 1994

The Committee ware satisfied that all necessary action had been taken. Minutes 586/93 Paras. 3 (DD) and 8 (SOL) and 94/94 Paras. D2 (SOL) and 10 (DD) ware carried forward.

194. PP.AET CONSULTATION PAPER: PUNNING POLICY GUIDANCE ON GREEN BELTS

The Committee considered the appended report of the Director of Development on an invitation from the DOE to comment on a revised draft of their Planning Policy Guidance on Green Belts, the deadline for responses being 21st April 1994. A Member referred to the fact that provision was to be made for the identification of land for longer term development needs to be addressed in the first instance in the Structure Plan and expressed concern that this would be a change in the role of the County Council to the detriment of the District Council. He suggested also that the definition of essential facilities for sport and recreation as justifying the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt needed to be clarified so as to prevent abuse. Reference was also made in that connection to tha provision of park-and-ride sites which were supported. In response to a question from a Member the Director of Development confirmed that a copy of the Council's response would be sent to the ADC.

RECONHENDEDThat the comments based on the Director of Development's conclusions as augmented above be forwarded to the Department of the Environment and the ADC. (DD)'(TP87)

m: The Chief Executive exercised his authority under Standing Order 18 to enable comments to be returned by the required date. PhUU,inE %,XiCSS COKd.ttEQ l 195 BREACHES OF PUNNING CONTROL ON LAND ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF VANDERBILT AVF,NGE AT ITS JUNCTION WITH TREWDERSAvWrre

The Director of Development reported on the unauthorised laying of hardcore, the construction of two buildings for pig breeding and rearing and the storage of vehicle bodies, plant, machinery, rubble, timber end builders waste on the above land without the benefit of planning pSl3iliSSiOn.

Members noted the site layout and that it fell within the Metropolitan Green Belt and a Landscape Improvement Area and considered the unauthorised uses to be contrary to Policies GBl and RC6 of the Local Plan and Policy S9 of the Essex Structure Plan. Whilst it was accepted that the keeping of livestock wss in principle en appropriate agricultural use of Green Belt land the buildings were regarded as unacceptable by reeson of'their siting, design and construction which together with the open storage use and the laying of hardcore impaired the appearance of this Green Belt location and detracted from the open and rural character of the sres thereby causing loss of visual amenity. It was accordingly

Resolved that the Solicitor be authorised to take all necessary action including the issue and service of Notices and action in the Courts to secure the remedying of the breaches of planning control new reported. (1559) (SOL)

196. llpPwL BY mssRs BAIRsT~V wms (RAsT)~TED - CHANGE 0F USE TO CLASS A2 AT 124/126 HIGH STREET. RAYJXIGD (APPLICATION NO, CO/O363/93/ROC~

The Chairman advised the Committee that the Director of Development had not yet received details of the amount of costs which were being sought against the Council and Members noted that a report would be made to a subsequent Meeting of this Committee. @'D)

197. SCBEDDLE OF DEVELoPMENT APPLICATIONS AND RECOMBENDATIONS

The Director of Development submitted a Schedule for consideration and a List of Planning Applications end Building Regulation Applications decided l under delegation.

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

gara. Dl - F/O134/94/ROC: Land at Little Wheatlevs Chase. Ravlelgh

The Colmaittee asked that particular attention be given to the standard of lighting as mentioned by the Crime Prevention Officer.

Authority delegated to the Director of Development to determine subject to suitable conditions and en informative strongly recommending lighting to private drives to aid security and crime prevention. The County Surveyor to be requested also to place street lights at the entrance of private drives to maximise their effect. Planni services Committee para, 3 - F/0041/94/ROC: Cracknells Farm. Lone: Lane. Hullbridge

Add Condition:-

9. "The construction of the dwelling hereby permitted shall not take place on Sundays."

Add informative:-

"Attention is drawn to the importance of ensuring that the access road to the site is maintained to a suitable standard during the period of construction particularly bearing in mind its status as a public right of Wly."

Para. 4 - CC/O152/94/ROC: Rochford Countv Primarv School. Ashinadon Road, Pochford m Councillors Mrs. V. Clark and Mrs. H.L.A. Glynn declared a non­ pecuniary interest by virtue of being Governors of the School but remained in the Meeting and participated in the discussion and voting thereon.

,Para. 7 - cU/O164/94/ROC: Lubards LodFe Farm. Hullbridae Road. Ravleiv

A proposition for refusal having been rejected on a show of hands it was

Resolved that consideration of this application be deferred until the next Meeting to enable clarification to be sought of the status of the surrounding units. (DD)

Paras. 8 and 9 - RM/OO92/94/ROC and F/0088/94/ROC: Clwxsite l/11 Gravsons Close. Ravleiah m: Councillor N. Harris declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of his acquaintance with teachers at the school involved which his son would be joining as a pupil but remained in the Meeting and participated in the discussions and voting thereon.

Consideration of these two applications was deferred for a site visit to be arranged.

Resolved_ that arrangements be made accordingly. @D,CE) para. 10 - F/0094/94/ROC: Land south of Ravlaigh Lane. Ravleirh m: Councillor S. Cumberland declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of acquaintance with neighbouring residents but remained in the Meeting and participated in the discussion and voting thereon.

In accepting the recommendation to delegate authority to the Director of Development to determine the Committee asked that the Chairman and Ward Members be consulted on the outcome of amendments to the scheme.

Amend -

(i) the third line of Condition 2 to refer to ROC/932/86/2. . .

Planning Services Committee * (ii) Condition 6 by deleting from the fifth line the phrase "..but excludes all emergency vehicles."

(iii) Condition 7 by deleting from the fourth line the phrase "(except for the passage of emergency vehicles)".

(iv) The last line of Condition 18 to reed "..and 14.000 hours on Saturdays, nor on Sundays and/or public holidays."

Para. 14 - ClJ/OJ.l4/94/ROC: Lower Barn Farm. London Road. Ravlei&

The Committee were mindful that this was a contentious site which was the subject of Enforcement proceedings and Members were concerned as to the progress which had been made to eecure compliance so as to overcome the problems that were being generated. It wee accordingly

Resolved that consideration of this application be deferred to enable further negotiations with the applicant on the ou'atanding issues. (DD,SOL) l 198. rINVIT s 0 c 94

Pursuant to Minute 98/94 the Chief Executive reported the view of the Group Leader's Panel which was being commended to this Committee, namely that every Councillor as en individual had the right to accept or refuse any request for a site visit from a planning applicant on the clear understanding that Members on such occasions did not represent the views of the Local Planning Authority end that only the Planning Services Committee or Council could authorise an official site visit on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.

PesolveP that Members be advised to adopt the foregoing approach in responding to invitations from planning applicants for site visits. (29932) (DD)

199. ESSEX WASTE SFNINAR

The Director of Development reported that he had recently been advised by 0 Essex County Council that they were arranging a seminar for both Members and Officers to discuss present and future measures of disposal and recycling of household waste, end that a provisional date had been set for 25th May.

Members accepted that as this seminar would take place almost immediately after the couuaencement of the new Municipal Year nominations should be considered now subject to ratification by the first Meeting of this Committee after Annual Council.

&xx%lved that approval be given for the Chairman of the Planning Services, the Development Services end the Policy & Resources Committees or their nominees together with Councillors R.S. Allen end R.A. Pearson, the Director of Development, the Chief Environmental Health Officer and the Assistant Chief Executive to attend the Essex Waste Seminar. (DD) Planning Services Committee l 200. &VIEW OF CIVIC AMENITL SITES: COMMON WAD. GREAT WAKERING (Minute 167/94) Pursuant to Standing Order 26.2 the Chairman reported as a matter of urgency on the need to appoint representatives to the Member-level meeting with the County Council which had been requested by the Policy 6 Resources Committee end it was

Resolved that Councillors G. Fox, Mrs. S.J. Lemon end R.A. Pearson or their nominees be so appointed. (29929) (CFaHO,CE)

201. 61/65 EASlQOOD ROAD. RAYLEIGH

The Committee were pleased to receive the report of the Director of Development on the endeavours being made to secure an improvement in the appearance of these derelict premises on the edge of the Reyleigh town centre notwithstanding the problem of legal ownership. Concern w*s expressed however that merely to tidy up and enclose the site would not resolve the problem unless the demolition of the building could be secured dS0. The Director of Development informed Members that arising from further discussions with the mortgagees this may be achievable if hoarding6 were permitted to be erected and it was the view of the Committee that this should be explored in consultation with the Ward Members and Councillor Mrs. M.W. Stevenson, in her capacity as president of the Rayleigh & District Chamber of Trade. The Director of Development was asked to report further should en acceptable arrangement be found. In the meantime however, it was

Resolved that if negotiations with the finance company concerned do not achieve sufficient progress by the end of the month, the Solicitor in consultation with the Director of Development be authorised to take all necessary action including the issue end service of Notices and action in the Courts to secure the clearance and fencing of this site in the interests of amenity and public safety and recover any costs incurred. (14118) (SOL,DD)

202. goNo BESIDE FORHeR FARMHWSE AT LITY3.E UHF3l'JXYS CHASE. RAYLEIGH ~Himtte 94/94 Par*. 5) l - Pursuant to Standing Order 26.2 the Chairmen admitted as urgent the report of the Director of Development that following further discussions with the developers on the request made at the last Meeting they had made a written offer to reinstate the pond once the development was nearing completion and to provide landscaping and fencing. Members noted the conditions involved and that the matter would need to be referred to the Development Services Committee to ensure that these conditions and the details of the reinstatement were satisfactory. It was accordingly

Resolved that the offer from Beazer Homes (East) Limited to reinstate the pond beside the former farmhouse at Little Wheatleys Chase, Rayleigh, be accepted and the matter be referred to the Development Services Committee. (11024) (DD,CE) _ AGENDA ITEM 4 0 ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE - 14 APRIL 1994 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT DRAET CONSULTATION PAPER: PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE ON GREEN BELTS -

1.0 Introduction

11 The Department of the Envnonment has published a revised draft of then Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) on Green Belts, the exrstmg guidance was published m 1988 Comments on the draft are reqmred by 21 April 1994.

The PPG 1s intended to provide an explanation of the purpose of Green Belts, Justrticatton for designation and guidance on approprrate types of development. The existing PPG IS long overdue for reviston primarily as a result of changes in advice provided m more recent PPGs dealing with matters such as development m rural areas,

2.0 Intentions of policy

2.1 For the first time, a section defines formally the intenttons of the policy These appear to be

. to prevent urban sprawl by keepmg land permanently open;

. to help shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale;

. to help ensure that development occurs m locations allocated in development plans,

. to help to protect the countrysrde; and

. to assist in moving towards more sustamable patterns of urban development.

Purposes of zncludmg land m Green Belts l 2.2 The intentions of the policy are then articulated in the now very familiar five purposes of Green Belts and provide the key to enforce the intentions of the policy framework. Any changes to these five purposes need to be very carefully considered if the strength of Green Belt pohcy 1sto be mamtained. The five purposes are as follows (the italics indtcate changes)

. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large bum-up areas;

. to prevent neighbourmg towns from merging into one another,

. to assist m safeguarding the countryside from encroachment,

. to preserve the senzng and special character of hrstorm towns, and

. to assist in urban regeneratton; by encouraging the recycling Zf dere7rct and other urban land 2.3 The revtsion to the tlurd purpose is of concern. The addttton of the word ‘asstst’ tmplies a less cogent and primary role for Green Belts m safeguarding the countryside It ts true that

gbcltppgdot other protective land-use designattons, the Coastal Protection Belt IS a good example, play a role m preventmg encroachment but, this change can only be seen as provtdmg scope for a lesser role for Green Belt pohcy m land-use encroachment

24 The alterattons to the fourth and fifth purposes are to be welcomed The addmon of ‘settmg’ as a constderatton ln relatton to historic towns 1s a parttcularly useful enhancement to the pohcy

Gbjechvesfor the use of land m Green Belts

25 This new section states for the first time the objectives for land-use once areas have been included m the Green Belt. These are.

. to provide opportumttes for accessto the open countryside for the urban populatton,

. to promote the use of land near urban areas for outdoor sport and recreation,

. to retain attractive landscapes,and enhance landscapes,near to where people lme;

. to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

. to secure nature conservation mterest, and

. to retam land for agricultural, forestry and related purposes.

3.0 Designation of Green Belts

31 The advtce relating to the identification of Green Belt boundarms in development plans remams as before with the addmon of a section pertaining to sustainable development. In drawing Green Belt boundaries LPAs are asked to constder the consequences ‘for example the effects on car travel, of channelling development towards urban areas mstde the mner Green Belt bounaky, towards towns and vdlages withm the Green Belt, or towards tocahons beyond the outer Green belt boundary”.

Safeguarded land 32 Thts relates to the rdentificatton of land reqnred to meet longer-term development needs The section has, say the DOE, been strengthened to explant more clearly the way this issue ISto be addressed m development plans. It statesthat “qfeguardmg should normally be addressed in the#rst instance in the Structure Plan, whtch should where necessary indicate a general area where local plans should identify safeguarded land”. Nonetheless, it is open to an authonty to provide a detatled justrfication for not providmg safeguardedland. There is no indication that the identtfication of land for long-term development need is a one-off process, rather it appears that tlus issue falls to be addressed every 10 to 15 years notwithstandmg an environmental limit to continumg development 4.0 Control over development

41 The main policy controls over development in the Green Belt are stated in Rochford District Local Plan Policy GBl. The draft PPG proposes considerable amendment and clarification to the framework on which the policy ISbased Advice is provided m relatton to new buildings, re-use of burhiings, park and ride schemes,mmerals, and other development -- New burldmgs

42 The advme statesas follows: ‘Except m very special circumstances, approval should not be given for the colz.strucho~of l new buddrngs mslde a Green Beltforpurposes other than.

. agnculture and forestry (unlesspenmtted development nghts have been wIthdrawn). . eSk%tudfadkhes for outdoor sport and recreatron, for cemeteries,for other purposes of land wluch do not compromise the purposes of Including land m the Green Belt, and for park-and-nde sues idenhjied m local plans;

. lirnrted exensron, alteration or replacement of exrstmg dwelhngs,

. Imuted inflhng m exfshng villages (this would only apply where a village has been Identified m a local plan as appropnate for intillmg); or

. limrted cnjillmg tn, or redevelopment oJ existing employment sites rdenhjied m local plans

The Government has recogmsed the concern expressed by many plaunmg author&s regardmg the possible proliferation of new farm buildmgs. It is open to planning aulhonties, m granting consent for the change of use of an existing farm bmldmg, to remove permitted development rights for the construction of new farm bmldmgs Thus IS to be supported smce it prevents farmers from seekmg alternative uses for existing bmldings in the knowledge that a replacement can be provided as per&ted development

The clause relating to the provision of institulions in large grounds has been deleted, on the basis that the category IS inappropriate to Green belts and difficult to define This is a change to be supported

The main concern of the changes centres on two areas First, the phrase ‘other uses appropriate to a rural area’ is to be replaced by ‘essenhal facthher ..for other uses of kznd wluch do not comprormse the purpose of including land m the Green Belt’ It is considered that such a change has the potential to provide more opporhmity for development m the Green Belt Second, whdst the guidance on employment s.1te.srelates only to those sites identified m local plans and accords very much with the local plan strategy for development on the MOD estabhsbment at Foulness, there is a danger that pohcy control over other .Wes, many based on existing complexes of farm bulldmgs, may be weakened

Re-use of burldmgs

The policies included m the Local Plan reflect the guidance provided m PPG7 (Countryside and Rural Economy)

Other development

Exlstmg guidance concentrates on new bmldmgs and converSIon This section of the draft makes clear that approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the carrying out of engmeermg or other operations, or for changes in the use of land, which comprormse the purposes of includmg land in the Green Belt. This ad&ion to the guidance is to be welcomed

The draft PPG does address anomalies m the system resulting from the publication of new PPGs and changes m legislation The importance and value of the Green-Belt c+mues to be recognised, but m domg it 1s right to tik fundamental questlons about the way the pohcy has been apphed in the past and to address changes for the future The DOE has strengthened potentially weak areas of the policy and tlus IS to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the demands of regenerative development, particularly farm diversification, has as described resulted in an alteration m the emphasis of some sections of the guidance and there 1s concern that the Green Belt presumption agamst mapproprlate development may be commensurately weakened

52 The main areas of concern in the revised guidance are.

. the relation&p of safeguarded land to the long-term Green Belt boundary and the respective roles of the strategic plamung authority and Dlstrlct Plannmg Authority m the process.

. the addition of the word ‘USSIW in one of the main Green Belt purposes relatmg to safeguardmg the countryslde from encroachment

. the change to the use of the term ‘essential funlities’ in the guidance pertammg to new builclmgs.

. the need to ensure there is no relaxation iu the presumption agamst unauthorised employment areas.

RECOMMENDED That comments based on the Duector of Development’s conclusions are forwarded to the Department of the Environment. @D)(TP87)

Department of the Envu-onment. Planning Policy Guidance - Green Belts. Consultation Draft

PAGE4 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY

PLANNING SERVICES 7COMMITTEE 14TH APRIL 1994

AU planmng applicattons are constdered against the background of current Town and Country Planmng legislation, rules, orders and,circulars, and any development, structure and local plans rssued or made thereunder. In addition, account is taken of any gmdance notes, advrce and relevant policies rssued by statutory authorities Each plamung applicatron mcluded m this Schedule and any attached ltst of applrcattons whtch have been determined under powers delegated to the Drrector of Development 1s fned with all papers includmg representahons recerved and consultation replies as a single case file.

All bmldmg regulation applications are considered agamst the background of the relevant bmldmg regulations and approved documents, the Buddmg Act, 1984, together with all relevant Bntish Standards

The above documents can be made avadable for inspection as Committee background papers at the office of the Dn-ector of Development, Acacia House, East Street, Rochford. l

l

l

l l PLANNING SERVICES CO- 14TH APRIL 1994 DEFJ3RRED ITFM

D.l F/0134/94iROc NACB ERECT 31 DWELLINGS COMPRISING NINBTEEN NO 3 BED HOUSES TWELVE NO 2 BED HOUSES (REVISED APPLICATION To F/cm4/94/ROq LAND LITTLE WHBATLEYS CHASE RAYLEIGH

REFERREDrrEMs

R2 F/O636/93/ROC HL RETAIN FXISTlNG BUILDING FOR THE BREEDING OF SHOW BIRDS AND FISH , PYNE CGJ-TAGE TRENDEP& AVENUE ~&LE~GH

R3 F/0041/94/R~ SG DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND ERECT NEW DETACHED FARMHOUSE a CRACKNELLS FARM LONG LANE HULLBRIDGB

SCHEDULE ITEMS

4 ccl0152/94/Roc SG CHANGE USE ‘IO OFFICES AND S’KJRAGE IN CONNECTION WlTH AN EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT AND ERECTION OF A CONSERVATORY l-G THE REAR ROCHFORD COUNTY PRIMARY SCHOOL ASHINGDON ROAD ROCHFORD

5. cm157/94rRoc RENBKAL OF PERMISSION FOR EXISTING WMTE TRANSFE? STATION FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS (ROCl442/89/) a PURDEYS FARM PURDEYS WAY ROCHFORD

6 cu/o117/94/ROC USE LAND FOR BURIAL GROUND AS EXTENSION ‘IO EXISTJNF GRNEYARD ADJ ST MARYS CHURCH GRAVBYARD CHURCH END FOULNESS

7. cu/o164/94/Roc Mw USE OF REDUNDANT FARM BUILDINGS FOR SMRAGE AND SALE OF HORSE TACK WITH MANUFACTURE RBPALR AND SALE OF HORSE RUGS LUBBARDS LODGE FARM HULLBRIDGE ROAD RAYLEIGH l PAGE 1 . 8 RM/cm2/94moc Jw ERECT 18 DWELLINGS COMPRISING 4 NO2 BED SEMI HOUSES 2 NO. 3 BED SEMI DETACHED 6 NO.3 BED DETACHED AND 6 NO4 BED DETACHED HOUSES (PREVIOUS APPLICATION CC/O746/9O/ROC RESBRVBD MATTERS) OPP l-11 GRAYSONS CLOSE RAYLEIGH

9. F/0088/94/Rot hv DWELLINGS COMPRISING 14 NO2 BED ~iF&EdkI DETACHED 4 NO.3 BED SEMI DETACHED 6 NO 3 BED DETACHED AND 6 NO 4 BED DETACHED HOUSES OPP l-11 GRAYSONS CLGSE RAYLEIGH

10 F/oo94/94iRoc ‘SG ERECT 21 DETACHED DWELLINGS GARAGES ASSOCIATED PARKING AREAS AND ESTATE ROADS INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF TURNING HBAD ON DEEPDENE AVENUE LAND SOUTH RAWRETH LANE RAYLEIGH

11 F/OlC6/94/ROC 1 NACB RETENTION OF MOBILE HOME FOR STAFF AND STUDENT ACCOMMODATION WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION NO2 OF F/OO71/91/ROC THE GRANGE MURRELS LANB HULLBRIDGE

12. F/O617/93/ROC Mw VARIATION OF CONDITION NO 11 OF PLANNING PERMISSION F/0777/91/RGC BY RETENTION OF BUILDING (TO BE USED As SINGLE DWELLING) AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARKINGIAMENITYAREAS 3 PHILBRICK CRESCENT EAST RAYLEIGH

13. 0L/0102/94/ROC OUTLINE APPLICATION To ERECT 4 DETACHED BUNGALOWS iiL 1 DETACHED HOUSE WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY 26-28 GOLDEN CROSS ROAD ASHLNGDON

14. cu/o114/94/ROC Mw USE UPPER FLOORS OF TWO REDUNDANT AGRKXJLTURAL BARNS AS CRAFT STUDIOS GROUND FLGOR OF BARN AS TEAROOM AND CONSTRUCTION OF CARPARK LOWER BARN FARM MNDON ROAD RAYLBIGH

PAGE 2 PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

14TFI APRIL 1994

SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMQYT AJ!PLICATIONS,WITH DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR DE TERMINATION AT THIS COMMITTEE

Dl DEFERRED ITEM

F/O134/!WROC RAYLBIGH

LAND LITTLE WHEATLEY’S CHASE RAYLEIGH

EkECr 31 DWELLINGS COMPRISING NINETEEN NO.3 BED HOUSES mLVE NO.2 BED HOUSES (REVISED APPLICATION ‘I0 F10014/941RCC)

Ap~hcant~ BEAZER HOMES (EAST) LTD

zming~ Area of Special Restraint (now new Residential Area) , . Density. (on this site alone) 16 per acre but see report below

DEFERREDREPORT

1 1 Members will recall following the rejection of a vote to refuse the application that thu item was deferred at the last meetmg for officers to report back on the progress of rkegotiations concerning the provlsmn of a pond fea!ue to the south of the site.

1.2 The developers have now confumed m ptilple then’ willingness to reinstate at IX) cost to the Council a pond, appropnately landscaped They would then transfer owmzrstup and mamtenance of the pond to the Cooncd although details of ti are still being investigated by officers and will need to te considered separately and more fully by Members.

1.3 For mformahon the previous repoa ts reprinted below but to up date Members the following consulmon rephes have been received suuz tbat report was drafted

14 CIlIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OPFICJXR - no adverse comments but suggests an informative imposed regardmg the times of construction works and preventlon of burmng on site

1.5 RAYLEIGH CIVIC SOCIETY pleased to note ram&r of houses reduced atxl garden SW adequate. Unsure aa to whether the pond is retained Remarti that parking areas are reasonably close to dwellings w&i tbz exception of Plot 8

1.6 CRIME PREVENTI ON OFFICER - generally content ~th the layout and suggests improvements to fencing Bs well as provision of hghting

1.7 No objections have been received kom NEIGHBOURS. The origmal report follows.--

RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Director of Development to d&em on the completion of the coos&&ion period and subject to smtable conditions.

PAGE 1 REPoKr

18 Members wtll recall that a slmtlar applicatton (F/oO14/94iROC) was refused at the last meeting on the grounds of aver development Smce that time detatled negottattons have been undertaken the result of wh~cb 1~this proposal brought before Members for an early determmatiou

19 Following Members concerns regardmg the proposed comttuction of a dwellmg on the site of a pond this aspect has new been deleted from the scheme and will form the subject of separate discuas~ons. Accordmgly, the tssue of the pond dces not form part of the constdemtlon of dns application.

1.10 The varrous other matters previously reported to Members concermng lm isolation dtammes between dwellmgs, car parking standards, etc. have now all be resolved Indeed, this layout is an improvement over that prevtously pertmtted (RM.&KB/91/RGC) where 8 (erronmusiy quoted as 7 m the last report) proper&s would not meet the current poltcy requtremmts of lm. isolahon All of the dwellmgs m this current scheme ntc& this and’ the Authority’s other standard policies. The urdt$ themselves are either three or two bed dwellings, similar to the approved sczheme,as opposed to the rem layout whtch involved a number of four bed houses.

1.11 On the question of the number of tmits Members will recall that the approved scheme for tins site permitted 28 whilst this current applicatton proposes an mcrease of ,3 As was reported to the previous meeting thts results m a minor increase %I density over the whole Little Wheatley’s estate as approved, from @prox 14 9 dwellii peracrc to 15 1 per acre This of course assumes that the fcmttmder of me estate will b-z completed m accordance wtth the approved details Whilst the number of turns on the mmaimng land c&d increase the possibihty of a decrease should not be overlooked either Notwimsmndmg these constderations Members should be m no doubt as to the policy ~requlrementswithm both the Essex Structure Plan and the Rochford District Local Plan, these seek to achteve a MINIMUM density of 30 dwellmgs per hectare or 12 dwellings per acre. The pohcy base and text preamble says denstoes should a&eve the htghest density compatible wtth local envromnental constdemttons and that considerably higher densities (than 12d p a ) may be appmpnate m urban areas. There is no poltcy maxtmmn wncermng density It should also be noted that other restdenttal estatesthroughout the dlstrtct achteve sinnlar or htgher densities.-

1) Lesney’s former factory (the “Matchbox” site) Rochford 30 dwellings per acre, 2) “Gun” site, Alexamim Road Great Wakermg, 15.2 per acre, 3) The latest permtsston (F/0153/93) on St Glare’s Meadow, Rochford, Rochford District Council land at 17.2 per acre. 4) Land rear of the police station at Rocbford (F/O90/93/RCQ 17 per acre.

1.12 As reported above this appllcatlon is at an early stage but bearmg in mmd the full d-&m regarding the prevtous sunilsr application and the lack ofmzgor objectton from consultees at that time (only one NEIGHBOUR objected for instan@ tt would be unreasonable to dmupt the applicants plans to contmue bmldmg at thLs estate parttcularly in light of the above factors If any different dension were to be made the questton of an appeal, with a probable application for costs, 1s a very strong possibiltty and should not be overlooked Furthermore The Department of Envtronment’s advice to local authortttes is that there is a preaumptlon in favour of such apphcatrons unless there are soumd and convlnclng planning reasons why the development should not proceed

a PAGE 2 l ’ Conclusions 1 13 Thts proposal has been made in hght of Members prevtous concerns and comphes wnh all the relevant standard polictes for such development. The layout, albeit with an increase of 3 m the overall nmnber of umts, 1s in fact an improvement over that previously permitted by meeting the Authonty’s more recent requirements concerning blahon distances between dwellings. The density of the estate wtll not be radmally altered and again, no confhct wrth pobcy extats By reason of its exclusion from the satethe issue of the pond, to the south of the apphcation site, is not a consideration before the Author&y at tlna stage consequently, the ments of tlus proposal are such that to refuse it now may be consIdered unreasonable behaviour leaving the Authority exposed to an application for costs on any subsquent appeal.

R.2 (km Weekly Ltst No 209)

Referred by Counctllor P. A Beckers

Apphcant. David A Costen

F/c636/93iRoc Zonmg. Metropolitan Green Belt PARISH OF RAWRETH

PYNE CGITAGE TRENDERS AVENUE RAYLEIGH

RETAIN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE BREEDING OF SHOW BIRDS AND FISH

NOTES:

21 Thrs application follows the issue of an enforcement notice on 23rd Febrnary 1993 agamst the erectron of thrs and two smaller bulldings on the site An appeal was lodged agamst the nohce, but sulxs-equentlywithdrawn, and the period for comply with the notice therefore expired on 8th December 1993

22 The available evtdence mdmates that the land upon which these buiidlngs are sited does not form part of the residential untilage of Pyne Cottage, and ss such IS considered an unacceptable structure detrnnental to the purposes of the green belt and Local Plan pohcms. a 2.3 It has been suggested that this building replaces a former ptggery block, but such replacement required express plannmg pernnssron, and the former use 1s not wnsidered justification to approve this rehoqztive application.

2.4 The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter mto a Sectton 104 Legal Agreement to ensure the removal of the other bmldmgs on site and restrict future acttvny and development of the butldmg, but thii is not considered sufficient to overrode the estabhshed green belt prmcipla agamst such development

2.5 A letter has been received from the RAYLEIGH PARR RESJDENTS ASSOCIATION commenting that the buildmg 1s not obtrusive by virtue of its dtstance from the road, and should not generate more traffic The Association have canvassed the views of 13 residents in the vicnnty, twelve of whomgenerally ratse no objecuous, subject to tbeactlvrty remarmng a domestrc hobby. One resident comments that the buildmg 1s excessive for hobby purposes and should be removed Tins household has also submttted an indrvidnal letter of ObJectionon the grounds of excessive sure for hobby purposes and the precedent if the buildii ia allowed to remain

PAGE 3 REFUSE

01 GREEN BELT - DWELLINGS The Rochford Dlstrmt Local Plan shows the sateto be wrthin the Metropohtan Green Belt and the proposal is mnsidered to be comrary to Pohcy GBl of the Local Plan and to Polmy S9 of the Essex Structure Plan Wnhm the Green Belt, as defined in these pohctq planning peumaston wffl not be gtven, except in very spectal cimumstances, for the constructron of new buildings or for the change of use or extension of exiatmg bnihimgs (other than reasonable extensmns as defined in Pohcies GB2 and GB6), or for purposes, other than agrtcuItuk, mmeral extractton or forestry, small scale factlines for outdoor partictpatory sports and recreation, institutions m large grounds, cemetenes or snnilar uses which are open m character Any development which is permitted &all be of a de, design amI srtmg that the appeamnce of the countrystde rs not impaired. In November 1990 amendments to these policies were agreed by the Local Planmng Authonty as part of the Fnst Review of the Local Plan As a consequence Pohcy GB6 has been penumbered as Pohcy GB7. P?DD The bullding is sited outside the curttlage of Pyne Cottage and, as such results in an excessffe bulldii of tmaccqtable scale, matertals and design in thts sensitive Green Belt location. Thrs creates a substandard buiIdmg outatde any recognised garden area, and therefore detrimental to the exdng open rural character of the countryside. 0 02 NON STANDARD REFUSAL The site IS w&m a Landscape Improvement Area where Pohc’; RC6 ot” the Rochford District Local Plan Fii Review applies, reqnirmg that, inter alla, the location, siting, de&n and materrals used should be of a htgh standard to @rove the chamcter of the area The pmposal by virtne of its srze, scale, locatton, design and materials 1sconsidered to be contrary to thrs policy

R3

(From Weekly List No. 210)

Referred by Councillor Walker.

Apphcant Mr. D Bolt

F/0041/94iROC Zonmg: Metropolitan Green Belt PARISH OF HULLBRIDGE 0 CRACKNELLS FARM LONG LANE! HULLBRIDGE DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND ERECT NEW DETACHED FARMHOUSE

HULIBIUDGE PARISH COUNCIL do not object to thu application, but express concern regardmg bmldii works on Sundays, restricting occupation to one. dweflmg at a rim-e,, the con&ion of Long Lane durmg bmlding works and the maintenance of the road surface.

NOTES.

3 1 Cracknells Farmhouse is an isolated unprepossessmg two storey detached dwelling whtch dates from the mm of the century and is situated adjacent to a range of exrathrg farm burldings frontmg Long Lane, on elevated Green Belt land, to the. east of the village of Hullbridge.

\ l 8 PAGE 4 oto43a

J 3.2 Thts appbcation proposes a ‘otbs for one’ replacement for the exishng farmhouse The proposal sattsties the Council’s Policies for replacement dwellings m the Green Belt The dwelling ts proposed to be re-stted wtthln the plot which 1s visually acceptable but hence a Section 106 Legal Agreement as detarled m Condition no 2 and also to remforce Condttion no 4 to prevent the use of the roofspace as habitable aecommodahon.

3 3 The NATIONAL RlVERS AUTHORITY, ANGLIAN WATER and the Council’s CHIEF ENVIRONk53NTAL J3IMIXH OFFICER raw no obJection The COUNTY SURVEYOR regards the proposal ad ‘de nnmmus m highway safety terms Thts apphcatron was publicised by the drsplay of SITE NOTICES, no responses have been rccetved

APPROVE Subiect to a Sectton 106 Legal Agreement coverma condmon 2 and 4 as outlmed w

01 COMMENCE IN 5 YE&S . oi NON STANDARD CONDITION + Prior to the ouzupatron or wnbin three months of completion (whtchever date 1s sooner) of the dwellmg hereby permitted, the exisung dwelhng marked ‘X’ on the plan (no 987.11~) returned herewith, shall be dean&shed and removed from the site. In any event, the existing dwellii shall be demollshcd and removed from the site, within 15 months of mmmencement of development on the nep dwelling.

03 h$4TERIAlS FOR EXTERNAL USE

04 PD CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE

05 PD RESTRICTIONS-EXTBNSIONS

06 DETAILS OF MEANS OF ENCLGSURB

07 HEDGEROWS To BE RETAINED

08 LANDSCAPING SCHEME - DETAILS

09 PARKING AREA-PROVIDE & RETAlN

4 CC/O152/94/ROC PARISH OF ROCHFORD ROCHFORD COUNTY PRIMARY SCHOOL ASHINGDON ROAD ROCHFORD

CHANGE USE ‘IG OFFICES AND SMRAGE IN CONNECTION WITH AN EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT AND ERECI’ION OF A CONSERVATORY To THE REAR

Apphcant ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT - zollmg ResidentiaKonservattlon Area

ROCEiXORD PARISH COUNCIL - no objections. RECOMMENDATION: Raise no ObJectiOnto the proposal subject to the lmpasrtion of a condrtton ensuring that the bmldii is used only for purposes ancillary to Rochford County Primary Schcuol.

PAGE 5 01 NON STANDARD CONDITION a Notwtthstanding the pmvrsrons of Arttcle 3, Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Town and Country Plannmg General Development Order 1988 (amended) the use of the butldtng shall be aa offices ad storage anctllary to the use of Rocbford County Prnnary School as an cducattonal establishment, and for mo other panpose mcludurg any other use falhng wrthm the Schedule to the Town and County Plannmg (Use Classes) Order 1987 (amended)

4.1 ‘Dns apphcahon pmposes the use of an extstmg restdential btidmg snnated between the exlsttng Prhnary school and St Arximws Hall, as offices for the Headmaster, Caretaker, School Secretary etc. the release of ctdministrahvespacewithin the existing school wrll create addittonal ,teachhrg and storage areas I 4.2 It is essential that, if approved, the use 1s only ancillary to the exrsthrg s&ml, m order to avoid any mdependent commemial or other use on the site 43 THE NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORTTY, ANGLJAN WATER and the. COUNTY l SURVEYOR raise no objectron.

5. CM/O157/94iROC PARISH OF RGCHFGRD

PURDEYS FARM PURDEYS WAY ROCHFORD

RENEWAL OF PERMISSION FOR EXISTING WASTE TRANSFER STATION FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS (ROCl442/89/)

Apphcam PURDEYS WASTE TRANSFER (MR BINES)

Zoning. Fxming open storage & area primuiiy for hbsrnd Use

ROCHTORD PARISH COUNCIL ram no objecttons

RECOMMENDATION’ That the County Planner be advised that Rocbford Drstrict Council raise no objections to thks renewal of plannmg pernnssion for 6 months Subject to the conditrons outlined and those suggested by National Rtvers Authonty and Anglian Water 0

01 NON STANDARD CONDITION Suitable materials for constructron of waste transfer bunkets to be agreed with the Local Plamnn8 Author@ 02 NON STANDARD CONDITION No toxtc, hazardous or climcal waste to be stoned or tramported to or from the site.

03 NON STANDARD CONDITION No burnmg of waste materials on the site.

04 NON STANDARD CONDITION No liquids, sludges, slurries or orls shall be deposited on the sne ertbcr alone or tbdmixture wnb any solid mater&s.

PAGE 6 05 NON STANDARD CONDITION AU vehtcles dellvermg waste to the stte or transportmg waste from the stte shall, tf not enclosed, be adequately covered or sheeted to prevent spillage.

06 NON STANDARD CONDITION All loose, low density waste deltvered to the site shall be depostted dtrectly tnto a contamer, tn such a manner as to mimmlse the waste bammmg wmd borne

07 NON STANDARD CONDITION Screem and fenctng shall be erected tn such positions on the site as may be agre4 with the Local Plannmg Authonty

08 NON STANDARD CONDITION External walls of the bunkers shall be colour FQatedpreferably tn a dense black matertal

09 NON STANDARD CGNDITION Any skip storage factlity shall be tithm a defined area to control nkhscmutnate storage elsewhere within the site

10 NON STANDARD CONDITION a Space should be provided withm the site to acmmmdate the parking and turning of all vehrcles regularly vlsttmg the site, clear of the htghway, and properly laid out and paved as may be agreed with the Local Plannmg Authority after wnsultatton with the County Highway Authority and such space should be mamtained thereafter free of any inqndnnent to its designated use.

11 NON STANDARD CONDITION Theaccssroadaxd manoemring areas wrthm the compound shall be served by a properly consoltdated and hardened surface, preferably metalled. A wheel wash facthty shall also be provtded. These measures are mended to prevent waste and other materials being depcstted on adloining metalled roads within the n&t&al &ate.

12 NON STANDARD CONDITION Sunable landscaptng and natural screening shall be provided to the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the site inclurhng remote boundarres beyond the nnmxhste perimeter ferxmg and thereafter mamtatned.

13 NON STANDARD CONDITION No Sunday working

‘* 14 NON STANDARD CONDITION Site to be defined with suttsble meam of enclosure a& thereafter maintained

15 NON STANDARD CONDITION Drainage details to be subnutted and agreed

16 NON STANDARD CONDITION Strict adherence to the provisions of any site InxtxqsutweqUentIy granted by the Essex County Council Cotmnner and Publtc Protection Officer

17 NON STANDARD CONDITION No putresctble waste should be used for any infilling maternal.

18 NON STANDARD CONDITION There should be no build up of large lateral areas of water ln excess of 30 tnetra m any dtrectton, to mmimise bud nesting levels. l PAGE 7 19 NON STANDARD CONDITION The works and use fx carried out and operated m accordance with the submitted plans and wntten schedules and details, except where othetwtse sp4fied above or below l

20 NON STANDARD CONDITION Control over the number of lorry movements and spectfied routi to and from the stte

51 Consent for the temporary use of thts site as a waste transfer station was fm granted under applisation ROC/442/89, and exptred on 28th February 1993 An apphcatkm to extend the penmsston for a further twelve months was subsequently granted via apphcatton CMKklO1/93/RGC

52 It ts the mtentton of the ‘applmantsto rekate to an akemahve site wtthm the industrial estate by way of a separate planmmg appltcation CM105I9!!Z3~%d Section l%, legal agreement relatmg to the provtsion of a temporary access road which for reasons beyond their aantrol has b&en delayed The present request for a further 6 monttsS(expiring 31st August 1994) is to allow for transttion between thts and the new sate. The NATIONAL RIWRS AIJlBORITY have stated “no cgmment” on the proposal l Though the foIlowing consultees%ave not yet responded kmally it is a&mated &at thw prevtous views will be repeated as fofloWS.-

The CHIEF FCNVIRONMTNT AL EEALXH OFFICER 110‘obj&om in principle to the spplmatron.

5.6 The CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, no safegnardmg objection .sub~ectboCowlihors 18 and 19above

57 Any comments received wtll be conveyed to Members at the meeting.

6. CU/O117/94/ROC PARISH OF FOULNESS

ADJ ST MARYS CHURCH GRAVEYARD CHURCH END FOULNESS

USE LAND FOR BURIAL GROUND AS EXTENSION To EXISTING GRAVEYARD

Applmant: FOULNESS ISLAND PARISH COUNCIL

Zonmg. PqxtsedMGB RECOMMENDATION. Delegate to Dlreztor of Development to determme following the expuy of all peri& of publicity and consultatton and the nqosmon of appropriate condtttons; to include.-

01 COMMENCE IN 5 YEARS

02 LANDSCAPING SCHEME - DETAILS A scheme of hedge lsndscspmg shall be submitted to and approved in wrtting by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and be carrt4 out on site durmg the next planting season followmg commencement of the development to the Local Plarmiq Authority ‘s saWon. Any hedghrg which tie, are -ved or become seriomly damaged or diseased wtthm five years of planting skill be replaced by the applicants or their successor in title. The landscapmg schemeshall indicate the locatton, spectes,size of hedging to be planted aml the locatton. 0 PAGE 8 03 NON STANDARD CONDITION Notification of the start of work shall be given by the spplicant or hts agent to the Essex County Chmcil ArchamIogmJ Advrsory Group (S. Gtbson, 0245437638) wnh as much advance warning as possible, but at least 48 hours so that all ground works may be mspected for archamlogtcal remams and records made

04 NON STANDARD CONDITION No burtals shall take place below the water table or wtthm 10 metres of any surface watercourse or pond.

REP&+

6.1 Foulness Island Parish Council seek cotxent to use a parcel of land adjacent to St Mary’s Church, Church End for buriaf ground as an extension to the exishng graveyard at the church. ,> ,sc’. . 6.2 Members may wtsh to note &at the apphcsition has been submitted m response to the Foulness Parochial Church Counc~l’s recent application to the Church of Englaml for an Order m Comcd claxng the exrstmg church yard to I%aIs The Parish Counctl ha;e com%nnxi that the appltcatton has been agreed. On closure of the extsting church yard the Pansh Counctl will be requested to undertake maintenance of the old churchyard.

6.3 The current appIicahon is ~constdered s&eptabIe~subJect to the new burial gratnd being suitably enclosed to respect the character of t#e church and its grounds and the surromuihtg open c&mttyside. The Defence LHnd,Agency ~mmetxi a natural ‘broadleaf type hedge boundary to the site.

6.4 The COUNTY SURVEYOR considers the proposal ‘de mmimus’. The COUNTY P I&&ER (SPECIALIST ARCEL4F,OLOGIC4L ADVICE) recommexxds a watchmg bnef mndihon be attached to any consent that is granted In order that all groundworks may be momtortd by the Archaeological Advisory Group The NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY raise no objection subject to the imposttion of approprtate conditions to ensure there 1s no posstbiltty of mntaminated water entermg and polhtting surface or underground waters. ANGLIAN WATER, BRITISHGAS (NORTHTHAMES) andthe CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER raise no obJectton.ROCHFORD HUNDRED D SOCIETY are strongly m support of the application.The COUNTY PLANNER (SPECIALIST ADVICE ON LISTED BUILDINGS) raises nn ObJectionand welcomes the idea of a hedge to define the boundary. 7. CU/O164/94/RGC RAYLEIGH

LUBBARDS LODGE FARM HULLBRIDGE ROAD RAYLEIGH

USE OF REDUNDANT FARM BUILDINGS FOR STORAGE AND SALE OF HORSE TACK WITH MANUFACTURE REPAIR AND SALE OF HORSE RUGS

Appltcant MRS J TURNER

Zoning. MGB

Floor Area 36sqm approx. Total site area 46 50 ha. (115 acres)

RECOMMENDATION. to delegate to the Dtxtor of Development upon exphy of the site notice period.

PAGE 9 . 01 COMMENCE IN 5 YEARS

02 MATERIALS FOR EXTERNAL USE A scheme for the external refnrbtsbment of that part of the buddmg to be occupted mcludmg a schedule of materials to be used on external surfaces shall be subnutted to and approved m wrttlng by the Local Plannmg Authortty pnor to the mmmencement of the development and the use of these materials shall be stnctly adhered to

03 NON STANDARD CONDITION The horse tack shop hereby approved as part of the developmentshaI1 not be prnnar~ly engagedm general retatlmg of goods to the pubhc at large

04 NON STANDARD CONDITION This use hereby pemutted shall be operated only as ancillary to the mam DIY hvery nse of the site and not as a separateretail umt at any time; and should the livery use ceaseto operate at any nme then the Tack retatl part of the use hereby permitted shall also cease * 65 NON STANDARD CONDITION The loadinglservtcmg area mdtcated on the approved plan shall be permsnently marked out to be kept clear m a manner to be agreed m wrttmg with the Local Plannmg Authority before the butldmg is brought mto use and a mrreqondmg request sign dtrectmg rrpa~p to yse the sdjoimng parkmg bay be displayed at eye level on the entrance to the u nre&a.* subI@ of this approval

. 06 NON STANDARD CONDITION The retatling of horse rugs hereby permttted shall only be conducted as an anciIlary acuvity incidental to the manufactureof the rugs wtthm the unit

07 USE REWRICTION-USE CLASSES The premises shall be used for the speclflc uses applied for namely the storage and sale of horse tack and msnufactnre and the sale of horse rugs, and for no other purpose (mcludmg any other purpose m ClassesAl, Shops, Bl Busmessand B8 Storage and Dtstnbutton of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planmng (Use CIasses)Order 1987, or in any provtston eqmvalent to that Class m any statutory mstmment revokmg snd reenachng that Order)

REPORT 71 This site has been subject to a number of recent permissions for muse of this group of redundant farm buildmgs the most stgmficant of which was the conversion of some buildmgs to provide 50 livery stables with associateduse of surrotm&ng land for exerctse and n&g. Perrmssron CU/O132/93/ROC is well implemented with over 40 stables already fitted out.

72 This proposal 1s for the use of part of one of the bulldIs m the mam block wtth a sepsrate floor area of 36sq m. It occupies the southwest comer of that group of bmldmgs which currently already provtdes part of the stab@ an exercise area.

The proposed use ~111 be for the storage and retailing of horse ‘tack’ (groomhtg krts, collars etc) mcludii on site productton and repair of horse rugs, prnnartly to the tenants of the stable development who it is understood wdl generally use six rugs at any one tune but which due to wear have a relatively short hfespsn. . These are items and a servtce which are not provided by the feedstuffs shop that already operates within and as a permitted part of the overall livery use There will be no adverseexternal effects created by thts mmplnnentary and sncdlaty use of a genumely r&mdant farm buiidmg. Therefore it 1sconsidered that tt complies with the requirements of Policy GB5 of the Local Plan, subject to the safeguardof appropriately restrictive cot&tons

PAGE 10 75 At the’time of wrrtmg thrs report no representations have been recetved from etther formal consultees or from NEIGHBOUR letters and the SITE NOTICE Any received subsequently before thts m&mg wdl be reported verbally.

8. RMAW2/94/ROC RAYLEIGH

OPP l-11 GRAYSONS CLOSE RAYLEIGH

ERECT 18 DWELLINGS COMPRISING 4 NO 2 BED SEMI HOUSES 2 NO 3 BED SEMI DETACHED 6 NO.3 BED DETACHED AND 6 NO4 BED DETACHED HOUSES (PREVIOUS APPLICATION CC/V746/!WRGC RESERVED MATTERS)

Apphcant WILCON HOMES LTD

Zomng Secondary School wnhm extstmg Residential Development

F+age from 7 5m (24-6”) to 18m (59’)

Depth From 2Om. (65’6”) to 34m (111’)

Density,32d ha (12.8 d.a) Srte Area (0.56 ha) 1 4 acres

. RECOMMENDATION. Delegate to Director f d&brmme pending negotrations for an unproved site layout, some house desrgn datarls aud. &tion df Bppmpriate condttrons and mformattves.

REPOHT

PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

8.1 ROC/789189/CC Consultatton from the Essex County Councd under Regulatton 5 of the Town and Country Plamung General Regulatmns 1976 for outline deemed perrmssion for residenttal development of the land vesttxl m them, but which they drd not themselves wash to carry out.

82 This apphcation was considered by Planmug Services Committee on the 13th December 1990 wherem it was resolved to oppose the application on the following grounds:-

(1) site 1s mdrcated for Seec&ary Sch~l purposes on both the former Approved Review Development Plan for Essex ard the Rocbford District Local Plan.

That the Local Planning Authority consider adequate land is avadable to meet the Essex Structure Plan Fii Alteratton rquircmcnts for housmg purposes as speerfically rdentified in the adopted Rochford Distnct Local Plan

(m) That the Local Plaunmg Author&y consider the site makes a valuable contrrmutton as a “green lung” feature of the School sue withm this built-up area and its eroston would he to the detriment of the character, appearance and visual runemiles of the kc&y.

8.3 It was aho resolved that “notwnhstamfing these objections, If the County Co=? IS minded to approve the development, then a number of conditions were recommended ” Notwtmsmndmg, this resohmon by Planning Services Conmnt& the Chmty CouuciI subsquently granted cadtlonal Deemed permission on 22nd March 1991. The d&iron was based on the County Plarming Officers’ vmv that “this site could b-e granted penrnssion for resrdcntral development without umiermmmg the overall contribution made by the school playing fields to the chamter, appeamn ad wsual amenities of the area of prejudicing the effectiveness of the exrstmg and proposed dismbution of public open space m the area, subject to IX) dwellings being more than 2 storeys in herght, the extstlng footpath being retained and all vehicular access bemg from Graysons Close. * 3 -e SITE DESCRIPTION

8.4 The sate lies m the south eastern corner of the school grounds at the rear of the mam l buddnigs Abutting the northern boundary is a pubhc footpath crossmg the school sue and lmkmg the resrdenttal area to the east to Hockley Road Beyond the footpath, whtch has cham link fencmg on both srdea, are the school burldmgs and open playmg field area The land falls away from the public footpath down to Graysons Close thus effectively segtegatlng the stte from the main school complex

85 To the south and east Is residential development whilst to the west ts a part of the school complex.

CONSULTATIONS

86 The COUNTY PLANNER (SPECIALIST ADVICE) acknowledges that mts is a dtfftcult sue to develop by reason of rts shape and ao.%ssand the layout has shortcommgs which could be overcome by rearrangement of mnts The most important pomt 1sthe lack of&y frontage to,the boundary footpath which ls also the southern edge of the solmol playing fieM *slsa q&&ions the lack of ‘corner turning’ houses to mask the rear gardens on plots 24,26, and 27 whtch back onto the access road and is concerned about some of the design features e g. house type 90 He also constders the mater& are ahsocritical gtven the modest size of the dwelbngs a 87 The RAYLBIGH CIYIC SOCIBPY consider the proposed d advocate a pedesmart hnk between the overall development and @&.le Road,%s-l%z*g r mature trees and protecttou via a Tree Preservation Order trq 3@l rhead*oftbe +chmutar accessto plots 27 to 30 vta the exlstmg hammerhead “which 1,puk.scram& ”

8.8 The COUNTY SURVEYOR suggests extending the extstmg turmng facdtty adjacent to the forcgomg whrch should help allevrate potential problems and has no objection to the propogal subject to detatled condtttom

8.9 The CHIEFIXNVIRO~ EIRAJXH OJ?PKXR has no adverse comments but advises there ts a potential for nmsance arrsing from the clearance and constructmn works and the developer should be advti to hmit the hours of construction and encourage not to bum waste on the site durmg the implemeutatton period

8 10 The RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION state that they would be m concerned regardii any footpath diversions that may be considered and development that does not accord wrth the development plan They are opposed to closures/stoppmg up of rights of way or dtversions onto estate roads.

8.118.11 TheThe ESSEXESSEX BRIDLEWAYS ASSOCIATION areare similarlysimilarly concernedconcerned toto ensumensum nono publicpublic ll right of way would be extmgulshed or diverted onto estate roads. however, none is proposed 111 the apphcation. 8.12 ANGLIAN WATER have no objectrons subject to the proviso that details of foul and surface water drainage is agreed pnor to commencement

8 13 The COUNTY PLANNRR advises on thisandthesubsequent Coumdttee item that no strategtc objectrons are ratsed to these pmposals, arkI accordmgfy that determination of both appltcations ls left to the diirctron of the District Ccuncd.

8.14 In determmmg application FM/O@?2J94/ROCthe Drstrtct Council should have regard to the need to apply conditions imposed on the ear-her plarmmg consem granted under CCJDSIRocI8I90, following consultation ROC/789/89/CC, m particular to ensure that the amemty ad prrvacy of nearby reanients ts protected.

8 15 In determming spplmation F/C088/94/RGC similar mnsideratrons apply in detail Approprmte conditions should bc attached, akm to those related to CC/DS/RCC/8/90. l PAGE 12

, 1 I REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

8 households have wntten expressmg reservations and objections mmnnartsed below

1) pollcv

8 16 Proposal not consistent wrth Development plan and adequate land is avatlable elsewhere to meet Essex Structure Plan requnwnents as idermfied in the Rochford Dtstrict Local Plan. Loss of/ encroachment of school playing field. ii ii) Vtsual amemtv/Decision matters

8 17 Propa comprrses overdevelopment and out of character mcludmg layout and tier t _ p,rovtston of garagmg and proposed terracmg with-surrounding development amI other design detadmg. Loss .of vtstnd amemty, I@, overshadowing, overbearmg impact and pnvacy from elevated site m partrcular of propcrtms m vmlnity of extstmg ratsed tenms courts especially plot 1 It 1ssuggested that the land is regraded to mmimise potential overlookingfloss of privacy Loss of “green lung” and informal play space for children If allowed previous oxrhtions a . ,vTyeg+mg I+@ parfpf site ad lwng should be repeated II IIUIJ Hmhwav matte& . 8 18 Thd’nnmber of dwellmgs proposed will put press& ORraads’ via increased traflic and threaten Graysons Close IS cons~derwl too narrow to take Ffii%EL& h-i%- - cashwixonalsafety. and domestic and will create congestion therein aml consqucntlal pduhon and confkt between access to site and garage driveways to extstmg dwellmgs opposite and restrict access for service(refuse, emergency vehtcles Potentral effect on pubhc right of way and would wish to see this Imk between Hoc!&y Road and Helena Road retained

IV) DrainaPe matters 8 19 The addmonal houses will put pressure on exrstmg foul water dramage services Existing surface water drainage problems could bc exacerbated tf the contours of the land are changed. The land should be regraded to minimise potentral dramage problems and tf allowed tlx previous cotition regarding surface water drainage should be included ami enforced CONCLUSIONS ‘a 8 20 This appltcation* is for the approval of the reserved matters i.e s&g, design, external m aodmeansofaccesstothes~eteasllasthenumberandtypeofdwellings.

8.21 The prmciple of residential development of tbc srte has already been permitted by the deemed outline permtssion.

8.22 Many of the restdents concerns focus on matters of prmcrple. De&WI aspects raised by them are covered m the main by consultee responses, condtttons attached to the outline permtasion e.g. detarls rqmred of foul and surface water drainage aml the final layout for the site is stdl subject of negotratton

a PAGE 13

I I 9.

F/CQ88/94/ROC RAYLEIGH

OPP l-11 GRAYSONS CLOSE RAYLEIGH

ERECT 30 DWELLINGS GOMPRISING 14 NO 2 Bm TERRACE/SEMI DBTMXIl?D 4 NO.3 BED SEMI DETACHED 6 NO 3 BED DETACHED AND 6 NQA BED DETACHED HOUSES

Applmant~ WILCON HOMES LID

-e Part Secondary Sc+Jmolwithm exrstmg Residentral Development & part Resrdenttal Frontage From 4m (13’) to 16m (52’6”)

Depth From Xhn. (65’6”) to 44m. (144’3”) Density. 33.7d.ha (13 6 dpa.) Site Area 0 89 ha (2 2 acres) l RECOMMENDATION; I&&gate to Dire& m detmne pending s site layout, some house design cl&& and imposition of appropnafs~tmca P * REPORT

9 1 Followmg the tssue of the deemed outlme consent referred to above a discrepancy emerged in that the applicatton and written text referred to a 2 2 acre arte but the plan showed only a reduced site of 1.4 acre% Offkxxs took the view that rt is the pIan that prevails therefore the reserved matter appltcatlon dealt wrth only the reduced site.

9 2 Accordmgly a qxuate full apphcation has &e-n subnutted whtch covers the erdlre 2.2 acre site whmhE.ssex Ctnmty Council mt&toreleasefromtheoutset. Thetotalnumber of dwelkings prvexl overall 1s 3, the layout for the 1.4 acre part of the site remains the same with 18 muts with a further 12 on the restdue

a 9.4 The CONSUL’IXE rasues identified within the prcvrous report apply to this applicatmn and seven NEIGHBOUR letters covering in the main the same ob&tmns have been received.

9.5 In considering the prmcrple of this apphcation, it should be borne in mmd that permission exists for development of 1.4 acres of the site, tt IS all surplus to educatmnal rqnrercents, and of the remainder of the site a small element of it is zoned for resrdential purposes The County Planners report at the tune when the earher Deemed consent was granted also covers some germane aspects in relation to the obJections then raised by this Council “The queshon of the stte’s allocauon for Secondary School puqnxes reflects the present use of the lsd, ami cammt mlnbit future uses

Although there is sufficient housmg land available to mee$ the Approved Structure Plan up to 1991 the proposed site could make a small contribution towards the altered housing requirement for the pencul 1986-2001 as an intensification site within the extsting bu11t-up area.

PAGE 14 mrdly, as regards tts cmtrtbutmn as a “green lung” feature within the bud&up area, the site is divorced from the large open playmg field of the school which remans, by a pubhc footpath The topography of the siteIS such that 1s slopes southwards away from the footpath thereby relating it visually to the surrou&mg residential area rather than the open school grounds to the north. A numb% ‘of areas extst within the nqhb+urhood m close proxmuty to the Site which arc currently in pubhc open space use and further areas are proposed through the, adopted Local Plan proposals

It 1s considered that thts site could be granted perrmsslon for rcs&ntial development wnhout undermming the overaIl contribution made by the school playii fields to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the area or prejudicmg the effeot~vencssof the existmg and proposed diitributlon of pubhc open space in the area, subject to no dwellmg b&g more than 2 storeys m he@t, the existing footpath beii retruned ami all vehiaku access bemg from Graysons Close ”

10. F/CfJ94/94/ROC RAYLEIGH

LAND SOUTH RASVRETH LANE RAYLEIGH l ’ ERECI 21 DETACHED DWELLINGS GARAGES ASSOCIATED PARKING AREAS AND ,FSTATJZ ROADS INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF TURNJNG HEAD ON . . ’ .‘-@+PDENE AVF$WE ‘ +\ . b . . Applicant: DAVID WILSON HOMES (HOME COUNlkS LTD)

zmllng: Proposed Reslden&al/Area of Special Restramt

Site Area 2.5 acres Densy. 8.4 dwell&s per acre

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the DE&or of Development to determme followmg the expny of alI peruxk of publicity and consultation and subject to receipt of satisfactory amendments to the scheme. Condttlons subsquently imposed to mclude:-

01 COMMENCE IN 5 YEARS

02 I;ON STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby penmtted sMl only be nnplcmented as an alternxhve and not in addition to that penrutted by plannmg permission references ROC!/932&5 and/or ROC/932/86/3 (m so far as they relate to kus site). Under no circumstances shhll the development hereby pernutted and that permitted by the aforementioned planning pemussions (m so far as they relate Lo this site) be implemented smmltaneously.

03 NON STANDARD CONDITION No works required for the nnplementat~on of the development hereby pxrmtted shall be commenced until the bellmouth j&on formmg the connection between this site aml the extsting estate road has been formed and made available for use.

04 ESTATE ROADS-PRIOR CONS

05 PRIVATE DRIVES-SURFACE FINISH

PAGE 15 h c 06 NON STANDARD CONDITION Before the existing route of Deepdene Avenue across the site is stopped up m order to a facihtate the implementation of the development hereby permitted, the Deepdene Avenue turning head and ‘Bndleway’ link shown on Drawmg no 509 2tXl Rev ‘G’, shall be provtded sml made available for use m a manner whtch shall include an effeztlve means of preventmg direct vehmular m (which shall include all construction traffi but excludes all emergency vehrcles) from the Deepdene Avenue turning head to the remainder of the site, precise detatls of which shall previously have been submitted to and approved m writmg by the Local Planning Authortty. Thereafter, the Deepdene Avenue turning head and ‘Bridleway’ link shall be mtamed m the approved form.

07 NON STANDARD CONDITION Notwnhstandmg the provraons of Artmle 3, Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (amended) all velucular access ta Plots 51 to 61 and 64 to 71 on the site (iludmg constructron traflic relatmg to plots 51-31 shall be. from Downhall Park Way Under no c- (except for the passage of =@A Gymmm s,$aU any dnect vehicular access be made from the Deepdene Avenue temth$ head to thn remamder of the site 08 ACCESS&CROSSINGS-LAYOUT l 09 GARAGES AND HARDSTANDINGS -_­ * . 10 NON STANDARD CONDITION A 2 lm x 2 Im. pedestrian vlsibtlrty spray, relative to the back of th, fc&a#sglrwq, #&k ’ be provided on both sides of all velncular accmses and no obstruction above 6t%nm m helglat shall be permitted within the area of the splays.

11 MATERIALS FOR EXTERNAL USE

12 DETAILS OF MEANS OF ENCLOSURE

13 LANDSCAPING SCHEME - DEXAHS

14 HEDGEROWS TO BE RETAINBD

15 NON STANDARD CONDITION No works required for the implementation of any part of the development hereby pernutted development shall be commenced u&l precise details of foul aml surface water disposal and surfam water attenuation (mcluding a t&scale for implementation) have been snbmttted to and l approved m wntmg by the m Plannmg Autlmnty in consultation with the relevant Drainage Authority. Any subsqnenrly approved schm of detarls shall be lmplcmcnted m its entirety

16 PD CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE

17 BURNING OF WASTE MATERIALS

18 NON STANDARD CONDITION No works of constructton or site clearance a.ssaclatedwrth the development hereby pen&ted shall take place outside the hours of 0700 hours to 1900 hours Monday to Fnday or 0700 hours and 1400 hours on Saturdays, Sundays and or Public Holidays.

REPOHT

10.1 The application site consmutes part of a larger area of land on which planmng pcrmissmn was granted m January 1990 for the comprehensive residenbal development (287 houses) of the Downhall park Estate, (Ref ROC/932/86/2).

PAGE 16 10 2 The development proposed by thts spphcatron comprtses 21 detached dwellings on 2 5 acres of land, with the construction of anestate roadstaudard turning bead at theend of Dcepdene Avenue, from whmh two of the dwellmgs proposed gain vehicular access. Thts scheme reduces the total mnnber of dwellmgs pmposcd on the site from 32 to 21 (density of 8 4 per acre) with a rmxture of new housetypes The existing mature trees&hedgerows onthenorthemsnd southern boundarms are to be retamed and the layout also provides a brtdlcway lmk from the site to Deqdene Avenue.

10.3 This application comphes wrth the Council’s techmcal polmy standards wrth the exception of one private garden area (plot 64) which measures less than 1Mhn sq which 1s bemg rev& However, the layout includes four dwellings which back onto the western boundary with no. 60 Deepdene Avenue, which due to the onentatron and close pmxmuty of first floor rear facmg windows to the garden area of nus 60 am3 58 Deep&me Avenue the development wdl be hkely to prejudice the prrvacy wmch the occupants of thc@edwellings could otherwise 4 ,.,A resyM$ expect to wv _ ,’ p ,I +, 10 4 R&d&& ‘haye raised objection to thrs element, nonetheless the approved layout entailed all two storey houses at thus edge of the site in part further from the site boundary but also feamrmg a terrace of 3 propertIcs set at right angles and much tighter to the common boundary.

10 5 Negotmtrons are curremly takmg place wnh the applicants in order to resolve the ,above , unsatisfactory elements of the scheme albeit any amended solution is likely tof*.H ObjectIons from exlsting surrounding r&tents 1 . : .I 1O.~6~~%!l’IONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY raise no objecuons subject to surface wate1 attennatton and foul dramage condmons The COUNTY SURVEYOR recommends mmor revisions to the layout and highways condmons The Council’s CFHF,F ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER reammends conditions relating to hours of construction and bummg of waste Responses were received from four LCIcAL RESIDENTS, ObJeCtIhgto the pmxmrity of four of the proposed dwellings to the boun&ry with no Qo Deepdene Avenue and the resultmg loss of resrdenthd amemty Concerns were also raised regarding direct vehicular access from the DeepdemaAvenue turmng head to the remamder of the suite.

F/0106/94/ROC PARISH OF HULLBRIDGE

THE GRANGE MURRELS LANE HULLBRIDGB

RETENTION OF MOBILE HOME FOR STAFF AND STUDENT ACCOMMODATION WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION NO.2 OF F/GVlW91iROC

Ap~lmant: MRS R EFDE

Zomng. MGBK.andscape Improvement Area

HULLBRIDGE PARISH COUNCIL states that temporary permission only should be granted provided the mobile home 1s sited as agreed on the previous permission (FA307/91/ROC)

RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Dnector of Development to approve for a 3 year temporary penod subject to appmprmte conditions

REPORT

11.1 Permtssion to use tlus site as a rtdii school was first granted in 1976 (ROC/595f76) smcc whmh time permissions for temporary accomm&ation have been granted on five separate occasions:-

PAGE 17 1) 2nd May, 1977 - ROU82l77 - CXW~~ on one year basis for owner/manager whdst renovatron carned out to house;

2)29th March, 1978 - ROC/19/78 - caravan on one year basis for groom to ndmg school;

3) 5th September, 1979 - ROU19/78 (renewal) - renewal of (2) above for one year,

4)15th September, 1987 - ROC/363/87 - stables, etc ami mobde home for riding imtructor permitted for three years

5)24th Apnl, 1991 - F/OO71/91iROC - mobtIe home for staff and student accommcdatton perm~tttxl mull 30th March, 1994.

112 On this last occasion the apphcant had been asked to provzde supportmg information its to why it ,was necessary to provide such temporary accomnmdation on the Site m ad&ion to the eqastnqdwellmg house. ,* If3 Attbattime theapplicantreferredto~

i) ti fact that the school employed 7’pe~mancnt staff with vBcBIlcies for a further 2, li) the 1~s of Central Government travelling allowanees made It dlfficdt for trainee staff to 4 , l I reach the site and, until that time, the m perm-&ion for Bon was 16% -t#kaqq; Iii) for the safety of du&led childrerPr a~$ tile welfare ozf’~+~&!s co@ant staff bo%fage was deem& essential by Veterinary f& %a plevent@n advmrr as well as The Britih Horse Society aRd the Assoc&&&on of Brmsh Riding SchooIs The B&h Horse Society supported that applica0on as it understood, that the qphcant did not have personal expertise nor mvolvement in the professional side of runnmg the ridmg centre. Therefore, it cons&red it essential that expert staff were resident on site. In addition it referred to the loss of travel allowancX% for trainees on the Youth Trammg Scheme and the subquent dental of trainmg in rural locations if such pcrsom could not be accommodated on the premises, paruculariy in ylew of the unsocial hours

11.4 Furthermore, at the time of this previous application there had been a fire at these prenuses W~KII has resulted m consIderable damage to the u&or ridmg school a& the loss of an en&re hay barn. The construction of stables permitted under ROC/363/87 ami ROC/219/89 had yet to be completed. Consfquently, the rkhng s&o1 was stdl at a transittonal stage m Its development where additional expert staff were rqmred to assist m the comtant superv~~~~dmanagementof the horses seumty, etc Followntg a Members Site Viiit penmsslon was granted.

11.5 On thts present application the applicant argues chat with the length of time mobile accommodation has been present and tfie amount of investment that has been made St this establishment a more perman& permission should be granted This will enable staff of a high calibre to te guaranteed aazomnmlation The school h 3 d&led riding groups attending ttuoughout the week and with more professional staff, further gmups and individuals are envisaged to mske use of the facllitles. In addition permanent staff are even inore essential takmg mto account the damages & by fire, vandalism and horse slashing, the applicant further pomts out.

11 6 Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence available, the Director of Development is not convinced that addltlonal permanent aczommodation 1s neuxmyatTheGrange. Tltesitetswithm the Green Belt where any new dwellmgs are resisted unless essential for agrlculhual purposes, etc. the present dwelhnghouse on the site could be qied by a person+) with the necessary expertise or converted to provide a separate annex for such a person If permanent aczommcdatton ws.3 required

11.7 A slrmlar view was taken by an Insp@or when dismissii an appeal fcir a bungalow for two gmoms in 1980 (Rot/343/79) l PAGE 18 11 8 At the time of the Offtcers mspectton on thts present prowl the erectron of the mobrle home was nearmg completion and therefore the last temporary pemussron as granted m 1991 has never been exercised ami works on various new stables permitted under a previous consent had yet to be commenced In vtew of these and the above factors a further temporary penmssion for three years is therefore considered reasonable to attract/retam staff whtlst the development of the sue IS completed Thus would be subject to all neoes&q conditions mcludmg that restricting the ooxpatton of the mobile home to those employed at The Grange

11 9 The CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEAJXH OPFICEX has no objections subject to a condttion requiring the provrston of a foul dramage system to serve the home.

11 1ONo ObJectIonS have been rexwed m response to NEIGHBOUR whficatton or SITEYNEWSPAPER notices.

12. F/C417/93lROC RAYLEIGH ‘ , ’ ‘. 3 PHILBRICK CRF!SCENf EAST RAYLEIGH

VARIATION OF CONDITION NO11 OF PLANNING PERMISSION F/Cr777/91/ROC BY RETENTION OF BUILDING (To BE USED AS SINGLE DWELUNG) AND CONSTRU~IQN OF PARKINGIAMENlTY AREAS rp I % ­ , Applic& J GIBSON

zomng Resrdential

REPORT 12.1 Members wiI1 recall endorsmg the rcconmxndat ton to negotrate an acceptable solution for vartatron of Comlitton 11 by way of a revised layout sublect to report back to thts uxnm.~ttee -ing 12.2 officers have met with. the apphcant and hrs agent who are aware firstly of the fundamental requirement to acquire the addrtional land referred to m the apphcanon which they are pursuing and also to produce a sabsfsctory layout.

12 3 Revised plans are awaned at the tnne of draftmg the report and it 1s therefore suggestexl the apphcation be Delegated to the Drrxtor to determine as recommended below subJect of murse to the normal pnvrso that If tins delegatton cannot be exercised as recommended then the matter would come back before the committee

RBCOMMENDATION Delegate to the Dmector of Development to determme followmg negotiations to achteve a satrsfactory rev&d layout of the proposed parking and amenity areas for both the Eats amI the dwelling subject to any nexssary legal agreement and rermhfication to local resuIents

REPORT.

12.4 A scheme for the development of thrs site whtch comprised a dwelling koown as the Old Forge with a two storey block of five flats was granted planmng permtsston m 1992 and development commenced m May of that year. The scheme indicated the placement of parkmg spaces where the ortgi& dwellii was located but upon completion of bmldmg works a site msp+xtton revealed that half of the dwelhng had been retained, refurbished and was occupuxi as a restdentral unit. Furthermore, parking and manoeuvrmg space oxupted virtually the rest of the rear of the site with no clearly tdentttied amenity space for either the flats or the retauxi dwelling.

PAGE 19 12 5 The fadure to comply with three of the condittons attached to that consent was reported to the Planning Services Conmuttee on the 29th July 1993 These con&tons broadly retpure the l markmg out of all the parkmg spaces prior to occupatton a scheme of landscaping to be agreed and Implemented, and the whole development scheme to be carrred out m accordance with the approved plans the layout of which was dependent upon the denmhtion of the exratmg dwelhng, Action was authorised to secure a remedy of these bresch of planning condttians

12.6 ‘Itte Developer has submmed this apphcation as an alternattve to the onginal stte layout for car prrhng and amemty space There is a material dtfference between the two m that more land has been mcluded within this latter application site

12.7 If this Iand is incorporated into an enlarged site sufftcmnt space would be avarlabk to form a reaso+e layout for v car parkmg and amenity space. Thii would requne J-y@??=& actuai layout of the ameat applcation plan pro- a poor and ursstlsfadory saluhon. , 12 8 It 1s also sqqrhicant that wrde publicny inchrdmg nerghbour notificatrons and site notices has not generated any response from LOCAL RESIDENTS. 12 9 It &,-that an acceptable layourcan now be achieved subJ”t to further negotratron and a l legal me&st&n to ensure the permanent avatlabtlity of the-addiinal kuad.

12.lSIp that regard if Members agree the above recommsndatlon rt may be w for a Legal Agreement to ensure that the additional land is made penmm&y ava&ble for the satrsfactory completion of the scheme

12.11COUNTY SURVEYOR has no ObJectionsprovided access IS taken from Phtlbnck Crescent Avenue Past only and that space 1s provided withm the stte to accommodatetheparkhrgofali vehrcles vistting the site No representations have been reserved in response to NEIGFIBOUR notiilcation letters 13.

OL/D102/94/RGC PARISH OF ASHINGDON

26-28 GOLDEN CROSS.ROAD ASHINGDON

OUTLINB APPLICATION ‘IO BRBCT 4 DBTACHED BUNGALGWS & 1 DETACHED HOUSE WITH YBIIICULAR ACCJ3SSAND DRIVEWAY a Applicsnt. DESIGN ASSOCIATES

Zoning Resrdentral ASHINGDON PARISH CTOIJNa consrder the proposal to be ovettievelopment, and if such tntensrve development were to continue tt would create serious trafi? congestron mths vlcmty A ‘two for one’ replacement IS considered more appropriate.

REFUSE

01 NON SlXNDARD RBPUSAL The proposed development, by vtrtue of its confll layout, 1s considered u&tly dominant on the amenities of adjacent properties In particular, the proximity of unit ‘D’ to the dweilings fronting Golden Cross Road would grve rise to unacceptable levels of dtsturbance, overlookmg and loss of privacy. In addition, the increased @en&al for dism&mz created by the pa.rkmg and tmnmg arrangements elm to the boundarrcs wuh nos 28A and 24 Golden Cross road would J bc unduly detrimentaJ Y% 0 PAGE 20 If permmed, the proposal would represent an undesn-able form of backland development contrary to Policy H17 of the R&ford District Local Plan Fust Review.

REPORT

13 1 lhs proposal involves the demolmon of a vacant bungalow and its replacement of a house on the satefrontage, ami four single storey bungalows to the rear.

13.2 This ‘scheme ‘follows the pattern of development found m Beckets Close nearby to- the south of the applicatton site, ami hence the principle of such development has already been estabhahed

13.3 Acuxdmgly, the prmctple of redevelopment of the site with a small backland scheme partmularly given the properties proposed at the rear are bungalows would be dtfficult to resist However, the layout proposed is unsatisfactory and does raise concerns as to the effect on amemttes of netghbouts and is on thii basis recommended for refusal A revtsed a@icati+m,addressing these concerns comahung the turmng ama activity within the centre of the site and.nnprovhrg the layout perhaps by deleting one bungalow would be viewed more favourably.

13 4 It should be noted that residents coxerns expressed mgardii the precedent for shmlar development in Golden Cross Road and mfrastmcmre problems have to be tempered given the l ,land to the north east, of the road is zoned for redevelopmmt after 1995, and+$ld mvolve a ,resrdenttal development of some 6 acres

13.5 Members should be& m nmxl the recent appeal decision at 31 W&lands Road following refusal of two earlier schemes in whtch the Imp&or allowed a similar scheme for 2 frontage houses and 3 &mgaIows to the rear of the she

13.6 Alao thme Members who atteruied the recent site vrsit in Deepdene Avenue wtll recall not only the permissions granted on that sue, but also the small bungalow backland scheme at Hazeldene which was initially allowed on appeal for 2 bungalows m 1988 and subsequently for the further 2 plots by thra &unctl in 1991

13 7 In rqonse to statutory consultations, no adverse wmments have been received, although ROCHPORD HUNDRED AMENITIES SOCIETY support the wmments of the Parrah Gnmcrl

13.8 In response to NEIGHBOUR rmttfication and the display of a SITE NOTICE, ten letters of ObJeetmnand a PETITION contaming 83 signatures have been received, raisin8 conceins inchrdmg overdevelopment of the site, mcmased traffic congestton and hazard, loss of prtvacy and overlooking, mcreased n&e and drsturbanoe, proxunity, pressure on mfrastructure, lass of hedgerow and screening, and the effects of the access

14 CU/Ol14/94iROC RKr’LBIGH

LOWER BARN FARM LONDON ROAD RAYLEIGH

USE UPPER FLOORS OF TWO REDUNDANT AGRICULTURAL BARNS AS CRAFT STUDIOS GROUND FLOOR OF BARN AS TEAROOM AND CONSTRUCI’ION OP CZARPARK Applicant MR & MRS 0 ARGENTIERI a PAGE 21

, RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Du-ector of Development to determme on the submtssron of revised plans and the deletton of the unauthor~.ed retail bmldmg to the rear of the large barn and the bud dtsplayand p~cntc area, with theparkingareareducedto50 car parking spaces adJa!xntto the large barn WrEquKlingly reddug its eXted mto the site. %r& approval to also be subject to the imposttion of appropriate condittons as to use of tnuldmgs and land for amnhy and rural crafts am.4skdls only except for the cafe, landscapmg, setting out of parkmg spaces amdthe surface finish mater& prOvLsionof turnmg areas, M addit~ond Access pant% and restrrcting the operatmg hours of the cafe only to those times when the centre ts m use. In the event of satrafaotory plans not bemg received the qrpltc&on will be refused under the lYirectors delegate3 powers

The See and rdemnt histI3l-y Ml.‘Tkii site willLie~knowntpMem~andllesonthe~stdeefLo~~~~conslsts of al group of four &mdant agria&ural b&durgs (two barns, a stable b!-c-ekand a tractor &rage) lying together in a ‘U’ shape close to the front of the site towards the south west corner of the sate with the origmal farmhouse lymg to the innnedtate east L4,2 One of the btnldiogq.a former 16th century stable block, has been converted mto a group of 7 l craft studros. This shmge of use wBgrantedonsppeaJbyrke&cnzary of State foliowrng refusal of planmng porrmssron in 1990 under ref ROCYOXXQ and has been opsastional st~ce afa 14 3 Together wuh tbesepermittedcraftumts, numerom other uses and breaches of plannmg control have taken place on the overall sue m recent years. Some within the ongmal farm courtyard but extenstve unaoxptable separate actrvmes beyond An application CU/OO36/92/Roc for the change of use of the smaller barn to a tea room use was considered twrce by F%mnug Set~ces wmrmuee arc,refused on the 3rd April l!W2 prmcipally because the tea rwm use was considered to be excessive m relation to the then authorised et-aft centre use on thy site

14.4 Enforcement Actron in respect of the breaches of plannhrg control on the site over a per& of years culminated m a major public Jnqairy into some 13 Hnforcement Notrces most of whtch referred to multiple breaches of platming control The Jnspator’s decision letter on that Inquiry is dated 9th July, 1993. He upheld the enforcement notices wrth an extended penti of compliance he considered that beyond the mm&ate area of the longstandmg buddings 1s an intensrve way was an unacceptable eTo6ronof the appearance and character of the coumryside in thrs valuable part of the Green Belt. He was of the vrew that this use of the redundant farm bu&Jmgs should not form the basis for the n~emental growth that had taken place arwJhe fonnd l that all the unauthorised development involvmg the erection of bmhhngs aud their uses artxrunted to ~remcnts of growth beyond which it would not be reasonable to draw the Iine and was therefore unacceptable

14 5 In disrmssmg the appeal the Inspector gave clear mdtcahon as to what he percerved to be an aceptile ad appropriate Craft Centre use on the she m%ding an ancrllary cafe Thts he concluded shouid be lhnitcd to the two barns and garage m addrtton some land for assocuated parking behind the huge barn would be -ry, but lt should be clearly defined and not extend in depth mto the site. There would also be a need to restrict the type and extent of outdoor development amI he indtcated that a modest area of outdoor plant sales closely assocrated wnh the butldmgs would not be out of character nor would a sun&r modest exhrbh of animals

14.6 The Inspector considered that a comprehensrveplanning appbcation would be appropriate in order to enconqass the development which he ticated appropriate.

14.7 The complranoe with the enfo rcement notices that go beyond the scope of the current applicatton are bemg actioned. Current Anphcatton

14 8 Thts apphcatton now attempts to follow that advice of the Inspector and seeks permtsston for the change,of use of the two rematmng barns and the old farm garage that lie close to the converted and renovated stables. Both barns are still undergoing internal alterattons (that are permuted development works) followmg re-roofing/tilmg that wtU pemnt the display and carrymg out of craft uses -* 7 The Smaller Barn The fir% floor IS to be open plan and can accommodate about 6 separate craft BLtrvttteS(craft uses displaced from unauthorised locations m the sue) snmlar to those in the stable block. It wtll have a new external \. staucase running from the first floor west flank extt back along down * i. ‘h, *., ’ that ffsnk whdst that on the east side adjoining the. ,y park access route Nil1 b-eremoved This resrted s&case wrll serve as a secondary means of escape m an emergency There will be a first floor w&way bnk to the large barn that will also lead down to groumi level at the rear of the small barn and alongside ~ ~tJ=g*e II The hund floor of the smaller barn has been fitted out to provide a Tea &Cm servmg hot and cold drmks and snacks to visitors to the craft centre. The floor space accommdates pat10 type tables with a separate servmg ad preparatron area behmd a counter Totlet facrhties are provtded mcludmg a dtsabled person’s totlet at the rear of the Tea Room

8 The Larger Barn The larger of the two barns 1s shown as having a mezmnme floor with a central open well/gallery arca The first floor would be an open plan area for craft uses and the gmur~.I floor wiLl be dtvtded into several small craft studios and a main area for additional occasional craft fans

9TheGarage The garage budding wdl accOmmOdatetwo separate craft uses

14 9 However the submitted plan still shows an unauthorised structure used as a pet shop to the rear of the large barn also with extensive bii dqlay and pictuc areas These repreSent unautionsed and unacceptable encroachment mto the Green Belt and also displace space for car parking hnmediately to the rear of the large barn preventmg the preferred parkmg arrangement from behag reabsed. In there present form the subnutted plans and details are unacceptable and negotiations are takmg place wnh the apphcant to address the defictenctes.

14. lOThe precise extent of car par- that will be requtred wrll be dictated soIely by the floorspace to be brought mto use withm thi: ongmal buildiis only and also havmg regard to the nature aml of the activttres 50 car parking spaces is nnsrdered appropriate and these can be acconmtcdated rn a satisfactory manner without extendmg in depth mto the site.

PAGE 23 CONSULTATIONS

14.11At the urne of writing tlus repoa 110 represemations have been received from tividuals in response to SITE NOTICES Replies from consultees, ANGLIAN WATEX have uo comments, NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY have no objectton provided a oonditlon IS hnpasd reqlllrlng provls1on of asealed cesspool for all foul drainage, CHIEF ENyIRONhlENTAL EEALTFl OFFICER does not object subject to a conditmn that no waste mater& are burned on the site, &X%X COUNTY COUNCIL HIGIflzyAxS do not object subject to space being provided in the site to the parking and turning of all vehicks vlslting the stie.

4

PAGE 24 PLANNING SERVICES CO-

14APRlL1994

l Please find attached copies of plans for Schedule items bemg presented to thu medmg.

l

0 ! i f I i

.

__-.- -+------w F i i\ \\

\ \ \ \ 1 1 I

I I I f --­ /

l

I

, l

l l

-I-- a

l

DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS - 14TH APRlL 1994

I have decided the following appllcattomi tn acmrdance with the poltcy of delegatton

AD/oO36/94/ROC APPROVE ILLUMINATED FASCIA & PROJECTING BOX SIGN 85 HIGH STREET RAYLEIGH BRITISH SHOE CORPORATION LTD

CU/oO53/94/RGC APPROVE CHANGE USE OF EXISTING HIGHWAY LAND M RESIDENTIAL LAND LAND FRONTING 116118 RECTORY ROAD RGCHFORD MRSDJACQUES&MRSKSMITH

CU/OO55/94/ROC APPROVE CHANGE USE OF SHOP AND TAXI BUSINESS ‘IO ESTATE AGENCY (IN CONNECTION WITH EXISTING ESTATE AGENTS OFFICE 65 SPA ROAD) 63 SPA ROAD HOCKLEY SHEAD ESTATES

F/C@15/94/ROC APPROVE CREATE VEHICULAR ACCESS 2 LAW CGI-TAGES HALL ROAD ROCHFORD MICHELLB SAWARD

F10017/94/ROC APPROVE SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 18A WARWICK DRIVE ROCHFQRD MR D PENFOLD

F/oo18/94/ROC APPROVE Two STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE S’IGRBY EXTENSION To REAR OF GARAGE 9 LABURNUhf GROVE HOCKLEY MR&MRSEDAVIS

F/M)19/94/ROC APPROVE CONSTRUCT VEHICULAR ACCESS (PIPE AND COVBR DITCH) BREADE HOUSE APTON HALL ROAD CANEWDON MR R G SHEPPARD

F/OO21/94/ROC APPROVE ADD FRONT AND REAR DORMERS 2 HALL ROAD ROCHFORD MRPREYBRS

F/OO24/94iROC APPROVE TWO DETACHED HOUSES LINKED BY INTEGRAL GARAGES R/O 10 BASTCHBAP RAYLEIGH DAVID LUDLOW

F/oo27/94/ROC APPROVE FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION WITH DORMERS AND INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS INCLUDING CHANGES IID PORCH FENESTRATION WALLS AND CHlMNEYS WALKERS COI-I-AGE BARLING ROAD BARLING MAGNA MR T BURGESS

PAGE 1

- l

l F/C030/94/ROC APPROVE l ERECf DETACHED 3-BED CHALET WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE (REVISED PROPOSAL) 49 KEdBERLEY ROAD LITTLE WAKERING P HYMAS

F/C031/94/ROC APPROVE EXTEND FRONT & REAR DORMERS 32 SILVERTHORN CLOSE ROCHFORD MARK KELLY

FfOO32/94tROC REFUSE SINGLE STGREY FRONT FKTBNSION WITH ADDITIONAL VBHICULAR ACCESS M FORM DRIVE-IN 121 GREENSWARD LANE HOCIUEY MRPAULREBVE 01 CONTiARY To POLICY, DETRLMENTAL AND VISUALLY INTRUSIVE

F/oo34/94lROC APPROVE 0 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 18 HAWKWELL CHASE HAWKWELL D JONES

F/C035/94/ROC APPROVE NEW SHOPFRONT & INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO LAYOUT EXTENDLNG SALES AREA 85 HIGH STREET RAYLEIGH BRITISH SHOE CORPORATION LTD

F/oo37/94/ROC APPROVE ADD TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION CANOPY To FRONT GARAGEKARF’ORT l-G SIDE & NEW ROOF CSVER (RENEWAL OF ROC1556/87 -REVISED ‘ID SHOW GABLED ROOF) 56 SUTION COURT DRIVE RCCHFORD MRAMAXBLL

FhX%39/94dROCAPPROVE ERECT SINGLE GARAGE To SIDE ELEVATION 0 263 ASHINGDON ROAD ROCHFORD CRBBARTGNESQ

F/0044/94/ROC APPROVE SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 155 BULL LANE RAYLEIGH MRLHARRLS

F/ooQ5/94iROC APPROVE SINGLE SXXEY FRONT & SIDE FXTENSION AND EXTEND GARAGE AT REAR ‘IO CREATE woRKSHoP 6 RODING CLOSE GREAT WAKERING MR&MRsHAwEs

F/OO50/94/ROC APPROVE EXTEND GARAGE To CREATE GAMES ROOM (LOCATED ADJACENT To REAR BOUNDARY OF 34 WESTERN ROAD) KJNGSLEY LODGE WESTERN ROAD RAYLEIGH 0 MR G SNELLING

PAGE 2

-- / 0,

F/oo51/94/ROC APPROVE l ERECT 4 BED DETACHED HOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE R/O 106-114 DAWS HEATH ROAD RAYLEIGH GALES DEVELOPMENTS LTD

F/oo52/94iROC APPROVE ERECT BOUNDARY WALLS To FRONTAGE OF DWELLING 5 WESTERN ROAD RAYLBIGH MR&MRSRMAYLIN

F/OO58/94iRGC APPROVR SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 16 THE wJ?STERINGS HAWKWELL MRS GRADMALL

F/oo60/94iROC APPROVE EXTEND HIFPED ROOF TO FORM JBRIGN HEAD (HIFPED GABLE) TO CRBATB ROOM LN ROOF 14 HARROW GARDENS HAWKWEZL MRS MADDOCKS a F/C051/94/ROC APPROVE VEHICULAR CROSSOVER 2 HALL ROAD RGCHFORD MRPREYERS

F/‘X63/94lRGC REFUSE DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGE AND CONSTRUCI’ SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION To FORM UTILITY ROOM AND KITCHEN 1 KINGSMEAD CGTTAGES BARLING ROAD BARLING MAGNA MR R BURDEN 01 EXCESSIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MGB 02 DETRIMENTAL TO ELEVATIONS AND CHARACTER OF DWELLING AND CONTRARY To MGB POLICY

F/0064/94/RGC APPROVE DETACHED 4 BED HOUSE WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE 0 11 LESLIE ROAD RAYLEiIGH AWS

F/O%7/94/ROC APPROVE ERECT FRONT AND REAR DoRM.ERs 20 DAWLISH CRESCBNT RAYLEIGH MR & MRS M HOLLIS

F/CQ70/94/RGC APPROVR SINGLE S’IDREY FRONT EXTBNSION ‘KJ GARAGE 36 NEW ROAD GREAT WAKERING MRgLMRSSKEEN

FiUO74/94/RGC APPROVE ERECT PITCHED ROOF TO FRONT OVER GARAGE & PORCH 22 SUNNYFIELD GARDENS HOCIUEY MRGHPMORRIS

PAGE 3 l F/OO85/S=VROCAPPROVE l THRBE 15M HIGH FLOODLIGHTS BACH WITH THREE lOCOW SODIUM LAMF’S l-0 ILLUMWATE TIMBER STORAGE ARBA (RETROSPEW) BALTIC WHARF CRBEKSEA FBRRY ROAD WALLASEA ISLAND BALTIC TERMINAL LTD

FtOO!33/94lROCAPPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF 2ND VEHICULAR CROSSOVER TO CREATB IN-OUT DRIVE 1% EASTWOOD ROAD RAYLEIGH J B CHARLESWORTH

F/O105/94mOC APPROVE FIRST FLOOR PITCHED ROOF EXTENSION TO RFiAR 17 NELSON GARDENS RAYLBIGH MR&hiRSRTWHlTB

LBPXrWWROC APPROVE FIRST FLOOR REAR EKTBNSION WITH DORMERS AND INTBRNALJEXTERNAL ALTERATIONS INCLUDING CHANGES TO PORCH FBNBSTRATION WALLS AND CHIMNEY l WALKERS COTTAGE: BARLING ROAD BARLING MAGNA MR T BURGESS

PAGE 4

DELEGATED BUILD~G REGULATION DECISIONS APPROVALS 14th Apnl1994

PLAN ) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION

BR 94141 Unit 2/3,Rawreth Industrial Estate Provnuon of New Personel Door Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh and Security Fencmg BR 94133 Great Wakeriug United Reformed Church New Rear Addition, Side Driveway Chapel Lane, Great Wakering and Dtsabled Access BR 94/60 172, Main Road Two Storey Side Extension Hawkwell BR 94/77 53, Clarence Road Rear Extension Rayleigh BR 94132 2, Loftman Bungalows One Loft Room, Shower Room l ~~e~~~rry Road and Utility Room

BR 9416 2, Hall Road Proposed Alterations and Additions Rochford BR 94143 The Towans, Hall Road Single Storey Rear Extension Rochford BR 94119 85, High Street New Shopfront and Internal Rayleigh Shopfittings BR 94161 33, The Westerings Proposed Two Storey Extension Hockley BR 93f406A Glaze Brook Farm Toilets, Shower and Staff Rest Canewdon Road Room Asbingdon BR 94llA 32, Silverthorn Close Rooms in Roof Space, Front and Rochford Back Dormer Extensions BR 93/461A Adj. 17, Broad Walk Single Detached Dwelling Hockley BR 94178 2, Central Avenue Rear Extension Hullbrtdge BR 93l505A Junction 64, Rayleigh Avenue/Nom Road New Dwelling and Garage Rayleigh BR 94195 34, Stanley Road Bay Window and Pitched Roof to Ashingdon Garage BR 94148 49, Wedgewood Way Proposed Loftroom and En-suite Ashingdon BR 94199 9, Nelson Road First Floor Rear Extension l Rayleigh Provision of Side Dormer BR 94134 155, Bull Lane Rayleigh

BR 94170 10, Rowan Way To Infdl Flat Roof Over Garage l Canewdon - with Dormer, Creating New Bedroom BR 94136 8, Main Road ProposedAdditions Hawkwell BN 94/105 8, Warwick Gardens Formation of New Window Rayleigh Opening BN 941120 16, Nutcombe Crescent Loftrooms for Use as Bedrooms Rochford BN 94/121 141, SouthendRoad Change Slate Roof to Tile Roof Rochford BN 94/122 14, Marina Avenue Extensronto Kitchen and Rayleigh Lounge/Diner BN 941123 8, Pudsey Hall Lane Installation of SewagePlant to a Canewdon Replace Cesspool BN 94/12/l 60, Lee Lotts Relocation of Water Tank from Great Wakering Airing Cupboard to Loftspace BN 941125 33, Philbrick CrescentEast Garage Rayleigh BN 941126 34, Foutain Lane Underpinumg Hockley BN 941127 65, Barling Road Rooms in Roof Barling BN 94/128 2, SomersetAvenue lb Support Remainder of Chutney Rcchford Stack in Loftspace BN 94/134 43, The Westerings Convert Garageinto Habitable Hawkwell Room a BN 94/138 54, Kimberley Road Rear Study and Bedroom Extension Groat Wakering BN 94/139 22, Rushley Close Front Single Storey Extension Great Wakering W.C.1 BN 94/140 25, Pulpits Close Installation of W.C. in Existing Hockley Downstairs Bathroom BR 94191 Between Francis Cottee Lodge DetachedHouse and Garage and 38, Clarence House (Plot 5) Rayleigh BR 94/17A 14, Harrow Gardens Room in Roof Hockiey BR 94164 Woodville ‘Iwo Storey Side Extension Hullbridge Road Demolish Rear Conservatory and a Rayleigh Rebuild BR 94151 Hockley Prmmry School Alterations Chevening Gardens Hockley

BR 94169 2, North Street Change of Interior Layout to a Rocbford Facilitate Wine Bar BR 94163 47, Willow Walk Extensron (Knchen) Hockley BR 94/111 2OA,,York Road Proposed Cloakroom Ashmgdon BR 94165 25, Beech Avenue Rebmld Garage and Car Port Rayleigh Add New Bedroom on First Floor and Enlarge Sirting Room BR 94193 5, Castle Terrace Room in the Roof Raylergh BR 94&t The Anne Boleyn PH Internal Alterations, Improvements Southend Road Toilets Etc. Rot&ford a BR 93/363A Bolt Hall Farm New Detached House and Garage Lark Hill Road Canewdon BN 941144 1, Kmgsmead Cottages Installation of Sewage Plant to Barling Road Replace Cesspool BN 94/149 24, Hullbridge Road Side Dormer Rayleigh BN 94/151 19, Central Avenue Single Storey Extension - Perspex Ashmgdon Roof (Sun Lounge) BN 94/153 14, Shccrmg Court Remove Cupboard to Enlarge Rayleigh Lounge and Kitchen Remove Wall Between Lounge and Dining Room BN 941156 11, Twyford Avenue Installation of W.C. in Existing Great Wakering Downstairs Bathroom BN 94/158 5, Upper Lambricks Dormer Extension to Rear Forming Rayleigh New Bedroom BN 941159 3, Spencers Convert Garage to Study Hawkwell EN 94/160 17, Nutcombc Crescent Garage Extension and Additions to Rochford Dwelling BR 941116 37, Uplands Road Dormer Extension Hockley BR 94186 63, Holt Farm Way Rochford BR 94187 9, Lancaster Road Dining Room Rayleigh DELEGATED BUILDING REGULATION DECISIONS REJECTIONS 14th April 1994

PLAN 1 ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION

BR 94117 14, Harrow Gardens Rooms in Roof Hockley BR 94122 Battlesbridge Harbour First Floor Extensron to Existing Workshop Chelmsford Road to Form Sail Loft and Small Offrce Battlesbridge BR 94154 16, Main Road Alterations to Existing Shop Unit Hockley BR 941.55 1, Rosslyn Close Smgle Storey Garage to Side, Porch Hockley Extension Including Cloaks BR 94152 6, Mey Walk Single and Two Storey Side Extension Hockley BR 94149 20, Parklands Side Extension and Dormers Rochford BR 94146 Cracknells Farm Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Long Lane Erection of New Farm House Hullbridge BR 94145 70 ,The Drive Front Extension to Existing House Hullbridge