500 homes for West of Rayleigh

500 homes for West of Rayleigh

Big plans - a computer image submitted by Countryside with the outline planning applicationm showing how the development would look from the air, looking east to west

500 homes for West of Rayleigh

First published in News
Last updated
by

A MAJOR new housing estate with 500 homes and its own primary school, nursery, shops and clinic could be built just outside Rayleigh.

C o u n t r y s i d e Properties has put in an outline planning application to develop on green belt land north of London Road, Rayleigh, and south of Rawreth Lane.

The move follows the approval of a controversial Rochford Council Local Plan document, outlining where nearly 4,000 homes should be built between now and 2021.

Ian Ward, councillor responsible for planning, said: “We are obliged to accomodate these dwellings and we will be ensuring the infrastructure is there to cope with the perceived problems.

“When the detailed plans come through, we will work to make sure that is the case.

“At the moment, it is just outline permission and it may be that the plan has to change a bit.”

Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year.

Planning officers are now likely to negotiate some changes to the proposals before a full planning application goes in, since the area covered was originally earmarked to take 550 homes.

The application includes space for parks, playing fields, allotments and youth facilities, as well as “balancing ponds” to help deal with flood risks in parts of the site which are in a flood zone.

It also sketches out two new access roads and associated infrastructure, including an extension of bus routes to serve estate residents.

Andrew Carrington, Countryside’s strategic land director, said: “Our aim is to create a sustainable scheme that fully integrates with the existing community and has a strong sense of local identity.

“We have carefully reviewed the feedback from local residents during the public consultation earlier this year, and have made a number of adjustments and additions to our masterplan, including reserving a site for a new primary school.”

'We might not like it, but we have no choice’

Like all councils, Rochford now has a legal obligation to have enough land available at any time to meet five years’ demand for housing.

Ian Ward, councillor responsible for planning, said: “We are following the law of the land, set out by Government – whether our residents or we, as councillors, feel there is a demand for housing or not.”

Mr Ward said the council had done what it could to soften the blow.

He explained: “We were approached by a developer in 2006, when our core strategy discussions were first starting, which wanted to build more than 4,000 homes – all in Hullbridge.

“We considered that extremely unfair on that area and felt it was better to spread them around.

“We also had a proposal for 1,800 homes to the west of Rayleigh, but again, that was deemed unfair.”

If the council failed to have a document setting out where the next five years of homes would be built would leave the district open to having developments imposed on it by Whitehall, regardless of how unsuitable the council or local residents might consider them.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:26am Fri 29 Aug 14

Kim Gandy says...

"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site? Kim Gandy
  • Score: 9

12:30pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Ian P says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
"as well as “balancing ponds” to help deal with flood risks in parts of the site which are in a flood zone" What about controlling the flood risks in flood zones adjacent to the site which will take some of the run-off?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]"as well as “balancing ponds” to help deal with flood risks in parts of the site which are in a flood zone" What about controlling the flood risks in flood zones adjacent to the site which will take some of the run-off? Ian P
  • Score: 11

12:32pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Ian P says...

Oops, did not intend this to be attached to Kim's note above.

"as well as “balancing ponds” to help deal with flood risks in parts of the site which are in a flood zone" What about controlling the flood risks in flood zones adjacent to the site which will take some of the run-off?
Oops, did not intend this to be attached to Kim's note above. "as well as “balancing ponds” to help deal with flood risks in parts of the site which are in a flood zone" What about controlling the flood risks in flood zones adjacent to the site which will take some of the run-off? Ian P
  • Score: 5

12:54pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Richy don't shine shoes no more says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
Fingers crossed they'll get the sign off on that too
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]Fingers crossed they'll get the sign off on that too Richy don't shine shoes no more
  • Score: 6

1:11pm Fri 29 Aug 14

I care about rayleigh says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
I actually attended this so-called consultation - the representatives of Countryside were probably not very senior within the comapny, and clearly had very little understanding of the issues that really concern the locals. It was clearly no more than a necessary, PR exercise. We all know that Countryside's aim is to make millions.

The propsed new road will do nothing to ease congestion on London Road that was clogged when I drove to the consultation at 5pm! The guy who was there to talk about a traffic survey rejected my offer to take him for a drive round - it would have shown him exactly what the problem is!

They knew nothing about recent flooding in the area, nor the proposal to bury all the pylons on the site. Nor did they have any appreciation of the amount of develpoment already imposed on this part of Rayleigh.

Coutryside's decision to go ahead with the application shows that the consultation was a wasteof time - they have the ignored everything the locals explained. If they had listened, they would have forgotten all about building in this area.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]I actually attended this so-called consultation - the representatives of Countryside were probably not very senior within the comapny, and clearly had very little understanding of the issues that really concern the locals. It was clearly no more than a necessary, PR exercise. We all know that Countryside's aim is to make millions. The propsed new road will do nothing to ease congestion on London Road that was clogged when I drove to the consultation at 5pm! The guy who was there to talk about a traffic survey rejected my offer to take him for a drive round - it would have shown him exactly what the problem is! They knew nothing about recent flooding in the area, nor the proposal to bury all the pylons on the site. Nor did they have any appreciation of the amount of develpoment already imposed on this part of Rayleigh. Coutryside's decision to go ahead with the application shows that the consultation was a wasteof time - they have the ignored everything the locals explained. If they had listened, they would have forgotten all about building in this area. I care about rayleigh
  • Score: 23

2:08pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Keptquiettillnow says...

Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?
Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport? Keptquiettillnow
  • Score: 9

2:33pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Eric the Red says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?
They couldn't give a blinkered toss. More congestion; more green belt lost; 250,000 people coming into the Country every year........we're all DOOMED I'll tell ye'.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?[/p][/quote]They couldn't give a blinkered toss. More congestion; more green belt lost; 250,000 people coming into the Country every year........we're all DOOMED I'll tell ye'. Eric the Red
  • Score: 20

3:21pm Fri 29 Aug 14

I care about rayleigh says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?
Do the council actually care? As long as they meet the quotas imposed by Prescott! We should them out at the first opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?[/p][/quote]Do the council actually care? As long as they meet the quotas imposed by Prescott! We should them out at the first opportunity. I care about rayleigh
  • Score: 9

3:25pm Fri 29 Aug 14

thecoat says...

Brown envelops exchanging hands in carp parks comes to mind
Brown envelops exchanging hands in carp parks comes to mind thecoat
  • Score: 11

3:29pm Fri 29 Aug 14

GrumpyofLeigh says...

I care about rayleigh wrote:
Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?
Do the council actually care? As long as they meet the quotas imposed by Prescott! We should them out at the first opportunity.
Pickles? But do you think a Govt of any hue would act differently?
[quote][p][bold]I care about rayleigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: Ok so its going to be built, but what are the council doing about congestion, or people who may use a bicycle as their transport?[/p][/quote]Do the council actually care? As long as they meet the quotas imposed by Prescott! We should them out at the first opportunity.[/p][/quote]Pickles? But do you think a Govt of any hue would act differently? GrumpyofLeigh
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Fri 29 Aug 14

thecoat says...

More houses for immigrants as no English working person will be able to afford them that’s for sure.
More houses for immigrants as no English working person will be able to afford them that’s for sure. thecoat
  • Score: 12

4:18pm Fri 29 Aug 14

cropped hero says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
Perhaps if you spent more time focusing on the area where you live and not Basildon............
.................
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]Perhaps if you spent more time focusing on the area where you live and not Basildon............ ................. cropped hero
  • Score: 8

4:51pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Now listen for I have something to say says...

Build it, and they will come...
Build it, and they will come... Now listen for I have something to say
  • Score: 4

8:30pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Biker One says...

So who are these houses for? I can guess they didn't originate from this sceptic isle. My daughter aged 22 can't afford a home of her own and the council waiting lists are a joke.

I'm considering sending her to Belgium, throwing away her passport and getting her shipped back to blighty in a container.

At least that way she will be given food and shelter and god forbid if she asks for asylum a home!!

This countries gone to hell in a handcart. And before anyone raises the racist card, think again. Labour allowed uncontrolled immigration. The Conservatives tried to reduce it but were feeble and had the racism stigma chasing them. UKIP however said it plain and simple, as an extension of the Conservatives but with the willingness to have a voice on the matter they were primarily branded racists.

Where is the racism? Google the term if you're unaware of it but the desire to stem the tide of unlimited immigration is one of simple economics and logistics. We have a small island, it's not getting any bigger but the infrastructure is failing and farmers are struggling to produce enough food for us to survive, let alone introducing more people into an already overwhelmed society.
So who are these houses for? I can guess they didn't originate from this sceptic isle. My daughter aged 22 can't afford a home of her own and the council waiting lists are a joke. I'm considering sending her to Belgium, throwing away her passport and getting her shipped back to blighty in a container. At least that way she will be given food and shelter and god forbid if she asks for asylum a home!! This countries gone to hell in a handcart. And before anyone raises the racist card, think again. Labour allowed uncontrolled immigration. The Conservatives tried to reduce it but were feeble and had the racism stigma chasing them. UKIP however said it plain and simple, as an extension of the Conservatives but with the willingness to have a voice on the matter they were primarily branded racists. Where is the racism? Google the term if you're unaware of it but the desire to stem the tide of unlimited immigration is one of simple economics and logistics. We have a small island, it's not getting any bigger but the infrastructure is failing and farmers are struggling to produce enough food for us to survive, let alone introducing more people into an already overwhelmed society. Biker One
  • Score: 12

7:27am Sat 30 Aug 14

SARFENDMAN says...

The building insurance premiums will be sky high, balancing ponds or not. It's a high risk flood area. Anyone with half a brain cell who knows the area can work that out when it pours, which it does even in this area.
The building insurance premiums will be sky high, balancing ponds or not. It's a high risk flood area. Anyone with half a brain cell who knows the area can work that out when it pours, which it does even in this area. SARFENDMAN
  • Score: 5

8:02am Sat 30 Aug 14

streete says...

The buy to let will be jumping on this and that's when the problems will start.
The buy to let will be jumping on this and that's when the problems will start. streete
  • Score: 3

1:08pm Sat 30 Aug 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops.

The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere..

To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops. The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere.. To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

3:33pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Eric the Red says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops.

The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere..

To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.
ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops. The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere.. To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.[/p][/quote]ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone. Eric the Red
  • Score: 6

5:11pm Sat 30 Aug 14

jolllyboy says...

Lets face it the south east is full up and more and more industry, ports etc is put here but not the infrastructure to cope with it. The condition of our roads are a disgrace. There are only myself and another left of my family still in this area and I cannot wait to move away - should delight a few who would love to live here being able to wave at the pilots as they go by.
Lets face it the south east is full up and more and more industry, ports etc is put here but not the infrastructure to cope with it. The condition of our roads are a disgrace. There are only myself and another left of my family still in this area and I cannot wait to move away - should delight a few who would love to live here being able to wave at the pilots as they go by. jolllyboy
  • Score: 3

12:45pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ThisYear says...

Eric the Red wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops.

The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere..

To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.
ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.
What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year.

Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times...

As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL

Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are!

Do you deny it?
[quote][p][bold]Eric the Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops. The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere.. To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.[/p][/quote]ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.[/p][/quote]What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year. Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times... As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are! Do you deny it? ThisYear
  • Score: -3

7:08pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Eric the Red says...

ThisYear wrote:
Eric the Red wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops.

The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere..

To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.
ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.
What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year.

Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times...

As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL

Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are!

Do you deny it?
Q.E.D. Perhaps you would like to defend your scumbag friends that are causing mayhem on Canvey at present? For some reason, the Echo has blocked comments on that one. Perhaps we'll be better off if they blocked YOU off.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric the Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops. The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere.. To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.[/p][/quote]ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.[/p][/quote]What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year. Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times... As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are! Do you deny it?[/p][/quote]Q.E.D. Perhaps you would like to defend your scumbag friends that are causing mayhem on Canvey at present? For some reason, the Echo has blocked comments on that one. Perhaps we'll be better off if they blocked YOU off. Eric the Red
  • Score: 4

9:31pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ThisYear says...

Eric the Red wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Eric the Red wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
"Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year."

Really? I didn't notice.

And what of the proposed traveller site?
All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops.

The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere..

To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.
ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.
What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year.

Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times...

As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL

Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are!

Do you deny it?
Q.E.D. Perhaps you would like to defend your scumbag friends that are causing mayhem on Canvey at present? For some reason, the Echo has blocked comments on that one. Perhaps we'll be better off if they blocked YOU off.
No real reply to my post...cant deny your racism can you..scum!

Do you intend to defend every thug/drunk/idiot who fights in every town/city across the country?

If not why not...?

It should be obvious to even a idiot like you why some articles do not allow commenting...

Im sure you would like a clear run to spew your racial deranged claptrap...but its not going to happen divvy!
[quote][p][bold]Eric the Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric the Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: "Before putting in its application, Countryside carried out public consultations on the plans earlier in the year." Really? I didn't notice. And what of the proposed traveller site?[/p][/quote]All new development should have space set aside for a Traveller park..Think about it Gandy (if you can think rationally) people move in knowing there is facilities for a caravan park (be it permanent or transit) they are not surprised or have no room to complain if one then develops. The people who would use the park then have no reason to set up their own retro parks or unauthorised ones and thus save themselves and others thousands of pounds..whether you are to narrow minded or not to know but there are people who want Travellers being moved about constantly! It makes these people a lot of money and allows extra budget costs to be claimed...which then get diverted elsewhere.. To say there should not be a Traveller park in every area deemed able to facilitate one is the equivalent of saying there shouldn't be council housing in an area because of the people who would live in such property.[/p][/quote]ThisYear?LL. Why don't you travel a long way away, and take your friends with you? Can't you understand that no decent people want dirty, shifty, violent, free-loading, tax-dodging, intimidating caravan dwellers (polite term) anywhere near them? You polute every thread that might even allude to these people with your personal insults and vile rhetoric. Get back under your stone.[/p][/quote]What a plonker you reveal yourself to be in every post...the contradictions in your post would keep a head-shrinker in work for many a year. Your generalising of a whole community of people really does show what sort of a creature you are..its you who should move out...this country does not need uncivilised racist savages like you in it...it brings us back to less tolerant times... As for you alluding to be "decent people" LOL Try your disgusting racial posts on the vast majority of forums in this country and see what reaction you get...you see the country doesn't like racist scum-bags and thats what you plainly are! Do you deny it?[/p][/quote]Q.E.D. Perhaps you would like to defend your scumbag friends that are causing mayhem on Canvey at present? For some reason, the Echo has blocked comments on that one. Perhaps we'll be better off if they blocked YOU off.[/p][/quote]No real reply to my post...cant deny your racism can you..scum! Do you intend to defend every thug/drunk/idiot who fights in every town/city across the country? If not why not...? It should be obvious to even a idiot like you why some articles do not allow commenting... Im sure you would like a clear run to spew your racial deranged claptrap...but its not going to happen divvy! ThisYear
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree