Please note. A lot of information was being withheld from this website, due to the court case.

This is the reason that the committee’s statement of objections to the flats was removed.

The withheld information shall (re)appearing gradually, along with court documents.

RVRC thanks you for your understanding.

Items in RED indicate a new document.

Note. When viewing any document, click on blue numbers in the text (e.g. [1]) to view the relevant foot-note). Once the foot-note has been read, click the blue number to the left of the foot-note to return to the text.

We have been having difficulty with our solicitors with regard to unpaid fees.

Briefly, due to the non-award of all of the claimed costs, the solicitors determined that the committee still owed them another £####.

The committee, appalled at this allegation, were forced to take the matter to the legal complaints service.

After many months of deliberation, we were able to have the outstanding debt removed.

This means that, although we now owe no more money, we are unable to refund those who donated.

This had been our intention, but, unfortunately, we are unable perform these refunds. We apologise for this but the matter was beyond our control.

 

14/05/2007: A telephone conference took place with the judge, S McLaren's legal team and our legal team to decide how costs were to be awarded.

THE JUDGE RULED THAT MR McLAREN SHOULD PAY BOTH HIS AND OUR FULL COSTS!

Mr McLaren's legal team requested 'leave to appeal' (no costs payment while he appealed).

THIS WAS ALSO REFUSED!

S McLaren can still appeal, but to do this he must pay costs, then submit an 'independant appeal'. An independant appeal means that the court of appeal decide (based on papers) whether the case has merit before deciding whether to hear the case in court or not.

 

11/05/2007: A judgement was handed down.

The court ruled that the case should be struck out as an abuse of process!

In other words, we won a very important test case!

The full judgement may be found here.

A report shall appear here soon.

Please continue to watch this space.

The judgement may be appealed.

Roding Valley Residents' Committee would like to thank the public for financially supporting the case.

 

04/05/2007: A summary judgement took place before Mr Justice Pelling at the Royal Courts of Justice, London.

The case was argued for over four hours in court.

A judgement wasn't made at the time.

 

15/01/2007: A directions hearing took place, where a timetable was agreed.

Witness statements (claims of evidence) went between the applicant and the defendent for several months.

 

18/11/2006: Summons were made.

To View the Committee's document justifying the registaration of the land as a town or village green, click here.

 

The council have decided that the case shall be taken to public appeal. This appeal is sheduled to take place in April 2009. RVRC are contesting the necessity to take the case to appeal. RVRC feel an 'in house' decision should suffice.

 

02/2008 Sheik Z Hamidi submitted an objection to the second village green application.

 

20/04/2007: S McLaren notified L Kubiak in a witness statement that he had submitted a statement of objection to Essex County Council, out of time, on the grounds that he moved house and therefore didn't recieve the origional notification of 'application to register' letter from the council.

 

13/04/2007: An application was made to register the land as a Town or Village green under the new act.

This application and the old one are currently being processed concurrently.

 

06/04/2007: An amended version of the commons act came into force.

For more information about this act, please click here* and here*. (exterior content).

Requires Adobe Reader. Download it free here. (exterior content).

 

01/02/2007: The consultation period ended.

 

13/12/2006: The consultation period started.

 

27/06/2006: Statements of witness and support for the application began being collected from the public by the Residents' Committee and forwarded to Essex County Council.

 

28/06/2006: The application was made.

 

To date we have collected 213 witness statements. Essex County Council currently hold 195 witness statements.

Sheik. Z Hamidi took his planning refusal to appeal. (03/2008)

To see the grounds for appeal, please click here.

RVRC are distributing an advice sheet with regard to this appeal. Please click here to see it.

Requires Adobe Reader. Download it free here. (exterior content).

 

Sheik. Z Hamidi applied for permission to build a four bedroom house with double garage. (02/08/2007)

24/09/2007: Sheik. Z Hamidi's application was refused on the following grounds.

1. The proposed development, by reason of its design, size and appearance, would represent an intrusive development, out of keeping in the street scene, and would have a serious and adverse effect on visual amenity. This is contrary to policies BE1 and H4 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan and policies DBE1, DBE2 and DBE9 of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations. 

2. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of the existing area of open space and would harm the setting, character and townscape of the surrounding urban environment, contrary to policy CP2 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations, policy CS2 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan, and Government Advice as set out in PPG17. 

3. The proposed development would result in the loss of an area of open space previously used for informal recreational purposes by the local community. This is contrary to policies CF12 and LL5 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations and Goveernment [sic] Advice as set out in PPG17. 

 

Steve McLaren applied for 'permission to build 9, 2 bedroom apartments.' (17/10/2006)

28/10/2006: The application was rejected on the following grounds:

1. The proposed block, by reason of its design, size, bulk and inappropoate appearance, would represent an intrusive and overbearing development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development, and would have a serious and adverse effect on visual amenity. This is contary to policies BE1 and H$ of the Essex and Southend-On-Sea replacement Structure Plan and Policies DBE1, DBE2 and DBE9 of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its size and layout, would make inadequate provision for landscaping, contrary to Policy LL11 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations.
3. Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of how the proposal seeks to retain the existing preserved trees on the site so that the Council is unable to fully consider and assess the proposal.  In the absence of this information it is considered that the development would have a serious and adverse impact on the trees which would result in the loss of trees significant amenity value, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to policy LL10 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations.
4. The proposed development would result in the loss of exsisting area of open space and would harm the setting, character and townscape of the surrounding urban environment, contrary to policy CP2 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations, policy CS2 of the replacement Structure Plan, and PPG17.
5. The proposed development would result in the loss of an area of open space previously used for informal recreational purposes by the local community.  This is contrary to policies CF12 and LL5 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations and PPG17.

Click here to view Roding Valley Residents' Committee's objection to the application for flats.

 

Steve McLaren applied for 'retention of temporary boundary hoarding'. (17/06/2006)

11/08/2006: The application was rejected on the following grounds:

1. The proposed boundary hoarding, due to its height and visual dominance, would be an incongruous feature detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies DBE1, DBE2, and DBE9 of the replacement Local Plan.
2. The proposed boundary hoarding, due to its height, appearance and means of enclosing an open area, would harm the setting, character and townscape of the surrounding urban environment, contrary to Policy CP3 of the replacement Local Plan.
3. The proposed boundary hoarding would result in the enclosure of an area of previously open space used for informal recreational purposes by the local community, contrary to Policies CF12 and LL5 of the replacement Local Plan.
4. Inadequate information has been supplied for the retention and protection of the Preserved Tree located on the site, contrary to Policy LL10 of the replacement Local Plan.

Note. When viewing any document, click on blue numbers in the text (e.g. [1]) to view the relevant foot-note). Once the foot-note has been read, click the blue number to the left of the foot-note to return to the text.

If any page is displayed as 'unavailable', please try again in approx. 2 mins. This will probably be caused by the page being updated.

Update are generally performed betwee 08:00 PM and 1:00AM.

Please contact the webmaster with any errors, problems, broken-links, etc. by emailing: webmaster@saveourgreen.com.

This web site is designed for viewing in a minimum of 800 - 600 pixels resolution.

This web site is optimised for use with Mozilla Firefox® and Windows™ Internet Explorer®. Please click here for more information about Mozilla Firefox®.
This site runs better in Mozilla Firefox® than it does in Internet Explorer®. Internet Explorer® often displays this website incorrectly.

This website is updated asap after incedents occur but the webmaster is in full time education with IGCSEs looming so can't always update it until wekends.

Note: Dial-up (slow internet connection) users, the old 'www.nopic.saveourgreen.com' address is no longer in use. Please use www.saveourgreen.com, which now loads faster than it previously did.