Last Saturday we wrote about the District Council’s consultation on future development. Chris has looked at all the responses – from 371 people, This is his summary of the results:
General Views on Future Development:
Build a new town (or new large village) – 25 people supporting, 50 against
Have some building in the Green Belt – 8 supporting, 105 against
Build in Green belt at edge of Rayleigh, Hockley
Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford – 21 supporting, 10 against
Spread evenly across district – 9 supporting
No more develoment at all – 16 supporting
Build by infilling existing areas and brownfield
sites – 46 supporting
Build in plotlands, along unmade roads, gardens
in Green Belt – 4 supporting
Where to Build a New Town:
Foulness – 2 supporting
Wallasea Island – 1 supporting
Canewdon – 2 supprting
Fambridge – 2 supporting
Southend Airport – 1 supporting
Rawreth. Rayleigh -2 supporting
Where to Build in Green Belt:
Foulness: 3 supporting
Great Wakering: 7 supporting, 1 against
Barling and Sutton: 5 supporting, 0 against
Paglesham: 2 supporting, 1 against
Stambridge: 3 supporting, 1 against
Canewdon: 7 supporting, 1 against
Fambridge: 2 supporting, 1 against
Ashingdon: 13 supporting, 19 against
Rochford: 15 supporting 27 against,
Hawkwell: 12 supporting , 17 against
Hockley: 12 supporting, 17 against
Hullbridge: 5 supporting, 1 against
East Rayleigh: 17 supporting, 22 against
West Rayleigh: 20 supporting, 26 against
Rawreth: 9 supporting 5 against
So what does all this show? Well , a “New Town” approach is generally unpopular. But a sizeable number of people don’t want any development in the Green Belt at all. They would like to see building on brownfield sites and ‘infill sites’ .
However this would increase the pressure for building within the boundaries of our existing towns. And that would prompt strong objections from affected residents…
Coincidentally, Hockley Residents Association (HRA) discussed this topic on the same night your survey results were published and reached broadly similiar conclusions:
– why should we be forced by an unelected body to build all these extra houses?
– any extra building must be supported by infrastructure improvements (eg roads, water, doctors, schools etc)
– sensible infilling and brownfiled sites preferable to green-belt development.
The HRA also believes a final decision is needed on a possible bypass. This topic nevers seems to go completely away. If a bypass is to be built, it will create areas suitable for development. If it is not built, then it is difficult to see how the necessary infrastructure improvements can be achieved, strengthening the case for a new town (although a new town would also need new access roads). The HRA is not voicing an opinion in this regard, just pointing out that it will have a material impact on planning considerations and needs to be determined once and for all before the housing strategy is agreed.