We sympathise with the anxieties of the Hockley Residents Association about the future of Hockley’ centre. When you have lived in a village for decades, you become concerned when the council come up with plans to radically change things – especially when you look at the District Council’s recent track record at Priory Chase / Temple Way. We’ve received the following press release from them today:
Village unites to oppose council strategy
Concern at last minute plan to close industrial estates
Villagers in Hockley are concerned at last minute plans included in the final version of Rochford District Council’s (RDC) Core Strategy to force the closure and redevelopment of Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial estates.
RDC councillors recently approved the draft Core Strategy, which will now go to a government inspector for approval. This version contains a major change from the previous version which will affect Hockley:
The council is proposing the compulsory relocation of the two industrial estates to make room for redevelopment including an estimated 150/200 residential dwellings. RDC are also proposing to build a new industrial estate on greenbelt land at the airport and it is expected that many of the existing businesses will relocate to that site.
These changes are closely linked to the council’s plans to redevelop the whole of Hockley Village Centre.
Local organisations Hockley Residents Association (HRA) and Hockley Under Threat (HUT) are uniting to appeal to residents to object to the proposals which they believe are “unsound” because the council has not properly consulted residents on the plans and have ignored the 95% rejection rate expressed by residents to RDC’s associated Hockley Area Action Plan.
HRA chairman, Brian Guyett said: “These proposals have been included at the last moment without any announcement and we do not believe that most residents are aware of the implications. The HRA is encouraging everyone to object to the proposals. Details of how to do so will be published on our website (www.hockleyresidents.co.uk)”.
Gabrielle Yeadell, chair of HUT said: “Rochford District Council have ignored the 95% rejection rate of their own consultation on the Hockley Area Action Plan “HAAP” and are trying to impose change without discussion with the community. We hope they will reconsider.” Further details can also be found on their website (www.hockleyunderthreat.com).
The RDC consultation closes on 2 November.
We do hope that the HRA are listened to! But although we sympathise with them, we also see a certain irony.
Hockley residents are loudly protesting about 1) having their industrial estates being turned into housing, with 2) extra development in the centre of the village.
But these proposals are almost exactly what Rawreth Parish Council would accept for their village, instead of the 770 homes voted for by the Conservative group. But the “Hockley Version” isn’t being offered to Rawreth…..
Chris, thanks for your sympathy. Once again, however, the full story is not being told.
RDC are proposing to demolish 60% plus of the village centre. The people of Hockley voted against this in the HAAP consultation but, despite this, RDC strengthened and widened their proposals in the Core Strategy. So we have to object to the Core Strategy.
Another thing we have in common is a complete disregard by RDC of their own consultation findings!
Can anyone tell me why Ashingdon is not getting any house?
Brian, that’s a very good question. You could submit it as a public question to Cllr Cutmore for the next full council.
An even better one would be for someone to ask Cllr Cutmore whether he thinks there SHOULD be any land allocated for housing in the parish of Ashingdon, because it provides a great choice of follow-up questions.
Thanks Chris. It does rather seem to male a nonsense of RDC’s policy of distributing housing around the main settlements to “make room for our children”!
Please ignore previous submission. I clicked ‘Submit Comment’ in error.
Brian & Admin,
Re your comments about no houses in Ashingdon, the following is a direct lift from the final Core Stategy document and as you will see 100 dwellings are proposed for East Ashingdon in the period to 2015.
Respond View Comments (31) Policy H2 – Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing
The residential envelope of existing settlements will be extended in the areas set out below and indicated on the Key Diagram, to contribute to a five year supply of housing land in the period to 2015, and between 2015 and 2021.
Area Dwellings by 2015 Dwellings 2015- 2021
North of London Road, Rayleigh 550
West Rochford 450 150
West Hockley 50
South Hawkwell 175
East Ashingdon 100
South West Hullbridge 250
South Canewdon 60
Total 775 1010
The table above has not been reproduced as I typed it but all these figures:- 550, 150, 250, 60 and Total 1010 relate to Dwellings 2015 – 2021
Greenbelt – don’t believe everything you read in the Core Strategy.
We know “Rayleigh” means “Rawreth”
and South Hawkwell means west Hawkwell
also “Ashingdon” means “Rochford”.
Rochford are getting a lot of houses (but do not seem to realise it), whilst Ashingdon are getting none!
Brian, If as you infer, that the document does not convey the truth, then presumably in our submissions to the Planning Inspectorate we can object to the proposals on the grounds that they are not compliant within the set criteria of ‘Soundness’ and ‘Legal Compliance’ as deception must breach both of these points.
Admin, do you have any comment to make on this.
Which leads me back to my point made earlier about the new “Welcome to Rayleigh” sign on the A1245 just short of the “Welcome to Rawreth” sign (both just north of the A127). As the railway line (led to believe is the actual boundary?) does not intersect these two signs I can only assume that this is an attempt by Essex CC to redraw the boundaries – or in fact absorb Rawreth inside the Rayleigh boundary?
I agree with Brian and Greenbelt about the housing allocations – strangely not many houses being proposed in Conservative held wards are there?
The dishonesty and lack of integrity being demonstrated by the Core Strategy Group by calling Rawreth “Rayleigh” and Rochford “Ashingdon” is surely grounds for appeal to central government and in deed the national press to expose these inconsistencies and delve deeper into the truth behind these policy decisions? E.g. who is really benefiting financially from these proposals?
On the subject of planning, I was reading an article in the Echo last week about Lib Dem objections to the Southend Airport Expansion (specifically the claim that a cap on night flights was a result of the public consultation). Reading the comments, there are a number of people who seem to support the expansion, and keep mentioning the 7000 jobs that are going to be created at the airport and neighbouring business park. Obviously, 7000 new jobs cannot be sniffed at.
However, I seem to recall in another item regarding the plan to “regenerate” Hockley, that the business parks in Hockley were to be redeveloped for housing, with the businesses moving to the new business park at Southend Airport. Does this mean that the 7000 “new jobs” are actually made up of existing jobs displaced from elsewhere in Rochford district.
This also makes me wonder about the industrial sites in Rawreth, as we have not been told where these will be relocated to. Could it be that the 7000 new jobs at the expanded airport are a distortion of the reality in order to make the plans more tempting?
ST1 : The idea is that the industrial sites in Rawreth would move to a new, modern site by the A1245.
This makes some sense; the existing industrial estate isn’t the most modern-designed place, and what Rawreth Lane gained in extra car movements it would probably lose in lorry movements.
TWR:
Ron and Chris have tried (and failed so far) to prove who owns the land “North of London Road”.
We don’t have the professional investigative reporting skills of the Echo – perhaps they would like to look into this?!
If you have the full address, a Land Registry search will inform who the owner of the land is.
Here, Cost is £4 but it tends to work for houses and less well for land.
http://bit.ly/ysp31
Unfortunately the ‘blot on the landscape’ that RDC are enforcing on us, the residents that encompasses Rochford district, is all down to our forcing the council to abandon their plans to swamp Rayleigh with thousands of homes. I cannot understand how this council can run roughshod over the people they represent by obliging us to take all these homes, especially when the Tories are odds on favourites to win the next election? Their excuse that they will have to have a plan does not wash. It is obvious that they have carved up the district to suit themselves. And we still have to find out who owns the land that will be home to hundreds of dwellings in Rawreth? I believe they have lost the trust of many residents. They have lost touch with what is going on in the district that they purport to represent. Worse, they have lost touch with what we want and need.
Mike, it’s pretty clear that if the council had carried on with that figure of 1800, most of it would be on the land ‘north of London Road’. It would just be an even bigger blot than is proposed now.
– there are some other possible sites that are within the Parish of Rayleigh, but not for 1800.
Mike Hoy – thanks.
I’m confused, is this land north of london road the same sites as indicated on these pages, or have things moved on since then?;
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/planning_sites_west_district.pdf
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/planning_call_for_sites_table.pdf
Bryan, technically the cureent proposals could be for any land ‘north of London Road’.
But there is only one possible location – marked as number 144 on
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/planning_sites_west_district.pdf
But number 144 is the whole huge rectangle of land – so only part of it would be used.