Anger At The Meeting

It became clear at Rawreth Parish Council’s meeting last night that the proposed housing figure for Rawreth Parish is not 850 – it’s more like 1050, once you include some of the housing in “South-West Hullbridge”!

That would TREBLE the population of Rawreth! It would mean about one extra house for every man, woman and child in the parish – the equivalent of building 75,000 extra homes across the whole district.

The anger and concern last night was pretty clear – the comments below are by people who are either independent parish councillors or ordinary members of the public.

“I’m flabbergasted by what’s going on at Rochford District Council – it’s taken months for RDC to admit that Rawreth exists.We’ve been treated pretty appalllingly and the document doesn’t even mention that the industrial estate would be used for housing.”

“The housing will do nothing for our village”

“… concerned at the dishonesty at RDC. They only put Rawreth’s name in the document because we were at the meeting”

“.. there were many sites put forward by landowners and I know for a fact that members only chose to visit 20 sites, haven’t looked at any others or thought about including them, those landowners have been brushed aside”

“Brownfield sites are supposed to be looked at before greenfield sites but some brownfield sites have not been considered”

“…. the posters [advertising the consultation] are ridiculous, they don’t give you any information except you can go online or to the library. People are not really being informed

“All the district councils should say NO unless the government finances the infrastructure”

“We need flood prevention, better public transport and decent roads”

“The subcommittee meeting was an absolute disgrace”

About the author, admin

  • I’ve argued before that the Core Strategy is inappropriate and unsustainable.

    It is impossible to have faith in a council that:
    – describes locations in Rawreth as being in Rayleigh and Hullbridge
    – describes locations in Rochford as being in Ashingdon
    – describes locations in West Hawkwell as being in South Hawkwell
    – says consultation is limited to planning issues when it is not.

    At tonight’s Eastern Area Committee, RDC said they would provide the necessary infrastructure improvements but couldn’t produce any costings. They implied we should trust them(!).

    How can we have faith in this plan and process?

    This plan is bad for the District as a whole. I hope as many people as possible write to RDC with their views. Their e’mail is:

  • Where is South-West Hullbridge?

    Can Hullbridge be described as being in Rawreth – or Rayleigh for that matter?

    Is there a higher authority that we can complain to regarding the conduct of the RDC Tories in this matter as they are willfully misrepresenting the needs of this rural community and are evidently morally corrupt?

    I’m personally very concerned that suitable brown fields sites are not being considered first – I thought that this was a legal requirement?

    What happened to the proposals to build housing on Rawreth Industrial Estate?

  • It seems that our esteemed District Council has stitched us up yet again. How they ever got in at the last election is astonishing. Is there leadership that is willing to back the poor residents who put them where they are? If there is, please stand up and raise your arm because I am unable to see anyone who will argue our point against the cabinet or any other authority. They are a shambles and stumbling ever faster into losing their status as a district council and will soon be integrated into Southend Council.

    Have the council put our views to the authority who want 20,000 houses built between Rochford and Southend? If the answer is yes can we please see a copy of the letter, I bet the answer is no!

    It appears that we may have to go and argue our case at the Area Committe meetings again, that is if they dont cancel these meetings.

    They are a Shambles (the only way to describe our council).

  • Mike –

    We understand it is owned by the father of a (Conservative) councillor.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong about this – the councillor has declared an interest and keeps clear of any council meetings where this is being discussed (and we assume any Conservative Group meetings where this is being discussed)

    To avoid ‘eyebrows being raised’ at the largest block of housing going on land owned by a Councillor’s relative, everyone needs to be satisfied that all sites that landowners have put forward are examined fairly, and that the negotiations over the financial contributions that a developer has to be make are seen to be done fairly as well.

    We know the Conservative Group are aware of the situation, and we trust striving to ensure that all is seen to be handled OK.

    TWR -the proposals to build on the Rawreth Industrial Estate are unchanged but they are not in the consultation document!

  • That is interesting. This has to have complete transparency otherwise rumours will abound. Is there an ethics group who will oversee the this. The other landowners who have come forward MUST have a fair outcome. This means having very strong reasons and making those reasons known to all. I do not have a good feeling about this, given the Tory Councils history!

  • As with all other aspects of the council – Complaints against a councillors conduct are investigated by the Standards Board at the District Council and any of its meetings would be chaired by an independent non-councillor. Maladministration by the council would be investigated by the ombudsman’s office if a complaint was made.

    But we want to keep the discussion on these issues exactly that – on the issues., not personalities.

    We need a local development framework for the next couple of decades that is supported across political lines and trusted by the public.

  • Exactly, ‘trusted by the public’, this all about transparency. This development framework is not what was expected or what was alluded to. This amount of housing in this overdeveloped part of the district is not what is needed or wanted. By the way, how many houses are going to be built in Hockley?

  • Does this mean that if the 850 houses are built on this land ASDA will get permission to either expand its store or build a much larger one?

    Obviously there will be access from the new estate on to Rawreth Lane and London Road. This will be a nightmare for rush hour traffic! And have implications for the A1245 and the A127.

    If there are 850 houses are we talking and extra 1000 to 1500 cars on the roads, bearing in mind cars per family are probably running to at least two?

    The urbanisation of Rawreth and Rayleigh is again on the agenda.

  • I still worry about brown field sites .It is a fact that the 200 houses proposed for Rawreth Industrial site are NOT included in the housing numbers needed . Does this mean all other brown field sites in the district do not count towards the housing allocation? Because if not we have brown field sites in rawreth which having been put forward for developement have not been considered . These sites could provide a focus for rawreth adding up to 220 houses and breathing new life into our community without the loss of high gade agricultural land. It is also important to note that Rawreth Industrial site is to be relocated . Well it comes as no surprise that it will be in Rawreth so yet more green belt land will be lost . Not much left between us and shotgate .

  • I agree completely, brown field sites should be used before any greenfield sites are considered. If we used brownfield sites across the district, fields might not have to be used at all. We are destroying the environment for our children, for farmers who want to earn a quick buck! Surely the legacy we leave to our children is worth more than what is happening now? More houses are needed BUT we should build in the right way. Other councils build on brownfield sites where small 10 to 30 dwellings are built at any one time. To build 850 homes on a greenfield site is a loss to our children. The Politicians who agree to this should not be in the positions they hold! The site that is proposed will destroy a large greenfield site, I can only think that the Tory councillors are protecting their ‘patch’ however there are Tory councillors who will probably have to forego their position as councillors if this is agreed to and those councillors know who they are!! There is NO excuse for these councillors to agree to what is proposed. These councillors are part of the Sweyne Park parish as these houses and access to London Road will impact their ‘PATCH’. There must be a genuine debate with the residents of Rawreth and Rayleigh before this is agreed to. I would urge all residents that are concerned about the the way this has handled to attend the next West Area Committee meeting, to be held later on this month. If you have any concerns to how this will affect our way of life, please attend.

    Admin, would you please advise when and where the next West Area meeting will be held.

    This is one meeting where we must attend in numbers, to put forward our concerns to what is happening in our neighbourhood.

  • Another brown fields site….. why not a few flats (JUST FLATS!) of a suitable design, and affordibilty… to be built on the piece of undeveloped land on the ASDA site on Rawreth Lane?

    I know that the last application for flats & shops was withdrawn but that was largely due to the inappropiate design – not enough carparking or utility space etc…Thought out and dsigned properly this would knock a few “affordable” homes off the 850 or is it now 1050 total?

    A few nice flats would have a lot less impact on Priory Chase and vicinty than the proposed hot food take-a-ways etc…

    Just a thought…

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    %d bloggers like this: