New planning application just in:
15/00075/FUL
Parish: Hawkwell Parish Council
Ward Hawkwell West
Responsibility:Committee /Weekly List
Proposal: Demolish Existing Buildings and redevelop to Provide 37 Dwellings With Associated Parking, Modified Site Access,
pumping station, open space and landscaping.
Location: 90 Main Road Hawkwell
Perhaps one of the Hawkwell Councillors could give us some context on this?
Associated Pumping Station!!!!!!!!!! – here we go again ,housing area with ” flooding risk” associated presumably , no doubt of a “proven modern design”………????
The number of new homes originally and unilaterally planned by the Conservative Administration for Hawkwell was 370 early in the Core Strategy. There were already another 36 planned in the 2006 Local PLan for Stonebridge House and Bench Mark Doors Site at Main Road, Hawkwell. That made 411.
We did not think that 411 new homes in Hawkwell was sustainable and having submitted a 17 page case to the District Council in a public consultation this was reduced to 211 which is almost a 50% reduction. This resulted in 175 on Clements Gate (Christmas Tree Farm) and 36 allocated for the future at the Main Road site.
Bench Mark Doors Site at 90 Main Road, Hawkwell, Ref: 15/00075/FUL
A planning application has been received by RDC for 37 properties at this site. A re-assessment in the SHLAA 2012 altered the estimated capacity from the original 36 on this site (including Stonebridge House) to a maximum of 47, however Stonebridge House is not included in the above application.
The Agents sought feedback from the public through a statement of community involvement and we do hope that if they received any comments that they it has been considered and if appropriate incorporated into their application.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Rochford District Council, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW.
Yep, as posted before , the SE ESSEX Action Group has repeatedly identified that various Councils accross the area are typically “core planning” for twice the number of houses actually needed . That is either being driven from Government Central Office
or simply greed ( as Councils get a wonga bonus for each new dwelling ) – don’t fall for the ‘housing need’ propaganda – keep fighting every application.
RDC are planning to “transfer” retail business from Rochford and (to a lesser extent) Rayleigh to Hockley, two obscure RDC reports reveal. This will further increase traffic flows from the East of the district and exacerbate the concentration of housing and business in the West of the District. When will the consequent highways issues be addressed?
See http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/documents/files/planning_evibase_eb69.pdf and the RDC Annual Monitoring Report 2013/14
Yes Brian , develop the West is a deliberate strategy , where do all the inner cabinet reside – the EAST.
Thanks for link Brian .Interesting reading !Found reference to Rawreth at Para 5.42—5.46. suggests that 400 additional houses would support a local centre.Very much what was suggested by the Parish Council at the very early stages of the strategy. Could have accommodated them on pre used and underused land centred around Bedloes area.Incidentally how much did that report cost? I thought we had a Planning Team who should have been capable of producing such a report .
John Mason @ 2. Re. Your hope that RDC Planners take note of Comments and Objections during the consultation process; if the experience of the North of London Road Consultation (sic) is any indication you are seriously whistling in the wind! They completely ignored every point put to them just has they have RIGHT THROUGH THE LOCAL PLAN PROCESS long before the Rayleigh Action Group came into being. Consultation is a farce and a sham to enable those wanting these developments to claim legitimacy of the process. Remember northwards of £2.1 million pounds of tax-payers money has been spent on this ‘farce’ whilst they cut essential services like street lights (yes I know that is ECC but it is still public expenditure). We need a full Public Enquiry into all aspects including ‘conflict of interest’ issues.
Suggestion – when you get a pre-election knock on the door have a set of these local issue questions ready for them :-
1. The Localism Act – is some sort of joke on the public ( smoke & mirrors ) ?.
2. Why are they planning twice as many new homes than are needed ?.
3. What is the point of 39 Councillors when we are run by a 9 man Cabinet ?.
4. Why was’nt building on Brown Field Sites taken seriously ?.
And so on, I’m sure the list would be endless……but don’t let them off the hook -ASK.
Alistair @6. The original Retail & leisure Study was one of the very first outputs and clearly benefits from the absence of RDC ‘guidance’. With regard to Hockley, I believe its recommendations were pretty much spot on. They proposed downgrading to a “community centre” (i.e. village) and developing along “boutique” lines (i.e. small, specialist, local, shops). They also warned that Hockley is not attractive to multiple chain stores. In their wisdom RDC are proposing the exact opposite, although the Planning Inspector also supported the original proposals and imposed a limit on the additional retail space.
If you read the latest R&LS report it says pretty much the same but in more diplomatic [subdued] language. So we have another location were RDC are ignoring everyone including their own experts. Time will show who is right but no doubt the responsible councillors will be long gone.
Returning to the original report, which is on the Evidence Base, its worth scanning to get an idea of what independent experts really thought.
SE ESSEX Action Group Alliance update – in just a month since formal launch the group has now doubled in size , the oriiginal group is now supplemented by Action Groups from Wickford , Castle point ( 2 more ) , Ramsden & Dunton . As we speak
more enquiries from Herongate & Maldon too……encouraging ( given elections looming ).
Next move is to target all prospective candidates ( MP’s & Councillors ) to find out if they represent the local electorate opinions or support the ” London Establishment”
Imposed double the required number of houses quotas – and vote accordinglu????.
Point 4 above: Why was’nt building on Brown Field Sites taken seriously ?
Isn’t this a Brown Field Site?
No – land North of the London Rd is not Brown Field , for example converting the old /unused Smiths Nursery ( along from Bedloes Corner ) would be re-employing a previously used ( Brown Field ) site.
If the new housing quotas were realistic ( 50% of Council numbers ) then clearly the re-use of Brown Field sites would be more achievable – but that is’nt what Developers want – it is much more profitable for them to build on Virgin land ( in theory ). But it of course is’nt that straight forward when they choose to build near flood plain – the cost of measures to collect / store and maintain anti- flood facilities is an on cost .
So NO , the use of existing Brown Field sites has’nt been taken seriously.
I assume Ian you are referring to Eldon Way.If so it is indicative of what is happening in the Peninsula whereby industry is haemorrhaging from the area .We get leisure uses replacing them ,this is not sustainable.The only estate that appears to be working is Rawreth Industrial Estate .That is the one that RDC wanted to move ,without any consultation with the occupiers ! We cannot take double the numbers of houses with a declining industrial base .We are just becoming a dormitory with new residents having to spend most of their time in the inevitable congestion trying to get home !
The conversion of RIE into 230 dwellings is still in the plan , in fact RDC have changed it’s official classification so as to be used for new housing in the future.
I have a copy of a letter signed by both Hudson & Cutmore to that effect – if you need a copy ?.
Given the demolition and decontamination costs involved , hopefully it will not look attractive to profit driven “developers “.
Ian Jordon @ 11. Many ‘degraded greenfield’ and ‘brownfield’ sites were ignored when RDC did their analysis of land offered for development. This programme has been going for 8 years now with some people being aware early on exactly what was going on. Unfortunately it wasn’t until Rayleigh Action Group kicked off, in July 2013, that 93% of the district first heard about it. For a minor insight go to our website http://www.rayleighactiongroup.org and check out the report put before the Government Inspector (archived @ August 2013). Read the appendices that list a sample of the local sites and how they were dismissed as unsuitable and read the reasons given. They are from a 997 page document that I had scant time to investigate over a just couple of weeks when preparing the full report. I only checked Rayleigh goodness knows what the rest of the District could turn up. Even Cllr. Keith Hudson said he had argued against the sites chosen and was being made the ‘fall guy’ when speaking to journalists after the Inspectors hearing on 10th September 2013. Scandal is too mild a word. Also the original ‘call for sites’ was a very curious exercise with few people being aware. Can of worms! We need a Public Enquiry into how RDC have spent more than £2.1 million on this travesty.
Ian @9: Great care needs to be taken in definitions. RDC propose to build a new industrial site on GREENFIELD land at the airport, in order to create brownfield land elsewhere. The change will create extra travel and isn’t a green policy.
Forcing businesses to move to the very edge of the district will result in job losses, increased costs and loss of business to places like Hockley village centre. Its hard to see how the Core Strategy will help the district in any way.
The proposed Heavy Industrial Site that is planned for land at the junction of the A1245 (old A130) and the A127 is also planned for greenfield. Yes it is degraded due to misuse but it is still greenfield. The car cleaning monstrosity allowed to be constructed along London Road was also on an area that was listed as a greenbelt site previously.
The latest document to be added to the Evidence Base is The Employment Land Study Report 2014 (http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/documents/files/planning_evibase_EB71.pdf) which notes (P94 para 7.18) that 50% of existing businesses displaced by the Core Strategy displacements at Rawreth & Star Lane, will be lost to the area. That’s quite a loss and quite a price to pay!
This is about Main Road Hawkwell, not land North of London Road, I can’t see much greenfield on that site
Core Strategy – excellent value at £2.1 million then , bloody outrageous , a Public Enquiry indeed Linda……..
Ian back to he subject.The loss of more industrial units emphasises what I said in 13 above.Yes this is a brownfield now therefore qualifies for housing .Where are these new residents going to work ? There is huge investment at the Airport ,I just hope it does not become a white elephant .Routes to the Airport are congested now even with the project tinkering around with the Tesco roundabout at huge expense again .
Re. 17 above. What I failed to point out was that the ‘NEW’ site for the Rawreth Industrial Site ‘Heavy Industrial’ will be in an inaccessible area with NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT for employees, no footpaths etc. The transfer of Castle Road Recycling Centre to the same location will require an approx. 25 mile round trip for residents on the far east of the district in order that they can use the Districts only recycling facilities. Using already highly congested local roads. RESULT RDC = MORE POLLUTION AND MORE FLY TIPPING. P.S. Sorry forgot to mention; this wonderful transformation of this piece of ‘greenfield’ will also serve to accommodate up to 44 caravans on a new RDC adopted community traveller facility. BTW Mark Francois MP thinks this is a good option. Can anyone quote RDC’s mission statement as to its’ purpose???
Brian @ 18. I have just quickly scanned the document you quote and although my view is many companies on their own Freehold land on Rawreth Industrial Site will simply ‘up sticks’ and take their business elsewhere with more favourable re-location tax breaks, the report is actually saying that more modern facilities would require up to 50% less land from which the possibly displaced companies could operate. They still appear to claim there is a shortfall even if the ‘green belt’ is destroyed around the airport project. One other somewhat interesting proposal is the formal conversion of ‘farm’ outbuildings for alternative industrial / business uses. My insider information regarding such complexes close to where I live might not be so far off the mark as first thought. More traffic for Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road?
Thanks Linda, you are correct. I haven’t studied the report in detail but (unless I’ve missed it) you have made me realise that the report does not appear to allow for lost business. So space require are likely to be over estimated.