We’ve just received a copy of the agenda for the extraordinary District Council Meeting on October 14th. You can download it here (80kb).
“Extraordinary” simply means it’s an ‘extra’ meeting in addition to the ordinary meetings – in this case to discuss revisions to the Rochford Core Strategy in the light of new government policy.
There’s a lot to read, please feel free to download it, and have a read and let us know your views.
We are still digesting it ourselves, but at the moment there seems to be a lot of tweaking to previous policies.
For example:
The proposed traveller policy is to have 14 pitches provided by 2021.
The proposed policy for housing “North of London Road ” is to have no building until 2021, 400 dwellings between 2021 and 2026, and 150 more after 2026 .
The proposed policy for SW Hullbridge is now to build nothing there before 2026, and then build 500 after that.
All this stuff wll go out for a further round of public consultation.
If Rawreth & Hullbridge won’t have any building for 10-15 years why commit to housing numbers now, why not wait to see what is required nearer the time?
Also do you have to comment each time it goes to public consultation or are the previous comments carried forward
How can we download the documents?
Do you have a link for the downloads other than the agenda please?
Sorry Bryan and Brian, I thought the officers report was attached to the agenda – we have received a hard copy and I thought the report was attached to the website as well, my mistake.
Hopefully it will be up tomorrow – look for it at
http://cmis.rochford.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Meeting.aspx?meetingID=6043
Ian – you ask a good question – and yes you should comment each time, of possible.
Chris, the documents still have not been posted, so we can review the detail, but can you help me with the wider aspects? If my memory serves me right, the original core strategy proposed that the majority of extra houses go to the west(?) of Rayleigh. This was howled down by residents and replaced by distributed housing across the district. The revised phasing outlined in your posted, now suggests that most of the short-medium term housing will go in the middle of the District, especially Rochford/Ashingdon. So RDC have completed a virtual 360 degree turn in their proposals. Do you know why this is?
Also, are there any proposals for highways improvements in the west of the district in the short-medium term. Traffic from Rochford/Ashingdon will either have to go through Rochford, with the railway bridge bottleneck, or via Rectory Lane (with the one-way railway bridge) or via Hockley or Hullbridge/Rawreth with their existing problems. This will mean exacerbating the existing problems with little hope of improvements for years. is that a fair summary?
Brian, the sites for 2011-2021 are;
West Rochford 500
West Hockley 50
South Hawkwell 175
East Ashingdon 100
South Canewdon 20
===
845
So you are pretty spot on.
The original proposal included 1800 in Rayleigh. That policy was changed because of strong public opposition (including the Lib Dems gaining a seat in Sweyne Park ward) and because of a realisation that there is no longer any space to put 1800 within Rayleigh’s parish boundaries (or even 800). Rayleigh has taken so much development in past decades that there simply isn’t the acreage left. If the central part of the district feels hard done by now with that 845 figure, we’ve had nearly that amount already in one ward – Downhall and Rawreth.
I think it’s fair to say that traffic problems will get worse. Though bear in mind that district-wide , the annual figure for new housing will be probably be lower than in previous decades.
Thanks Chris but, by my maths, that is only 84.5 per year i.e. half the stated rate of 190 pa!?
It cannogt be equitable to build all the houses but no access roads, can it?
I guess the balance of the housing up till 2021 is provided by redevelopment of some industrial sites….
Having now seen the latest papers, it is now clear that 67% of the new housing will be greenbelt. Did RDC even look at alternatives?
Chris, I’ve been told that RDC have still not approved the DPD Allocations consultation (due to the very large response). If this is correct, is it democratic and appropriate for the council to approve the next stage, without considering the consultation results that are now 5 months old?
Brian , the allocations consultation hasn’t even been discussed yet. Many members of the public will think this is pretty shocking.
The next stage is a sort of re-run of the overall consultation, so in my view it is appropriate for it to go ahead.
Hi Brian
Firstly I must hasten to say that my reply to you here is not an attempt to defend the Council.
I think that you might find that the shortfall that you are suggesting might be found if you add in those housing numbers that are already in the system by way of extant planning permissions and other strategic developments in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment). I don’t think that the Council is increasing the development at the intended re-development of certain industrial sites post 2021.
I also think that you are facing an uphill struggle to describe the impact that these plans will have on the Central Area of the District in words and perhaps I could refer you and other readers to this graphic.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1063718/Key_Diagram_Amended_Submission_Version.pdf
I agree with you and the other residents/action groups that represent the Central Area that the developments will not provide the level of infrastructural improvement that will be necessary to sustain these developments. In my view it is a strategic disaster to propose such a significant building programme without having considered this appropriately. Certainly in the era of spending cuts there will be no money to correct the position if this is as disasterous as you and I fear.
I also think that we also need to remind ourselves that the infrastructure in the Central Area is only barely coping with the significant developments that have also taken place there in fairly recent times and I would mention both Hockley and Hawkwell North and South to my knowledge.
I do hope that the Council does give the consultation appropriate publicity so that residents will realise what is going on……..because it is almost too late……..this will be the last big decision that will be presided over by the Planning Inspector.
The Allocations DPD Consultation which has yet to be discussed in Council and then subject to a seperate consultation will just be dooting the i’s and crossing the t’s.
Good Luck to the residents and action groups in the Central Area in their campaign.
John, as they say, a pictures is better than a thousand words.
Not sure I understand your comments on the DPD Allocation consultation or that I entirely agree with Chris’ comments (although I understand his reasoning).
As I understand it, that consultation had a record response, displaying residents concerns with the proposals. Yet, 4-5 months on there is to be another consultation, which suggests RDC simply are ignoring the previous consultation. Its really a slap in the face for democracy.
Brian
My point is that if the CS is agreed then the quanta and locations are for all intents and purposes that will be in stone. All the Allocations DPD will argue about is specific sites although personally my view is that these are also as agreed already which is something that I have given evidence to the Inspector about in commenting publicly on the Audit Trail that came out of the May hearings. My letter is on the Inspector’s part of the Council’s Web Site.
The public also need to know that when looking at the house build numbers for each year the following applies.
The numbers in each year refer to relate to the projected build rates and under a ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach that the Council will need to keep progress under regular review and work closely with builders to see them achieved.
It is worth also bearing in mind that projecting build rates is not an exact science and there will inevitably be small variations, with perhaps a few more in one year and a few less in the following through any five year period.
So expect variation and may be some significant ones as developers call the tune of what they want. Not us.
My name is Carol Dutton and I am spokesperson for the Hawkwell Action Group which represents some 300 residents in the Ward of Hawkwell West, where RDC want to build a 175 dwelling housing estate. We do not understand the Council’s allocation policy for Hawkwell West (or anywhere else in the District) and do not believe that this has ever been properly explained. Housing numbers in the CS are based on targets laid down by the last Government. Local Action Groups have lobbied Councillors to complete a LOCAL housing assessment to determine our exact needs in the District BUT THEY DO NOT LISTEN!!
As a long standing resident of Hawkwell I feel very protective against any erosion of green belt land for the building of houses but it does not appear that Rochford District Council is of the same mind. Although comments made in the press give the impression that they wish the public to believe they wish to protect the green belt. But how can this be correct when in Hawkwell West all the allocated sites are green belt? The Christmas Tree Farm site stretching from Clements Hall Way through to Thorpe Road to Main Road, Hawkwell is an example of RDC going against an Inspector in a previous public enquiry when she decided to allow the building of the road named as Clements Hall Way the access road to Clements Hall Sports Centre. She said she would allow the road to be built as it would prevent any encrouchment to the west along Rectory Road through to Main Road, Hawkwell of the green belt land. The very land that now 20 plus years later RDC have decided should be the site for 175 houses! When questioned on this RDC comment was that situations change. This is not good enough explaination as to why this area shoud become an housing estate – just because it is available does not make it justifiable. Why has RDC dismissed the Inspectors vision of the area as irrelevant? It may have been over 20 years ago that she made the decision but it still stands today (until RDC intervened) that it is an area that should remain green belt and semi rural that is the way the majority of local residents like Hawkwell West if they are asked. RDC just do not listen to the local people, the residents of the area that are living here, we know what like about our area and what we do not like and that is a housing estate forced upon us taking away our green belt land.
Pat, 67% of the extra housing will be on greenbelt land. This council has done nothing to protect the greenbelt, despite its false claims in Monday’s Echo. I hope residents across the District will complain to the inspector accordingly.
The only time Rochford District Council listen to their residents is when you make your wishes known, as a unit, as we in Rayleigh did a few years ago. RDC were left in no doubt what we as residents of Rayleigh would not put up with and that was when housing numbers in Rayleigh were reduced. RDC now have no excuse, blaming the pressure that national government are exerting on local authorities. We just need to put pressure on RDC to listen to us rather than letting the council go on believing they know what is best for us.
Brian, the more the council build initially on greenbelt land, the more brownfield sites they will be able to build on in future years. this way they take the flake from us early on and they can save the sites that they will face little in the way of protests from residents when they next build. A DOUBLE whammy for RDC and we are left with a district that will soon turn into an urban jungle. Well done RDC.
Mike, the council seems to have successfully united residents and developers in common opposition to the proposed strategy. Quite a feat!
This has resulted in Rochford’s own ‘Big Society’ getting together to draft a suggested objection to the proposals. Hopefully residents across the district will also join forces in objecting to the latest proposals and I will be happy to send anyone interested a copy, or may be Onlinefocus would be willing to publish it?
Brian, please send us a copy!
At long last the Action Groups and some Parish Council’s are working together on trying to make the Core Strategy something that works for us the community. Perhaps we should be asking why do the council need to specify the locations in the Core Strategy ? surely that is the purpose of the Sites Allocations document. Perhaps we should be asking them to remove the named sites and just specify North, South, East, West or Central to the District ? They certainly do not specify the roads that need to be improved. Being more specific allows for profiteering and creates unrest in the community.
What we as a community need to ensure now is that we do what RDC have so far been unable to do, and that is communicate effectively with the residents in our Parishes.
Lets see who can get the largest number of responses to RDC on the Core Strategy, but please make sure they convey the same main points with additional Parish / site specific items.
Any Action Group wishing to join the existing groups, especially in the East of the district, please provide a contact and I’m sure the group will be in touch.
In the words of John Lennon “Power to the people”.
It is clear from the recent meetings with the Action Groups that numerous residents are dismayed by the council’s latest plans for the Core Strategy when they had been given an opportunity by the government of reviewing the situation and looking at the actual needs of the community. In West Rochford we have been fighting the proposals to build a total of 600 homes on greenbelt(now 500 in the first phase) which also happens to be prime agricultural land with a national classification of” Best and Most Versatile land”. When we import 40% of our food in this country the proposal to utilise this land in the FIRST PHASE of the plan must surely bewilder the average person – but not apparently the current administration! The exact location which we now know from the Allocations DPD is on Hall Road is also contrary to the Council’s Evidence base where their own report states that further urbanisation of this road should be avoided!
Last but by no means least is the issue of traffic – the existing network cannot cope now- the railway bridge and roundabout at the end of Hall Road brings traffic to a standstill on a daily basis. With the development proposed in Hall Road itself and that proposed in East Ashingdon we will be gridlocked. There could be serious consequences in safety terms as emergency vehicles will not be able to gain access when required.
What I find galling is that the council spend time removing three words from the CS instead of looking at the impact of new Government rulings (Caps on Immigration, getting the community more involved etc., ) and the change in the country’s economy and that of individuals will have on the forecasts they have used in loads of their evidence base. There are to be massive budget cuts across the public sector, so there will need to be cuts in infrastructure expenditure so the repair of roads will be much slower, not they they are being done now. The train service already over used will have to be cut. What about the buses, What about the increase in prices of bricks, cement etc., Only by bringing things current can they truely state that the CS is sustainable.
And to think they can predict what they need in 2031 is laughable. What businesses ask their management to forecast anything further than 5 years ? So why do RDC think they can do something multinationals can not afford to do.