Only 1 Percent In Support Of The Suggested Housing Figures

If you look at the responses on the District Council website, you will find that so far only one percent are in support of the proposed figures – 1800 for Rayleigh, etc.

Oddly enough , one of the few voices in support is from the Church of England:

263 SUPPORT Chelmsford Diocese Board of Finance represented by Strutt & Parker
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft – 4.6.10 General Development Locations Preferred Option

Summary: 4.6.10 – Agree that development should focus on top tier settlements including Hawkwell and that a proportion of the housing numbers should be allocated here. Agree that top tier proposed settlements are better located to the highway network and represent sustainable locations for development. A site which has been put forward at a previous LDF consultation stage, located on the outskirts of Hawkwell is considered to be a suitable site for accommodating additional housing. The site is located along Ironwell Lane and has housing to the east, west and north beyond Ironwell Lane.

Meanwhile Rayleigh Town Council has avoided party politics on the isssue – the Conservative Town Council asked Ron Oatham to prepare their response. Here are some of his ‘bullet points’:

  • It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH
  • It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions’ share of development in the district to date.
    It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.
  • This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development
  • About the author, admin

  • INCREASE IN EXPENSES; I have no objection whatsoever in allowing our councillors – who represent the residents in their wards- an increase in expenses, however I object absolutely and completely in giving increases to people – not councillors – but people who describe themselves as as councillors – the type of increases that has been passed by Tory councillors. This has been an absolute disgrace. Can they demonstrate to the residents of Rayleigh or for that matter Rochford what they have done for us? They can certainly illustrate what they have acheived for the Tory party as a whole. If the leaders of the district council resigned and called for by elections I know who my money would be on, and it would not be the Tories.

  • As one of the C of E parish priests in the area, I would want to note that I was not consulted in any way by the CDBF who have submitted this opinion in the review. Why they should have done so I have no idea (though I can probably guess that it is the same money-grubbing speculation as everybody else)…

    Your readers should be aware that those of us working at the chalkface of parish ministry are often wholly outside the operations of these ‘quasi-bureaucratic’ arms of the C of E. I do not entirely hold that they have a remit to speak on my, or my parishioners’, behalf.

    ‘The left hand knows not what the right hand is doing!…’

  • Hi Paul

    Neither were the people of Hawkwell West where there are a significant number of regular church goers represented by Parochial Church Councils who were not consulted.

    John Mason
    Councillor, Hawkwell West

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}