There have been many husband and wife teams on the District Council. Such as the Fawells, the Helsons, the Weirs, the Hutchings, the Websters, the Lumleys, the Masons and the Capons….
But we don’t think we’ve ever had an electoral contest like the one in Hullbridge this time, with two husband and wife teams involved.
In the Green corner we have Diane Hoy, defending her seat, with the help of her husband and fellow District Councillor, Michael Hoy.
In the Blue Corner, we have Mark Hale, trying to win the seat, with the help of his wife and also District Councillor, Angela Hale.
Labour are also standing, though it’s hard to see them winning here.
The planned housing for Hullbridge is likely to be an issue in the election once again, following the vote in the council chamber last December, where the Hoys were the only councillors to vote against the proposals [ for the whole district-wide strategy]
But there will certainly be other issues discussed as well.
The full details of candidates can be downloaded here (20kb)
Admin, I fear that you may have been far too economical, possibly to the point of being somewhat misleading, in referring to last December’s vote on adoption of the Core Strategy, which was NOT solely concerned with Hullbridge housing but is for the good of the whole District.
It was totally shocking therefore that the Hullbridge Ward Green Party Members, Mr and Mrs Hoy, voted against the Core Strategy for their own shortsighted, opportunistic NIMBYist reasons, ignoring their duty to the whole of the District. Adoption of such a Core Strategy, able to demonstrate a minimum rolling five year supply of housing development land throughout a fifteen year period, was and remains the only defence against uncontrolled development in virtually any part of Rochford District.
The alternative, had a majority of Members failed to adopt the Core Strategy, developed fairly over a long period, being the almost certain automatic loss on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate/Secretary of State of any developer’s planning application on ANY site and in UNCONTROLLED total numbers throughout the whole District. It was for that reason that CONSERVATIVE Members requested the recorded vote to demonstrate, that whilst many individual Ward Members may not have fully approved of Core Strategy housing development allocations within their own Wards, they could see the bigger picture for the whole District. The Hoy’s policy, if it had been followed by others, would have left the District without a Core Strategy and may well have resulted in far greater housing development in Hullbridge than they falsely claim to protect its residents from.
Colin, regarding the scope of December’s vote – I have amended the post a little to clarify things.
However I doubt very much that a lack of a plan would lead to “far greater housing development” in Hullbridge and I don’t see any false claim from the Hoys.
Admin
If no part of the District had been protected from excess housing development by rogue developers, through the adoption of an approved Core Strategy, then it follows that Hullbridge Ward would have been every bit as vulnerable as the rest of Rochford District to excessive development at the whim of rogue developers. Ergo, such claims by the Cllrs Hoy to be able to protect Hullbridge Ward from development via their ‘policy’, i.e. no Core Strategy, are false and totally without foundation.
I seem to recall that you and other LibDem Members were very keen for the burden of housing allocations to be shared fairly around the District, do you now seek to justify opposition to the natural consequence of that and support the abandonment of that Core Strategy? ‘Rawreth Newtown’ could have become a very real possibility, rather than simply my mild tease of you, had not Conservatives and, to her eternal credit, LibDem Cllr Mrs June Lumley acted responsibly and voted for the Core Strategy.
You are right, the Lib Dems wanted a ‘fair shares for all’ approach for the Core Strategy and we successfully opposed the initial proposal for 1800 in ‘Rayleigh’ (which would have been on the Rayleigh/Rawreth borders). The Liberal Democrats acted responsibly throughout the whole process.
Hullbridge should have some housing but I still doubt that a rogue developer would be as keen on overdeveloping Hullbridge as other parts of the district. Indeed we as councillors are well aware of the legal challenge we are facing from a developer – and thats near Rochford, not at the western end of the district. On this legal issue I think we are united across party lines.
Rawreth Parish Council were, I think, the only parish council to suggest an alternative site within their own borders to what RDC proposed. The parish council took the RDC consultations at their face value and it is still disappointing that RDC wouldn’t listen. I am not troubled by the ‘ mild teasing’ but some Rawreth residents might have viewed those occasional comments differently had they heard them.
Admin
Basic economics would say that, where there is any housing demand in a region, then the conversion of low cost unzoned land to usage for housing development would hand a finished cost advantage to housing constructed on it by a developer owning it, even in less accessible, attractive or sustainable locations. That in turn would likely ensure a viable clearing price at which a steady demand would arise from buyers/renters wanting cheaper accomodation compared with elsewhere in a relatively expensive district. I’m quite certain that such demand is in and around this attractive District, and the profit motive is rarely lacking in such rogue developers spying any opportunity to ride roughshod. Houses would be built.
I hear that all Cllr Seagers says but the same problem appears not to be resolved. When all this housing is completed and sold, who is going to pay to upgrade the local infrastructure, roads, schools, medical facilities, transport etc. etc. Not the district council, not the county council, certainly not the government and not the developers.
Mike
By endeavouring to keep most future development in medium size units of dwellings it becomes more likely that Section 106 agreement payments can be struck with the developers to enable cover for the costs of at least some of the infrastructure requirements both they and existing communities need, and also generate the percentage of affordable homes required of those developments exceeding 15 new homes (I may need to check that as I recollect it may possibly have changed now to 10). Witness the infrastructure improvements generated by the agreements attached to the recently permitted Hall Road development.
Surprisingly perhaps, as relates to local schools, there are some areas where the ageing population demographic has caused a few to trend dangerously close to unviably low pupil rolls, and new housing nearby could address that. In the present economic circumstances RDC does face a tough fight against severe competition from many other local authority areas to persuade National and County government and organisations such as the NHS to invest in additional infrastructure resources here, but we do try and will continue trying our utmost. We should not ignore the private sector either, such as infrastructure improvements and local jobs created by our support of the airport expansion for example.
Cllr Seagers, again I do hear what you are saying and I know it is a desparately serious situation but in my experience developers promise the earth to get their approvals but actually deliver very little in the way of quality. I agree that there should be affordable housing for young people trying to get onto the property ladder but again I am sceptical about the number of dwellings that will actually be affordable. My main point is that you absolutely can not build housing in any quantity before getting an undertaking on enhancing the infrastructure which is already bulging at the seams.I lived in Rayleigh for about eleven years and saw the gradual decline in the infrastructure and services. Rayleigh is a lovely town however I did not think that Rochford DC valued it enough and that is why I left. If more housing is to be built in any numbers the creaking services and infrastructure will crumble unless someone ‘pulls their finger out’
Just read a letter in Friday’s Echo, seems to concur with my earlier comments.
Mike
Yes we absolutely MUST carry on permitting house building, because that is the existing law, and if RDC did not permit the relatively modest numbers as stated in the adopted Core Strategy (‘CS’) then, as some other local authorities without an adopted CS are discovering, we would almost automatically lose on appeal any application refused by the RDC Development Committee, Green Belt or not. And with that loss on appeal would disappear not only any chance of obtaining Section 106 agreements from developers to provide any infrastructure whatsoever but also of ensuring that the developer provide up to 35% of the development as affordable homes.
That is why I am so furious with the Hullbridge Green Members and any others who persistently deny those facts and propogate their own distorted and factually wrong statements simply to gain their own election. Perhaps admin is unaware of the actual contents of their website and recent literature.
Cllr Seagers,
Just a couple of questions, being a Conservative and knowing this is not what your constituents want, are you actively conveying this to the powers that be in Westminster and if you are doing the right thing, have you the evidence to demonstrate these actions.
Colin
I tend not to respond to you because you are never likely to agree with me and all that could result is an exchange of messages giving contrary positions. However given you comments here goes.
Both Diane and myself, and many residents of the district, believe that the Core Strategy is, to put it mildly, a very poor, backward looking and unsustainable plan. We are very much aware that the Inspector passed the document as legal, but being legal is very different from being good, it is a point to note that in an earlier speech Cllr Hudson used many words to describe the Strategy but didn’t once use the word good (he did later, on 13th December, using it once). To put it bluntly the Strategy lacks both courage and vision.
As it stands the Strategy will put large blocks of housing, in Green Belt land, on the edges of existing settlements. The Council has not agreed to other sustainable locations as proposed, in particular by Rawreth in detail and by other areas including Hullbridge less so. The blocks of housing proposed in competition to the Core Strategy were smaller, many between 50-350 rather than the 100-600 proposed in the Core Strategy, and would allow easier integration into the existing communities. The total numbers required would still have been reached.
As for your comments about “zoning” land it appears you are forgetting that Green Belt Land, by its very name, is not “unzoned”. It is specified as Green Belt Land, perhaps this more than anything explains why such a poor policy, putting over 90% of the development onto Green Belt Land, has been pushed through on the votes of Rochford Conservatives. With regard to your comment about profits, the profit for developers and landholders is the changing of undevelopable Green Belt Land into Development Land; I find it worrying that the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources doesn’t appear to follow this. Much of the land within the District is either Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Coastal Protection Zone or has other protection (Foulness), very little is “unzoned” as Cllr Seagers puts it and therefore is not at risk in the way “unzoned” land would be. There may still be a risk, but it is not comparable.
To summarise the Council has had 2-3 years to adjust the Core Strategy and take in the proposals put forward by others, they failed to do so. This is their failure, neither Diane or myself were able to vote for such a poor Core Strategy without assurances that a full and thorough review would be undertaken at the earliest opportunity, the review offered did not guarantee that and we were not able to support the proposal resulting from such a mismanaged process.
As for your being furious, perhaps that stems from actually having opposition who are willing to question your policies. As usual when responding to you I will not post again on this subject.
Michael HOY
The only ones lacking courage are you and your wife, you are both SOOOOOOO WRONG and yet cannot admit it, WHICH IS WHY YOU WILL NOT RESPOND AGAIN!!!!
IDENTIFY YOUR ‘OTHER’ SITES TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FIGURES, if they were NOT OFFERED then they could NOT be included in the Core Strategy allocations, they are simply NOT AVAILABLE.
There ARE some SMALLER ALLOCATIONS included in the adopted CORE STRATEGY, E.G. CANEWDON 60 and HOCKLEY 50, but larger blocks have the advantage of allowing more generous Section 106 agreements to be reached to finance better infrastructure.
My reference to ‘unzoned’ is plainly in the context of not previously deemed available for housing.
By opposing the adoption of a Core Strategy BOTH OF YOU would have put the ENTIRE DISTRICT AT RISK from virtually uncontrolled and unlimited developments when RDC Development Committee refused any application and then automatically would lose on appeal.
Big profits are made in converting land use to housing, but that enables cheaper land to allow finished prices to be cheaper than the competition if any price incentive is needed to draw in buyers.
Yet again you demonstrate YOUR COMPLETE FAILURE TO COMPREHEND THE FACTS, or otherwise some possibly rather more nefarious motive.
It’s a sign that someone is losing the argument when they resort to lots of capital letters. Especially when they use capital letters for personal attacks like
Whether you agree with Cllr Hoy 100% or not, you should accept he has spent enough time on this issue to understand it well.
My final reminder is that when the District Council first approved the Local Development Framework, Hullbridge had 3 Conservative Councillors. None of them actually came to the meeting! ( One of them was ill). Whether you love the LDF or hate it, that doesn’t say much for the Conservative Party in Hullbridge.
POLICY NOT PERSONAL!!!!
I don’t know who Mr Seagers is but he comes across as one of the mad people who put posts on the Southend Echo web site.
I believe I am awaiting a response from questions on my last post to Cllr Seagers?
Mike Nobes
It seems that you may not have seen the front page of the Echo today. Are you really claiming that all our residents do not need or want housing in this District, or this County, or this Region or this Country?
As regards pressuring Conservatives in Westminster, I remind you that we have a Coalition Government. If you wanted or want Conservative power and policies perhaps you and others should have voted for us more in the 2010 General Election, or maybe your LibDem councillors should also pressurise the LibDems in Westminster more. Changing law of any sort is rarely if ever managed or advisable in a short termist way, especially when as in this instance no case can be made for keeping families long term homeless or housed in overcrowded conditions.
Meanwhile, at the risk of belabouring the point, saying No to a Core Strategy would have been suicidal in terms of risking unlimited and uncontrolled development in this District NOW. Witness the attempt to develop in Hullbridge the entire 4600 homes required of Rochford District over a 20 year period, only stopped by the Core Strategy put in place by Conservatives and one brave and perceptive LibDem (Cllr Mrs June Lumley); whilst all the other LibDems and Rochford Residents Party Councillors abstained. Hullbridge Green Councillors actually voted against the Core Strategy, along with also voting against freezing the Council Tax!!
Rayleigh Resident
In my experience most so-called ‘mad people’ (your term), or more often perhaps simply the illogical and less well-informed, prefer to hide behind anonimity. I could not tell you if that is the case on the Evening Echo website since I very rarely have cause or time to go there and never to post incognito.
Colin, I think your answer to Mike’s question (in comment no. 11) is “No”.
Chris
Why not try answering me on my questions to you and the Cllrs Hoy regarding housing policy rather than attempting to put your words into my mouth? I notice that you studiously avoid anything factual regarding policy that may blow your cover so, if you want me to spend time lobbying in Westminster, stop misleading RDC residents and I will not need to waste time debunking your puerile nonsense.
For your information, Cllr Keith Hudson, RDC Portfolio Holder for Planning & Transportation and our Conservative Deputy Leader, on behalf of all RDC Councillors had a meeting late last year at Portcullis House with the responsible Minister and our two local MPs to put our case and to ensure our voice was heard. What have you done?
Mr Seagers – what is your policy on people who use shouty capitals on websites ?
Rayleigh who?
I choose to use capitals to draw the eye to key points and accentuate those, not abide by an effete so-called internet etiquette lauded by some anonymous critic with nothing better to contribute. Time you had the guts to identify yourself or expect to be ignored.
Can we go back to potholes….much more interesting.
Cllr Seagers,
Although the conventions of netiquette are, by virtue of the nature of the internet, constantly changing, the use of capital letters is widely regarded as being rude and offensive. The odd bit of sarcasm is likely to be regarded as harmless banter and this forum, albeit Lib Dem in nature, is frequented, myself included, by those who are often of a different political persuasion but who have respect for others, including Cllr Black. I suggest to you, sir, that you temper your comments with more courtesy, refrain from using offensive words such as ‘puerile’ and give more thought to the impression that you are likely to give to people across the political spectrum.
Gosh, this is all becoming a bit serious isn’t it? I’m almost tempted to speak Latin! 😉
Alison who?
Alison Hodgetts
Alison, A very elequent comment.
Nice to know you Alison Hodgetts, you are definitely one up on the STILL anonymous Rayleigh Resident.
I suspect you may possibly not be old enough to recollect it, so the following You Tube link may give you a flavour of Prestel, from 30 years ago, a happy if expensive time long before the ‘johnny come lately’ PC brigade (no pun intended) thought police invaded the internet and other media with their strange invented conventions on capital letters and lazy spelling etc. It could be accessed by then state of the art home powerhouses such as a Sinclair ZX81 16K with a modem and a pocket tape recorder, or slightly later a Spectrum 48K. Very shortly after that it was the period when the IBM PC began arriving for the mass market and people like me began building home brew computers with ‘massive’ 5 Megabyte storage hard drives with even more massive prices of well over £40/Megabyte (in 1982-5 pounds note) versus barely 20p/Gigabyte now, so spurring component demand, development and production runs, thus driving down prices. The point I am making is that subsequent generations of pc users and systems should neither ridicule nor dictate to those earlier generations of computer users who do not share those tardier conventions, BECAUSE WITHOUT THOSE EARLY BUYERS and USERS, THEY WOULD NOT NOW BE ENJOYING CHEAP POWERFUL COMPUTING EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS. ok?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjKAM1NVWE
The one thing I cannot understand is the relationship between, lets say, the Conservative Government and the local politicians. You would think that the local Councillors would have their ears to ground and the Government would look to the local politicians to know what the views of the ‘person on the street’ have, however it is the the local politicians who are bowing to the Government. I could go on and detail all the fears of the local people but it would have no effect whatsoever to our Councillors because all they do is enforce what the Government decrees. Its a bit like 1984, really.
Having read this I am shocked that Cllr Seagers holds a position of power. I actually agree with Rayleigh Resident for once.
Dear Mr Colon Seagoes, I still have no idea what you are talking about.
SORRY FORGOT TO USE CAPITALSq
A lady should never reveal her age but I shall admit to being old enough to remember the advent of the Sinclair et cetera, having attended school at a time before PCs when paper and Latin verbs were the order of the day.
omnia mutantur et nos mutamur in illis
For those without Alison’s scholarship , her latin motto was “The times change, and we change with them.”.
We have wandered a long way from the original post, and this thread is now closed!
(Hoc filum excluderentur. Ad vitare ad signa commissionibus)