It can be tricky to find, but the public’s response to the last District Council consultation on housing can be found here.
First thoughts? There’s still strong opposition to Housing North of London Road, in West Hockley, and massive opposition to housing in SW Hullbridge. Residents seem to be happy about housing in Rochford and Great Wakering (assuming they know about it).
Some of the most interesting comments are from developers or landowners – either supporting development on ‘their’ land, or opposing development on someone else’s land.
For example, in relation to land ‘North of London Road’, here’s an objection from “Ransome and Company”
a) North of London Road, Rayleigh
6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.
6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.
6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.
6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.
But here’s an ominous objection from one company who thinks there should be more devlopement in the West Rayleigh/Rawreth area:
Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd represented by JB Planning Associates Ltd
.
In considering the site specific allocation, the document needs to give greater consideration to (a) the need for flexibility (b) the need for a land allocation of sufficient size to deliver the minimum requirements, and (c) the proper consideration of a long-term and permanent Green Belt boundary which will not be subject to pressure for amendment in the post-plan period.
.
None of the five options are of sufficient size to deliver the Core Strategy requirement. A combination of these options, together potentially with adjoining land, would provide a developable and deliverable site area capable of implementing the Core Strategy.
And here’s a developer supporting development in Hullbridge:
SUPPORT Southern and Regional Developments Ltd represented by Carter Jonas
Summary:
.
We support the allocation of south-west Hullbridge within the Allocations Consultation DPD subject to the following:
.
Based on landscape and policy constraints, Option SWH1 has clear advantages over the other three options and should be pursued.
.
Reference to porposed phasing on page 34 should be deleted subject to the outcome of the Core Strategy which has yet to be examined.
.
Our intention is to produce a detailed Master Plan for the site, securing the benefits identified above, in consultation and discussion with officers of the Council and with the local community. In the meanwhile, we support the early consultation on the Allocations DPD pending the outcome of the Core Strategy and hope that the Council will give weight to the above comments. We look forward to engaging in yet further stages of the process.
.
More details about Rep ID: 22988
Here’s a summary of the responses below. Please note that we may have missed one or two responses (there was a lot of stuff to look through).
Land north of London Road, Rayleigh – 550 dwellings between 2015 and 2021.
203 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 7 comments , 196 objections.
West Rochford – 450 dwellings before 2015, 150 more between 2015 and 2021
23 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 7 comments, 16 objections.
West Hockley – 50 dwellings before 2015
496 responses regarding the general location. None in favour 15 comments 481 objections.
South Hawkwell – 175 dwellings before 2015
25 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 10 comments, 15 objections.
East Ashingdon – 100 dwellings before 2015
83 responses regarding the general location. None in favour. 11 comments, 72 objections.
South-West Hullbridge – 250 dwellings between 2015 and 2021, 250 more after 2021
891 responses regarding the general location. 4 in favour 20, comments, 867 objections.
South Canewdon – 60 dwellings between 2015 and 2021
20 responses regarding the general location. 1 in favour , 5 comments, 14 objections.
South East Ashingdon, 500 after 2021
24 responses regarding the general location. 2 in favour 2 comments, 20 objections.
West Great Wakering, 250 after 2021
Industrial sites suggested for housing:
Rawreth Industrial Estate
33 responses. 9 in favour, 12 comments, 12 objections.
Stambridge Mills
17 responses 4 in favour, 4 comments, 9 objections.
Star Lane Industrial esate, Great Wakering
12 responses 5 in favour, 4 coments, 3 objections.
Star Lane , Brickworks, Great Wakering
10 responses 5 in favour, 4 comments, 1 objection.
Eldon Way , Industrial Estate, Hockley
17 responses 4 in favour, 6 comments, 7 objections. UPDATE: Plus another 460 responses elsewhere in the consultation – 2 comments, 458 objections.
Can you plese clarify where the figures for Eldon Way come from?
Option E10 shows 460 comments on Eldon Way, of which 459 are objections and 1 support!
Option TC9 also relates to Eldon Way and shows 4 responses (2 support; 2 object) but omits 459 objections which the council has not posted. This is subject to a formal complaint to the council.
The headline numbers for housing, shown in the report, exclude 150/200 planned for Eldon Way. There are 469 comments, nearly all objecting to this, shown under
“2 Residential Land Allocations” as gthese homes are hidden in the appendix.
Where do your numbers come from?
Do you know how this “consultation” will impact the Core Strategy going forward? Once again residents have shown overwhelming rejection of the opgtions. Are RDC obliged to take account of this? If not, what is the purpose of the consultation?
Chris, Thanks for pointing out a 3rd seperate reference to Eldon Way, which I had missed. Having the same option appear in 3 places certainly adds confusion (which is probably why it is presented this way).
If you take the 3 sections a whole, the overall result is something like a 6 support (including one developer and Hockley Parish Council) and about 460 either outright objections or commenting against. Pretty clear result I think!
There is one interesting comment in the ‘new’ section, from Barrat Eastern Counties OBJECTING:
The Eldon Way Estate is in multiple ownerships and is nearly fully occupied with over 50 units. It is the most sustainable existing employment site being on a rail route and bus routes. It is within walking distance of surrounding residential. PPS4 now indicates that such sites should not be developed, especially if occupied. Other policy advice is that extension to town centres is considered against a certain mix of uses – residential is not a component of that mix in PPS4.
An unlikely ally!
Brian, we’ve amended the item now, thanks.
Are RDC obliged to take account of this? Perhaps Cllr Hudson would like to answer that one!
Barratt Eastern Counties want the 150 dwellings put back in Hawkwell. Rather obvious I would think !!
Admin, thanks for clarifying the numbers. Congratulations to Hullbridge on their response level. But can we look at RDC responsibilities a bit more?
RDC hold consultation after consultation and normlly get consistent views from residents which they then ignore. Surely ther must be some rules/guidance covering consultations or re they simply a waste of time, effort and public money?
John, I have no doubt that Barratt’s have their own motives, although I doubt (and hope) it would directly impact Hawkwell. However, the interesting point here is that they are echoing points previously made by the HRA that relocating Eldon Way is (1) difficult because of the numerous legal tenancies involved and (2) contrary to government policy.
There have been 4 or 5 different consultations involving Eldon Way and all have been rejected with 90%+ majorities, in addition to being against government policy. It is also against the recommendations of RDC’s own Retail & Leisure Study. As I’ve asked above, why have a consultation(s) and ignore it? And what, if anything, can be done about it? Can RDC be held to account? It is in all our interests to establish this.
In the absence of any other input on these issues direct on here by RDC the only way I can think of by which interested parties can establish whether RDC can be held to account legally for ignoring the majority views in a consultation would be to write to the Council’s Legal Counsel, Albert Bugeja and ask for his opinion.
It would be interesting to also ask him whether there is any obligation of the Planning Inspector to consider this in the Public Examination and what precedents exist for a Planning Inspector to take such into account and how/if this has been followed through into Recommendations.
If consultations mean nothing in terms of determining decisioning by RDC and their is no re-dress through process then perhaps the only accountability will be through the ballot box?