Last night’s meeting was about a planning application on some Green Belt land north of Hall Road , Rochford. It was an outline application for 600 homes, a new primary school and some new public open space.
The public gallery was full of concerned Rochford residents, with some unable to get in. (They could listen upstairs).Incidentally, the public were impreccably behaved. they were concerned about lots of things, including the loss of greeen fields, increased traffic, and a change in the character of the area.
The key factor in the discussions was that last month the District Council approved the new core strategy, which included 600 new homes in West Rochford! Every Conservative councillor present at the December meeting voted for the strategy. It’s fairly easy to vote for a strategy when the public gallery is virtually empty. It’s not so comfortable when the public gallery is packed with people bitterly unhappy about part of that strategy. The one resident who was allowed to speak, a gentleman from Hall Road, pitched his argument to councillors very well, not acting like a NIMBY but criticising the application in terms of planning policies.
Because the application was simply an outline for the 600 homes / school/ open space, there weren’t any details to discuss, or details that could be used to frame a reason for refusal. All that was really left was three questions.:
Could you refuse the scheme on the grounds of it being environmentally unsustainable when a month before the council had said that the whole core strategy was sustainable?
Could you argue that another site in West Rochford could be used instead?
Could you argue that the application was premature – that it should be decided later?
The ward councillors were in a difficullt position. Cllr Mrs Lucas-Gill began by admitting that she had voted for the core strategy, but only to stop other predatory developers from swooping on sites. She argued with some passion against the application, especially about the highways impact. Mrs Lucas-Gill then moved refusal on the grounds of “Unsustainability”. She was supported on this by her fellow ward councillors Keith Gordon and James Cottis. Cllr Cottis said that residents shoudl write to complain to the government, and made some comments about the Tory Secretary of State, Eric Pickles.
Mrs Lucas Gill got some support from Hullbridge Green Councillor Michael Hoy, who was probably the councillor who looked most at ease last night – having been elected on a mandate from Hullbridge residents to oppose the core strategy , having opposed the core strategy in teh coucnil chamber , he had nothing to be embarrassed about.
However the Rochford Councillors didn’t much support from elsewhere. Chris Black said that it was too late to oppose it on the grounds of sustainability – the time for that was earlier. Though he thought there might be some scope fore refusal on the grounds of prematurity.
In the end the scheme was passed, with only 4 Tories, the Greens and the Rochford Residents Association Councillors voting against. The Tories voted overwhelmingly in favour, Lib Dems either voted in favour of abstained.
=========
PS When these sites went out for consultation in 2010, the number of objections from the public were roughly as follows:
Land North of London Road, Rayleigh – 196
West Rochford – 16
West Hockley – 481
South West Hullbridge 867
It hasn’t the outcome (the District Coucnil has pressed on everywhere desite objections) But why the big difference in the number of responses?
Share on Facebook
| Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Planning Applications, Rochford | Comments (2)
Nicola Davis
Ron Oatham
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley
