onlineFOCUS – News and Stuff For Rochford District since 2003

The Echo has a new article based around the future housing planned “North of London Road”

Chris Black was quoted:

Lib Dem councillor for Downhall and Rawreth Chris Black said Rawreth Parish Council initially suggested a site centrally in the village, which had more accessible roads, but Rochford District Council objected to the idea.
He added: “I’m concerned about the impact on drainage, education and the future of Rayleigh Sports and Social Club, but fear it’s too late.”
At the proposal stage in 2010, almost 200 residents objected to the development, with more than 1,700 objections raised across various sites in the district.
Mr Black added: “The council has been far too willing to develop on this site and the Government inspector has gone along with it.
“I feel we’ve been stitched up.”

However it mainly features Mrs Linda Kendall, who came a very good second for UKIP in a district council election in Whitehouse Ward. Much of what she’s now saying is spot on – stuff we’ve been saying, and Rawreth Parish Council has been saying, for years. We welcome her comments.

However she is wrong in one respect when she says “the whole of that green belt area is going to disappear.” . Under the current plans, most of the green land North of London Road will remain green- thankfully we stopped the original idea of 1800 houses there.

June 13th, 2013 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, North of London Road | Comments (2)

Have you ever been at a football match when the referee makes a big mistake, or a manager gets his tactics embarrassingly wrong? The crowd start singing “You don’t know what you’re doing”. We have a pretty similar situation now with Watery Lane.

The District Council are planning 500 houses near Watery Lane. Even though some opposition councillors voted against this , at least we were given the promise that Watery Lane would be improved. But that promise seems to be going out the window! As Hullbridge Green Councillor Michael Hoy points out here the County Council officially aren’t interested in improving Watery Lane!

In their response to the District Council proposals the County Council have said here :

Paragraph 3.178 should be amended to note that highway improvements would focus on the strategic network, which includes the junction of Hullbridge Road/ Watery Lane. Watery Lane is not part of the strategic network and the reference to improvements should be deleted.

Now you can argue about whether Watery Lane is a country lane, or part of the strategic road network. But that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that when it’s closed, it causes big problems. So with 500 houses coming it needs improving.

Michael Hoy sums things up pretty well:

“To us it is amazing that anyone from the County Council could state that improvements to Watery Lane should be deleted from the Allocations Document. Everyone who has lived with this road being closed for 3 months would disagree with the assessment that it is not strategic.

This is yet another example of how out of touch Essex County Council are with this part of Essex, they seem to believe that everyone to the south of Chelmsford is unimportant and would appear to have great trouble even locating us on a map, let alone in person.

It took 3 months of relentless campaigning and bad publicity before we got any action out of the County Council on Watery Lane and even then it was only to do the standard maintenance work that they had apparently been neglecting for the previous 9 months. They are now saying that even with a further 500 houses to be built in “Hullbridge” no work is needed on Watery Lane as it is not part of the Strategic Network. We will obviously be opposing this view forcibly with the Council.”

And if you haven’t heard fans chanting “You Don’t Know What You’re Doing!” this is what it sounds like:

March 10th, 2013 | Category: District Core Strategy, Highways & Parking, Hullbridge, Rawreth, YouTube and Video | Comments (2)

There’s a meeting of Hullbridge Parish Council tomorrow night 14th January at 7.30pm.

It’s at the Hullbridge Centre in Windermere Avenue. It’s of course open to the public (even if you don’t live in Hullbridge)
The agenda includes the housing allocation for Hullbridge/ NE Rawreth and also a new logo for the parish.

Full details on the Hullbridge Green Party website here.

January 13th, 2013 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Hullbridge, Rawreth | Leave a comment

As the Guardian reports here, Bullwood Hall Prison in Hockley is to be closed by this March.

This is obviously bad news for the staff who work there; we understand some may be offered transfers to other jails or to take voluntary redundancy packages.

It may also have an impact on the District Council’s core strategy. The Bullwood Hall site is a ‘brownfield site’ in the Green Belt. Although we can’t see the District Council giving a reprieve to Rawreth or to Hullbridge ,because the general locations have already been chosen. But this site could conceivably be used in the future, to avoid another site from being selected elsewhere.

January 10th, 2013 | Category: District Core Strategy, Employment, Future Housing, Hockley | Comments (1)

It’s interesting that Michael and Diane Hoy can get 100 people to a public meeting in Hullbridge on future development when the District Council can only get 1 ordinary member of the public to the West Area Forum, which covers Hullbridge AND Rayleigh AND Rawreth !
You can read an account of the meeting here, from John and Christine Mason. They mention:

■sewerage at capacity
■creates a new community out of cohesion with Hullbridge
■the development offers youth provision where it is not needed
■the development offers more A1 Retail where it is not needed
■access over Malyons will create congestion
■Watery Lane improvements will be 10′s of £M – economically viable?
■Flooding issues to be dealt with by major engineering offsite in the Rawreth area creating further development
■This site is not viable and nor are the alternatives which suffer from the same issues
■Surface water flooding issues are assessed on insurance claim criteria – not assessed because there are no insurance claims for flooding in green fields
■Tidal reflux in 3 rivers has effect on flooding – will affect Hockley and other areas upstream

Also:

…. the Allocations Submission Document is not sound as the Highways Authority has evidently not looked strategically at the cumulative effect of traffic impacts on the Rochford Core Strategy through the Local Transport Plan because the information quoted by Essex County Council has not been published in the Evidence Base.

January 6th, 2013 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Hullbridge, Local Democracy | Leave a comment

The local Green Party view on the Local Development Framework can be found here. Worth a read!

December 2nd, 2012 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Green Party | Leave a comment

* NOTE : AMENDED AFTER CLLRS SEAGERS COMMENT BELOW:

Last night the District Council approved the latest stage of the Core Strategy – the specific allocations for housing and other development. This will now go to public consultation, on whether it  is sound and legal….

The Conservatives voted it through (although Cllr Angela Hale from Hullbridge abstained.)

The Lib Dems present  and the Greens all voted against.

Setting out the Lib Dem objections, Chris Black said that

• the council still couldn’t say what improvements were needed to Watery Lane,

• there hadn’t been a traffic impact study on the cumulative effect of the  sites to the west of Rayleigh,

• the new open spaces were small compared with open places like Sweyne Park

• Rayleigh Sports and Social Club were being bullied by the council -  into being  relocated so that houses could be built on their present site.

This accusation of bullying (not of course  by individuals, but the actions of the council as a whole)  angered a few Tories. Councillor Colin Seagers stood up, facing Chris (who sits almost behind him) and spoke to him in a stern voice. Memories differ on what was actually said (it was a highly charged moment)

Whilst Cllr Seagers was speaking there was some gentle booing from the public gallery and one lady could be heard saying  “Bloody hell”.

November 28th, 2012 | Category: Council Drama, District Core Strategy | Comments (52)

At last week’s meeting of Rawreth Parish Council someone asked whether the Michelin’s Farm site would be compulsorily purchased to help create the new industrial site and traveller site.

The answer from the planning department is that this isn’t a planning issue, and will have to be dealt with by councillors later.

November 12th, 2012 | Category: District Core Strategy, Rayleigh | Comments (1)

The Echo reports here on Rayleigh Sports and Social Club:

….David Medlock, chairman of the club, said they were holding a meeting to consider their response.

_

He said: “We are very surprised that despite previous assurances we were given the club would not be moved have not endured. We are equally disappointed why we have not been consulted about the reason for the decision and the consequential affect it will have.

“We are concerned that they have not appreciated the full nature of the sports and social club and the affect a move may have on the future viability.
The field contains two full size football pitches, three mini soccer pitches, a cricket pitch and a floodlight training area. The football facilities are used by seven adult teams, one youth and six boys teams. Cricket facilities are used by a total of four adult teams and three youth teams.

_

Lib Dem councillor Chris Black voted against the plans.He said: “The council is saying we are going to do what we want, you have to agree with our plan, that is bullying tactics. You can’t create good football pitches overnight, there will be a lot of disruption.“If the council want to do a deal then they should contact the club and come to an agreement rather than dictate.”….

November 6th, 2012 | Category: District Core Strategy, Leisure and Sport, Local Facilities, Rayleigh | Leave a comment

At last Tuesday’s meeting the District Council pressed on with their plans  for future development.

Who was there?

The six councillors on the sub-committee were all there -
5 Conservatives: Keith Hudson, Heather Glynn, Keith Gordon, Simon Smith and Colin Seagers
and 1 Lib Dem: Chris Black.
When you are outnumbered 5 to 1, you don’t expect to win many votes….
In addition two visiting members came along, Lib Dem Ron Oatham and Conservative Brian Hazlewood.
There were also about 17 members of the public present, mostly interested in Rayleigh Sports And Social Club. One of them walked out halfway, saying ‘this is a waste of time’.
Also there was a full team of planning officers, led by Shaun Scrutton.

What About Those Alarming New Housing Figures?

The alarming phrases that mentioned a lot more  potential housing were all removed. It seems that some of the Conservatives were as concerned as we were. So, for example the wording  for ‘Land North of London Road’ was changed from:

The Core Strategy (Policy H2) identifies that the site in this general location should have the
capacity to accommodate a minimum of 550 dwellings during the plan period. A minimum
site size of 20.95 hectares would be required (if 75% of the site was developed at 35
dwellings per hectare).
The site identified in Figure 7 is 38.8 hectares (the gross site area, outside flood zone 3)
which could deliver between 582 and 873 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare
on a developable area of 50% and 75% respectively, and between 679 and 1019 dwellings
at a density of 35 dwellings per hectare on a developable area of 50% and 75% respectively.

to

The Core Strategy (Policy H2) identifies that the site in this general location should have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 550 dwellings during the plan period.  The site identified in Figure 6 is capable of providing 550 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, plus a flexibility allowance of 5%, if required.

So the maximum amount of new housing ‘North of London Road’ has been changed from 1019 to 550 + 5%, which equals 578.

Changes were made in similar way for other sites such as SW Hullbridge, which now reads:

‘The Core Strategy (Policy H2 and H3) identifies that the site in this general location should have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 500 dwellings during the plan period.  The site identified in Figure 12 is capable of providing 500 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, plus a flexibility allowance of 5%, if required.

What Other Good Things Came From the Meeting?

Well, the Conservatives would probably say that everything that came out of the meeting was good, this was effectively their document! But from our perspective :

• We got phrases included to show that the preferred option for new open spaces is that they go into the ownership of “Fields in Trust ” (the new name for the National Playing Field Association). This will help to protect them in the long term.
• Chris Black also spotted that in the list of new open spaces to be created, 4 hectares North of London Road, had been missed off! He got that put back on…

What Happened With The Hockley Area Action Plan ?

After a fair amount of discussion, it went through. Heather Glynn was concerned about certain aspects of the plan, Ron Oatham stressed the importance of leisure facilities such as the tenpin bowling.

What Happened With Rayleigh Sports and Social Club?

The Council are sticking to their new policy of forcing the Rayleigh Sports & Social Club to move.

Heather Glynn and Keith Hudson moved an amendment that presumably was intended to calm the fears of the club:

 The playing field to the south of the site along London Road should be relocated. A replacement sports field with new ancillary facilities together with a new club house will be required to be provided ahead of any removal of the existing facility so as to ensure the continued and uninterrupted operation of this valuable community facility. The new structure will be required to be built to the BREEAM (Very good) standard thus providing a new, efficient and environmentally friendly establishment which will be of great advantage to the community as a whole and to the operators of the Sports and Social club. It should be located within the green buffer to the west of the site, although the arrangement of the facility should be such that the clubhouse and associated development are positioned adjacent to the residential settlement to the east and integrated into the development. It is calculated that the new club house will be built within 340 metres of the existing location and will be served by a new road. Additionally this facility should be well connected to the pedestrian and cycling network.

Chris Black still objected to the proposal, saying it was being imposed on the club and he would only support a move if it was by agreement. Even in September the council was still staying that the sports pitches should be allocated as open space.

However the Conservatives forced this through.

What about the Land North of London Road proposals?

Well, they went through. Chris Black got an amendment to look at the feasibility of having a through route between London Road and Rawreth Lane but stressed that traffic problems were a big concern in general, that extra development could bring London Road to gridlock and Rawreth Lane not far behind. He pointed out that with the proposals for the Rawreth Industrial Estate, Land North of London Road, eoN and a proposed new employment site near Swallows Nursery, there should be a Traffic Impact Assessment before going any further. This was important  not only for Rayleigh residents, but for people living elsewhere in the district who also used these roads.

The proposals for Land North of London Road went through by 5 votes to 1. Chris Black voted against , mainly because of the traffic issue and the Sports and Social Club.

What about Hullbridge?

The proposals went through by 5 votes to 1 here as well. Chris Black voted against because of concerns about Watery Lane. The documents said that road improvements would be made, but despite all the thousands of pages of paperwork, there seemed to be no information on exactly what was needed to make the road suitable for all the extra traffic!  So there was no guarantee that the necessary work would be done.

And the rest of the sites?

They each went through after a bit of discussion. This included the proposed Traveller site near the Fairglen Interchange. There was an amendment agreed to make this a council-owned site.

 And What Happens Now?

The whole document goes to an extraordinary meeting of the the Full Council for rubber-stamping. Then there’s a consultation period , and then  all the responses  go to a government inspector.

UPDATE, NOVEMBER 5TH -Just to make it clear, bearing in mind some of the comments below , we are advised by the council that there is no agreement or arrangements between the District Council and any developers or landowners regarding the Hockley Area Action Plan. 

November 3rd, 2012 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Green Belt | Comments (29)

Last week we showed the following figures for proposed housing in the Green Belt:

However the document going to councillors at the moment says these are only minimum figures, the council may allow more houysing if required to meet our five year supply. So if houses don’t get built in one location they may get built in another!
Here’s how the new ‘maximum’ figures look:

- North of London Road :maximum of 1019 compared with the policy figure of   550

- West Rochford: maximum of 748  compared with the policy figure of 600
– South Hawkwell: maximum of 252 compared with the policy figure of 175
– East Ashingdon: maximum of 144  compared with the policy figure of 100
– South West Hullbridge: maximum of 614 compared with the policy figure of of 500
– South East Ashingdon :maximum of617 compared with the policy figure of of 500
– West Great Wakering :maximum of 341 compared with the policy figure of 250

That’s an especially alarming situation for Rawreth….. and for anyone who uses London Road or Rawreth Lane…

The overall housing figures for Hockley have already been dropped by 50. The council says “Community involvement has suggested that large-scale residential development of this site would not be appropriate, consequently fewer dwellings are envisaged.” That’s nice for Hockley..

October 28th, 2012 | Category: District Core Strategy, Future Housing, Green Belt | Comments (4)