330 reasons to object to new houses in Hawkwell

160 residents from Hockley and Hawkwell went to the Rochford District Council Meeting held at the Hawkwell Village Hall to protest against the proposal from the Council to build 330 new houses between Thorpe Road and Clements Hall Way.

Independent District Councillor John Mason for Hawkwell West spoke at the end of the Meeting at the request of a resident to explain whether he was against the proposal.

New Hawkwell Housing - How to Protest

Having seen the huge turnout at the Hawkwell Action Group’s Public Meeting many of you asked how you could object.  Rather than wait for an official public consultation you can protest now especially as it is known that the Planning Policy Committee has reviewed the sites.

Here is the draft of a letter you could send to the Council, Click here.

Housing Allocations - Who does What?

The Liberal Democrats have published an article called A “Presidential-style” Council but The Rochford Independent would like to share with all residents just how this new BASIS for Rochford District Council will directly affect one of the big decisions that are made in the next few months.  We don’t think that the public appreciates that the new cabinet members are in a very powerful position.  So how will this impact on the allocation of 3700 new houses across the District?  This is how it works…………and if you wish to get your views known before the policy is made then write to Councillor Hudson now rather than later.  We feel that although there is a public consultation period it will be so much harder to get big changes once it has been published so do it now ……..

Hawkwell says it does not want 365 houses on green belt

Residents at the Public Meeting arranged by the Hawkwell Action Group said “No !”

• click here for photos
• click here for aerial photos

Please protest about this here

This work is licenced under a
Creative Commons Licence.

‘Fair Shares for All’ Housing Allocation? - 365 is NOT a Fair Share in Hawkwell West

The story so far:

In the Summer of 2007, after the first public consultation, 32 Conservative Councillors met in private to allocate 2200 new housing units across Rochford District.  They came up with 365 for Hawkwell West and just 740 for the whole of Rayleigh.

The Liberal Democrats seem to have gratefully accepted the reduced allocation for Rayleigh and have not raised any objection yet to the allocations across the remainder of the District. Not surprising because any objection to what is going on elsewhere might lead to the Rayleigh allocation increasing !! 

But Lib Dem Councillor Chris Black, Leader of the Opposition at RDC, has written “We support a ‘fair shares for all’ policy for new housing in Rochford District.”

But how can 365 new houses in Hawkwell West be described as ‘Fair Shares for All’ ?  It is not Fair Shares At All !!

• A ‘Fair Shares for All’ policy would mean just 110 new houses in each of the 23 District Wards
• Rayleigh should have 1000 new houses not 740
• Hockley should have 330 not 36
• So why is one Ward in Hawkwell allocated 365?
• This would mean an increase in the number of houses in Hawkwell West by 25% Read more
  
  
  
  
  This work is licenced under a
  Creative Commons Licence.

Not Sustainable - 3700 Homes for Rochford District

From the Echo 19 May 2008.

PLANS for 3,000 new jobs and 3,790 new homes in the Rochford district are not sustainable without improvement to the area’s transport links, according to an RDC Councillor.”We wonder if the Government has any idea at all of the daily problems our residents face due to the severe lack of infrastructure in our area and the East of England generally.”

But Rochford District Council has come up with a spin strategy to make everyone feel happy about things.

The Hawkwell Action Group (HAG)

A group of residents in Hawkwell West have formed a organisation called the Hawkwell Action Group (HAG) which has the purpose of ensuring that all of the residents of my Ward are independently advised of proposals affecting Hawkwell West in the Local Development Framework (Planning for Housing) and that as many residents as possible respond to the public consultation.  I was invited to join the HAG Committee and I have done so.

From the Echo, 12 May 2008 - Do you believe that Hawkwell Green Belt will be saved? Or is it still at risk? 

District’s green belt aims to skirt housebuild quotas

Hawkwell Parish Council is sitting on the fence on green belt housing development

This has been published by the parish council in its Spring 2008 Newsletter. Every dwelling in the Parish will have received a copy so I will not repeat it here (there is a Hawkwell Parish Council Web Site). 

It is a very comprehensive policy on what the parish council thinks about any future housing development in Hawkwell.

But what does it mean?

The District Council says that Hawkwell will get 365 new houses.  Where? We have already been notified a four options.

Allocation of new homes in Rochford District

The Rochford Independent has seen the article by Geoff Percival in the Echo.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local/display.var.1992104.0.0.php

I would invite you to read this if you have not seen it. 

I am an independent district councillor for Hawkwell West and I have been campaigning with residents against the housing allocation for some months now. The support from Hawkwell Parish Council is welcomed.

Hullbridge 500 new homes plan sparks public anger - Echo Article

Hullbridge 500 new homes plan sparks public anger from the Echo
By Michael Casey

RESIDENTS are furious over plans for hundreds of homes in a quiet village.

About 500 new homes could be built in Hullbridge by 2021, under revisions to Rochford District Council’s new development plan.

The village was one of the areas earmarked to take an increased amount of housing when the number of new homes in Rayleigh was slashed from 1,800 to 720, following huge pressure from the town’s residents.

However, 80 residents who attended the council’s central area committee meeting were told they could not discuss the issue, as planning was not under the committee’s remit.

Next Page »