Mrs A. Hale votes for the 500 houses

Quite a number of people have been asking how Tory Councillor Angela Hale voted with regard to the housing in Hullbridge.

When this came up at the Full Council meeting in December and a vote was taken on the Core strategy, which provides for building 500 houses on the West side of Hullbridge from 2015, a recorded vote was taken, the minutes of which can be read here (page 5 shows the vote).  At that vote it is recorded that Mrs A V Hale voted FOR the Core Strategy and therefore FOR the 500 houses planned for Hullbridge.

Both Michael and Diane Hoy voted AGAINST the Core Strategy and therefore AGAINST the 500 houses for Hullbridge.

We would just point out that no plans have gone forward or been proposed for Hullbridge yet, rumours are going around that the land is sold and the deal done and planning permission given, this is not true, no plans have been received by Rochford Council and no  building can in any place take place before 2015 so we still have time to change the Core Strategy.


3 thoughts on “Mrs A. Hale votes for the 500 houses

  1. Councillors’ Michael and Diane Hoy’s policy, i.e. voting against the RDC Core Strategy, demonstrates how little they understand planning law and how disingenuous are their statements above and in Diane Hoy’s current election address.
    Conservative Members of RDC specially requested the recorded vote on adoption of the Core Strategy precisely so as to disclose that dismal lack of understanding by both those Green Party Members or any other RDC Members opposing it.
    The lack of a Core Strategy would have left the whole of Rochford District easy prey for rogue developers to make applications for housing development on any land of THEIR CHOOSING which they owned or controlled, Green Belt or not. Then, presuming that permission were to be refused by the RDC Development Committee, on appeal the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate would be forced to grant the permission because there was no Core Strategy able to demonstrate at least a rolling 5 year supply of housing land over a 15 year period.
    There would be no theoretical limit to how many houses or developments could win approval in that way, potentially many thousands more than planned in the adopted RDC Core Strategy. Additionally, RDC could NOT then achieve any Section 106 agreements from the developers to pay for some additional infrastructure to benefit both existing and new housing communities.
    The Core Strategy vote does not relate solely to housing in Hullbridge, it is District wide in application and in the protection it now brings via the provision of sufficient new housing to meet that required of Rochford District. Other communities within the District have similarly proportionate new housing allocations where appropriately sustainable. There are very few previously developed ‘brownfield’ sites remaining within Rochford District, and very small infill sites could not generate neither the required amount of affordable housing nor S106 infrastructure payments from their developers, hence the need to zone areas of Green Belt capable of providing units of 150-500 homes.
    Less than 1% of our RDC Green Belt has been zoned but over 99% now benefits from the protection of the Core Strategy, despite Green Party Members hugely incompetent and misguided attempts to deny our residents its benefit.

  2. Apologies for the delay in posting, thought you were on automatic (trusted) but obviously not.

  3. Colin

    Your opening statement regarding myself and Diane is rather disingenuous. Surely you would not vote for a budget that was in fundamental opposition to your core beliefs and which you believed was wrong.

    In the opinion of Diane and myself the Core Strategy is wrong. Just because the Conservative Administration have produced this document through, in my opinion, a thoroughly mismanaged process it does not mean that all the councillors have to accept it and we did not. To have voted for it would indicate our agreement to it when this is far from the case.

    Both of us, 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 his original 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).

    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, 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. With regard to comments about proportionate (in balance, equilibrium, harmonious) I obviously have a different Thesaurus to you.

    As for your comments about “zoning” land it appears you are forgetting that Green Belt Land, by its very name, is “zoned” already. 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. 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” and therefore is not at risk in the way “unzoned” land would be. There may still be a risk, but it is no way comparable.

    To summarise neither Diane nor 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 to provide the District with a good Core Strategy taking in the concerns of all residents. The review offered did not guarantee that and we were not able to support the proposal resulting from such a mismanaged process.

    Thank you for your input, however I do believe you should accept that other people may well have a different opinion to you on how something can be achieved, that does not make them disingenuous. I doubt very much whether you would ever agree with me but to revert to name calling I think is inappropriate.

Comments are closed.