Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

From Councillor John Mason, Ward Member for Hawkwell West as at 28 April 2010 on behalf of Rochford District Residents

The majority of residents who live in Hawkwell West Ward (the miss conceived description of this area in the LDF is South Hawkwell which is misleading) have already responded in significant numbers in all previous consultations that any site in South Hawkwell are unsustainable in terms of PPS3 and PPS12.

The Council has mostly not understood (or it has ignored for political reasons) this very sound analysis in spatial planning terms and that is to be regretted. It seems that the Council is unable to make changes unless another area "volunteers" to take the allocation. That is the Council's job. The Council also has some sort of quaint notion of dropping houses into most areas of the district without a recognisable strategy. This approach might make it easier to pilot a political solution through the administration's political party but it is not a spatial planning strategy.

THe Council clearly made a mistake in putting forward Hockley and Hawkwell as one settlement based on function because Hawkwell does not have a Town Centre functionality and Hockley clearly does. Hawkwell does not have a Town Centre nexus with Hockley. Hockley's Town Centre Plan is based on Hockley as its immediate surrounding and formative local area and not Hawkwell. With no attempt made by either the Council or Hockley to consult with Hawkwell this proves the point rather well. If no input is sought or offered then there is no nexus.

The Council made another mistake in putting forward South Hawkwell for a quantum of 330 without having considered PPS12. Once it had made a Sustainability Appraisal it decided that only 175 in was sustainable in South Hawkwell. But that was also a mistake because an objective review of sustainability by myself under PPS12 and put forward to the Council in the LDF showed that even this quantum was not convincingly sustainable especially for the purpose of sustainable development with affordable housing.

This matter will also be pursued by residents with the Inspector in the Public Examination who has indicated that she will consider whether there are any alternative and more sustainable Locations to those put forward in the Core Strategy Submission.

On that basis the unpalatable, but necessary responsibility, to suggest another better Location will no doubt be taken on from the Council by residents at the request of the Planning Inspector.

In this consultation on the Allocation of Sites residents are still overwhelmingly of the view that none of the sites,SH1,SH2,SH3,SH4 suggested are supported. I agree. Interestingly sites that have not been put forward nearby have been rejected for reasons that equally apply to the sites put forward and this provides no sense of confidence in the Council's presentation of options.

Indeed it raises in the minds of residents why there is one central site in each of the options put forward in Hawkwell? There is no real variation offered from simply, Rectory Road cloned times four!! This is not offering a real choice of options. It is a sham.

If the Council cannot leave Hawkwell West out of the Council's LDF proposals, regardless of public opinion, residents would like very real new efforts being made by the Council to re-consider all brown field sites including the Magee's site in Windsor Gardens. Whilst this site has issues residents consider that there are civil engineering solutions which could be deployed so that a brown field rather than a green field site is used in Hawkwell. If this is not possible then the Council should put forward a series of smaller sites which could be developed by local builders in seperate styles and locations.

If the Council insists that there are no other sites in Hawkwell apart from those put forward in this consultation,SH1,SH2,SH3,SH4 then residents have no choice but to put forward other sites outside of Hawkwell for consideration of being allocated the quantum of 175.

I have consulted with residents. They understand that I will put this alternative forward as a District Council Member for Hawkwell West before the outcome of the local elections are known. Residents recognise that there will be people and organisations that will brand this consultation response as NIMBYISM. It is not because having abrogated its responsibilities to respond appropriately to sound planning reasoning the Council has given residents no choice but to risk communities getting into direct conflict which each other on emotive issues which Members of the Council should have dealt with by mature and informed discussion.

Please note that residents wish the Council to put forward real alternatives in Hawkwell but if it cannot or will not then instead this radical alternative is presented as a responsible option because the Location of South Hawkwell is simply less sustainable than other alternatives.

Many residents of Hawkwell West have the informed view that both policies PPS3 and PPS12 require focus on less car journeys rather than more coming from new developments and that the availability of public transport hubs within a few minutes walk of new developments, especially with 35% affordable homes, is required.

So that defines where and how the best choice in spatial planning terms should be made by the Council.

Residents consider that such developments should be, rather than in South Hawkwell for example, closer to or even in existing town or larger village centres.
The proposal for 150 such dwellings in Hockley Town Centre makes sense. South Hawkwell does not by comparison on spatial planning attributes.

So where is the next best Location in terms of PPS3 and PPS12?

The present consultation on the Allocation of Sites DPD offers two sites, WR1 and WR2, in West Rochford, close to Rochford Town Centre, both of which can take 600 dwellings each. Indeed a major housing developer has submitted a planning application for 600 homes in this Location for WR1.

Moving the 175 allocation from South Hawkwell to West Rochford can easily be accomodated on two sites with a combined capacity for 1200 dwellings and still not over develop the area.

Indeed placing the Affordable element of 775 dwellings, calculated at 271 dwellings, would obviously be best placed near the Rochford Town Centre on site WR1. Paragraph 2 on Page 15 of the Consultation document sets out the Council's own reasons why this Location is so suitable for development. These reasons provide the impetus to continue to revitalise prosperity of the town of Rochford which has diminished so much over the last 40 years without strategic intervention.

In addition I would also point out some attributes that the Council has missed completely in its consultation presentation. The infrastructure already includes extensive cycle paths which extend into the Borough of Southend. Rochford is already a bus interchange for two routes to Southend and Rayleigh and is expected to have additional bus services to the new industrial area of the expanded Airport and the Airport itself. The B1013 link to the A127 will route traffic directly to this arterial route and take traffic away from the congested B1013 to Rayleigh via Hockley.

There is every reason to choose WR1 and additionally add a small part of WR2 to provide a Location for 775 houses instead of using the unsustainable Location of South Hawkwell. With a major developer having submitted a planning application for a quantum of 600 it is considered that 775 would be equally attractive, sustainable because it is a marginal increase and deliverable.