WHO WE ARE

  CONTACT US

RDC News

Exactly four months ago we interviewed Jill on her new role as a portfolio holder. Less than a week ago she stood up in the Development Committee meeting of the Council, that had been called to consider the Outline Planning Application for the ‘Hall Road Development’, and led the proposal to refuse the application. She made a very forceful plea for the application to be turned down (see our Report) only for her proposal to be turned down and the application passed by the meeting. We wanted to know how she felt about this experience.


RL: Is it stressful to do what you did?
Jill: Normally no, for I’ve done that sort of thing many a time in the past, but I found that particular one quite stressful because for me, and I know for the residents in Hall Road and the other nearby roads, it was such an important thing. It was a thing that none of them wanted and I understood why they didn’t want it. As I did say at the beginning of my speaking, I did sign up to the Core Strategy, because I don’t think we have an option, we can’t have people building here, there and everywhere. So yes, I did find it stressful. There were a lot of people in the Chamber and I knew that I would probably never win over all my colleagues but I hoped to win over a significant number and I believe I did win over a good number but not sufficient to reject the application.

RL: You knew you were on a losing wicket from the word go then?
Jill: Yes I think so. I really hoped we weren’t but you have to be realistic. All I could do was try and go all out for it.

RL: The fact was that part of that was that you were trying to argue against the Core Strategy; is something like that set in stone?
Jill: No, the thing about the Core Strategy is how you apply it. The first application that came up was turned down. We agreed the Core Strategy and got it signed off by the Secretary of State in December and the very first application that came up was the Christmas Tree Farm, and we threw it out because we have rules and regulations as a Council which are made for very good reasons. We want homes where kids have at least a small garden and there can be a washing line. You also have to have minimum size roads and areas where people can park etc. and that scheme didn’t. So no, it’s not completely set in stone. It’s a difficult one because we knew that Hall Road was one of the chosen areas three years ago, but it’s not until you get the detail that we got a week before the Planning Meeting that you can see it and think, no, this is not going to work. Up until that point, you’re thinking, well, I’m going to have to talk against this and you’re checking all the rules and regulations, trying to find good reasons to argue against it. However,  when that 100 page paper came out, as far as I was concerned, that gave me all the answers.  As I said in the Meeting, how is that developer going to do anything about that railway bridge? There is nothing he can do there. The developer is committed to £10M on S.106 agreements but I don’t think anything can be done with the bridge. It annoys me, as I said at the meeting, that Essex County are using it as an excuse to get all the things done they want done and they won’t have to pay for it.

RL: So now?
Jill: Now it goes to the Secretary of State and he agrees it, or not. The chances are that he will OK it. Again it’s not set in stone but because this government are pushing for everybody to build like mad, to build our way out of recession, they are hardly likely to turn down a site of six hundred houses. It could happen but I can’t see it happening if I am being realistic. From there on in, the developer starts laying out the site on detailed plans and Keith and I have said there is no way you are doing that site until we are happy with it, and they have agreed. We don’t want just any old thing shoved on there. I’ve said to everybody, the next best thing I can do is make it the best development possible.   

RL: You’ve been involved with this for some time.
Jill: Oh yes, and the people from WRAG had us in a couple of years ago and they were quite aggressive towards us because we couldn’t tell them anything, and I think they got the impression that we weren’t with them. We were but couldn’t say that because the minute we did that would mean we would not have been able to speak at the meeting. But we have been involved all the way along with Bellway and it was us that got the school moved from the middle of that site with all the confusion of cars there would have been. We also got the roundabout put in.  

RL: Quite a bit was made of it being a defensible Green Belt site. What is to stop it just extending on out?
Jill: Because it is not in the Core Strategy.

RL: But the next Core Strategy could change that?
Jill: But it’s not for fifteen years but who knows what sort of things will be happening then?  

RL: Well, you seem to have been championing the refusal of this development, while still being able to be a voice into it if it goes ahead.
Jill: Well I understand people’s feelings, I really do, I understand how people get frustrated. I had quite a lot of e-mails on Thursday morning saying thank you for what you did, but I had one very, very rude e-mail that said, “After the foregone conclusion last night we knew it was all decided beforehand...” – it wasn’t – “... I just want to know now just what you are going to do to stop this, because you’d better do something!” I understand people’s frustrations, I really do, but I think people have got to learn to be realistic and unfortunately it is a difficult world out there. I’m sure if I lived in one of those roads, I’d be joining WRAG.

RL: Did you feel seriously disappointed when it was voted down?
Jill: Oh yes. I did expect to lose but I hoped that other colleagues would have voted with me. Realistically, if they agree with me and we turned it down, where will those six hundred houses go? Into someone else’s part of the District, equally problematic. I try to be very non-judgmental and I try to think what would be good for the whole District, but I’ve got to say – and anybody that says differently is lying – that  when push comes to shove, I’m going to look after Rochford first. You will look after your area because they are the people who elected you and that is realistic. We really did try and maybe it will make the developer sit up and think when it comes to quality. We will do all in our power to make sure it is the best quality development in the District. As far as the roads are concerned it seems that Essex County, who are responsible for them, are not prepared to do anything with them.

RL: Is the realism of this that at this point in time they are suffering cut-backs and are as short of money as everyone else is?
Jill: They probably are now, but they haven’t always. All the way round they’ve spend money but not in Rochford. We have to fight for every little thing we do get and what we do get is very little.

RL: So our best advice to the WRAG is, if you can’t change the decision, go and picket County.
Jill: Yes, absolutely. Speak to your local County Councillors, Tracey Chapman and Roy Pearson, and Tracey Chapman is in charge of highways.  I have said to everyone,  that is the best I can offer. I have done what I can do and I can’t do any more, except work for the quality of the new development.

RL: Well, Jill, thank you very much. I’m sure we could go on talking about this for hours on end, but we seem to have covered again the main issues, Thank you for your time, and thank you for all that you are doing for the community  - and will be doing in these months and years to come.