Critics argue district homes plan lacks necessary infrastructure

Braintree and Witham Times: Hatfield Peverel residents oppose further development in the village Hatfield Peverel residents oppose further development in the village

Plans to find sites for nearly 3,500 homes across Braintree district in the next decade have been dismissed as inadequate by critics.

Braintree Council has identified locations for future housing developments as part of its Local Development Framework (LDF).

To meet Government building targets, 3,443 homes should be provided by the year 2026.

But angry residents believe the council has not made plans to improve roads, transport options and facilities accordingly.

George Boyd-Ratcliff, of Maldon Road, Hatfield Peverel, accused the council of planning to build houses without the necessary infrastructure.

Council leader Graham Butland said the development of Great Notley over the past 20 years was an example of infrastructure arriving gradually.

He said: “You will not get schools built until the houses are there because there is no demand until we have houses built, so there will be a time lag inevitably with some of the infrastructure.

“But you won’t get these significant improvements unless we get some fairly significant developments.

“The odd house here or there isn’t going to bring forward enough resources to make a significant difference.

“Infrastructure comes, but it comes at a price and that is more housing.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:52am Wed 23 Apr 14

Jack222 says...

I agree with the council. More houses are needed - infrastructure comes when the housing starts to appear. I mean, the roads issue will be sorted out once the building starts as then there is a real time line. At the moment it's around 2026; detailed infrastructure does not take that long to plan!!

It's just NIMBY land...
I agree with the council. More houses are needed - infrastructure comes when the housing starts to appear. I mean, the roads issue will be sorted out once the building starts as then there is a real time line. At the moment it's around 2026; detailed infrastructure does not take that long to plan!! It's just NIMBY land... Jack222
  • Score: 3

12:14pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Bhudeeka says...

We do not want or need more houses!!!!!!
We do not want or need more houses!!!!!! Bhudeeka
  • Score: -7

3:43pm Wed 23 Apr 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

Bhudeeka, stop this nonsense of beginning your irritating diatribe with the word 'we'. The correct word you should be using is 'I'.

You are not a spokesperson for any rational person or group - just your befuddled half-baked self sadly.
Bhudeeka, stop this nonsense of beginning your irritating diatribe with the word 'we'. The correct word you should be using is 'I'. You are not a spokesperson for any rational person or group - just your befuddled half-baked self sadly. OMPITA [Intl]
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

keith_l says...

Bhudeeka wrote:
We do not want or need more houses!!!!!!
Try telling that to a family with a single parent mother, four children aged between 15 and 25 and the two eldest each have a child, all living in the same house.
[quote][p][bold]Bhudeeka[/bold] wrote: We do not want or need more houses!!!!!![/p][/quote]Try telling that to a family with a single parent mother, four children aged between 15 and 25 and the two eldest each have a child, all living in the same house. keith_l
  • Score: 2

8:29am Thu 8 May 14

John M I says...

Missing the point seems to be the name of the game here! let me help you.
1. Yes, "housing" is the principal topic but it has some associated issues eg Where will new houses be built? How many? What types? How did the LDF committee consider local opinions? and so on.
2. Re the last point viz the LDF committee, did any of you attend their meetings to see how they operate? I did. More than once. And I can tell you that the so-called "public consultation" is a sham, merely a device to make it look as though residents opinions form part of the decision-making process. In fact, our views have simply been swept aside so that our councillors can do exactly as they wish, regardless of what objections we may have. Know this; if we let them get away with this there will be more and more ignoring of our views. There's a saying from someone very clever:- "The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men". Strong, I know, but the point is clear.
3. Re the house that seems to have lots of people in it. Why should MY lifestyle be adversely affected so that someone else's can be improved? Human Rights? What about my human right that, having worked for a lifetime to afford a property bordering countryside, this is now going to be covered in new houses to accommodate people like those mentioned, who seem to have bred offspring without having the ability to put a roof over their heads! Frankly, that isn't My problem and I resent being told that I'll just have to suck it up! Budheeka, I agree with you 100%.
Missing the point seems to be the name of the game here! let me help you. 1. Yes, "housing" is the principal topic but it has some associated issues eg Where will new houses be built? How many? What types? How did the LDF committee consider local opinions? and so on. 2. Re the last point viz the LDF committee, did any of you attend their meetings to see how they operate? I did. More than once. And I can tell you that the so-called "public consultation" is a sham, merely a device to make it look as though residents opinions form part of the decision-making process. In fact, our views have simply been swept aside so that our councillors can do exactly as they wish, regardless of what objections we may have. Know this; if we let them get away with this there will be more and more ignoring of our views. There's a saying from someone very clever:- "The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men". Strong, I know, but the point is clear. 3. Re the house that seems to have lots of people in it. Why should MY lifestyle be adversely affected so that someone else's can be improved? Human Rights? What about my human right that, having worked for a lifetime to afford a property bordering countryside, this is now going to be covered in new houses to accommodate people like those mentioned, who seem to have bred offspring without having the ability to put a roof over their heads! Frankly, that isn't My problem and I resent being told that I'll just have to suck it up! Budheeka, I agree with you 100%. John M I
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree