Hundreds attend meeting organised by campaigners opposed to 1,375 homes for Maldon

The packed hall at the action group meeting

The packed hall at the action group meeting

First published in News

Nearly 200 people attended an action group’s first public meeting against plans for 1,375 homes in Maldon.

About 100 residents had to be turned away from Sunday’s gathering at the West Maldon Community Centre because there was not enough room and others stood outside to listen through the windows.

It was organised by Save Maldon Action Group and district councillors Brenda and Bryan Harker, Andy Cain and Alan Cheshire were among those who answered questions about Maldon District Council’s plans for the south Maldon ‘garden suburb’ off Limebrook Way.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:41pm Thu 15 May 14

Jack222 says...

But of course those of us who are more than happy with the proposal didn't go because self evidently this meeting was solely about rejecting the idea. So, dont think these few hundred people represent all of Maldon - the vast majority of Maldon' s people either don't care one way or another or are positively for the plan.

I think the development is an excellent idea...
But of course those of us who are more than happy with the proposal didn't go because self evidently this meeting was solely about rejecting the idea. So, dont think these few hundred people represent all of Maldon - the vast majority of Maldon' s people either don't care one way or another or are positively for the plan. I think the development is an excellent idea... Jack222
  • Score: -11

9:17pm Thu 15 May 14

Jack222 says...

Alternative title for the article - 'thousands don't attend meeting called by NIMBYs'.
Alternative title for the article - 'thousands don't attend meeting called by NIMBYs'. Jack222
  • Score: -9

11:00pm Thu 15 May 14

kathvale says...

Jack, you seem to be the only person commenting on this article. I would just like to explain that SMAG are definitely NOT against housing and we are not against some of that housing being in Maldon and Heybridge. But have you read the evidence base on the MDC website that shows the impact of the volume of development here? And the thought about the fact that there are 4 railway stations in the South of the district where they don't seem to be planning to build hardly any of the houses. We just want what is best for the district as a whole and we actually think we need MORE houses than are in this plan which is why we think building near the railway stations would be more sustainable. But if you think that putting the majority of houses in one of the only towns in the District without a railway station is the best idea then we will have to agree to disagree.
Jack, you seem to be the only person commenting on this article. I would just like to explain that SMAG are definitely NOT against housing and we are not against some of that housing being in Maldon and Heybridge. But have you read the evidence base on the MDC website that shows the impact of the volume of development here? And the thought about the fact that there are 4 railway stations in the South of the district where they don't seem to be planning to build hardly any of the houses. We just want what is best for the district as a whole and we actually think we need MORE houses than are in this plan which is why we think building near the railway stations would be more sustainable. But if you think that putting the majority of houses in one of the only towns in the District without a railway station is the best idea then we will have to agree to disagree. kathvale
  • Score: 6

8:11am Fri 16 May 14

An alternative view says...

Great that the SMAG could use that community centre.... Built as part of what was billed at the time as the "RAPE OF MALDON" wasn't it?
Great that the SMAG could use that community centre.... Built as part of what was billed at the time as the "RAPE OF MALDON" wasn't it? An alternative view
  • Score: 1

8:55am Fri 16 May 14

Regbluebottle says...

kathvale wrote:
Jack, you seem to be the only person commenting on this article. I would just like to explain that SMAG are definitely NOT against housing and we are not against some of that housing being in Maldon and Heybridge. But have you read the evidence base on the MDC website that shows the impact of the volume of development here? And the thought about the fact that there are 4 railway stations in the South of the district where they don't seem to be planning to build hardly any of the houses. We just want what is best for the district as a whole and we actually think we need MORE houses than are in this plan which is why we think building near the railway stations would be more sustainable. But if you think that putting the majority of houses in one of the only towns in the District without a railway station is the best idea then we will have to agree to disagree.
You seem to be under the impression that people *want* to live near a railway station. I appreciate that some commute by train to work, so why can't they use Witham, Hatfield Peveral or even Chelmsford instead?

Until the rail links south of the district are vastly improved your argument falls flat.

And AAV makes a good point, I recall bitter campaign against development south of the Dorset/Viking Road estate.
[quote][p][bold]kathvale[/bold] wrote: Jack, you seem to be the only person commenting on this article. I would just like to explain that SMAG are definitely NOT against housing and we are not against some of that housing being in Maldon and Heybridge. But have you read the evidence base on the MDC website that shows the impact of the volume of development here? And the thought about the fact that there are 4 railway stations in the South of the district where they don't seem to be planning to build hardly any of the houses. We just want what is best for the district as a whole and we actually think we need MORE houses than are in this plan which is why we think building near the railway stations would be more sustainable. But if you think that putting the majority of houses in one of the only towns in the District without a railway station is the best idea then we will have to agree to disagree.[/p][/quote]You seem to be under the impression that people *want* to live near a railway station. I appreciate that some commute by train to work, so why can't they use Witham, Hatfield Peveral or even Chelmsford instead? Until the rail links south of the district are vastly improved your argument falls flat. And AAV makes a good point, I recall bitter campaign against development south of the Dorset/Viking Road estate. Regbluebottle
  • Score: -1

1:16pm Fri 16 May 14

Dengie D says...

Well done to everyone protecting us from this corrupt joke of a 'plan'
Well done to everyone protecting us from this corrupt joke of a 'plan' Dengie D
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Sat 17 May 14

jerry303 says...

The shortsighted planning for the Heybridge homes does not adequately address the flooding concerns. As a local resident, it is not if we get flooding again but when and how severe
The shortsighted planning for the Heybridge homes does not adequately address the flooding concerns. As a local resident, it is not if we get flooding again but when and how severe jerry303
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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