Plans for 178 homes on green belt in Benfleet

Echo: Plans for 178 homes on green belt in Benfleet Plans for 178 homes on green belt in Benfleet

A DEVELOPER has submitted plans to create a new housing estate on green belt in Benfleet.

Redrow Homes has put forward an application to build 178 homes on land between Felstead Road, Catherine Road, Downer Road, Rhoda Road and Bowers Road.

The 21-acre site includes the home of former MP Bob Spink – a once fierce campaigner about building on green belt land – who is one of ten homeowners who want green belt protection removed from their homes to allow the development to go ahead.

Mr Spink refused to comment.

The development, dubbed King John’s Wood, would also include a village green, a “pocket park”, three small public open spaces, a wildlife pond and the reopening of a private woodland to the public.

If approved, two equestrian businesses with stables, a builders yard, as well as several homes would be demolished to make way for the new estate.

Scores of residents have already issued objections to the proposals.

Jean Gibson, of Highcliff Road, Benfleet said: “Benfleet is already over-developed. The area chosen provides a welcome lung from the heavy traffic of the A13.

“The site will cause severe traffic problems as it’s unsuitable, being close to two schools and also a very dangerous access point via Bread and Cheese Hill.

“My daughter narrowly escaped a head-on collision while attempting to turn right from the A13 at that juncture.

“It’s also rich in wildlife and woodland full of history which would be destroyed by any largescale development.”

More than 600 people have also signed up to the Facebook page of the Friends of Bowers Road Green Belt campaign group.

The site has been earmarked for development as part of Castle Point’s five-year housing strategy.

In a report submitted as part of the application on behalf of Redrow Homes, it said: “King John’s Wood offers an exceptional, imaginative new community, built on largely previously developed green belt land that has been found to serve no green belt function which the council identified for early development to meet its five-year housing supply shortfall.

“It will help to save the borough’s most important, open, undeveloped green belt that would otherwise be lost.

“It will ease local housing problems, help local and national economic recovery, help to save our more valuable undeveloped green belt and deliver superb recreational assets for people of all ages, but particularly for our children.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:16am Tue 3 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

'The development, dubbed King John’s Wood, would also include a village green, a “pocket park”, three small public open spaces, a wildlife pond and the reopening of a private woodland to the public.'

If this goes ahead going to be plenty of dog mess to step in when you want to go for a walk. bit like Gunners Park in Shoebury
'The development, dubbed King John’s Wood, would also include a village green, a “pocket park”, three small public open spaces, a wildlife pond and the reopening of a private woodland to the public.' If this goes ahead going to be plenty of dog mess to step in when you want to go for a walk. bit like Gunners Park in Shoebury Keptquiettillnow

9:29am Tue 3 Dec 13

Howard Cháse says...

NO!

No development on Green Belt!
NO! No development on Green Belt! Howard Cháse

11:56am Tue 3 Dec 13

Eric the Red says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
NO!

No development on Green Belt!
Future generations will look back on ours with disgust at the way we treat our countryside.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: NO! No development on Green Belt![/p][/quote]Future generations will look back on ours with disgust at the way we treat our countryside. Eric the Red

12:31pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Ian P says...

I hope they check the permited residential property density before they start building. Some properties in Thundersley have covenants on the freehold land limiting the number of properties per acre.
I hope they check the permited residential property density before they start building. Some properties in Thundersley have covenants on the freehold land limiting the number of properties per acre. Ian P

1:15pm Tue 3 Dec 13

whataday says...

There should be no building on green belt land at all Green belt was created for a reason
There should be no building on green belt land at all Green belt was created for a reason whataday

2:14pm Tue 3 Dec 13

iknowbetter says...

Just a quick question. Is this land actually officially listed as greenbelt? I cant find it, if it is.
It's like alot of the so called greenbelt we have in the borough, a large proportion of it isnt actually registered as greenbelt land.
Just a quick question. Is this land actually officially listed as greenbelt? I cant find it, if it is. It's like alot of the so called greenbelt we have in the borough, a large proportion of it isnt actually registered as greenbelt land. iknowbetter

7:43pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Eric the Red wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
NO!

No development on Green Belt!
Future generations will look back on ours with disgust at the way we treat our countryside.
"Future generations will look back" with disgust on how we treat fellow human beings in the same country!
[quote][p][bold]Eric the Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: NO! No development on Green Belt![/p][/quote]Future generations will look back on ours with disgust at the way we treat our countryside.[/p][/quote]"Future generations will look back" with disgust on how we treat fellow human beings in the same country! Lastlaugh,,.

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