Green belt homes plan set for refusal

Campaiginging against the development – Chas Mumford and Wendy Goodwin

Campaiginging against the development – Chas Mumford and Wendy Goodwin

First published in News by

CONTROVERSIAL plans to create a new housing estate on green belt in Benfleet could be turned down next week.

RedrowHomes submitted proposals at the end of last year to build 178 homes on land between Felstead Road, Catherine Road, Downer Road, Rhoda Road and Bowers Road.

The proposed development, called King John’s Wood, would include a village green, a small park, three other public open spaces, a wildlife pond and the reopening of private woodland to the public.

The site has been earmarked for development as part of Castle Point’s five-year housing strategy, which sets out where development is invited.

However, the development of the 21-acre site has been deemed “inappropriate” ahead of next week’s Development Control meeting and has been recommended for refusal.

The council report, created by officers, said good design and layout had been sacrificed as the plans are too focused on creating the largest number of dwellings posible on the site.

Many residents have come together to object the plans.

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

Wendy Goodwin, Tory councillor for Boyce Ward, said: “Residents are not happy about it. They feel like it’s taking away the green belt and it certainly is not a development which I support.

“It is an area I know well as a ward councillor. I have spoken to residents and they want it to remain the way it is.

“The roads around this area are unmade and residents do not want this to change Many people moved to the area because of the way it is.

“People do not want the development.”

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

Mrs Goodwin added: “I really do hope it will get refused, but we just cannot assume. The developers will also be at the meeting and will be able to talk too. ”

RedrowHomes said yesterday it would not to comment until after the development meeting, next Tuesday at 7.30pm, at the council offices in Kiln Road, Thundersley.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:04pm Wed 30 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in.....
they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in..... pembury53
  • Score: 2

4:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

telboy999 says...

'Many residents have come together to object the plans' - object against the plans I think they mean. When I were a lad you had to have a grasp of English to be a journalist. But the it is the Echo.
'Many residents have come together to object the plans' - object against the plans I think they mean. When I were a lad you had to have a grasp of English to be a journalist. But the it is the Echo. telboy999
  • Score: -3

4:15pm Wed 30 Apr 14

telboy999 says...

Further to my previous post - it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but I still enjoy it. Sad or what?
Further to my previous post - it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but I still enjoy it. Sad or what? telboy999
  • Score: -3

4:16pm Wed 30 Apr 14

billericay boy says...

First this morning in my home town, now benfleet, don't be fooled, the government have now realised that the proposals to mash up our towns came in a bit to early, as the up and coming elections will show who's boss. For once we are in charge.
First this morning in my home town, now benfleet, don't be fooled, the government have now realised that the proposals to mash up our towns came in a bit to early, as the up and coming elections will show who's boss. For once we are in charge. billericay boy
  • Score: 10

4:31pm Wed 30 Apr 14

sesibollox says...

Gives a solid and stronger recommendation for the Jotman build, to go ahead, they will have to be built somewhere...
Gives a solid and stronger recommendation for the Jotman build, to go ahead, they will have to be built somewhere... sesibollox
  • Score: 2

6:41pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Eric the Red says...

sesibollox wrote:
Gives a solid and stronger recommendation for the Jotman build, to go ahead, they will have to be built somewhere...
Why? Because the Government says so? Get your heads out of the sand and start using them! South Essex is FULL! We need less people, not more houses.
[quote][p][bold]sesibollox[/bold] wrote: Gives a solid and stronger recommendation for the Jotman build, to go ahead, they will have to be built somewhere...[/p][/quote]Why? Because the Government says so? Get your heads out of the sand and start using them! South Essex is FULL! We need less people, not more houses. Eric the Red
  • Score: 9

6:43pm Wed 30 Apr 14

upset says...

Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.
Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen. upset
  • Score: 6

6:45pm Wed 30 Apr 14

marshman says...

Sounds to me like residents are being given false hope. The land has been set aside for housing development but this isn't the right plan. If refused I'm sure something will be worked out after the local elections.

It also sounds as though Councillor Goodwin has predetermined the planning application and I trust she will declare this fact at the meeting.
Sounds to me like residents are being given false hope. The land has been set aside for housing development but this isn't the right plan. If refused I'm sure something will be worked out after the local elections. It also sounds as though Councillor Goodwin has predetermined the planning application and I trust she will declare this fact at the meeting. marshman
  • Score: 0

8:06am Thu 1 May 14

pembury53 says...

marshman wrote:
Sounds to me like residents are being given false hope. The land has been set aside for housing development but this isn't the right plan. If refused I'm sure something will be worked out after the local elections. It also sounds as though Councillor Goodwin has predetermined the planning application and I trust she will declare this fact at the meeting.
quite right marshman.... a stay of execution, nothing more
[quote][p][bold]marshman[/bold] wrote: Sounds to me like residents are being given false hope. The land has been set aside for housing development but this isn't the right plan. If refused I'm sure something will be worked out after the local elections. It also sounds as though Councillor Goodwin has predetermined the planning application and I trust she will declare this fact at the meeting.[/p][/quote]quite right marshman.... a stay of execution, nothing more pembury53
  • Score: 0

8:53am Thu 1 May 14

Howard Cháse says...

pembury53 wrote:
they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in.....
It'll be back on the agenda after the local elections.

This is just cynical vote buying by the incumbent Builders friends.....
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in.....[/p][/quote]It'll be back on the agenda after the local elections. This is just cynical vote buying by the incumbent Builders friends..... Howard Cháse
  • Score: 2

9:01am Thu 1 May 14

BenfleetBarrel says...

upset wrote:
Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.
Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.[/p][/quote]Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****. BenfleetBarrel
  • Score: 4

9:30am Thu 1 May 14

upset says...

BenfleetBarrel wrote:
upset wrote:
Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.
Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****.
Your are a member of the Spinky is a SH1T fan club then, not such an exclusive club though!!!
[quote][p][bold]BenfleetBarrel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.[/p][/quote]Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****.[/p][/quote]Your are a member of the Spinky is a SH1T fan club then, not such an exclusive club though!!! upset
  • Score: 2

11:21am Thu 1 May 14

pembury53 says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
pembury53 wrote: they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in.....
It'll be back on the agenda after the local elections. This is just cynical vote buying by the incumbent Builders friends.....
I agree, and will be interesting to see if billericay is back on the agenda, in similar fashion, although i suspect maybe not, given its ultra blue hue....
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: they'll be back, and back, and back, until the trucks come rumbling in.....[/p][/quote]It'll be back on the agenda after the local elections. This is just cynical vote buying by the incumbent Builders friends.....[/p][/quote]I agree, and will be interesting to see if billericay is back on the agenda, in similar fashion, although i suspect maybe not, given its ultra blue hue.... pembury53
  • Score: -1

4:14pm Thu 1 May 14

Chris Flunk says...

upset wrote:
BenfleetBarrel wrote:
upset wrote: Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.
Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****.
Your are a member of the Spinky is a SH1T fan club then, not such an exclusive club though!!!
I suspect the word that was used to describe Spink and was asterisked is much worse than sh**, at least it should be.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BenfleetBarrel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: Bob Spink wont be happy if this does not happen.[/p][/quote]Indeed. The very same Bob Spink formerly of the "Save Our Green Belt" party. Despicable ****.[/p][/quote]Your are a member of the Spinky is a SH1T fan club then, not such an exclusive club though!!![/p][/quote]I suspect the word that was used to describe Spink and was asterisked is much worse than sh**, at least it should be. Chris Flunk
  • Score: -2

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