PEOPLE power helped win the day after proposals to develop an old school site in Westcliff were thrown out - for now.

Builders had hoped to get permission to develop 26 homes on the former Crowstone Preparatory School, in Crowstone Road.

More than 46 letters, and a petition of objection signed by 50 people, were received by the council. And councillors backed locals’ concerns about the loss of a playing field and overdevelopment of the site.

Conservative councillor Stephen Habermel, for Chalkwell ward, told the latest planning meeting: “The current application represents over development.

“I hope the committee will give people’s concerns the weight they deserve.”

Other councillors raised a variety of issues with the development, including the risk of flooding - and poor parking in the area.

Conservative councillor Nigel Folkard, also for Chalkwell Ward, explained that a site visit that morning had demonstrated Crosby Road was already congested with cars.

“Our mini bus had great problems getting into that road,” he said. “That’s a parking stressed road.”

The planning application for four one-bedroom and 16 two-bedroom flats and six four bedroom houses, with gardens included the land at 6 Crosby Road.

A report by officers said there is ‘no objection’ to the principle of housing on the site, but that the existing plan was flawed because of poor design and too many homes crammed in.

Neighbours had appealed to Southend Council not to support the housing scheme. Although most back houses on the site, they believe the current application is an overdevelopment.

They had also appealed for the playing field to be retained. 

Brian Manning, whose house backs onto the site, said: “That’s one of the best views in Westcliff. I do not want that field to go.”

The school was demolished after closing in July 2016.

Regarding the playing field, the report described the application as unacceptable as the developer had not indicated the field will be replaced elsewhere in the borough.

The report reads: “The applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate that the open space is surplus to requirements or that it will be replaced, and the development does not provide an alternative sport or recreation facility.

“In conclusion, the principle of the development is considered unacceptable as the application results in the loss of protected green space.”