Residents to have say on plans for 150 homes on green belt (From Echo)

i dont live near this site but would be devastated if i did and this beautiful green belt was lost..this is woodland ffs....it seems outrageous to me that councillors, ex ones or not, just want to line their pockets at the expense of this country's green belt. Usual story of greed greed and more greed of developers and councillors...all i read about is story after story about green belt and countryside being gobbled up under the guise of 'we need more houses' but do we really? who is going to be able to afford these houses anyway. these low life will steal away all this region's green belt and before we know it we will be concreted over...sad ...very sad to see green belt go

Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

no more building on Green Belt Land

Nice to see the residents of Benfleet getting consulted... On Canvey they're just ignoring the residents and approving building regardless!

Disgusting. Shows Spink up for the unethical hypocrite he really is too.

make a nice Traveller site that. Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place.

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

If you look at a map you can see the logic in offering this land for early development. It doesn't really fulfill a greenbelt function and was most likely originally given the designation simply as a block to future building (much to the cost of other sites across the borough). I'd like to see a plan come forward to develop the whole area between Felstead and Thundersley Park Roads. That would leave a much more defendable greenbelt boundary or future generations.

Could I ask Bob Spink et al to think back to why they chose to buy properties in this area in the first place.

I'm sure they are thankful their predecessors were more appreciative of their green belt surroundings otherwise they themselves would not have enjoyed their years there

It's a shame they are blinded by their potential wealth rather than our fine countryside. Bob's 'Save our Greenbelt' campaign is obviously a long and distant memory.

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

You cannot grasp it can you? I support Spink, our MP, the CIIP, Any Councillorof whatever party if I think are right and be equally opposed if I think they are wrong.
Not like yourself who cannot bring him/her self to admit the CIIP could possible be right about anything or the Tories wrong.
Now try answering a simple question. As our MP has made it clear in writing that the Council what sort of properties are required and therefore would not speak out against the overdevelopment and too many flats at Canvey Supply. The exact overdevelopment of similar properties must be built here.
The a council clearly state what they require to be built and that to is clear from her letter so if anything else other than that is passed do you not agree it is one rule for Canvey and another for Benfleet?
Yes or No.
Now try answering that simple question.

This area is the only green spece without crossing main roads between the high road, the the A13 and Kents Hill Road until you reach Thundersley Glen. It has remnants of an Ancient Woodland, it intertwined with bridleways and is a haven for birds and wildlife. This is just an excuse for around five local landowners (Spinks included) to cash in and make big bucks. Anyone interested in helping to campaign against developing this area, please join our facebook group http://www.facebook.
com/groups/129476140
532865/?notif_t=grou
p_r2j

all donations ot the 'sell off this green belt land for development fund' to be forwarded for the attention of Messrs Gree De B'Stard and Far Quin Liars

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

You cannot grasp it can you? I support Spink, our MP, the CIIP, Any Councillorof whatever party if I think are right and be equally opposed if I think they are wrong.
Not like yourself who cannot bring him/her self to admit the CIIP could possible be right about anything or the Tories wrong.
Now try answering a simple question. As our MP has made it clear in writing that the Council what sort of properties are required and therefore would not speak out against the overdevelopment and too many flats at Canvey Supply. The exact overdevelopment of similar properties must be built here.
The a council clearly state what they require to be built and that to is clear from her letter so if anything else other than that is passed do you not agree it is one rule for Canvey and another for Benfleet?
Yes or No.
Now try answering that simple question.

Yes, but you must feel just a bit let down by SPINKIE alias Mr Bandwagon, who has now been proved beyond any doubt to be a two faced I'll say anything to stay as an MP sh1t.
Just as well some people saw through him unlike you and voted him out.
Here's a YES NO question for you did you vote for Spinkie?

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

You cannot grasp it can you? I support Spink, our MP, the CIIP, Any Councillorof whatever party if I think are right and be equally opposed if I think they are wrong.
Not like yourself who cannot bring him/her self to admit the CIIP could possible be right about anything or the Tories wrong.
Now try answering a simple question. As our MP has made it clear in writing that the Council what sort of properties are required and therefore would not speak out against the overdevelopment and too many flats at Canvey Supply. The exact overdevelopment of similar properties must be built here.
The a council clearly state what they require to be built and that to is clear from her letter so if anything else other than that is passed do you not agree it is one rule for Canvey and another for Benfleet?
Yes or No.
Now try answering that simple question.

You see you are exposed for what you are. Respond to my first post in minutes, but nearly an hour and half later cannot answer a simple question.
Why?

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

You cannot grasp it can you? I support Spink, our MP, the CIIP, Any Councillorof whatever party if I think are right and be equally opposed if I think they are wrong.
Not like yourself who cannot bring him/her self to admit the CIIP could possible be right about anything or the Tories wrong.
Now try answering a simple question. As our MP has made it clear in writing that the Council what sort of properties are required and therefore would not speak out against the overdevelopment and too many flats at Canvey Supply. The exact overdevelopment of similar properties must be built here.
The a council clearly state what they require to be built and that to is clear from her letter so if anything else other than that is passed do you not agree it is one rule for Canvey and another for Benfleet?
Yes or No.
Now try answering that simple question.

Yes, but you must feel just a bit let down by SPINKIE alias Mr Bandwagon, who has now been proved beyond any doubt to be a two faced I'll say anything to stay as an MP sh1t.
Just as well some people saw through him unlike you and voted him out.
Here's a YES NO question for you did you vote for Spinkie?

Yes, but now answer my question you haven't.

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
Poor Dr Spink. You stood out against development at the last election on green belt. It maybe identified in the Borough Plan, but if green belt it is green belt so shouldn't be built on.
However, I assume that the development will be entirely overdeveloped, flats and not in keeping with other houses in the area.
That after all is what was passed at Canvey Supply's land at Point Road Canvey.
Our MP says that is what the Council says is needed, offered no support to us residents opposed to the development so must take a similar stance on this one.
Anything else built there will be seen as one rule for Benfleet another for Canvey.

It was only a couple of days ago John that you were extolling the virtues of SPINKIE and defending him against my Mr Litigation comments.
But there you go a moan is a moan irrespective of who it's about.
Keep up the good work John.

You cannot grasp it can you? I support Spink, our MP, the CIIP, Any Councillorof whatever party if I think are right and be equally opposed if I think they are wrong.
Not like yourself who cannot bring him/her self to admit the CIIP could possible be right about anything or the Tories wrong.
Now try answering a simple question. As our MP has made it clear in writing that the Council what sort of properties are required and therefore would not speak out against the overdevelopment and too many flats at Canvey Supply. The exact overdevelopment of similar properties must be built here.
The a council clearly state what they require to be built and that to is clear from her letter so if anything else other than that is passed do you not agree it is one rule for Canvey and another for Benfleet?
Yes or No.
Now try answering that simple question.

Yes, but you must feel just a bit let down by SPINKIE alias Mr Bandwagon, who has now been proved beyond any doubt to be a two faced I'll say anything to stay as an MP sh1t.
Just as well some people saw through him unlike you and voted him out.
Here's a YES NO question for you did you vote for Spinkie?

Yes, but now answer my question you haven't.

Well on re reading you did say yes.
Now let down by Dr Spink on this yes clear.
Not half as much as let down by our MP on Canvey Supply development.
Now don't you agree the Benfleet proposed development should reflect the same as Canvey Supply. Mostly flats in line with Castle Point Councils requirements and ignoring all the residents objections, just like they did for us, especially as they actually admit it is overdeveloped.
Do you not also agree they should reject any proposed development not doing this because it is not in line with what the Borough requires?

Prior to doctor Spink building his home there was a house pulled down on that plot because of a planning dispute, fact.

It seems some are more concerned with where they are built rather than are they needed to be built.There is no justification for the level of developement on the Island or the mainland
I hope those that supported Dr Spink in his last campaign now continue to stand up for not developing land owned by him.

A good example why having a political party select a candidate to control Policing is emmmmmmmm!

Do you trust a Politician to say what Police do???????????

Reminds you of Germany PRE war.

marshman wrote:
If you look at a map you can see the logic in offering this land for early development. It doesn't really fulfill a greenbelt function and was most likely originally given the designation simply as a block to future building (much to the cost of other sites across the borough). I'd like to see a plan come forward to develop the whole area between Felstead and Thundersley Park Roads. That would leave a much more defendable greenbelt boundary or future generations.

Well that's me and the neighbours compulsory purchased then. lol As a resident slap bang in the middle of this proposed development, what most of you don't seem to grasp is that this proposal is only looking to actually build in the gardens of the existing properties. They claim they want to 'give' the public open woodland and bridleways - the very woodland and bridleways we already have! Its just a way of them greedily overturning Green Belt restrictions to develop their own land to make a fast buck. One neighbour rubbed his hands together when he claimed he was due to profit £3million and allegedly, Spinks and a couple of the others are creaming off a % of Redrow's profit as well. Don't know how true that is as rumours do tend to fly about.

benfleet101 wrote:

marshman wrote:
If you look at a map you can see the logic in offering this land for early development. It doesn't really fulfill a greenbelt function and was most likely originally given the designation simply as a block to future building (much to the cost of other sites across the borough). I'd like to see a plan come forward to develop the whole area between Felstead and Thundersley Park Roads. That would leave a much more defendable greenbelt boundary or future generations.

Well that's me and the neighbours compulsory purchased then. lol As a resident slap bang in the middle of this proposed development, what most of you don't seem to grasp is that this proposal is only looking to actually build in the gardens of the existing properties. They claim they want to 'give' the public open woodland and bridleways - the very woodland and bridleways we already have! Its just a way of them greedily overturning Green Belt restrictions to develop their own land to make a fast buck. One neighbour rubbed his hands together when he claimed he was due to profit £3million and allegedly, Spinks and a couple of the others are creaming off a % of Redrow's profit as well. Don't know how true that is as rumours do tend to fly about.

Perhaps this would help both of you.
What about compulsary purchasing two large houses up Benfleet High Road on the left hand side just passed the water tower. If you google map it you will see they have huge gardens. If you build the flats and houses at the density of Canvey Supply just passed almost all the Borough's housing would be met and would ensure what must be totally under occupied houses being demolished, something this government favours.

Brunning999 wrote:
Prior to doctor Spink building his home there was a house pulled down on that plot because of a planning dispute, fact.

Please get your facts straight, or at least substantiate them. Spinks didn't build the house, in fact I believe he might even have rented it from the previous owner before buying it. As his neighbour for almost 20 years, I don't remember him ever pulling a house down or building one! What was the supposed planning dispute about?

benfleet101 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
Prior to doctor Spink building his home there was a house pulled down on that plot because of a planning dispute, fact.

Please get your facts straight, or at least substantiate them. Spinks didn't build the house, in fact I believe he might even have rented it from the previous owner before buying it. As his neighbour for almost 20 years, I don't remember him ever pulling a house down or building one! What was the supposed planning dispute about?

A building was pulled down by a demolition order, built on green belt with no planning permission.
How times change, however I am not against building sensible housing which are needed locally.

Brunning999 wrote:

benfleet101 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
Prior to doctor Spink building his home there was a house pulled down on that plot because of a planning dispute, fact.

Please get your facts straight, or at least substantiate them. Spinks didn't build the house, in fact I believe he might even have rented it from the previous owner before buying it. As his neighbour for almost 20 years, I don't remember him ever pulling a house down or building one! What was the supposed planning dispute about?

A building was pulled down by a demolition order, built on green belt with no planning permission.
How times change, however I am not against building sensible housing which are needed locally.

When was this 'building' supposedly pulled down, and what was the demolition order for?

It certainly was not in the time Bob Spinks lived there. He is, at the moment, my LEAST favourite person, so I have no reason to defend him, but you cannot go round stating things as fact that are just not true! lol

As a resident slap bang in the middle of this Green Belt deveopment area, and a neigbour of Spinks, I am aware of how planning law has affected us is the previous years. We have always been allowed to replace existing dwellings on a 'one to one' basis.

Eric Whim wrote:
make a nice Traveller site that. Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place.

Yawn...same old rhetoric from the forun divvy...why aren't you on the anti-gay thread slagging off other people for being different from you ( thank god most are)

btw As you are very conscious and pedantic in regards to grammar and spelling

" Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place"

Do want to have another go at that? From a gramatical slant?

how much a gram?

Lastlaugh... wrote:

Eric Whim wrote:
make a nice Traveller site that. Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place.

Yawn...same old rhetoric from the forun divvy...why aren't you on the anti-gay thread slagging off other people for being different from you ( thank god most are)

btw As you are very conscious and pedantic in regards to grammar and spelling

" Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place"

Do want to have another go at that? From a gramatical slant?

you being gay doesn't bother me at all.

Eric Whim wrote:

Lastlaugh... wrote:

Eric Whim wrote:
make a nice Traveller site that. Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place.

Yawn...same old rhetoric from the forun divvy...why aren't you on the anti-gay thread slagging off other people for being different from you ( thank god most are)

btw As you are very conscious and pedantic in regards to grammar and spelling

" Hope there's a robust caravan defence system to keep 'em out in place"

Do want to have another go at that? From a gramatical slant?

you being gay doesn't bother me at all.

Im not gay but im sure if i was you would be bothered enough to post derogatory comments as you have on the thread dealing with a gay man.

Is there any community you dont hate?

The only way to stop building on green belt land is to destroy the system that allows Tory, Labour and Lib Dems to be successfully lobbied by the greedy, unevolved human beings that are the major Property Developers - and their brown envelope procedures. Which therefore implies the destruction of the current political system with something closer to the heart.

What should be taken into consideration is the effect that the increase in population will have on the local infrastructure.
If this proposal should pass into law the council should make the developer tell us where the children will go to school and where the population will find a doctors and a dentist that is not full they wont be able to so should be made to include new facilites on the site.
That said i am against any development in the area that adds more cars to our already congested roads .