150 houses will be built on Thundersley wildlife site (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
150 houses will be built on Thundersley wildlife site
4:00pm Friday 3rd August 2012 in Castle Point
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 150 houses on a wildlife haven have been approved.
Castle Point councillors were forced to pass the controversial plans after two votes, because there were no planning grounds on which it could be refused.
Developer David Wilson Homes will build the homes, on land between Kiln Road and Wensley Road, known as the Thundersley Plotlands Wildlife area.
This is home to reptiles, including slow worms and newts.
Campaigners packed the council chamber, in Kiln Road, Thundersley, with the majority having to watch via video link in the council atrium.
Steve Rogers, chief planning officer for the council, repeatedly warned the committee proper planning grounds had to be found if they wanted to refuse the plans, or they could face an appeal and potentially have to pay out the resulting court costs.
Barry Brazier, who has lived in nearby Warren Chase, Thunderlsey, for 40 years, spoke on behalf of the campaigners at the meeting. He claimed extra traffic, sewerage and the lack of overflow systems were all reasons for the homes to be refused.
He said: “We are disappointed with the outcome. I have been fighting this for 30 years. The chairman steam-rollered the decision and the councillors didn’t fight for the residents. “It was a bad day for democracy. There is not much we can do now, but we need to ensure the destruction of our greenland goes no further. “We fought this two years ago and won, but the officers wanted this one to be approved.”
The planning committee looked set to try and refuse the plans after Dave Blackwell, chairman of the Canvey Independent Party, put forward a motion for refusal.
However, nobody on the committee supported the motion, leading the committee chairman Bill Dick to order members to vote again. The plans were eventually passed by six votes to five.
As part of the agreement, the developer will have to spend £35,000 to improve road infrastructure, £150,000 to improve the Victoria House roundabout and contribute £101,000 to local healthcare and provide 53 affordable homes in the development.
Comments(19)
APR
says...
5:08pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Affordable to whom, bank executives ?
The Cater Wood Creeper
says...
5:13pm Fri 3 Aug 12
APR wrote:that's the new sort of reptile that'll be living on that piece of land....
As well as 53 affordable homes. Affordable to whom, bank executives ?
whataday
says...
5:40pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Deadjim
says...
6:28pm Fri 3 Aug 12
If they had said a grant of planning consent would be conditional on the developer agreeing to a small proportion of the land being allocated to traveller pitches,David Wilson Homes would have run a mile.
John T Pharro
says...
6:41pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Explanation please from ALL POLITICAL PARTY'S?
girlie71
says...
7:04pm Fri 3 Aug 12
SpaffSpiff84
says...
8:06pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Brunning999
says...
8:51pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Just take a walk along Wensley Road there is nothing beautiful about the road in fact it is full of unkept plots of land all overgrown or strewn with rubbish surrounded by wire fences making the area inaccessible to anyone other than the plot owners who rarely do anything for the area.
I fear the biggest threat to this area and land is the affordable housing tenants that will bring more problems socially and financially to the area than any wildlife currently there.
The building of nice properties will improve the area and the home owners hopefully will add to the much needed taxpayers contributing and not taking from the dwindling public funds.
Keptquiettillnow
says...
9:03pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Any idea what £35000 will improve?
Sad day.
Keptquiettillnow
says...
9:05pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Brunning999
says...
8:43am Sat 4 Aug 12
Keptquiettillnow wrote:Is that an assumption that the people do not want to build houses?
Just proves that no political party represent the people, just themselves.
Or is that a belief that Councillors are corrupt?
Either view is naive.
bdps66
says...
10:05am Sat 4 Aug 12
Throwing insults at "the anti-everything brigade" and referring to anyone who doesn't agree with your minority view as "naive", is hardly a valid argument for land destruction.
I knew nothing of the development, but I was at the planning approval meeting on Tuesday and was appalled at the behaviour of the Chairman, Bill Dick, who obviously did not like the disaproval vote, so he continually "badgered" the councillors until he received the approval vote that he was clearly delighted with. I'm afraid that is not democracy. No members of the public there were allowed to influence the Councillors in any way, but apparently that did not apply to Dick!
Whatever you do, don't wear green clothing or they'll come along and build a property on you.
mr_happy
says...
10:53am Sat 4 Aug 12
saarfender
says...
12:52pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Brunning999 wrote:You've only got to look at the satellite images freely available on the internet to see that the Wensley Road area is an island of green amongst the built up area. Now we've lost this area and the developers have a toe in the door, there's not going to be much of that island left and I foresee houses completely filling the ground between Hart Road and the A13 within 20 years :(
Typical responses from Anti everything brigade.
Just take a walk along Wensley Road there is nothing beautiful about the road in fact it is full of unkept plots of land all overgrown or strewn with rubbish surrounded by wire fences making the area inaccessible to anyone other than the plot owners who rarely do anything for the area.
I fear the biggest threat to this area and land is the affordable housing tenants that will bring more problems socially and financially to the area than any wildlife currently there.
The building of nice properties will improve the area and the home owners hopefully will add to the much needed taxpayers contributing and not taking from the dwindling public funds.
So what if the majority of plots are inaccessible - the wildlife ignores the fences and as you walk that area you have the undeveloped spaces around you. It's a great place not only for wildlife but also to walk and chill out after a hard day at work. Now it's lost, the impact won't just be the 150 homes (and traffic congestion with overflowing sewers etc), but a large loss to the community and the ambiance of the area.
Green belt is supposed to keep developed areas separate. To give us space to relax. Losing this plot is a heavy erosion of this - do we really want to turn Thundersley into a concrete jungle with wall to wall housing and nowhere quiet or natural?
upset
says...
4:43pm Sat 4 Aug 12
John T Pharro wrote:Without a bonified reason if councillors reject planning application the government inspector will allow the building project and charge you tax payers for the councillors ignoring Steve Rogers advise (he is not a councillor he is non elected so dont blame the council for saving you money.
Now we all know. Although every political party is opposed to building on green belt when it comes to voting in accordance with what they said they would do the reality is the opposite.
Explanation please from ALL POLITICAL PARTY'S?
Remember Jack Kings 3 story house opposite the sea front car park, the councillors went against Mr Rogers advise and it cost council/tax payers £30000.00.
So be careful for what you wish for.
Brunning999
says...
5:45pm Sat 4 Aug 12
That's a joke.
asbo uncut
says...
12:00am Sun 5 Aug 12
John T Pharro
says...
11:25pm Sun 5 Aug 12
upset wrote:What I wish for is Councillors to stand up and vote how they said they would when elected and a democracy that reflects the majority view of the electorate.
John T Pharro wrote:Without a bonified reason if councillors reject planning application the government inspector will allow the building project and charge you tax payers for the councillors ignoring Steve Rogers advise (he is not a councillor he is non elected so dont blame the council for saving you money.
Now we all know. Although every political party is opposed to building on green belt when it comes to voting in accordance with what they said they would do the reality is the opposite.
Explanation please from ALL POLITICAL PARTY'S?
Remember Jack Kings 3 story house opposite the sea front car park, the councillors went against Mr Rogers advise and it cost council/tax payers £30000.00.
So be careful for what you wish for.
Our much vaunted democracy, much like our elected Councillors and unelected Officers too often fall way short of this and this is a prime example.
APR says...
5:05pm Fri 3 Aug 12
£35,000 for improving road infrastructure ?, that won't even pay the consultancy fees.