AFTER years of planning, a controversial block of town centre have finally been given the green light.

The development in a former industrial unit in Eastwood Road, Rayleigh, was approved by Rochford District Council, bringing 41 two bedroom flats into the town centre.

Rayleigh Town Councillor James Newport was disappointed in the decision, which he believes will be to the detriment of the town centre.

He said: "The main issue here as that out of those 41 units the council have deviated from its 35 per cent affordable housing policy, and only three units will be affordable."

The three affordable units came as part of an agreement between the developer and the council ahead of its approval.

There will also be a car park built for the development, comprising of 42 parking spaces and one visitors space.

Mr Newport continued: "By the council's allocation, there should be around 13 affordable housing units.

"The council has again deviated from its policy on parking and allowed only one space for a two bed property."

The planning officers report from Rochford District Council, said: "As the proposal is for 41 flats this would require 82 spaces to serve the dwelling, together with a further 11 visitor parking spaces.

"The proposal would provide 42 vehicle parking spaces with one space per dwelling and one visitor space across the development.

"The one to one ratio has been considered appropriate for the site within the previous application and at the pre-application stage.

"Whilst the proposed parking would be less than half of the requirement the parking standards document advises that a lower provision of parking spaces may be appropriate in urban areas where there is good access to alternative forms of transport."

The development is set directly beside the town centre, near to bus stops in the high street and an around ten minute walk from Rayleigh train station.

Residents surrounding the development have also shown opposition to the three floor plan which they David Hill said will overlook homes in Finchfield.

He said: "This is the fourth proposed planning application and there has been no obvious consideration by the planner, and no consultation or dialogue with the occupants with regards to screening of the proposed site for privacy."