"Shoddy" homes bid is kicked out

10:18am Wednesday 31st October 2012 in News

A CHARITY’S “shoddy” application to build 35 new homes on green belt in North Stifford has been refused.

The Four Acre Trust came in for criticism at the latest meeting of Thurrock Council’s planning committee, after it emerged little had been done engage with residents in the village, who are furious about the plans, or ward councillors.

The committee heard more than 40 people have signed petitions against the two applications at the former Ardale site, in Harrington Crescent, one for ten homes and another for 25.

Speaking on behalf of residents was Dennis Brockhurst, chairman of the North Stifford Village Community Group, who said the village’s infrastructure can’t support that amount of new homes and it was disappointing no community facilities were included.

He added: “We are ready to negotiate with the applicant, but what we don’t want to see is the site developed purely for saleable gains – there has to be something for the benefit of the community.”

Conservative ward councillor Simon Wooton also spoke against the application, and was concerned about school places in neighbouring Chafford Hundred.

He said: “A further 35 homes will have an impact on community infrastructure, school places in particular, which are already in critically short supply.”

Miss Newman, a volunteer from the trust, which supports charities working with young people, argued the case for applications, saying the new homes would replace derelict buildings and add to the council’s housing targets.

She also claimed the trust had sent out letters to residents and was willing to engage with them, but this was angrily disputed by residents.

Planning officers were not convinced there were any special circumstances to allow building on the green belt.

Cllr Shane Hebb urged the applicants to go back to the drawing board, saying: “This application comes across as opportunistic at best, shoddy at worst.”

Comments(13)

Voodoo says...
10:48am Wed 31 Oct 12

And yet its perfectly fine for almost every available plot of land in Ockendon to have flats thrown up on it almost overnight, with no thought to community facilities, school places, or infrastructure.

Fair play to the residents of North Stifford - if you've got clout with the council (and we all know you have), by all means use it. I'd just prefer the council to admit there is favouritism instead of spouting lame excuses about 40 signature petitions and "concern about school places".

How's that 650 home redevelopment on the old Ford site coming along? I'm sure all those families will find places at Benyon and Bonnygate, no worries.

Report this post »

Bernard 87 says...
11:36am Wed 31 Oct 12

Voodoo you're missing the point. The old Ford site in Ockendon is not a part of the green belt and so it is better suited for houses and flats. It is also not far from the train station, Belhus Woods and shops etc so at least there are some local amenities for the new residents. I do not think that site should be overly developed and it would be nice to see some less boring housing there but we both know the Ockendon site will be developed to the max as is the norm for Thurrock.

On the other hand, North Stifford is a village and cannot cope with more houses. It is hardly set in rolling countryside as it is which means that the council have an obligation to protect the thin wedges of countryside that keep the area a village. There are no need for more houses on the Ardale site, there is no school in the village for children to go to and only one shop. Cllr Wooton is right that this development would cause havoc on schools in Chafford as well.

It's got nothing to do with favourtism and more to do with common sense.

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
2:06pm Wed 31 Oct 12

North Stifford is ring fenced and won't be touched, while the surrounding areas of Ockendon, Aveley, West Thurrock and Grays have continuously been plagued with houses and flats, mostly which are foreigners.

I'd love to see the North Stifford cricket green be sold off to private developers - then the people living there will have a taste of what we've had to put up with.

The people of North Stifford make me sick.

Report this post »

WTF100 says...
2:31pm Wed 31 Oct 12

So "North Stifford is a village and should be protected" Didn't Ockendon, Purfleet and even Grays all once used to be villages??? I agree some residents seem to have more clout with the council than others and there seems to be more council time and effort spent focussing on what may be regarded as the more 'well to do areas' while other ares get overdeveloped. Having said that, I still believe green belt should remain as green belt.

Report this post »

Bernard 87 says...
3:13pm Wed 31 Oct 12

North Stifford is hardly ring fenced. The A13 was cut through the south of the village which has now been taken over by housing on Chafford, not to mention the amount of houses which were allowed to be built on the Ardale site was too large a number for a village anywhere. The council have to protect our greenbelt otherwise we will end up a concrete mess with all our towns linking together.

Aveley's greenbelt should also be protected but thats another story...

"I'd love to see the North Stifford cricket green be sold off to private developers - then the people living there will have a taste of what we've had to put up with"

Considering most people from North Stifford would have moved from those places they know full well that developers have taken a likening to our borough for their crappy plans which is why they are making such an effort to fight and good on them I say.

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
3:17pm Wed 31 Oct 12

North Stifford is ring fenced because the area has virtually been immune to mass house building and the influx of foreigners.

The A13 was built decades ago and is irrelevant.

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
3:20pm Wed 31 Oct 12

Earlier this year the Gazette published an article about advertising boards upsetting the people of North Stifford despite the boards being present some eight years!

This just about sums up the people of North Stifford.

Report this post »

Voodoo says...
11:18pm Wed 31 Oct 12

With respect, Bernard, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I fully support North Stifford trying to retain its green belt and remaining a quiet village instead of becoming a sprawling mess like Ockendon or Grays, through years of inept town planning.

What I was trying to say is TBC don't care about infrastructure when it comes to building vast new housing developments in existing areas - take the new flats on the already horrendously busy London Road in Grays. Yet lack of infrastructure is mentioned as a reason for the refusal of this plan for North Stifford.

All I'm asking for is the council either apply the same strict rules for the entire borough, or admit there is favouritism for, shall we say, "certain areas".

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
7:47am Thu 1 Nov 12

There is favouritism in certain parts of Thurrock, notably where the posh flock live.

North Stifford, Orsett, Bulphan...

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
7:53am Thu 1 Nov 12

WTF100 wrote:
So "North Stifford is a village and should be protected" Didn't Ockendon, Purfleet and even Grays all once used to be villages??? I agree some residents seem to have more clout with the council than others and there seems to be more council time and effort spent focussing on what may be regarded as the more 'well to do areas' while other ares get overdeveloped. Having said that, I still believe green belt should remain as green belt.
Aveley Village is more like Aveley Town!

Report this post »

Bernard 87 says...
8:49am Thu 1 Nov 12

Completely agree Voodoo. The downside to Grays, Ockendon and West Thurrock is that because they are already built up all sorts of horrible developments have been allowed to be built. The new developments along London Road do little to detract from the mess of the main road itself.

Aveley is a village and should stay a village. If only someone would let the council know

Report this post »

Ed Woods says...
1:25pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I do believe this lovely Conservative led Government is about to increase the number of houses to be built in Thurrock by another 20% above the 18500 homes already to be built in the borough.

These new houses will have to be built on the greenbelt on what is classed as 'urban fringes'.

Over the past few years numerous 'green belt' pockets in Thurrock have been released for housing, sometimes after the developer has appealed to the Secretary of State Eric Pickles.

I can see the developer either appealing, and looking at the precedents already set in Thurrock, being given approval or submitting revised plans that meet all of Thurrocks planning rules.

As for preferetial treatment always being given to North Stifford - I wonder if anyone knows if any former senior or current senior council officers happen to live there?

Report this post »

Ed Woods says...
1:26pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I do believe this lovely Conservative led Government is about to increase the number of houses to be built in Thurrock by another 20% above the 18500 homes already to be built in the borough.

These new houses will have to be built on the greenbelt on what is classed as 'urban fringes'.

Over the past few years numerous 'green belt' pockets in Thurrock have been released for housing, sometimes after the developer has appealed to the Secretary of State Eric Pickles.

I can see the developer either appealing, and looking at the precedents already set in Thurrock, being given approval or submitting revised plans that meet all of Thurrocks planning rules.

As for preferential treatment always being given to North Stifford - I wonder if anyone knows if any former senior or current senior council officers happen to live there?

Report this post »

click2find

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