DEVELOPERS of a new homes estate in South Ockendon ended up with something of a bloodied nose when they tried to squeeze more profit out a new planning application put before councillors tonight.

St Modwen Homes wanted to make significant changes to a previous planning permission the latest phase of their Bennett's Fields development of the site of the former Fords factory on Arisdale Avenue.

At this evening's (Thursday, 7 January) meeting the company sought permission for the erection of 92 units, comprising 86 one and two bed apartments, two three bed dwellings and four two bed dwellings along with associated infrastructure, works and landscaping.

Changes to the original plan would result in six houses instead of four within the central part of the development and a change from 31 houses to 86 apartments in the form of three blocks of apartments in the central and eastern side.

And in a viability study St Modwen said they would only be able to make six per cent of the new homes 'affordable'.

At the start of discussions the council's major applications manager, Chris Purvis, described a story published by Thurrock Nub News last week as 'inaccurate' However, in his address to councillors he confirmed most of the facts stated in our report – a fact picked up by several councillors as they picked apart many of the arguments put forward by St Modwen.

The company was criticised for its greed by several councillors who were minded to throw the application out but in the end agreed to defer the matter and give St Modwen the chance to change its application.

Much of the considered criticism came from non-voting member Steve Taylor, who said: "They buy the land and if they did due diligence know the cost and should have done all the preliminaries. What happens is they go to the viability study and put in an assumption they have to make 20 to 30 per cent profit as a developer.

"And if that isn't the case, the first thing that gets slashed is affordable housing.

"We were told this site has low land value so I am assuming they have not paid that much for it. The building costs are fixed so the only thing that goes up is the number of houses they are building.

"The one number that never seems to change is the profit.

"I think it's a strange equation, the person who sold the land does not lose out, the builder doesn't lose out, the only person who loses out is the council.

"This only ever seems to go in one direction and it's not the right one. It's a nonsense we always seem to be at the wrong end of the process and the affordable housing gets squeezed. I struggle to see that this is working as it should do."

Cllr Gerard Rice was angry that the developers were seeking to squeeze every drop of profit out of the project and said: "We should throw this back at them. I read through this and tried to find the positive but I cannot. They are taking away houses. Families with children need homes to live not be put in flats."

That was an argument picked up on by Cllr Angela Lawrence who said: "They are taking away things rather than giving things. Can't we just say enough is enough and walk away. We need to make a stand at some point."

Cllr Gary Byrne confronted Mr Purvis on his summary and presentation, criticising the developers' greed and saying: "I think there was a lot more accuracy in that story than you say, so I also think we should walk away. How many businesses make 20p in the pound. That is not a little bit of money, it's quite a handsome profit.

And Cllr David Potter was of the same mind, saying: "These developers put profit at the top of the list and affordability at the bottom." He also commented on the regular, sustained mess that the builders left local roads. And asked why conditions were not enforced to keep the roads in a better condition.

Cllr Lawrence returned to the subject of the semi-detached homes removed from the original plan, saying: "I do not find it acceptable. They are changing their mind and changing things as they go along. Enough is enough. I think families would rather wait until someone else comes along and develops this land.

Cllr Sue Shinnock also backed rejecting the application, saying: "I think we should make a stand on affordable housing. If we don't make a stand we will never prove anything.

For St Modwen, its agent Owen Williams told the meeting: "There is stronger market demand for apartments. We want a seamless extension of this site and we have a positive relationship with the planning and urban design officer. The proposed housing mix reflects the borough's housing needs."

He failed to sway anyone completely around, though Cllr Rice changed his stance and said: "I think this should be deferred so officers can go back and negotiate an increase on the six per cent which is scandalous and that we ask them for more homes rather than flats. I think we have got to be a little bit more strict with developers.

"We really need homes that are houses rather than flats. I think our officers need to go back and jack that figure up. If they are achieving a 20 per profit they can afford to give a bit more."

Cllr Mike Fletcher said: "I note the agent talks about increasing demand yet squares with reducing viability. That does not square in my head at all. I would vote to reject this and put it back in their court that they put something back into the community rather than their directors."

Cllr Byrne interjected with: "If we want builders, we want family friendly builders. This should be thrown out."

Assistant planning director Leigh Nicholson warned councillors against rejecting it based on the viability proposals. "To refuse it could make it very difficult for the authority to defend that decision," he said.

But committee chair Cllr Tom Kelly was minded to press ahead and said: "No one is in favour of it, it just doesn't seem like we are getting much."

Mr Taylor added to his previous comments by saying: "The agent says there is a greater demand for flats. He was alluding to the proximity to the train station. But the pandemic is changing people's thinking about community and where and how they work. You are going to get less and less people commuting so that is a reason for them to reconsider what they put on the site and the so-called viability. This is perhaps an opportunity to consider that the future might look like."

Cllr Colin Churchman added: "You are cramming so much onto these spaces. They ought to go back, the original plan was so much better. To cram 92 flats in is not the way to go," to which Cllr Potter responded: "Deferral might be a hint that they should change their approach. Prompting Cllr Rice to say: "If they don't we can always kick the opportunity into touch."

Cllr Fletcher summed up by adding: "They need to understand if they don't come up with sensible changes, we will reject it. They are out of touch with what the local community needs which is a good reason to reject it" and Cllr Lawrence added: "The easy solution is give us our 31 houses back and take a bit less profit."

Six councillors voted to defer and three for an outright direction and then officers were given instruction as to how tough they needed to be in making it clear to developers that change must be forthcoming.