RESIDENTS of Chafford Hundred are uniting in opposition to a scheme for tower blocks in their area that will house 344 new homes.

Last month Thurrock Nub News reported on the application from developers Criterion Capital to build on a derelict site at the back of Bannatyne's Gym on Howard Road.

The company proposing the scheme are hoping to win support from Thurrock Council for their plan, which includes an offer for affordable homes to rent for key workers.

However, nearby residents are already lobbying against the development, saying it is out of scale and context with the area and also presents challenges to established planning practice in the borough.

In a statement the residents group says: "This will put unreasonable strain on the local facilities and infrastructure of the area. We ask that the council seeks to improve the living standards of its residents and not just accept that an unsuitable development like this is better than nothing.

"That is not what we should be striving for. Further, the proposal is not compliant with many of the approved planning policies in Thurrock's Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development. Summing those policies up, they decree that 'in established residential areas proposals for housing development will not be permitted where they would cause unacceptable damage to the local character and environmental quality or residential amenity of these areas'."

Residents say a previous planning application for 200 homes on the site, which included infrastructure benefits including a doctor's surgery would be a far more acceptable scheme. The development did get approval from the council but the developers behind it never progressed the scheme and Criterion Capital indicate this is because the site on those numbers was not financially valuable.

Opponents of the new plan have drafted a long and detailed submission against it, which will be sent to the council and the size of the apartment blocks is questioned. The statement says: "A tower block is not the solution."

The residents have also called on planning and development expertise to back their argument. They say there is no opposition in principle to developing the site, but it has to be the right development.

They say: "The majority of residents aren't against providing housing to support the housing crisis, the underlying concern is with the effects of a potential overdevelopment.

"There were no malicious comments against those who are vulnerable or less fortunate and in fact a scheme which allows for partial affordable housing is invited and supported providing it is line with the local character and environmental quality and the residential amenity of Chafford Hundred."

There has been a significant analysis of the past and present developments in terms of viability and the argument currently being put forward by Criterion is mocked.

The opposition statement goes on to say: "The land in question has historic planning applications for circa 140 and circa 200 residential units, the current proposal is for 344 units – 245% / 170% increase in scale.

"The main justification for this was that the previous planning wasn't financially viable.

"To claim that a large development company cannot efficiently turn a profit across a scheme of 200 units on such a small site with a gross development value in the region of £60 million is ludicrous. (GDV is the measurement developers use to estimate the profit they can make from a project).

"A basic desktop appraisal shows their profit margins to be abnormal, near on 100 per cent, well above the government guidelines for returns of 15 to 20 per cent profit margin for developers.

"One underlying issue may have been that the developer overpaid for the site. Viability issues does not give precedent for an overdevelopment.

"It is not fair that the residents of Chafford Hundred are forced tolerate the brunt of issues which arise from an overdevelopment at the expense of a developer who overpaid for a site. If they are not prepared to develop the land with the historic planning for up to circa 200 units, they ought to sell the site on and cut their losses.

"The developer claims the site will provide homes for key workers, and that this would be limited to young adults and excluding families. This is not a tier of affordable housing; it simply allows for discrimination against those who are not key workers.

"Further, their argument lacks viability as the scheme allows for just 0.5 parking spaces per unit – the majority of key workers rely on cars as a mode of transport and key workers are unable to work from home."

The application is currently being examined by Thurrock council and has already attracted almost 150 comments from the public about the scheme.

You can read all about the development and add to those comments if you wish, via this link