RESIDENTS in Aveley angered by a Thurrock Council planning committee decision to approve plans for a new primary school in the village have spoken of their disappointment with the way the decision was reached – claiming a lack of consultation and a rejection of genuine concerns from local people.

And their mood has not been helped by a 'triumphalist' message from the council's education portfolio holder.

As reported live from last week's meeting, approval has been given for the new Harrier Free School and nursery in Aveley which will be funded by the government. The new school will provide spaces for up to 420 prospective primary students and 52 nursery places.

An open date of September 2023 is currently targeted, with a reception class of 30 pupils. The admission of new pupils will then increase year-on-year until the school has filled each year group.

Opponents of the school, who included borough mayor Cllr James Halden, a former education portfolio holder, claimed the need in the west of the borough for new school places was exaggerated by the council in a bid to curry favour with the government rather than meet a genuine local need.

Cllr Halden is a member of the planning committee and produced detailed reasons why the scheme should be vetoed when he spoke at a meeting earlier this year about the school plan, when councillors were on the verge of throwing it out.

However, it was agreed to give the scheme's planners a change to amend their plans and meet local concerns about design and traffic and so the plan was brought back for consideration last week.

Cllr Halden was unable to attend as he was away for a long-arranged friend's wedding out of the country and the opposition at a new look planning committee effectively came from just one councillor, Labour's Lee Watson, with just four members in total able to discuss and vote on the matter.

Conservative councillors Tom Kelly (the committee chair), Georgette Polley (the vice-chair) and Terry Piccolo voted for the scheme which got the green light – much to the disappointment of a large number of Aveley residents who attended the meeting but were not allowed to speak – nor t was newly-elected Labour ward councillor Srikanth Panjala, who had made opposition to the school a key part of his election campaign before winning the seat in May.

After the meeting Cllr Barry Johnson, cabinet member for education, said: "It's fantastic to see that planning permission for Harrier Academy has been approved, meaning this Department for Education project can move ahead to the next stage of development.

"The new school will include a number of sustainable benefits such as reducing CO2 emissions from the building by 60% and installing low water taps and toilets throughout.

"This exciting development will allow us to continue to achieve our incredibly high rates of school admissions, as we offer new opportunities for our children to begin their educational journey here in Thurrock, and lay the foundations for their ambitious futures."

Those words cut little ice with Aveley residents who have listed their disappointment with the decision and the lack of consultation and concerns of local people.

A statement sent to Thurrock Nub news says: "We have several major concerns following the meeting:

1. There has been absolutely no community consultation regarding this from the council. Local residents were sent a pamphlet by the developers some time ago, which many responded to. This is referred to in the application. However, beyond this there has been nothing.

Questions which we may have asked if there had been a local meeting about this plan:

The developers apparently did some sort of survey of the area which ruled out any other possible location. Which locations did they look at and why were they ruled out?

The application specifically says that there are no plans in place for development of new housing in the area, so the application must be judged on current need. Looking at Thurrock Council projected figures for Aveley Primary there will be a shortfall of 30 places by 2025. How does this justify the loss of green belt for a 420 place school, rather than one new classroom?

The ecological survey found slow worms on the site which will need to be relocated. However, local residents know for sure that there is much wildlife there, including badgers, ground nesting skylarks, even muntjac deer. How were these missed?

2. Why was permission not given to myself or our new councillor Srikanth Panjala to speak at the meeting? We understand that it was because the decision was deferred. However, at the meeting in April there was no speaker in opposition - we were under the misapprehension (because of the council website) that the public could not attend, and Cllr Panjala was not in post then, both grounds for using the chair's discretion to allow speakers at the deferred meeting which he declined to do.

3. The deferment had the consequences of going into a change of committee after the local election. This meant that only five councillors, who were on the last committee, were permitted to take part in the final vote. Of these, one didn't turn up. Cllr Halden who was apparently opposed to the plans in April wasn't there last night. So the participants were down to four. Our three local ward councillors had all registered their objections to the plans. It seems highly undemocratic that just the three members of the planning committee who voted in favour of the plans are able to have such a huge impact and blight the lives of the many residents of Aveley who remain opposed to such a plan, in such a place. Had they even made a site visit? Not as far as we know!

4. Residents were not even informed of the application being heard at the April meeting. We then had barely any time to lodge objections, let alone prepare a speaker (I was on holiday in the Lake District at the time, spending my time frantically emailing and so on in the few days we had).

Whether any of the above is grounds for appealing the decision we shall see. The whole thing leaves us with the feeling that the council is acting in partnership with the developers, with whom they've had numerous meetings, and not with residents, who they are supposed to represent, and with whom they've had zero meetings.