A HUGELY controversial planning application to build seven 'age-restricted' bungalows off a busy Stanford-le-Hope road was thrown out only on the casting vote of Thurrock Council's planning committee chairman.

Cllr Tom Kelly saw off a bid to overturn another officer recommendation to refuse new homes, led by passionate advocate of new builds Cllr Gerard Rice, by using his casting vote after two councillors abstained – leaving the decision for new homes off Wharf Road finely balanced.

Ward councillors Shane Hebb and Terry Piccolo had thrown their weight firmly against the proposal, but it nearly sneaked through after a detailed discussion during which there were some intense exchanges between councillors.

The chairman's casting vote reflected his support for refusing the scheme, backed by councillors Gary Byrne and Mike Fletcher, and overturned the bid to grant approval backed by Cllr Rice and Cllrs Sue Shinnock and David Potter. Cllrs Sue Sammons and Angela Lawrence abstained.

Councillors were briefed on the scheme for the development to the rear of the existing bungalow at 63 Wharf Road – which would be demolished.

Planning officer Nadia Houghton described the new development as a "particularly contrived form of development" which bore no relation to surrounding properties.

Concerns over the amount of traffic already on Wharf Road, including HGVs which are already a contentious matter, and access issues to Wharf Road were also expressed by the officer.

Access to and from the site was seen as a potential hazard and the proposals were considered harmful to highway and pedestrian safety.

Ms Houghton concluded that building on the site would be "harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of existing neighbours and the future occupiers of the dwellings."

It was suggested that amenities would be lost by the development, an issue that provoked a question from Cllr Fletcher, who said: "I am struggling to see what amenities the local area would be losing. It is overgrown and clearly not used."

Ms Houghton told him the loss of the gardens to the existing property was considered the loss of an amenity and there would be little amenity value in the new homes, which satisfied Cllr Fletcher who said when looking at the layout of the proposed home 'you think of battery hens.'

Cllr Rice took issue with a number of the officer arguments, particularly vehicle access.

He said that by knocking down the existing bungalow, enough space would be created for two vehicles to go in and out to the new development.

And he suggested that cars from existing properties on Wharf Road had to reverse into it to get out, which was more dangerous that what was being proposed. He said: "I can't see an awful lot wrong with this."

He was then somewhat embarrassed by basing part of his argument on the fact the site was close to a Post Office - which has been closed for several months!

In somewhat typical style, he shrugged off the fault in his argument. And he was somewhat slapped down by committee chair Tom Kelly for trying to make unfair comparison with other applications in the borough - including one from Tory councillor Sue Little which was being earmarked for officer approval.

"You raised some good and valid points but it is not comparable," said Cllr Kelly and there were further caustic comments about Cllr Rice's support from local independent Cllr Byrne.

Resident Keith Major spoke wrote to the meeting on behalf of local residents, saying: "For those of us who have homes who back onto this our principal concern is the loss of amenity. We believe not only will our privacy be compromised by the development, the proposed dwellings will not be afforded the privacy required.

"We also believe that the proposed dwellings do not have the adequate space for a garden. It isn't possible to know, due to the lack of details in the plan, but we suspect that the rear walls of the dwellings will be too close to out properties. He added that residents were concerned that the loss of trees on the site, which the developer said were not there, would affect the dampening effect of noise from the nearby Manorway.

And he disputed the developers' claims that there were no protected animal species on the site, saying that residents regularly saw bats, badgers and hedgehogs.

He concluded: "This is a speculative application which should be rejected." Cllr Piccolo wrote to the committee saying that he and fellow ward Cllr Hebb were against the development, citing HGV movements on Wharf Road as a major problem.

He said that access to the development was not wide enough to let two cars to pass - a point that was actually refuted by council officers at the meeting. However, his more telling points were the impact of the development on the lives of existing residents and he called on planning councillors to reject it.

Agent for the applicants, Gary Coxshall, told the meeting the new development would not have a negative impact on the street scene, the access road was enough to ensure cars could access safely and that the site would have a minimal impact on neighbouring properties because the new dwellings were small.

He refuted residents' allegations that there were species of animals on the site such as bats.

And he said that conditions that could be imposed would deal with any issues of lack of privacy and said that access to and from the site was 'safer' than that of existing dwellings on Wharf Road.

Cllr Byrne said that the consistency of objections from ward councillors regarding traffic, including HGVs, on Wharf Road that had been expressed in previous planning decisions related to Wharf Road, proved that the development should be rejected. In the end opinions were clearly split in the council chamber and it fell to Cllr Kelly to deliver the verdict.