PLANS to knock down a large, empty five-bedroom disability-adapted house in Chadwell St Mary and replace it with four new council houses have been approved.

Tonight's (Thursday, 2 December) meeting of Thurrock Council's planning committee debated the long-running application to demolish the home on Loewen Road and councillors voted by a majority of five to three to support it.

The scheme had previously been put on hold by planning councillors who opposed a bid for five houses on the site and tonight were presented with an amended application.

Local ward councillor Sara Muldowney addressed the meeting and said the majority of local residents opposed the scheme and that it was wrong to replace a much-needed large family home with four smaller ones.

She said it made more sense to refurbish the property for a family who had disability requirements and pointed the committee in the direction of a family in Chadwell who could make good use of the home.

She told members: "The report glosses over the loss of a five bed house, many local residents do not understand why the money cannot be found to refurbish this property for one of the many large families in need."

She suggested the cost of refurbishment had been incorrectly inflated by the council to support its case.

She also questioned the design of the planned development, saying: "It is unacceptable. Passing this development is in no way in line with the character of the area.

"In terms of design the new layout is contrived, cramped and out of character with the surroundings.

"Fundamentally the proposed dwellings are too narrow, too tall and too cramped. I would ask the committee to reject this application."

The council's agent told the meeting the authority had addressed all the objections raised previously.

He said: "The reasons for the original rejection of this scheme have been addressed.

"The scheme is not over development of the site, the ridge height of the houses is in line with the majority of houses on the road.

"The scheme provides spacious living areas of the highest standard."

And he rejected concerns over parking problems that the development might bring, by saying it now surpassed the recommended level of parking set down by the authority.

And addressing the issue of the property being adapted for disabled living, he told the committee: "Thurrock Council says at present there is no waiting list for people waiting for adapted properties of this size."

Cllr Steve Liddiard was against the proposal and said he had visited the site and reported: "From what I saw the planned properties are out of character."

That view was supported by Cllr Sue Little, who said: "I don't think it is in keeping with the street and so I will be against this.

"It needs a radical look at how they have designed this."

However, when it later came to the vote she supported the application.

Cllr Gary Byrne said the major reason for not supporting the scheme was the disability issue, saying: "By knocking this down, are we stopping a disabled person having a better quality of life?

"We should at least include provision for the disabled within this development."

Cllr Georgette Polley said: "All properties now are designed for lifelong living so there can be adaptions made. One person's disability may not be another's so you cannot pre-empt what the requirements are going to be.

"By starting with a blank canvas we are not excluding anyone."

Cllr James Halden said: "In terms of the objections on the housing disability, we are not the housing service, it's not a material consideration for us, nor is the finance.

"The application in front of me says there were three reasons for refusal last time, they have dealt with them and so we would need to find a hidden fourth reason to refuse which is a tall ask.

"I cannot see a cogent, legal reason to oppose this."

Cllr Piccolo said: "Having overcome the objections we raised the first time round, it is not right for us to raise new objections.

"They have solved the problems we presented them with so I am minded to approve the application."

Cllr Byrne returned to the disability argument, concluding the debate by saying: