COUNCILLORS have sent a controversial scheme to squeeze eight new homes on former back gardens in Stanford-le-Hope back to the drawing board.

At this week's planning committee meeting, planning councillors rejected a recommendation by officers to approve the scheme on land behind Fairview Avenue in Stanford-le-Hope – but have left the door open for the applicants to make changes.

Having rejected outright support councillors agreed that they were 'minded to reject the plan' on material planning matters which included access and intrusion into the privacy of existing properties. They also raised concerns about environmental issues.

A "minded to reject" decision in planning law means the local planning authority is leaning towards refusing a planning application, but hasn't made a final decision yet and it is willing to consider changes or further information.

The decision invites the applicants to submit revised plans, address specific concerns, or provide additional information to try and overcome the objections.

Legal guidelines say if the concerns are not addressed, or the authority is not satisfied with the changes, the application will be formally refused.

Key reasons why councillors would do that include the impact on neighbours, including concerns about privacy or being overlooked by a new development. Issues with increased traffic, highways safety or parking problems are also legitimate reasons to refuse, as are the impact on local wildlife and trees. 

The Incidental Land Company Limited applied for outline planning permission to build on land at 22 and to rear of 18 to 28 Fairview Avenue but access is via a narrow road between homes and the new homes would overlook existing residents.

The scheme attracted 25 letters of objection from residents and ward councillors. One of those residents, John Freeman, whose property is adjacent to the site summed up local objections when he spoke at the meeting.

He said: "The area proposed for development is in fact a series of gardens that were originally part of properties in Fairview Avenue.

"Over the years these end halves have been purchased plot by plot and left overgrown for period of excess of 40 years to such an extent there are now numerous fully grown trees, bushes and vegetation that provide homes to badgers, squirrels, hedgehogs, slow worms, foxes, a huge bat colony and numerous types of birds."

Mr Freeman added "I believe that this development will totally destroy the numerous ancient trees that provide habitat for huge amounts of wildlife. Secondly the waste drainage that serves Fairview Avenue is already inadequate.

"Every time it rains for a prolonged period Fairview Avenue is fairly flooded believe that any further development the area is only going to make this problem worse."

Mr Freeman told the committee residents frequently had to move their cars to allow access for large vehicles.

He ended by saying that when the road ands houses were built it was named Fairview because residents had a fair view over the river Hope and could see local landscape features. "If this goes through, will it necessitate having to rename it 'not so Fairview Avenue'?"

Stanford West Ward councillor Neil Speight also opposed the scheme and submitted a detailed appraisal of why it failed to meet requisite planning requirements. In advance of the meeting he published his thoughts, which included a detailed potential new recommendation, here.

Madhuri Nair, a planner who works for Battlesbridge-based Smart Planning, spoke on behalf of the applicants.

She told the committee the scheme was "a well-designed development which is considered appropriate from a planning perspective.

"It is considered a much more effective use of land to release the site for the provision of new housing in an already established residential area.

"In terms of impact on residential amenity the proposed dwellings have been carefully designed and positioned to ensure that there are no overlooking issues or loss of privacy for surrounding properties."

A majority of councillors expressed concern about the nature of the development and its impact on the local community. Among them was Cllr Russell Cherry, who said: "That road is very, tight as it is. The worst scenario is if we needed fire engines to attend these houses in the future, or more than one fire engine. I'm thinking that this is going to be a big struggle squeezing it down that space."

Councillors said they were "minded to refuse" on the grounds of access, loss of habitat and overlooking.

Stanford councillor Roy Jones suggested the meeting used a detailed recommendation for refusal as their response after rejecting the officer directive to approve. Though chair Cllr Cathy Sister

However, after much discussion and advice from the council's legal advisor and the head of planning Ashley Baldwin, councillors opted to accept a revised amendment, indicating a 'minded to refuse' declaration, proposed by Cllr Green – which drew much of its words from Cllr Speight's proposal.

Planning officers will now reassess their recommendation to approve the scheme in light of the councillors' concerns and will consult with the applicants before bringing an amended proposal back to the committee.