AHEAD of this evening's (Tuesday, 14 April) meeting of Thurrock Council's planning committee, concern has been expressed by environmental campaigners about the way an application for 116 new homes has been dealt with.

As reported on Thurrock Nub News recently, an application for the new homes on Chadwell Hill goes before members, who are being recommended to approve it by officers – despite the fact it sits in the green belt.

The site is on land between Tilbury's Biggin Lane and Chadwell St Mary's Chadwell Hill. And full details of the application can be found here. The report recommending approval has been compiled by planning officer Lottie Raper, who concludes there are sufficient reasons to support approval.

However, that is not a view shared by Jamie Robins, a leading campaigner with environmental group BugLife. He says: "The planning report appears to misrepresent the position of Natural England alongside the officer recommending approval.

"Buglife, Essex Field Club and Essex Wildlife Trust have all indicated this site is on ecologically important and geographically limited Thames Terrace Grasslands. This grassland is functionally connected to the adjacent Hob Hill and Sandy Lane Pit Local Wildlife Site, which supports important populations of ground nesting bees and wasps which likely use the application site for essential foraging to support their populations.

"In terms of Natural England, the Report Pack states simply that, "Natural England have identified the entirety of the application site as one of a suite of sites supporting Thames Terrace Grassland habitat" and then that 'Natural England do not formally object to the application as the site is not currently designated as Priority Habitat' going on to list Natural England as "No objection".

How the site will be laid out

Mr Robins says the position of natural England has not been properly represented and they have submitted information which is not included in Ms Raper's report.

advertisement

He says: "Importantly, the most recent 23^rd March response from Natural England is meaningfully misrepresented in the Reports Pack. It says

"In summary, Natural England has identified this site as one of a suite of sites supporting Thames Terrace Grassland habitat.

"We have set out below how we have evidenced our understanding of the significance of Thames Terrace Grassland habitats which we believe to be of national significance, and have recognised as priority habitat. At this point we are not formally objecting to the proposal for the sole reason that Natural England do not generally release objections with regard to sites that are not currently designated.

"We are, however, strongly advising that development of this site would be contrary to local and national policy and Natural England's advice - that this is an inappropriate location for a development of this nature.

"Alternative locations, as suggested by the Council's local plan Reg. 18, are likely to be better suited for housing."

An aerial view of the planned development site.

Mr Robins concludes: "This is very different to the claim that "Natural England do not formally object to the application as the site is not currently designated as Priority Habitat".

"It clearly states that the site does support priority habitat and is part of a network of Thames Terrace Grasslands of national significance. It very clearly states that the lack of objection is due to the limits of their current powers to comment on sites that "are not currently designated" (e.g. part of the network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest) rather than the site's biodiversity value.

advertisement

"Natural England's 23^rd March response uses unusually strong language for a site which is outside of the SSSI network, stating very clearly that, despite being unable to submit a formal objection that it is, "strongly advising that development of this site would be contrary to local and national policy and Natural England's advice - that this is an inappropriate location for a development of this nature."

"Language which is clearly not appropriately represented in the report put to members."