A CONTROVERSIAL building development has been approved by the Planning Inspectorate despite longstanding objections from local residents, councillors and planning officers.

There have been several applications to build new homes on the site of one bungalow at 63 Wharf Road, Stanford-le-Hope – all of which were rejected by Thurrock Council's planning committee who consider the development inappropriate.

In 2020 plans for seven homes on the site were narrowly rejected on the castling vote of the committee chairman Cllr Tom Kelly.

In 2021 applicant Michael James returned to the council chamber as a plan for four semi-detached chalets was debated – and again it was rejected.

However, following the latest rejection Mr James appealed against the decision and has won his fight, with planning inspector John Felgate overruling local objections and the council's decision.

One fact in him doing that was that when they defended the decision for the appeal, council officers removed one of four major objections - related to the proposed development's alleged impact on the Thames Estuary and Marshes special protection area.

The remaining main issues in the appeal relate to the development's effects on the character and appearance of the area, including loss of trees; impact on occupiers of adjoining properties and highways safety.

Mr Felgate visited the site as part of his deliberations and in his report gives the reason for overturning the decision.

He says: "I note the council's comments regarding the development's scale, density and design.

"But the new dwellings would be no more than one-and-a-half storeys in height, with only quite modest-sized dormers, and a relatively shallow roof pitch. The overall height would not be noticeably different from the existing bungalows in the area.

The rear of the property to be demolished.

"The site's rear boundary, to the school field, is lined by an intermittent row of semi-mature trees, said to be a mixture of sycamores and common limes.

"The trees are grounded on the school side of the boundary, but in some cases branches overhang or have grown through the wire fence. The proposed new buildings would be sited close to the boundary at two points, and in these places it seems likely that some lateral reduction would be needed, in order to erect scaffolding and carry out the construction work.

"However, the arboricultural report makes clear that the extent of the pruning required would be limited, and that no foundation works would be needed within the rooting area. This evidence has not been challenged.

"Based on the information available therefore, there seems no reason to expect that any trees would be lost. In any event, the trees are not publicly visible, other than from the school, and consequently the effects on the surrounding area would be likely to be negligible."

Turning his attention to site neighbours he added: "I appreciate that the residents of these properties would suffer the loss of their present open view, but in this type of situation, planning policies are designed to protect living conditions, rather than views as such. In this case, having regard to the relatively low height of the new buildings, and the distance from the existing dwellings, it seems to me that the development would not give rise to any undue visual impact, loss of outlook, or overbearing effect.

"To my mind, the scheme would create a coherent grouping of new buildings, with its own identity and sense of place. As such, it would be a reasonably attractive addition to the locality."

And with regarding to concerns about adding more traffic to an already busy road he dismissed local residents' concerns saying: "The development would generate some traffic movements, and the sound of these would be audible at those existing properties nearest to the new access road.

"But given the small number of dwellings, the frequency of such movements would be limited. To my mind the degree of disturbance likely to result would be no more than slight."

The bungalow to be demolished.

Mr Felgate concluded: "For these reasons, I can find no substance in any of the council's stated concerns regarding the effects of the development on the area's character and appearance. I conclude that no harm would arise in this respect."

The full decision of the planning inspector can be found via this link.

The decision has been treated with dismay by local residents and local ward councillor Neil Speight summed up their feelings, saying: "I have every sympathy with the residents of Wharf Road. At almost every turn as they try to combat overdevelopment and the impact of Stanhope Industrial estate, not to mention issues with the cemetery and repeated flooding, they get the rough end of the deal.

"I find it staggering that the inspector has played down genuine concerns by residents who have put up cogent and well-presented reasons why four homes on this site, which currently occupies one, is not a reasonable proposition. A decision backed by the council's onw local members and experts.

"But the deal now appears done. I just hope Mr James and his company prove to be the hospitable and friendly developers they claim to be and they live up to their pledges and build these homes with the minimum inconvenience to residents and do as little damage as possible to the green environment."