A THURROCK Council scrutiny committee debated how and why officers had come up with a list of 20 sites across the borough which are ear-marked for housing.

Tonight's Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Tuesday, 11 February) was played out in front of a packed public gallery of residents from across the borough who had come to hear why land on their doorsteps – or in some instances literally their doorsteps – have been selected to play their part in closing the gap on the council's target of an additional 28,000 new homes over the next 20 years.

At times they cheered speakers, particularly committee chairman Lynn Worrall who led the criticism of officers and the whole project – while at other times they could only sit and listen as a senior officer repeated time and time again that 'this is only a list'.

Interim Director of Place David Moore appeared unable to grasp the concept that local people were stressed, angry and scared by the projects listed by officers and he showed no sign of contrition or apology for any distressed caused.

Which was somewhat surprising as earlier in the day two members of the cabinet – which will get the opportunity to rubber-stamp the 'list' tomorrow – had gone public with their disquiet about the project and commented on the upset it had caused, particularly in Orsett and Corringham.

Housing portfolio Cllr Barry Johnson even went so far as to make a unilateral decision to apologise to the public, admit an administrative error and pull open space off Springhouse Road in Corringham off the list.

But Mr Moore was adamant his department was simply doing its job – saying: "We have got housing targets to hit, there is an instruction to us to bring sites forward."

He was backed up by Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health and Interim Director of Children's Services – Roger Harris, who pointed out the council still had to find 28,000 homes in the next 20 years in the borough to meet the target of 32,000 agreed by cabinet in the wake of government guidance and protocols for redevelopment.

The meeting, somewhat unusually, began with residents invited to ask questions directly to officers, a rare opportunity permitted by Cllr Worrall, but several failed to show to ask their questions, and those that did were more or less straight-batted by Mr Moore and Mr Harris.

Their staccato repetition of 'This is just a list' clearly began to rankle Cllr Worrall and other councillors but it was a litany that was constant throughout almost two hours that the discussion raged.

One of the most direct questions was answered by Mr Moore, who was asked what consideration had been given to the welfare of residents and their mental health by publication of a list of spaces, land and properties to be developed with little or no prior consultation.

He didn't appear to recognise that damage had already been done, saying: "This is too early a stage for the impact of any planning. These are just lists of sites. Part of the consultations will include looking at responsibility for mental health services."

Asked again about what had happened in recent weeks and told 'this has caused a great deal of anxiety for many residents, we need to know that is being taken on board' he said: "At the risk of being a broken record I can just repeat this is a list. A list brought forward for discussion.

"While the sites are being discussed there will be full engagement with residents and stakeholders on a site by site basis.

"The whole planning process will require consultation. This is the start rather than the end."

Ockendon ward councillor Cllr Sue Shinnock, who is not on the committee, was invited to question officers and asked: "With 600 new homes already being built in South Ockendon without any additional schools, what criteria was used to highlight community spaces that are being used?"

She was told: "A previous report was considered by a housing scrutiny committee in October and a paper then went to cabinet. That explained the criteria we have used to look at the sites including things like understanding about regeneration."

Cllr Shinnock still wanted detail about what was planned, but was told by Mr Moore: "This is not a discussion about individual sites, it's just a list of sites we are preparing to consider. As we consider them, all things will be considered. At the moment these sites are not at that stage, we don't have that information.

"A list was approved by cabinet on 15 January 2019. This report now sets out a list of site options. The list of site options is to give the council greater focus and to work more efficiently to deliver the housing targets. We want to spend time focused on sites that are agreed on. We are trying to be efficient by taking sites forward so there isn't a great ruckus at planning."

At that January meeting Cllr Johnson had described how careful consideration would be used for all sites to ensure that no unsuitable sites would be brought forward and focus would be put on ward councillors' and residents' views.

Cllr Worrall seemed keen to prove that unsuitable sites had been brought forward and despite opposition from councillors Joy Redsell and Terry Piccolo, she insisted each of the 20 sites be discussed.

In the debate that followed, considerable concern was raised about all the sites in South Ockendon, with the exception of the derelict Prince of Wales pub and White acre site.

Objections included the removal of much-loved public space, a lack of infrastructure and a lack of consultation.

Mr Moore contested that point, saying the council had engaged in plenty of consultation over plans for the former Culver Centre and adjacent park, which were about to be brought back for more consideration after changes had been made. Derisory comments from the gallery indicated he had failed to win that argument.

Cllr Chris Baker was angry and frustrated and he wasted little time in letting the senior officers know of his displeasure, saying: "This has caused stress and panic. You should have thought of this before, there is a lot of alternative brownfield space. The people won't have it, they are up in arms. This is unreal, Just wait and see, if you let this go forward."

Cllr Worrall was equally angry about plans to build on car parks in Grays and saw the possibility of a site near the Elm Road open space as a direct attack on her ward community. "This is the park we had to fight for last year to stop having a school built on it.

"It sits in my ward. We have just had the council help us plant 300 trees there, we are in the process of building the park up, we have got protected species and wildlife.

"Where would you envision the park is for a way in and out of this site? How can you build houses without coming through the middle of our park".

She was told officers saw the land earmarked for houses as part of an adjacent commercial development to the east, and access would not be via the park.

Questions followed about the cost of the scheme, levels of diligence, why had some sites been added to list and others not - and praise for Orsett ward councillor Sue Little for her strident opposition and pledge to fight to the death' to stop demolition of homes in her ward for a new development.

By the end of the debate was clear there was a significant gulf between a majority of councillors and officers, and in her summing up, Cllr Worrall said: "Once these green sites are gone, they are gone, You can't get them back. We do need new homes, but we need them in the right places. I know you are saying this is only a list, that's double Dutch to me,

"There are sites that should be on the list and some that should not be on the list.

"How can we take our children and grandchildren to Grays beach if we haven't got a car park to park in. It's total madness

"We are a place, a place for people, and we should listen to the people. I sincerely hope the cabinet listens to us an any consultations that takes place, If people don't want it, move on to the next site, Don't push on through with bulldozers,

"I want it minuted that this list should not be put forward."

Cllr Piccolo did have words of praise for Cllr Johnson, saying that while the debate was clearly difficult, it was better to have it sooner, rather than later.

He said: "I would like to thank the portfolio holder for putting this through. While it may have brought some fears to residents now, they can get themselves prepared when it comes to planning.

"I commend the cabinet member for putting this out so early giving residents the chance to prepare."

The committee's concerns about the much quoted 'list' will be forwarded to Wednesday's cabinet.

See details of all the schemes via the red button below.