Thurrock Nub News reports exclusively from Thurrock Council's cabinet meeting where residents were given contradictory advice about consultations, a rebel councillor bucked her leader's instruction and political cat-calling continued under the guise of democracy......and the council couldn't get its paperwork done on time!

RESIDENTS concerned about the outcome of a controversial Thurrock Council project which lists potential housing development sites in the borough have been assured they will get a full say in what happens in the future.

The council's 'Housing Development Options' list has caused a widespread stir, listing potential council owned sites - some of which encompass private properties - that could be used for housing.

At Tuesday evening's Housing Overview and Scrutiny meeting residents crowded into a committee meeting to hear emotional rhetoric from councillors who were concerned about the impact on their wards and impassioned criticism of the project by committee chair Cllr Lynn Worrall. (See report on the meeting via the red button below).

Twenty-four hours later, the council's ruling cabinet got to have their say on the scheme and eventually gave it the green light to progress – but with strong assurances that nothing was written in stone and residents would get their say – and be listened to.

Housing portfolio holder Cllr Barry Johnson introduced the report. He confirmed that one of the sites – for open space in Corringham – had been removed as it was only published because of an 'administrative error'.

He said: "All the sites are technically possible. However, I am sure many Thurrock councillors will look at this list and not be enamoured. In my own ward there is an item which does not fill me with joy."

He stressed though, that the list of sites was a leap of faith from his administration in favour of democracy and transparency. He made reference to previous land sales and deals that have caused lots of controversy, most notably the King Street car park sale in Stanford-le-Hope.

Cllr Johnson said: "Nobody wants to see another King Street debacle. This does nothing more than give the go ahead for work to ascertain feasibility, I can assure everyone that the criteria set for these schemes will be met and consultation with residents and ward councillors must be undertaken.

"I would say to all councillors, we should only decide on any site when we have the full facts. No site referred to in this report is no nearer than any other. Sometime the only way to get a site removed from the list is to put it on the list."

One cloud on the evening's debate was an administrative delay which meant that the minutes from the previous evening's meeting and its findings were not available to members of the cabinet. Cllr Johnson partially offset this by reading from Thurrock Nub News' exclusive report of the meeting!

And there was a degree of criticism from members of the cabinet for overview committee chair Lynn Worrall, who was condemned for not attending cabinet to give a report in person.

Council leader Rob Gledhill spoke of his disappointment at Cllr Worrall's absence and the cross party criticism was taken up by Cllr Andrew Jeffries who said: "I am totally disappointed Cllr Worrall hasn't attended this meeting this evening to tell us what her committee decided."

Perhaps somewhat injudiciously, the portfolio holder for education left the cabinet meeting soon after and didn't take part in some serious debates that followed including the setting of the budget.

And Cllr Ben Maney was another to have a go at Cllr Worrall, saying: "I can't say how disappointed I am that the chair of O&S isn't here, while the Conservative member of O&S is here. If any chair was worth every penny of the money they receive they should play a part in the process, to tell us why they have looked at these sites."

He acknowledged that there are many concerns about the list, saying: "I can see there are sites and ideas here that are abhorrent to the residents. They need the opportunity to have their say."

Cllr Johnson did acknowledge that Cllr Worrall and her committee had made points that should be considered, though he suggested she had 'misinterpreted the report', and he regretted that the administrative delay meant the minutes were not before him and colleagues, saying: "They should here for us to make a decision.

"The chair of scrutiny said 'we would like cabinet to listen to what we said' but we have nothing here to say what they said."

Regeneration portfolio holder Cllr Mark Coxshall spoke about the reasons why the council was following the course it has recently been set on, quoting the 'Three Rs' that have become a mantra for development land – 'release, retain and re-use.'

Referring back to the Kings Street sale and others he said: "Decisions previously were made that were not public, people asked 'how did that get signed, what happened here?'

"We have to be open and honest about what sites we have got. I don't want to see what has happened before where things have not been open, we want everybody to see these decisions, good or ill.

"It's about the consultation process, if someone comes up with another idea that means that a site could be used for something different, so be it. This paper before us shows good governance."

However, a dissenting voice was to come from Orsett councillor and cabinet member Sue Little – who has expressed her outrage at a planned development in the village and said she would 'fight to the death' to stop it.

Ignoring Cllr Gledhill's directive not to focus on specific sites she said: "I have looked at this site, what I suggest tonight is it is removed. It doesn't fit our criteria. We have always said that development would lead to regeneration, this won't. It involves 31 council houses and 14 private houses not in our control. It would mean disruption to the education or our children and ….."

Before she could continue Cllr Gledhill stepped in to shut her down, ignoring Cllr Little's statement "I do need to say this" by saying what we are discussing here is the consultation. I fully understand and accept where you are coming from. Let's not jump the gun."

However, Cllr Little was determined to have her say and added: "Why waste officers' time etc in looking into a site that isn't viable. I would ask cabinet to support me and remove item 19."

Cllr Gledhill retorted: "I am convinced that your reasons will be valid" – but he wouldn't allow her to press her point.

Cllr Deb Huelin got down to the issue of communication and consultation – with a sideways swipe at the authority's decision to use the Thurrock Gazette for its planning information messages, saying: "For me the consultation has got to be more than a little poster in a corner or an advert in a paper that is no longer distributed to areas. I want to see proper letters and consultation done. With contact with residents rather than an advert in a paper they have got to pick up."

Cllr Jefferies backed the call for full consultation but backed the way the initial list had been produced, saying: "I a lot of these sites are in my ward. But the council wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't put them forward. However, I stress there needs to be full consultation."

And his words won support from Cllr Aaron Watkins who said: "It is right that these items are brought forward so they can be discussed openly and transparently. It may mean we get good ideas going forward. We want to deliver."

Cllr Shane Hebb said he believed the public still had a major role to play, saying: "For me this is about public discussion. We all have public discussion about this – it's our future.

"I have young daughter. When she grows up I don't want her migrating out, I want her to live in this borough. We have to provide for that.

"This is a great public discussion to have. In 2011 and 12, when we tried to have a public discussion about King Street car park I can assure you there was very little discussion. I can assure you I put forward an alternative on behalf of the forum but I was told by the by the leader of the council that 'this is what Stanford wants'.

"I cannot say how different things would have been if we had done this in a transparent way like we are doing now.

And in a swipe at Cllr Worrell, who was a part of the Labour administration that sold King Street car park, he said: "To the chair, she should play less of the martyr and show more humility."

And in a further piece of political maneuvering, Cllr Gledhill then invited O&S committee member Joy Redsell to speak about the previous night's meeting. She said: "I was most uncomfortable last night, it was quite political, we had about 60 people in the audience, I don't think the people in the audience were told what the list was for.

"Cllr Worrall wanted us to discuss every site. I think even the officers took quite a lot of flak and I felt quite uncomfortable."

Next to speak were two members of the public from South Ockendon– both staunch opponents of the proposals for Callan Grove open space who had also spoken the previous evening.

Alex Andonie told members: "Us residents don't care about your political work. You don't know the stress we have undergone. In front of my house I am supposed to have a five storey flats. It is not fair for your political work to come into our lives.

"You don't understand us. This is not a consultation on Culver Field and Callan Grove. That has already been done.

"You should start building on the edge of towns, not on precious greens. They are precious to us, they might just be a green of low quality to you, but it's an oasis for us."

Cllr Johnson then delivered a telling statement, which appears to contradict the message from the previous evening by Interim Assistant Director of Place David Moore who had repeatedly told councillors that the consultations would be genuine and evidenced that fact by saying that residents' comments, ideas and objections on proposed developments in South Ockendon had been factored into revised Thurrock council plans.

That appears contrary to Cllr Johnson's understanding of the situation. Cllr Johnson told Mr Andonie: "Let me just reiterate. This site is on the list and it will re-enter the consultation. It will be re-consulted. That is what this list gets over. The consultation before has gone. It starts again. I promise you the consultation will be real and you will be listened to."

Cllr Coxhall chipped in with: "We have an opportunity. This sets the agenda for the next 40 years of thinking. How we manage our open spaces is just as important as how and where we build our homes. We are planning to deliver good open space."

Resident Patricia Campbell pointed out a flaw in that argument, saying: "You have said you want to create new green spaces – but they are already there!"

Cllr Johnson challenged Mrs Campbell and her neighbours to become more active, saying: "The residents of Callan Grove have got to get involved in this. It doesn't matter it's the same letter, whether its 200 or 400."

And the last word before the vote went to Cllr Gledhill who said: "We have all agreed we need more council houses. If these sites are all rejected we will have to find more sites. These houses have to go somewhere."

But somewhere doesn't appear to be in Orsett for Cllr Sue Little who backed up her pledge to residents by bucking the Conservative line and voted against the recommendation to press on with work on investigating and planning for possible development on the 19 remaining sites. She was a lone voice though as all other cabinet members voted for it.