DEVELOPERS appear to be moving ahead with plans to build 203 new homes on a controversial site in Chafford Hundred after their more ambitious scheme to create 344 homes in tower blocks was thrown out by Thurrock councillors.

At last June's planning meeting, the controversial proposal for the 344 homes was overwhelmingly rejected.

Councillors heard that there had been a number of objections against the scheme, including a campaign by local residents and the meeting was addressed by ward councillor Augustine Ononaji and resident Gemma Lowry who spoke against the proposal, which was also recommended for refusal by officers.

Agent Tim Bell gave his reasons to why the scheme should be supported but they largely fell on deaf ears.

Cllr Mike Fletcher started the debate on the site by saying that there was too much development and not enough car parking spaces.

Chair Cllr Tom Kelly said that he had approved the 2017 application for 203 homes that was still active and had a GP surgery. However, the NHS had deemed that the area was no longer suitable as it did not fulfil their vision.

He stated that the proposal had too much development as well.

Cllr Fletcher proposed the officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission and was supported by the eight committee members who could vote.

After the meeting local Conservative councillors Cllr Ononaji and Cllr Abbie Akinbohun welcomed the decision. Cllr Ononaji said: "We believe that a cluster of tower blocks up to 10 storeys in height is totally out of character with the townscape of Chafford Hundred. We support the development of more flats in Thurrock and understand they have their place, just not here."

Cllr Akinbohun added: "Chafford Hundred is already severely oversubscribed in all infrastructure amenities such as schools and doctor surgeries. This proposal will further intensify the issue and impact negatively on the residents and their wellbeing.''

In the wake of the meeting, the developers have submitted a series of amendments to the original application, suggesting they are now aiming to move ahead with the original plans – which did include provision of a GP surgery, though the local clinical commission services have said there is no need for one.

The new submissions can be read here, here and here.