CONTROVERSIAL plans for four chalet homes on a busy Stanford-le-Hope road have been unanimously thrown out.

The scheme was a second attempt to win permission to demolish an existing building at 63 Wharf Road. An earlier bid to put seven homes on the site was refused but the developers came back with a new plan.

Ward councillor Shane Hebb summed up local opposition, saying: "The revised proposal would still, by reasons of its layout, scale and siting, be an undesirable overdevelopment of the site, which detracts from and would be out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area."

Local resident Keith Major spoke against the application saying the new buildings would create a significant intrusion into privacy for existing householders adjacent to the site.

He said: "The dwellings will be too close to existing houses, some of which have been misrepresented on drawings presented with this applications.

"In short the lane is too narrow and too close to existing boundaries to be built on. And the design of the new houses is out of character with the area."

And he went on to say that the area was an environmental haven, adding: "We have video and photographic evidence of wildlife that uses this site."

Mr Major also contradicted the developers assertion that the land was an eyesore, saying: "The fact that it has become messy is simply because the land has been neglected by the owner. Existing residents would be happy to look after that land for the benefit of the community."

Speaking on behalf of the application, agent Gary Coxshall indicated that the developers believed that local residents were using the area as a dumping ground, adding: "The owner has tried to clean up the area but was told to stop by the council because it was seen as start of the development."

Mr Coxshall concluded: "The density of the development is low. There is a robust statement to say the development is accepted by highways and meets the council's policy."

Cllr Hebb's full statement to the meeting was: "I am speaking on behalf of residents of Wharf Road who are directly affected by the proposed development, the second version forthcoming after the Planning Committee supported the officer recommendation for refusal in October 2020.

"To be clear, I fully support their objection to this application.

"Worthy of note is a scheme for four units was refused in 1988 and dismissed on appeal. A 33 year old problem!

"I present the following considerations:

"1. The revised proposal would still, by reasons of its layout, scale and siting, be an undesirable overdevelopment of the site, which detracts from and would be out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area, in contravention of policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (2015) and the provisions within Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

"2. Inadequate access and egress arrangements – we maintain that access and egress, notwithstanding the design changes, remain fundamentally flawed by design. As stated previously, Wharf Rd is the only access to the Stanhope Industrial Estate and as such accommodates up to 500 HGV movements per day between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00, that equates to 41 HGV movements or 1 every 1 1/2 minutes. Whilst the application may have changed, this fact remains as constant as it has for years.

"3. The area is a Permitted Parking Area, and this also needs to be considered – for those in these new properties would be able to park, quite rightly, on Wharf Road, which is – as we all know – already heavily burdened.

"4. Both points above mean that egress from the development is a reasonably foreseeable risk – not just to motorists, but pedestrians using the road to get to the local school, with vehicles pulling out onto a road frequented by HGV movements like described. Not to mention emergency service access could also be impaired down to the isolated end of Wharf Road. That is visible for everyone to see.

"5. The overall layout is fundamentally the same as previous schemes by virtue of the shape of the site – with the proximity of the new buildings to the rear of the properties in Wharf Rd. The new design remains nearly as dense, which will prevent significant enough separation of amenity space for existing residents, and those who may live in these new properties.

"6. Chapter 12 of the NPPF paragraph 127 sub section F refers to "creating spaces that are accessible and which promote health and well-being and where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life".

"This application site sits directly next to neighbouring households and will impede on their private amenity, and doesn't feature at the front of the street but is partially recessed. Those of us who live in SS17 know off-road developments like on the other side of the train-station and at the far end of Wharf Road, 0.5m away, suffer with illicit activity in common areas. Positive development should integrate into the existing community street scene.

"We hope Committee members reflect on the real material objections that we have raised on behalf of our residents, and take these into consideration when coming to a decision."