PLANNING permission has been granted for two separate housing developments on land in Stanford-le-Hope, despite considerable local objections to both applications.

A recent meeting of Thurrock Council's planning committee rubber-stamped recommendations to approve the applications to build eight homes on Morley Hill and seven on Third Avenue.

At both sites existing dwellings will be demolished to make way for the new homes.

There were many objections to both applications from local residents and councillors but they failed to disuade a majority of members of the planning committee from supporting the applications.

The Morley Hill site, which will see a bungalow called the Willows demolished, will see eight new bungalows built. There will be six two-bedroom and two three-bedroom homes.

At the meeting councillors heard from Adam Beckford, a director of the developers. He said: "We are a family business, we live locally and care about the local area and our planning application has been considerate of local residents."

He dismissed concerns from the site's neighbours that there would be a negative and dangerous impact on local traffic by the creation of the new homes and said access to the area would be improved by the development.

He added that the site was earmarked in the local plan for development and the plan had been welcomed by planning officers.

Cllr James Halden, who represents the Homesteads ward, spoke against the application on behalf of residents, detailing the negative impacts they believed it would have on the area.

During debate on the application Cllr Steve Liddiard said: "I think it's a tasteful design of high quality and I have a good feeling about this development." Committee chair Tom Kelly said he was 'heading in the same direction'.

Cllr Terry Piccolo said he had initial apprehension about the application but welcomed the creation of new bungalows and said he was pleased the developers had addressed traffic concerns and that led to him supporting the scheme.

Cllr Lee Watson said the development was sympathetic to the area and she also felt access issues that were of concern had been addressed. She said: "It's a good idea to have more bungalows rather than houses and flats."

Cllr Georgette Polley said the decision had to be made on the 'merits of the actual case' and while she appreciated that Cllr Halden had reflected local residents' concern she felt the application had plenty of positives and she found it an attractive application and she would be minded to support it.

Cllr Sue Little said she had initially thought there were too many bungalows but she had changed her view during the discussions and while she still had some reservations about traffic she too would support it. She did ask that the developers added a footpath to the scheme to ensure pedestrian safety.

The application was unanimously approved by the eight members of the committee.

The second application to win approval was also fiercely opposed by local residents and local ward councillors, but again it went through. Previous applications for developing the site had been rejected – and also an appeal against the decision to the Planning Inspectorate was lost.

But now, two semi-detached homes and five detached dwellings will be built on Third Avenue following the demolition of the two existing detached dwellings on the site.

Cllr Halden again spoke against the development, saying it was too large and that it would have a significant negative impact on the area. He raised a number of concerns and said it was a 'poor application.' "I am asking the committee to maintain the principles it had stood by before and reject the scheme" he said.

The full report to committee on the application can be found via this link.

It details the reasons why officers were minded to approve this application, putting particular emphasis on a payment from the developers of £636.50 towards mitigating the impact of the development upon the environment and paying £5,000 to 'explore options to introduce measures to prevent vehicles parking obstructing the access points.'

Some recommendations detailed by the planning inspector had been seized on by the applicant in the latest submission and it was clear officers – and Cllr Kelly - were wary that they were unable to object to parking and traffic issues because it was likely those objections would be overruled should a refusal be made and the application went to appeal.

Cllr Kelly said: "I don't think that the changes make it right but I can't see a material reason to refuse it, even though I am nervous about it."

Members shared those concerns during debate but some picked up on what they perceived to be the positive aspects of the scheme, with Cllr Watson saying she thought it was 'a nice development'.

Cllr Piccolo warned that the approval could lead to more similar applications to build multiple houses on small 'cramped sites. It said approval would send out the wrong signals. "I don't like this application one bit," he said.

Cllr Polley it seemed the applicants had worked with officers to go through a 'tick box exercise' to get approval and she was not comfortable with the application.

Cllr Liddiard said that the only thing that would make him support it was 'that the applicants would win on appeal' so he would be supporting officers and approving it.

When it came to a vote Cllr Kelly proposed approval, Cllr Liddiard seconded it and three others voted in favour, with two against.