Planning Inconsistencies Continue to Frustrate Shoebury Residents
For over a decade, as a member of the Shoebury Residents Association, I have dealt with numerous planning issues, gaining a deep understanding of the decisions made by our local Council.
This experience has shown how inconsistent and often inexplicable the application of planning regulations can be, leading to frustration among residents. Recently, our association reviewed 11 planning applications along Leitrim Avenue and Lodwick over a 3-5 year period, asking questions that highlight the need for clearer, more logical standards.
Discrepancies in Local Planning Decisions
When reviewing recent planning decisions, we found several inconsistencies that question the logic of the current approval process:
- Dormer Decisions: One chalet application for a simple dormer was denied, while the adjacent neighbours had two dormers. Planners insisted on a “north light” instead, even though this alternative would typically be acceptable under permitted development rules.
- Building Lines: A homeowner was refused permission to extend beyond their neighbour’s building line, yet two years later, that same neighbour received approval to extend three meters beyond the line.
- Roof Alterations: One resident was denied a gable end addition, but their neighbour was allowed to make the same alteration without issue.
- Roof Line Changes: A resident was prohibited from raising their roofline, only to see their neighbour receive approval to raise their roof by 1.1 meters two years later.
- Flood Plain Regulations: Originally, homes facing the sea in Lodwick were not allowed habitable spaces on lower levels due to the flood plain. Yet later, these properties made substantial internal changes, effectively converting lower-level rooms to living areas with patio doors, without needing further planning permissions.
Gunners Development: Unanswered Questions
The Gunners Development has been a particularly contentious project, with residents raising several concerns about the approval process and its oversight:
- Surface Water Flood Risk Assessment: Despite recommendations from the Environment Agency (EA) for a flood risk assessment, the Council ignored this advice, arguing that the EA’s recommendations are advisory only. The Council cited its own records, stating there had been no groundwater flooding recorded in Southend since 1992, even though residents have sent over 60 photographs and videos documenting flooding in Shoebury.
- Pressure on Councillors: During Development Control Committee meetings, officers frequently reminded councillors that voting against their recommendations could lead to costly compensation claims, potentially influencing councillor decisions.
- Retail Park and Health Centre: A councillor’s question about attaching the retail park to the project approval was dismissed on the grounds that it could only be considered separately. However, it was known that Bellway had not purchased the retail park, and the NHS had already stated it would not build a health center on a flood plain.
- Affordable Housing Promises: Initially, the Garrison Development was required to include 30% affordable housing and create 42 employment opportunities. Yet, after approval, the developers modified the building designs, raised the land by six meters, and applied to remove the affordable housing requirements, all while claiming to be under the original permissions. This decision overlooked both Council policy and the substantial local demand for affordable housing.
- Highway Damage Accountability: Under the approved outline, the developers were accountable for highway repairs due to construction traffic. However, post-approval, this responsibility seems to have diminished, with over 80,000 heavy vehicle movements causing noticeable road damage with no accountability measures in place.
Current Concerns with Bellway’s Conduct
Bellway has started work on the site, with work often beginning outside agreed times and with site huts placed despite warnings of metal contamination on the land. Guidelines to avoid eating and drinking on-site due to this contamination do not appear to be enforced, raising health concerns for workers.
Seeking Answers from Leadership
Recently, we submitted a formal letter to the new Chief Executive, outlining these planning concerns. Rather than receiving a response from the CEO, a planning officer replied on their behalf. This response- or lack thereof – highlights the lack of transparency and the limited value placed on residents’ concerns by the department.
A Call for Fair Planning in Shoebury
The residents of Shoebury deserve consistency, transparency, and fairness in planning decisions. We hope this article brings attention to these ongoing issues and encourages dialogue for improvements.
by Peter Lovitt
Chair of Shoebury Residents Association
peterlovett46@gmail.com