AS YOU CAN see below, we have published the story of the planning application approval for a supermarket and flats in King Street, Stanford-le-Hope.
Community leader, Terry Piccolo spoke at the meeting to express a number of concerns over the applications.
He reserves his final criticism for cllr Terry Hipsey who gained a lot of support from local shopkeepers in the local elections in May.
Mr Piccolo said:
“There are a number of concerns I have regarding last night’s meeting, I think first of all I was very perturbed by the amount of time the committee were allowed to question the applicant. Rule 11 of Thurrock Council’s Rules for the Conduct of Question Time at Planning Committee Meetings states “A period of 3 minutes shall be reserved to enable questions to be put by Members of the Committee to the speaker”
Last night the Committee questioned the applicant’s representative, who is well versed in how to turn questions to their advantage for well in excess of 20 minutes. To my mind this gave the applicant additional time to influence the Planning Committee Members, thus removing the equilibrium that the three minute rule is designed to maintain.
I will be writing to Thurrock Council’s Democratic Services to ask them to look into whether this breach of Rules could affect last night’s decision.
With regard to the granting of permission I am extremely disappointed and feel the officer’s recommendation to approve had more to do with hitting targets than regenerating Stanford le Hope town centre. This so called supermarket is 33% smaller than Morrisons at Corringham which most people would class as small anyway, the argument that a supermarket of this size will stop Stanford residents traveling further afield for their weekly/monthly shop does not hold water, at best it may attract some customers’ that already use Morrisons at Corringham although being smaller I doubt it, but it will not attract those shoppers that already travel out to the larger supermarkets at Tilbury, Grays, Pitsea.
The only customers it is likely to attract are those that use the existing Tesco and Co-op in the town centre which could well result in one of these pulling out leaving a large old fashioned shop empty with very little likelihood of a new tenant being found quickly, and this new supermarket was meant to regenerate the town centre.
When the demolition and build work starts Stanford le Hope town centre shops may as well shut up shop for the six months or so as there will be nowhere for shoppers to park as the car park will be closed, and whilst it is all very noble trying to encourage people not to use their cars we all know that in the real world this will not happen, and once they are in the habit of shopping elsewhere this could well continue even when the new convenience store opens.
I do not see how the new decked car park that will provide 12 less spaces than the existing car park will be able to cope with the demand of the existing shops in the town centre along with this new convenience store if it is as successful as the developers anticipate; well perhaps I can, if people can’t park easily and possibly have to pay for parking if they can they just won’t come they will use Corringham instead which has more than double the car parking.
To my mind the approval of this development has sealed the fate of Stanford le Hope to being a run of the mill, uninteresting, uniform town centre and nothing like the image we were sold by the Development Corporation in The East Thurrock Masterplan where open space and uniqueness were to create the vibrancy to regenerate the town centre. The same officers who worked for the Development Corporation that sold this innovative idea to residents now work for Thurrock Council and seemed to have disregarded their own vision in recommending approval of this application. Doesn’t bode well for some of the other idealistic plans put forward by the DC that supposedly are to be taken up by Thurrock Council.
In approving this development it virtually prevents any other major improvements with in Stanford le Hope as they all depended on the use of the existing King St Car Park to drive the redevelopment, this application has now isolated an area of land which sits behind King St Shops and the existing Car Park where a number of large 2 ½ storey disused out buildings are situated. There will be no cost effective way to regenerate this pocket of land as reasonable access for plant and machinery will have been blocked, thus these buildings will full into further disrepair and become an eyesore and a potential fire hazard as fire tenders will no longer be able to access the site due to the decked car park.
Perhaps it is worth noting that during the recent elections Cllr Hipsey the Chair of the Planning Committee effectively canvassed the votes of the local shopkeepers in Stanford le Hope with many displaying their support, I wonder how they feel now knowing that he voted in favour of this development.
It sounds a bit like sour grapes from Mr Piccolo who perhaps wishes he had canvassed a few votes from local shopkeepers then he may have won the election in May. The people of Stanford West didnt want you in May Mr Piccolo so what gives you the right to speak for the people in Stanford now.
I notice there are no comments from the local shopkeepers on here. Perhaps they realise that the area does need something new and like the idea of this development. I am sure they will let Cllr Hipsey know one way or another.
Thats right Red Rebel, the people of Stanford want a block of flats with shops underneath on their high street. Thats Labours idea of ‘regeneration’. The only reason Mr Hipsey is still there is because the vote against him was split between Terry Piccolo and Eddie Hardiman allowing him to squeeze through the middle with 30 or so more votes so it’s hardly a thumping victory.
All councillors for Stanford need to come up with a plan that residents like to improve Stanford town centre. A token development like the one proposed will look tired in 30 years time and will certainly not inhance the area if it sits empty for a long time.
Bernard87 this isn’t “Labour’s idea or regeneration” as you put it.
This site was initially earmarked for flats and a supermarket when the Borough’s Local Development plan was drawn up under the previous Conservative administration.
Last December all Councillors voted that they adopt the Local Develoment Framework including the redevelopment of this site for flats and a supermarket.
It is becoming blindingly obvious that Councillors never bothered to read the draft Local Development plan and had no idea what they were voting for as time and time again we have had Councillors object to planning applications but don’t realise, or won’t admit to their residents, that they had actually voted to release the land for development in the first place.
The most obvious is Cllr Joy Redsell campaigning against the Woodview development when she twice voted to sell off the land for a housing estate, then objecting to a Sports Hub at Blackshots, when it was her initial report when she was Cabinet member that ensured the green belt land was to be released for a new stadium and sports hub, Aveley Councillors objecting to development on Aveley’s green belt, when they voted to release land around Aveley for development, East Thurrock Conservative Councillors campaigning to ‘save the greenbelt’ but by voting for the LDF agreed to release various land for housing development, and Labour Tilbury Councillors campaigning against a lorry park in Tilbury but then voting for the LDF to release land for the northern expansion of Tilbury docks including a massive new lorry park. I should add that Cllr Shane Hebb who was so vocal at the planning meeting against tis development had voted last December that tis site should be used for flats and a new super market.
Thanks for the post Ed.
Clearly Terry Hipsey believes this is a good idea and much needed. That is exactly why I said these types of developments are what our Labour friends call regeneration.
I struggle to see how houses and flats automatically regenerate an area. There is more to regenerating a space than placing loads of buildings on a site which will probably not stand the test of time. All over Thurrock you see estates and buildings which should not have got through the planning department.
The LDF is clearly causing issues. Think its about time to scrap it and start again. As i’ve said before it seems developers with little imagination turn up in Thurrock with an architecturally unflattering plan and it gets passed. Councillors need to be more careful with what buildings they are allowing to go up.
Why is the ldf causing you issues Bernard ?.is it causing councillors that much embarrassment because as ED rightly posted they could not be bothered to read the document that was put in front of them.
When you look around all the other shops in Stanford Bernard, above the shops are flats. So what is the problem with keeping it all the same ?. It looks like you have contracted the first stages of that awful infection, Toryididntvoteforititis.
I should have also added that this wasn’t a ‘Labour’ vote.
The Planning Committee is made up of Councillors from all parties and both Conservative and Labour Councillors voted for this development.
Plans for this site have been circulating for 8 years. The original plan would have seen the demolition of both The Railway and Rising Sun pubs and lots more flats.
If residents were so against the plans why did less than a dozen bother to respond and object to the proposed development? Is it because most Stanford residents are indifferent or indicative of the failings of so called self proclaimed community leaders to motivate apathetic residents to object to these plans?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from failed election candidate Mr Piccolo blaming one individual for these plans show that he is still a sore vidictive loser.
The Planning Committee decisions aren’t made by a singe person, they are made by a committee who have to take into account planning law and local policies. If Mr Piccolo believes they have made an error his only route would be to ask for a Judicial Review.
Have the others that have chosen to comment on this article REALLY read it? It appears to me that there are two major issues that Mr Piccolo is concerned with. One being not that the site shouldn’t be developed but that in fact the development does not go far enough, having been on to Thurrock Council’s planning website and read the full objection it is not that he is suggesting there should be no development but that the development now approved is not BIG ENOUGH . It is not by any stretch of the imagination big enough to stop Stanford residents who already shop outside the area continuing to do so.
I think the other valid point made is that with no temporary provision for parking where are shoppers who use Stanford at the moment going to park for the 6 to 8 months the car park will be closed while it is being built, without access to the car park their will be less than 40 parking spaces for the whole of the town centre. Shoppers will stop using the town centre and get used to picking up items when they travel out to do their big weekly or monthly shop once they have formed this habit they are unlikely to return.
Whilst his views may be a little idealistic I think a great opportunity has been missed to do more than just put a sticky plaster on the town centre, when what it REALLY needs is major surgery and a skin graft.
As far as Cllr Hipsey goes he was in a difficult position, he is the local ward Cllr and Chair of the Planning Committee, if he had had serious discussion with local shopkeepers regarding the development a charge of predetermination could have been levelled at him, but to talk so forcefully in favour of the application betrayed the legitimate concerns of the shopkeepers he is supposed to represent, he would REALLY have been far better to have removed himself from the procedure.
The problem I have is that over the past year a number of plans have been passed by the council, most of which have not got the backing of the local residents. Time and time again we hear that because it was mentioned in the LDF there is little that can be done to stop it. Clearly the LDF needs to be looked at again as there seems to be bits in it that have escaped the eyes of all councillors
Surely there could have been more adventurous plans for Stanford put forward rather than another souless block with more flats above it. It doesn’t mean that because there are flats above the shopping parades there now that there must now be more flats within this new development. The plan doesn’t excite me and probably doesn’t excite a number of Stanford residents. We have got to be more stringent with whats going up in Thurrock.
I also cannot see why a supermarket chain would be interested in this site considering the proximity to other supermarket chains. I could understand it more if the developer had a popular retailer lined up which would make all the disruption worthwhile.
“It looks like you have contracted the first stages of that awful infection, Toryididntvoteforititis” – I haven’t contracted anything Colin but get annoyed when I hear the council calling half baked plans like this ‘regeneration’ . As I said up-post, there is more to regenerating an area then sticking up a building or several houses and blocks of flats.
Really is right about Hipsey, maybe he should have been allowed to remove himself from making a decision on this issue.
Really…..at least you will get a free parking space for your trouble.
I have felt the need to come out of my retirement from this site,
( my peers had. Advised me to say away from all such sites),
yet I have had to come out & have my say on how obvious it is to why REALY has started moaning again the same as REALY did after a certain day last may. “REALY you should have not have ignored your friends advice and turn your back on his group because he would not give you a particular seat.We all need friends & comrades still Never mind better luck next time.
One wonders why, if this planning application was so opposed by residents, that Mr Piccolo, self proclaimed community champion and losing local election candidate, didn’t organise and present a petition to the Full Council meeting, as after the change to the consitution, petitions of a certain size, including planning issues, will trigger a debate at Full Council.
Ed.
The LDF which was approved n December sought to identify sites for regeneration. In the same document, it says about the potential investigation of a supermarket in STanford. Nowhere does it say anything about this certain planning app. That process is covered in the site allocations consultation.
As for Fll Council debates , we still waiting on the constitution group to review and recommend implementation. Sme time off yet I’m afraid.
It’s all good you trying to sound knowledgable but clearly your spies are telling you the wrong thing or you are being disingenuous.