CONSERVATIVE councillors from across Thurrock are urging residents to respond to a significant consultation on the development of Thurrock in the next decade.
The Strategic Planning documents outline both the broad policies that could be adopted when deciding on future developments, as well as a number of proposals for specific sites. The plans are open for consultation until Friday 1st March and any Thurrock resident can respond.
Stanford councillor Phil Anderson said “The documents that are out to consultation will have a big impact on residents in Stanford and Corringham. We’re experiencing lots of change locally, from thousands of new jobs at DP World to the upgrade to A13. We also have lots of unresolved issues, from the future of the Pegasus club to Stanhope Industrial Estate on Wharf road. This is a once in a decade chance for people to influence the strategic plans, and it’s crucial people make their views known.”
Orsett councillor Sue Little commented “The proposal for 80 new homes and a hospice in the village of Horndon is a concern. I am committed to protecting the green belt in Thurrock, and ensuring our small villages keep their traditional character. Thurrock needs a hospice, but we need to decide as a borough where the best place for it is.”
Ockendon councillor Lynn Carr added “These plans will also have a significant impact over in the west half of Thurrock. It is proposed to add over 2000 new homes in Aveley and Ockendon. This will put extra pressures on the local road network, which already struggles whenever there are problems on the M25.”
Little Thurrock councillor Rob Gledhill added “It’s important people reply to tell us what they do like, as well as what that they don’t. The plans include new and expanded schools for our growing communities, as well as upgrades to the rail network and improvements for Grays. I’m sure lots of people will support these ideas, and this consultation is an opportunity to show that.”
The Core strategy consultation can be found on the council’s website at
http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/strategic/content.php?page=core_strategy
and the Site Specific policies can be found at http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/strategic/content.php?page=site_specific
Both consultations close March 1st
On a quick scan of this document it appears to be saying build on greenbelt because we need more housing. A couple of sites for relocating existing facilities. So more of the same then. The Arena Essex site should be a real winner. Imgine getting out of there when there’s when a minor motoring altercation has taken place 3 miles down the M25. Went shopping on Saturday morning, got back Sunday afternoon just in time for tea. The Mardyke’s next.
I just had a quick look and all I can see is ways in which the council can build on green belt land with a small addition of land added back to the green belt around Coryton.
Building any houses near Arena Essex is a bad idea. It is nice to have some open land close to Lakeside. The only reason why leisure services were allowed on the green belt in the first place was that it kept the general openess of the land and allowed residents to use the space. Football clubs, go karting tracks etc were not given permission so that 40-50 years later we could move them all onto another field and concrete over the old with houses.
This document sums up what people have been saying for ages…Thurrock is sadly the dump of Essex where anything goes. It would be nice to hear all our officials say enough is enough…go build houses elsewhere rather than advocating building on empty parcels of land which actually make the borough ten times more attractive than more mini Chaffords all over the place.
Politically only one party will benefit from all this concreting and it certainly will not be the Conservative party if current demographic trends are anything to go by.
However much I moan I will be taking my time and commenting on everything I don’t like, which will be no building on the green belt anywhere, and I urge others to do the same.
Very unimpressive, Arena Essex would be a designers nightmare, unstable and most probably contaminated landfills, would need major works including piling of the ground to build what is becoming the norm 3 /4 storey flats apartments. I agree with the comments of both of the above, we would need a major rethink on the highway links to this area (for one I doubt they would get national approval in light of the current situations), where we already have grid locks, when a minor incident occurs on local or M roads,or its the’ in time’ to be shopping at Lakeside. Its a NO from me, I agree to future planning and a little more inventiveness from all concerned, the location is not inkeeping with housing and more akin to community useage +.
Little Thurrock FC, I agree with this land being utilised for housing, community, shops and educational sites, as it sits nicely in an area which is already built up and expanding existing services,(sewers, water, gas and electric supplies would be easily adapted, the alternative is there is plenty of land on the other side of the Manorway, to develop the football club and new ground to benefit everyone in the community.
From a couple of years back when the ‘sports hub’ was the in word ‘ of local politics and politicians’, now the most serviceable multi sports unit in the area The Pegasus Club, with some extra funding this could easily be adapted to expand on the sports played by adopting some of the green belt land local to the club, without upsetting or encroaching on the lives of those who have no sporting interests. Currently the club services the local community with a massive number of locals as members at the club, just look at the crowds that ETFC draw on match days (remember footbal is only a winter thing), add in a few daytime drinkers on match days and you could have mutiny as there doesn’t seem to be any provision for the future of the social membership and other well established al year orund sports clubs who already ply their trade there, the rumours are that once ownership is determined, there are people hell bent on turning the sports ground into a major housing development (and a nice fat profit) rather than the proposals offered here. So a NO from me.
The area on Coryton Marshes should be set aside for what is intended.
I think the lead in time is too short and needs more expansive get togethers, meetings and most of all more understanding for the laymen amongst us, in light of the effects these sites will have on all things locally.
This Anderson is a piece of work him and his fellow members have got the front to say get involved with the consultation 2000 people petitioned against Oliver road and he still includes it in the core strategy if 2000 people aren’t a consultation and are not listened too what is the point of having consultations it’s a bit ridiculous.
What consultation means in thurrock is members and officers decide what they want in the consultation no matter what the outcome of that consultation still do what they want this is why that dog should keep his mouth shut or explain why they went against the wishes of 2000 people in West thurrock so bark now Anderson and lets here what you have got to say
From 2000 people
MIKE CASEY you have got to take on some responsibility for the tripe you let council members say on here. Why don’t you make some phone calls,do some investigations and wake up smell the coffee I’ve seen sleeping journalists but your in a coma, stop just listening to the old toffee these people put out another political statement by Anderson who just don’t know when to stop lying,you know he’s lying,everyone in thurrock knows he’s lying so why don’t you ask him some questions in a taped interview with members of the pals group. Ask him if he will have an interview with the representatives of PALS group and then put on here the answer mike if he agrees to it or not, let’s see how he is under pressure I guarantee you this toe rag will not agree to the interview with the PALS group and p.s if you don’t know by now when Anderson is lying here’s a tip his mouth moves
Am I reading this right ? Councillors have put proposals forward to build in greenbelt areas around the borough ? They all voted to do so last November ?. They renamed it a consultation process ?. Now the very same councillors want people to speak out against what they voted for ?.
These so called elected representatives are clueless. Behind the scenes they vote for something, then make out to be on he side of those who wasted their vote on them. Looks like a sketch out of Monty pythons top draw.
This was why I put my comment it is a get- up out and out
Do not let this opportunity pass you by. Yes, the response form is complicated, but you have to vote against Pegasus Club changing, accepting anything over than keeping the status quo.
Behind the Peg sits a beautiful track bed that not even Mobil destroyed when they built the Peg in 1959, seven years after they lifted the track in that area. This shows us that if Mobil did not use this land for their club, why should whoever buys the club take the land and add it to the Peg’s ground.
Vote against this LDF and lets keep The Corringham Light Railway track bed intact for future generations to remember and use as a Heritage Walk.
joe h – in the past few years we have had Councillors campaigning against a lorry park in tilbury, houses on the woodview college site and the Blackshot sports hub when they all voted twice for it to be council policy that these sites are to be developed.
One hypocritical Conservative Councillors made a main plank of her re-election campaigning against a Blackshots sports hub when she was the very Portfolio holder that suggested the site become a sports hub and then twice voted it be council policy that the site becomes a sports hub.
It is also utter hypocrisy for certain Councillors to campaign on ‘protecting Thurrock’s Green Belt’ when they have voted for it to be council policy that at least 15% of new houses are to be built in the Green Belt and they voted to re designate some parts of Thurrock’s Green Belt as ‘urban Fringes’ instead.
Unfortunately not enough members of the public keep an eye on exactly what their councillors are voting for and there isn’t the vocal and effective political opposition to highlight to residents the hypocrisy and down right lies told by some of Thurrock’s elected members.
Ed lets not be like them I think you should say all elected members