At 7.35 pm Councillors Hipsey, Kelly, C. Baker, B. Little, Liddiard, Ojetola, G. Rice and Wheeler left the Council Chamber.

The Mayor informed the Chamber that a petition had been submitted to Development Management titled ‘Save Corringham Greenbelt – we the undersigned object to any development on green belt land’ and that as the petition had reached the threshold of 1,500 verified signatures, it had qualified to be debated by the Council. 

Members were informed that the signatures had been checked and verified by Democratic Services using the electoral register.

The Mayor invited Mr. Kabul Sandu, the Lead Petitioner to speak on the petition.

During his address to the Chamber, Mr Sandu requested that the Council recommend and urge the Planning Committee to reject the applications in the Corringham greenbelt for the following reasons:

·         In additional to the petition, 600 people had emailed the Planning Department with their objections; with many dismissing point by point the case from the developer;

·         That the land had been identified as green belt land and that the national framework policy stated that local authorities should avoid inappropriate building on green belt land;

·         The infrastructure would be unable to sustain an increase in local population and overcrowding would affect the whole community, increase in traffic would have a negative impact on the boroughs highway network and local hospitals and doctors surgeries would experience an increase in pressure on their services which would lead to delays in waiting times;

·         An increase in population in the area would worsen the parking in the local area and also impact on the current lack of emergency services in place, i.e. police station;

·         The figures that the developer had taken into account were from a 2008 survey; meaning that the numbers were out of date.

Members welcomed the opportunity to debate the petition and congratulated local residents for their efforts, noting that this was the second time a petition on the subject had been debated by the Council.

Councillor Tolson commented that she had enquired with National Rail as to the possibility of a rail station as part of the development and had been informed that this was not the case. She continued to inform the Chamber that the government had provided funding to update Stanford Le Hope Station and the only recent new rail stations within the area were West Ham and Chafford Hundred. 

Councillor Speight stated that the application was within the Green Belt and felt that without very special circumstances applications on Green Belt land were not to be approved. He continued to explain that the development would impact on Southend Road with the amount of congestion created. He further urged residents to get involved with the consultation for the Local Plan.

Councillor Halden congratulated the lead petitioner for presenting a petition to the Council for the second time and commented that although the application may be the right thing for the business sector, it was not for local residents or the people of Corringham.

Council Roast informed Members that he was firmly against the proposed development of 750 dwellings which was to be located on Green Belt land and observed that the hard work of Mr Sandu and the Save Corringham Green Belt team also highlighted that residents did not want the development and that they should be listened to.

Councillor Jones voiced concern over the increase of population in the area, as doctor surgeries could barely cope and Basildon Hospital was near to breaking point.

Councillor J. Kent, Leader of the Council, reminded Members that the decision was that of the Planning Committee and that the development was not part of a Core Strategy. He explained that if the planning decision was referred to the Secretary of State he hoped that they would listen to residents’ concerns.

Councillor Stewart stated that Members had to listen to the residents as they were voted in as Elected Members by them. She further reported that if residents did not want the development the first time the application was submitted they also did not want it now.

Councillor S. Little was concerned of the impact on vehicle movements within the area and felt the planning application, alongside the development of the port, would be disastrous.

RESOLVED:

That the Petition be referred to the Planning Committee and be taken into consideration when the Planning Committee is called upon to determine the relevant planning application, reference number 15/00205/OUT.

At 7.58 pm Councillors Hipsey, Kelly, C. Baker, B. Little, Liddiard, Ojetola, G. Rice and Wheeler re-entered the Council Chamber.