Developer won’t give affordable housing

First published in News

THE firmbehind the Shoebury housing plans says it won’t be able to contribute towards affordable housing, education or infrastructure because it is already paying nearly £1million for the controversial seawall plan.

Garrison Developments has offered to pay £970,000 towards a 7ft seawall Southend Council plans to build across Shoebury Common if it gets permission for the new estate. This would protect more than 350 homes and businesses in Shoebury from flooding.

Council policy requires developers to hand over 30 per cent of housing developments to housing associations as social housing.

Planning officers have suggested Garrison Developments also contributes £1.5million towards local schools and between £10,000 and £15,000 towards roads as a condition of allowing the scheme.

But the Chelmsford-based developer, which is storing 44,000 tonnes of earth, extracted from Southend Cliff Gardens and due to be used for the seawall, claims the contributions would make the plans unviable.

Peter Lovett, of anti-seawall campaign group, the Friends of Shoebury Common, said: “We were told that the 172 residential units and 1,500sq m of employment development did not need the new seawall, but the application for planning permission was submitted on April 10, the day after the Shoebury Common seawall was approved.

“With all the flooding in the past nine months on flood plains, it is a surprise applications of this sort are still allowed.

“It is fairly obvious, with a cheque for £1million on the development control committee table, they are unlikely to reject it.”

Garrison Developments has submitted a “viability assessment”

setting out why it can only afford the seawall payment.

The council is likely to pay consultants to check out the figures before planning officers recommend action to the councillors.

Paul Denney, technical director for Garrison Developments, said: “In putting our proposals together, we have consulted the Environment Agency and Southend Council.

“Both of these organisations identified planning contributions towards improved sea defences at Shoebury Common as a key priority, as hundreds of existing homes and businesses in Shoebury are threatened by potential flooding.

“Our contribution proposals therefore focus on viability and flood defences.

“We expect the council to undertake an independent review of our own viability assessments in deciding how much we should contribute.

“Ultimately, how the council then chooses to use the funds is up to it.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:01pm Wed 7 May 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Seems fair, after all they're not a charity
Seems fair, after all they're not a charity carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 1

3:11pm Wed 7 May 14

Happy Chickie says...

No money or profits in social housing.
No money or profits in social housing. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 6

3:14pm Wed 7 May 14

shoess3 says...

I'd like to know where the children of this new estate will go to school?? The new Hinguar on the Garrison was (stupidly) built to the same capacity as the old one, and has one class of 30 pupils intake per year. Already most of these pupils originate from the Garrison due to them being close to the schools front door! Maybe the real families that will suffer are the ones furthest from the school but still in the catchment?
I'd like to know where the children of this new estate will go to school?? The new Hinguar on the Garrison was (stupidly) built to the same capacity as the old one, and has one class of 30 pupils intake per year. Already most of these pupils originate from the Garrison due to them being close to the schools front door! Maybe the real families that will suffer are the ones furthest from the school but still in the catchment? shoess3
  • Score: 16

3:18pm Wed 7 May 14

Andycal 172D says...

Ah! Excellent! Brown envelopes and gin and tonics all round!
Ah! Excellent! Brown envelopes and gin and tonics all round! Andycal 172D
  • Score: 12

4:02pm Wed 7 May 14

Jack222 says...

They have to make a profit; they've already donated heaps.

And why should all estates have to have slum housing (oops, affordable housing)?
They have to make a profit; they've already donated heaps. And why should all estates have to have slum housing (oops, affordable housing)? Jack222
  • Score: 5

4:40pm Wed 7 May 14

TherealIndiana says...

Well if it is council policy, they'll have thier plans rejected...unless the planning officer comes home to a new swimming pool....
Well if it is council policy, they'll have thier plans rejected...unless the planning officer comes home to a new swimming pool.... TherealIndiana
  • Score: 14

5:29pm Wed 7 May 14

JayRSS1 says...

So instead of paying for social housing, schools, road infrastructure, of £1515,000 at the lower estimate, the developers are getting a nice little bonus of over half a million (£535,000) to store some dirt and contribute to a sea wall that it seems nobody but the council wants.

Nice stitch up job to the residents and tax payers of Southend.
So instead of paying for social housing, schools, road infrastructure, of £1515,000 at the lower estimate, the developers are getting a nice little bonus of over half a million (£535,000) to store some dirt and contribute to a sea wall that it seems nobody but the council wants. Nice stitch up job to the residents and tax payers of Southend. JayRSS1
  • Score: 13

5:57pm Wed 7 May 14

sosad 1 says...

as I keep saying sbc the most corrupt council ever bent all of them as I keep saying on here come and get me I will sing like a canary
as I keep saying sbc the most corrupt council ever bent all of them as I keep saying on here come and get me I will sing like a canary sosad 1
  • Score: 6

5:59pm Wed 7 May 14

Nebs says...

Why should developers have to pay anything towards anything. The council will get council tax from the new homes that will pay for education and infastructure.
We are always being told that social housing does not cost the taxpayer anything as the rent covers the costs, if that is true then why should the developers pay towards it.
Personally I think they should build the industrial estate as per the original plans, and if they can't then sell the land to someone who can.
Why should developers have to pay anything towards anything. The council will get council tax from the new homes that will pay for education and infastructure. We are always being told that social housing does not cost the taxpayer anything as the rent covers the costs, if that is true then why should the developers pay towards it. Personally I think they should build the industrial estate as per the original plans, and if they can't then sell the land to someone who can. Nebs
  • Score: -3

6:20pm Wed 7 May 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Jack222 wrote:
They have to make a profit; they've already donated heaps.

And why should all estates have to have slum housing (oops, affordable housing)?
Slum housing=scum housed in 'em
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: They have to make a profit; they've already donated heaps. And why should all estates have to have slum housing (oops, affordable housing)?[/p][/quote]Slum housing=scum housed in 'em carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 2

6:57pm Wed 7 May 14

ThisYear says...

Section 106
Section 106 ThisYear
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Wed 7 May 14

pembury53 says...

you have to laugh at this obsession with 'affordable housing' ...... does anyone actually know what it means ? most people on even half decent wedge couldn't afford a garden shed these days...... affordable 'buy to lets' is about the strength of it...
you have to laugh at this obsession with 'affordable housing' ...... does anyone actually know what it means ? most people on even half decent wedge couldn't afford a garden shed these days...... affordable 'buy to lets' is about the strength of it... pembury53
  • Score: 9

7:23pm Wed 7 May 14

Kim Gandy says...

There is no such thing as affordable housing. Not any more. Not unless you are a champagne socialist..
They are the ones with the biggest houses and flashiest cars these days.
There is no such thing as affordable housing. Not any more. Not unless you are a champagne socialist.. They are the ones with the biggest houses and flashiest cars these days. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 5

7:36pm Wed 7 May 14

ROBOTS' REBELLION says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
There is no such thing as affordable housing. Not any more. Not unless you are a champagne socialist..
They are the ones with the biggest houses and flashiest cars these days.
We don't actually need housing in the town. What we need to do is collectively 'grow a pair' and stop people moving into our poor overcrowded town. Immigrants into our town take our jobs, and swell the burden on our services. Stop immigration into this town now, until we can comfortably accommodate more people.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: There is no such thing as affordable housing. Not any more. Not unless you are a champagne socialist.. They are the ones with the biggest houses and flashiest cars these days.[/p][/quote]We don't actually need housing in the town. What we need to do is collectively 'grow a pair' and stop people moving into our poor overcrowded town. Immigrants into our town take our jobs, and swell the burden on our services. Stop immigration into this town now, until we can comfortably accommodate more people. ROBOTS' REBELLION
  • Score: 7

9:20pm Wed 7 May 14

Devils Advocate says...

Strange. This must be new wave business, who, according to some here, "Must make a profit."
However, this also applied in Gloucester Park in Basildon.
Part of the contract entailed that they build "Social Housing" (an American term) then these so-called business men say they can't do it. To me, that is breach of contract.
This silliness started with the Barclay building in Basildon. When it was sold on the strength of providing "800 jobs" for the district. Having built it, Barclays changed their mind about its use. Built on land intended as Gloucester Park North Western extension, another twist from a twisting council.
Makes Great Britain home of the sharpest practices in the world.
No wonder that De Gaulle said a resounding "NON!" to us joining his common market!
Strange. This must be new wave business, who, according to some here, "Must make a profit." However, this also applied in Gloucester Park in Basildon. Part of the contract entailed that they build "Social Housing" (an American term) then these so-called business men say they can't do it. To me, that is breach of contract. This silliness started with the Barclay building in Basildon. When it was sold on the strength of providing "800 jobs" for the district. Having built it, Barclays changed their mind about its use. Built on land intended as Gloucester Park North Western extension, another twist from a twisting council. Makes Great Britain home of the sharpest practices in the world. No wonder that De Gaulle said a resounding "NON!" to us joining his common market! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 6

9:37pm Wed 7 May 14

the25man says...

Because Government wants to get all Council Housing into Private Hands Housing Associations and Council have a duty to house people and because of the Right to buy the only way to get more houses is to force developers to build cheap houses for a Housing Association. This developer has a problem in that the sea wall is necessary to them but cost more than would make the development profitable if they had to do it themselves. So the planners have a problem Sea Wall and no Affordable Houses; or no extra moneys for the Sea Wall with result no houses
Because Government wants to get all Council Housing into Private Hands Housing Associations and Council have a duty to house people and because of the Right to buy the only way to get more houses is to force developers to build cheap houses for a Housing Association. This developer has a problem in that the sea wall is necessary to them but cost more than would make the development profitable if they had to do it themselves. So the planners have a problem Sea Wall and no Affordable Houses; or no extra moneys for the Sea Wall with result no houses the25man
  • Score: 1

10:41pm Wed 7 May 14

jayman says...

i fail to see the optional cost vs essential need confusion here.

1) you built the houses on or in an area that requires sea defence work in order to protect the very product (the one in which you have constructed) from being destroyed or damaged by....em..... the ****ing sea!!!!

2) the developers requirement to provide a degree of social housing in return from plundering land resources in order to make a behemoth profit that you have raked in by selling an artificial housing idyll which occupies the defiled remains of a military garrison.
i fail to see the optional cost vs essential need confusion here. 1) you built the houses on or in an area that requires sea defence work in order to protect the very product (the one in which you have constructed) from being destroyed or damaged by....em..... the ****ing sea!!!! 2) the developers requirement to provide a degree of social housing in return from plundering land resources in order to make a behemoth profit that you have raked in by selling an artificial housing idyll which occupies the defiled remains of a military garrison. jayman
  • Score: 1

9:34am Thu 8 May 14

shoeburyden says...

JayRSS1 wrote:
So instead of paying for social housing, schools, road infrastructure, of £1515,000 at the lower estimate, the developers are getting a nice little bonus of over half a million (£535,000) to store some dirt and contribute to a sea wall that it seems nobody but the council wants.

Nice stitch up job to the residents and tax payers of Southend.
so we will be giving back the cash they have given for the sea wall by paying them to store the mud. did they pay for the land ? or was that a gift. and will this company go under when the estate is built, like all the other developers
[quote][p][bold]JayRSS1[/bold] wrote: So instead of paying for social housing, schools, road infrastructure, of £1515,000 at the lower estimate, the developers are getting a nice little bonus of over half a million (£535,000) to store some dirt and contribute to a sea wall that it seems nobody but the council wants. Nice stitch up job to the residents and tax payers of Southend.[/p][/quote]so we will be giving back the cash they have given for the sea wall by paying them to store the mud. did they pay for the land ? or was that a gift. and will this company go under when the estate is built, like all the other developers shoeburyden
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree