Basildon faces development blitz from Homes Communities Agency (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Basildon faces development blitz from Homes Communities Agency
3:00pm Monday 11th March 2013 in Echo News By Luke Lambert
A sign showing HCA own the land
FEARS have been raised about a development blitz on Basildon after a government agency announced it was pushing ahead with plans for sites around the town.
The Homes Communities Agency has been busy erecting signs across the town on its land ahead of bringing forward building plans. The agency has already been criticised for its plans to build up to 725 on the Dry Street wildlife haven, but it is also looking to develop its other land around the borough.
Vic York, a former Basildon councillor who has lived in the town for 50 years, fears an end to the open spaces that once signified its identity.
He said: “Twenty years from now finding a green space for children to play on in Basildon will be a rarity. We see building work going up all over the borough and where is the infrastructure?
“We will creep closer and closer to the green belt and it won’t be long before that is in serious danger. We need green areas and recreational spaces. Yet we are helpless.”
The HCA is currently working on plans to develop its Nethermayne pocket of land, which incorporates Dry Street; land off Terminus Drive, Pitsea; Gardiners Way, Basildon, where plans have been approved for a gypsy and traveller site; and land next to the Basildon golf course in Clay Hill Road.
Its most recent signs have been put up by a public footpath alongside the golf course, which leads to a conservation area and meadow. Plans for the site involve building a new hotel and leisure facilities, but locals are worried about the potential impact on the environment.
Lynne Wyatt, from Vange, has walked by Basildon Golf Course for more than 10 years and says the area is full of rare wild flowers and butterflies.
She said: “There is an ecosystem here that must be considered. The meadow is full of wild flowers, oak trees and butterflies. I don't think I have ever seen so many butterflies in one area before and the thought of it being built on fills me with dread.”
Comments(15)
ChampKind
says...
5:18pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Carnabackable
says...
5:28pm Mon 11 Mar 13
ChampKind wrote:I'm afraid rhis is due to the simple fact, that a lot of open spaces in those prime counties, are in fact the real green belt, and thus are untouchable, please never try to compare Surrey with Basildon, Canvey or Benfleet.
There are massive green areas in Surrey and Sussex that could easily be developed but that won't happen because the landowners down there all belong to the right club.
benfleet101
says...
5:46pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Carnabackable wrote:Please enlighten me, what is "Real Green Belt"?
ChampKind wrote:I'm afraid rhis is due to the simple fact, that a lot of open spaces in those prime counties, are in fact the real green belt, and thus are untouchable, please never try to compare Surrey with Basildon, Canvey or Benfleet.
There are massive green areas in Surrey and Sussex that could easily be developed but that won't happen because the landowners down there all belong to the right club.
Carnabackable
says...
6:03pm Mon 11 Mar 13
benfleet101 wrote:OK let me educate, when I say real green belt, I'm talking of large open spaces south of London, not airport sized plots of land , such as found at Basildon, Canvey and Benfleet, get it?
Carnabackable wrote:Please enlighten me, what is "Real Green Belt"?
ChampKind wrote:I'm afraid rhis is due to the simple fact, that a lot of open spaces in those prime counties, are in fact the real green belt, and thus are untouchable, please never try to compare Surrey with Basildon, Canvey or Benfleet.
There are massive green areas in Surrey and Sussex that could easily be developed but that won't happen because the landowners down there all belong to the right club.
GrumpyofLeigh
says...
7:21pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Might it not help then to articulate the (legal) difference so that some on these pages might change their terminology?
GrumpyofLeigh
says...
7:22pm Mon 11 Mar 13
ed body responsive to the needs of its electorate.
NOT.
hothead
says...
10:34pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Carnabackable wrote:No such thing as "real green belt! - You are talking out of your
benfleet101 wrote:OK let me educate, when I say real green belt, I'm talking of large open spaces south of London, not airport sized plots of land , such as found at Basildon, Canvey and Benfleet, get it?
Carnabackable wrote:Please enlighten me, what is "Real Green Belt"?
ChampKind wrote:I'm afraid rhis is due to the simple fact, that a lot of open spaces in those prime counties, are in fact the real green belt, and thus are untouchable, please never try to compare Surrey with Basildon, Canvey or Benfleet.
There are massive green areas in Surrey and Sussex that could easily be developed but that won't happen because the landowners down there all belong to the right club.
Devils Advocate
says...
10:39pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Carnabackable wrote:My word, so in your opinion what, anything under a million hectares is not green land?
Not only Basildon comes to mind here, Benfleet and Canvey also have swathes of potential, in regards to new housing estate projects.
Hopefully the master plan is being put to the drawing board right now, good for the economy, good for the people.
You also puzzle me how a "Broke" country can build thousands upon thousands of homes for the new labour force with such speed. Imagine if we still had some money in "Broke Britain" what we could achieve then.
Perhaps you could also explain to the people of Basildon new town why they were moved from the "over-crowded slums of the industrialised East end of London into this "green and pleasant land" that was Basildon and, once it came of age, shut its factories and proceed to remove the green spaces and reform the East end slums here! As for your "Master plan" who's in charge of that? Adolf?It's a sure bet you don't live in Basildon new town then!
I for one am pig sick of the lies being told by this government about how hard up the country is, whilst we watch the growth of high-end cars and luxuries being bestowed on the rest of those who are "All in this together" so now you exclude Surrey from any lower end building? they chucked this mob out years ago because they were found to be the "Party of sleaze" so I just wonder what they will be known as this time round?
GrumpyofLeigh
says...
11:20pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Cosmo Spring
says...
12:13pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Just get it over and done with and lay a thick layer of concrete over the whole area.....
Cosmo Spring
says...
12:37pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Downsizing the town centre and building homes instead of having far too many empty retail units.
Actually finishing the ongoing building projects in Laindon Five Links and the Craylands estates and ensuring that the resulting properties are sold/rented/leased - as we are told often in this newspaper that these projects are suffering becaus eno-one wants to buy the properties.
No point in carrying on building homes if they can''t sell them.
Maybe the Council should take ownership of thousands of these properties to be built in order to house everyone on the housing waiting list.
Unfortunately it seems to be a case of never mind what the local population thinks we;'ll do what heck we like, when we like, how we like and never mind the consequences, look at the solid gold pocket lining we got
Cosmo Spring
says...
12:38pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Diannah
says...
5:29pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Carnabackable wrote:Idiot!
ChampKind wrote:I'm afraid rhis is due to the simple fact, that a lot of open spaces in those prime counties, are in fact the real green belt, and thus are untouchable, please never try to compare Surrey with Basildon, Canvey or Benfleet.
There are massive green areas in Surrey and Sussex that could easily be developed but that won't happen because the landowners down there all belong to the right club.
Lastlaugh...
says...
11:42pm Tue 19 Mar 13
GrumpyofLeigh wrote:DF was a supposed GB land..It was used for commercial purposes for over two decades thereby in the 'usual' circumstances being designated brown field but it wasn't when i fact that was what it was by the councils own usual procedures!
So there's a REAL "Green Belt" and a supposed "Green Belt" then - the latter presumably being anything with a cow or a blade of grass in it which is used as a catch-all phrase?
Might it not help then to articulate the (legal) difference so that some on these pages might change their terminology?
Now that it has been abolished other sites will have to be established.. all costing a fair sum for paying money to some well thought of developers to carry out the work whereas DF was developed and paid for by the resident themselves cost the council Zilch!
Can you figure it out yet?
Carnabackable says...
4:11pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Hopefully the master plan is being put to the drawing board right now, good for the economy, good for the people.