Fears raised that Shoebury can't cope with new estate

Peter Lovett and Nick Ward

Peter Lovett and Nick Ward

First published in Southend by

CONCERNED residents say Shoebury cannot cope with 172 newhomes and four-storey offices.

People living around Old Gunner’s Park are rallying against Garrison Development’s plans to build 172 family homes and 15 office blocks up to four storeys high on the site off Ness Road.

Locals say the area is already full of housing and the new development is expected to bring 500 extra cars if it is approved.

The site, bought by the developers in 2010, is also a flood plain, at risk of being submerged roughly every 100 years.

Peter Lovett, 72, of Leitrim Avenue, Shoebury, said: “The infrastructure won’t cope – they have said that there could be 500 extra cars because of this.

“They want to turn a flood plain into concrete. The storm drains already can’t cope as during the recent bad weather they blew their tops without these extra homes.”

Mr Lovett claims the land, designated as business and commercial use when the Shoebury Garrison masterplan was drawn up in 2004, has been flooded from groundwater on numerous occasions.

The developer, which submitted a planning application for the site in April, said homes and businesses would also be raised to protect them from flooding.

About 4.5 acres of landscaped public space would be created around a drainage ditch to the west of the site near Ness Road to protect the area, which is prone to flooding from the River Shoe as well as the sea. But residents remain unconvinced.

Nick Ward, Independent councillor for Shoebury, said: “We are the most populated area of Southend and we haven’t got the infrastructure in place to handle these homes.

“They are also building it on a flood plain which is worrying, and we need to try and keep as much green space as possible.”

A seawall, separate to the controversial Shoebury Common project, and running between the Common and East Beach – protecting the site – is also in need of repair, according to residents.

Ray Bailey, 71, of Parkanaur Avenue, in Thorpe Bay, added: “My biggest worry is the public purse could end up picking up the bill for the seawall.”

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Howard Cháse says...

Do they need a nice seawall in case of flooding?
Do they need a nice seawall in case of flooding? Howard Cháse
  • Score: 2

7:01pm Wed 13 Aug 14

sesibollox says...

That'll bring down the exclusiveness of the current Garrison estate, all those extra cars tearing around, the beaches thronging with cars backed up by the old Officers Mess..
That'll bring down the exclusiveness of the current Garrison estate, all those extra cars tearing around, the beaches thronging with cars backed up by the old Officers Mess.. sesibollox
  • Score: -4

9:08pm Wed 13 Aug 14

shoess3 says...

sesibollox wrote:
That'll bring down the exclusiveness of the current Garrison estate, all those extra cars tearing around, the beaches thronging with cars backed up by the old Officers Mess..
The Garrison has very definite boundaries and they won't change. There is a premium paid for houses within the boundaries. That's obvious if you look at the Boatyard development. Brand new, bigger houses about 1 foot out of the boundary go for about 15% less than those inside it. Extra cars have no reason to enter the Garrison as the development will be accessible before entering. I don't really care if they build it or not to be honest!
[quote][p][bold]sesibollox[/bold] wrote: That'll bring down the exclusiveness of the current Garrison estate, all those extra cars tearing around, the beaches thronging with cars backed up by the old Officers Mess..[/p][/quote]The Garrison has very definite boundaries and they won't change. There is a premium paid for houses within the boundaries. That's obvious if you look at the Boatyard development. Brand new, bigger houses about 1 foot out of the boundary go for about 15% less than those inside it. Extra cars have no reason to enter the Garrison as the development will be accessible before entering. I don't really care if they build it or not to be honest! shoess3
  • Score: 3

12:39pm Thu 14 Aug 14

jayman says...

There is no Garrison in Shoebury and all references to 'garrison' in place name and Signage should be removed. It's disrespectful To real Garrisons and only promotes a property developers artificial Idyll.

RIP gunners park. The Victorians had the sense to identify this area as a Flood plain, hence the rifle range.
There is no Garrison in Shoebury and all references to 'garrison' in place name and Signage should be removed. It's disrespectful To real Garrisons and only promotes a property developers artificial Idyll. RIP gunners park. The Victorians had the sense to identify this area as a Flood plain, hence the rifle range. jayman
  • Score: 5

7:26pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cockle says...

Another 172 houses will make little difference, I'm afraid.

Shoebury was totally destroyed by all the development of the late 60's and through the 70's into the 80's; a small village-like community that had thousands of houses dumped around it and thousands of new residents who swamped the locals and knew little of what made Shoebury such a special place in which to live. My Shoebury died 30+ years ago so 172 extra houses means nothing.

As for the Garrison being sought after as a place to live, my late father-in-law, Shoebury born and bred, used to laugh at people paying a premium to live in the barracks he'd spent years dreaming of being able to leave when he served in the RA at Shoebury. As he said,' Army houses and barracks is Army houses and barracks, no matter what you calls 'em!'
Another 172 houses will make little difference, I'm afraid. Shoebury was totally destroyed by all the development of the late 60's and through the 70's into the 80's; a small village-like community that had thousands of houses dumped around it and thousands of new residents who swamped the locals and knew little of what made Shoebury such a special place in which to live. My Shoebury died 30+ years ago so 172 extra houses means nothing. As for the Garrison being sought after as a place to live, my late father-in-law, Shoebury born and bred, used to laugh at people paying a premium to live in the barracks he'd spent years dreaming of being able to leave when he served in the RA at Shoebury. As he said,' Army houses and barracks is Army houses and barracks, no matter what you calls 'em!' Cockle
  • Score: 1

12:03am Sat 16 Aug 14

shoess3 says...

Green eyed monster showing its face again. Face it, the Garrison does exist and people pay a fortune to live there! That's because it is an idyllic place.
Green eyed monster showing its face again. Face it, the Garrison does exist and people pay a fortune to live there! That's because it is an idyllic place. shoess3
  • Score: 0

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