Plans to build 78 dwellings on the Gimsons site in Witham have understandably met unprecedented opposition and need to be radically changed to be remotely acceptable.

People are concerned at potential damage to the neighbouring River Walk, to wildlife, and the tranquillity of our town centre.

They point out the increased dangers from the access road to walkers especially children going to and from school and not least people just enjoying the open air.

They are worried about the poor junction at Maldon Road, the disturbance to Helen Court residents, and give many other strong reasons.

The town council has endorsed these objections to the plans and added sound planning reasons based on the legal planning position, the real need for houses for local people, the

unnecessary removal of trees, and the general adverse impact on Gimsons itself, the town park and the river walk.

Braintree Council’s own appraisal of the site says that no more than 40 dwellings could be accommodated on it; these could be fitted in as apartment blocks or sheltered housing to reduce the impact on the parkland aspect.

There remain serious doubts about any access along River View from Maldon Road, and the lower number could perhaps be better reached from Newland Street via Kings Chase.

It has been revealed that Braintree Council intend to sell their access using River View to Bellway Homes for £1.8 million.

People will rightly ask that this be earmarked for investment in Witham.

If it isn’t, the impression will grow that Witham yet again is the poor relation of Braintree.

The town council has asked that Braintree’s planning committee meet in Witham when this proposal comes up for decision.

It may be less convenient for the council’s planning staff but openness and democratic decision-making call for a local hearing.

After all, at planning appeals, the Inspector is quite prepared if necessary to hold it locally.

Given the meagre three minutes allowed for public speaking at those meetings, the town council will be ready to help those wishing to attend to make best use of the time.

At the moment, the planning committee feels under pressure to allow almost any application involving housebuilding because of a perceived difficulty in showing a sufficient

housing land supply for the next five years, as the government requires.

This leads to the fear of successful appeals against refusals.

But this approach leads to poorly designed developments often in the wrong place without sufficient health, schooling, welfare, transport and employment being available.

Isn’t it time the planning committee made a stand in defence of residents’ rights, refused bad applications like this one, and actually showed a bit of backbone?

Michael Lager

Chipping Hill, Witham