Angry scenes as plans to demolish Sherards House and replace with council housing are approved

News / Sat 19th Aug 2023 at 11:04am

LOCAL residents were very upset on Wednesday night after the Harlow Council planning committee unanimously approved plans to demolish Sherards House and replace it with council housing.

Sherards House is situated on Three Horseshoes Road in Harlow.

Film of the meeting is below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 Comments for Angry scenes as plans to demolish Sherards House and replace with council housing are approved:

2023-08-19 12:32:12

Shocking. If outsiders were not living in so many of harlows council properties,then harlow people on the council waiting lists could be allocated for these homes instead of keep on building more and more homes. It is an absolute disgrace what has bern done with harlow. All of our lives are getting affected in a negative way because of this constant building of homes. Harlow looks so ugly, it is just a mass of ugly new builds and cars parking on pavements and parking on green spaces and churning it all up and the pavements are so damaged in some areas caused by cars and vans. Open your eyes and walk around some of the older areas in Harlow new town in the evenings,take a good look for yourselves and see what it is like for a pedestrian in this ruined town.

Nicholas Taylor
2023-08-19 13:39:56

I suggest that readers go to to the film at 14.45 to hear the reasons why residents objected to the scheme. They include the fact that 1) The application was not properly made in the first place, either Councillors chose to ignore that fact or did not understand the point being made 2) A road leading to 11 of the houses is just 3 metres wide, not be big enough to allow vehicles to pass along it at the same time. 3) Nothing has been learnt from history in Harlow, many trees are to be planted near to houses and parking spaces to make up for the cutting down of many large trees already on site 4) The demolition of a house pre-dating the New Town, a house which the Council owns and has left to fall into dis-repair. 5) The need for more homes for older people who would then vacate their family home which is now larger than they need 6) Over development of the site.

James Leppard
2023-08-19 15:09:15

Nicholas Taylor, you know full well all the objections raised were taken seriously by the Committee which was precisely why the original application was deferred. You also know that each of those points was addressed by Planning officers. We cannot reject applications unless based on material grounds based on Planning laws. You heard the Planning and legal officers' comments. Just not likening something is not a material ground for rejection.

Nicholas Taylor
2023-08-19 15:22:55

James, as Harlow Council are the land owner and applicant, it could have withdrawn the application and considered alternatives. The final version was about the 20th attempt to fit a quart in a pint pot, the house is to be demolished. the application was flawed, in order to separate pedestrians and traffic the road to 11 houses will not allow vehicles leaving and entering the site to pass each other, many trees on site close to houses will cause problems in the long term, only one Councillor went into the garden of a nearby house. This was simply a bad plan which got worse and worse as time passed by. It is clear that residents living nearby will never trust local politicians again. By the way, where is Cllr Lemay these days and why did Cllr Eddie Johnson not come round to speak to residents?

2023-08-19 15:28:19

James Leppard. But they did NOT address the issues raised by such residents which is worse. I have also listen to the meeting and I note neither have you addressed Nicks , points above. (Particularly point 1!!! ) This simply shows the contempt you and your party seem to apply to local residents opinions. Voters please please please take note.! Ps tell the council leader to tuck his shirt in.. 😂

Kim Oconnor
2023-08-19 18:56:35

This council does not take public options in to account, never has..James Leppard, why were letters sent out for consultation, on the same day consultation was being held,, James why wasn't all residents sent this letter... your council don't want to hear us..

2023-08-20 08:41:04

Just like always,someone has there finger in the pie, it's always the same, trying to take away our history, the chequers pub disappeared without consultation,, they always sneek in what they want ,DONT TRUST ANY OF THEM

2023-08-20 13:04:41

Hit them where it hurts. Come the local elections boot the lot of them out. 1st on the list that snug obnoxious chair who clearly didn't want to hear the residents words. What is his interest in the plan going ahead. Mind he don't get his fingers burnt

2023-08-20 17:03:00

I agree with you Gary,The Garden Tiger pub has now got a post box on the public bar door with a number on it and another 4 or 5 post boxes attatched to the wall next to the main front door of the pub. Heard its not operating as a pub anymore and seems like a few families living there.All hush hush.

Steve Barnes
2023-08-21 12:33:57

James Leppard, As they say, 'There is none so deaf as those who will not hear'. I suggest, as Nicholas Taylor has already done, you should go to 14:45 and listen again. Then look at what you have written. One of the reasons for the deferral was the accuracy of the plans. They were wrong last time, they were wrong this time and I told you so. The site as indicated on the application is not the same area as the site (for clarity HS2-8) indicated on the Local Development Plan. The first set of plans submitted did not include a strip of land to the South of the site (for clarity this strip of land was included in HS2-8). Part of any application is a certificate of ownership. This is often known as Cert A. This was signed by the Council's Agent for the original plans drawn and submitted for the site. The Council then surreptitiously MOVED THE BOUNDARIES of the site without consulting the public. Because an amended Cert A was not submitted and the site boundaries were moved the original Certificate is INVALID and consequently the altered application site plan and layout is INVALID. You cannot give a correct decision on an INVALID application. The Council's Planner and Legal Service Officer avoided that objection. Their stance that they do not have anything to do with land ownership may be true as far as the Planner is concerned but the Legal service officer is also representing the Council (The Applicant). The point is not who owns the land but, if you move the site boundary, you need a new Cert A and a new application. The amended set of plans extended the site to the North. This again, is not part of the area as indicated on the Local Development Plan HS2-8 and this strip of land is DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC TO FORM PART OF THE HIGHWAY. The Council have not consulted with them about this. James in a separate comment column you mentioned Judicial Review the information about which makes interesting reading. Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety. Take a look.

Leave a Comment Below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *