.jpg)
Beaten cross-party motion means green belt land in Southend has never been more vulnerable
- James Miller
- 21 hours ago
- 7 min read
The Council
Wednesday, 30th April 2025 at 6:30pm
Such confusion over the greenbelt land by Bournes Chase in the recent extraordinary Council meeting, but let me make it clear, the Confelicity Party will do everything in its power to stop building 10,000 homes on that land.
To be clearer, we will never allow building on it if we had our way and are proud to stand with the cross-party campaign with the non-aligned independents, Greens, Conservatives and councillors in Rochford to save the greenbelt.
For non-politicians such as myself, it is difficult to fully understand who holds which powers. My understanding is that ultimately central government have these powers, namely the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is currently the Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP. The Planning Inspectorate is also somewhere involved, and so I wrote to both to find out what actually can be done to stop all this because we are constantly told nothing can be (See appendix 1)
Southend Labour claim their move to build infrastructure first before allowing 10,000 homes on Bournes Green will help residents, but that makes no sense to me.
What would help residents is if they stood up to their national Labour colleagues to fight with every power they do have to stop it. Instead, they are full steam ahead. The council may not own the land, but Labour are certainly not protecting it.
I commend Councillors James Moyies, Stephen Aylen, Daryl Jones, Tony Cox and Daniel Nelson for putting together their motion to stop this new town being built on Bournes Green. However, now it has been voted down by Labour, Lib Dems and the ‘Independent Group’, that land is as vulnerable as it has ever been.
It is time for residents to raise their voices. Join the campaign to save our greenbelt at:
The arguments not to build 10,000 homes on this land have become well-trodden:
Destroying wildlife (Cllr Hyde claimed she’s “putting nature first” with this development. Cannot remember concrete being all that beneficial!)
Increase in air pollution (whatever happened to Southend Labour’s ‘Climate Emergency Declaration’?
Traffic gridlock
Mass overcrowding
Poor infrastructure already in the town
Debate highlights from the meeting
Cllr Moyies - Conservative, said that councillors voted not to build on the land but the next day an application was made by officers, which Cllr Cowan would have known about.
Cllr Cox - Leader of Reform UK Southend said:
“The Leader [Cllr Daniel Cowan, Labour] has publicly claimed he was only following precedent set in 2018—but two wrongs do not make a right.” This is referring to Cllr Cowan’s reasoning/excuse that all he did was carrying on what was already in place instead of just ditching the idea entirely.
Cllr Cox questioned why Uttlesford District Council saw fit to call this in for scrutiny and debate, while this administration believed it was exempt.
He also stated that “Labour and the Lib Dems were fawning over themselves to oppose proposals to build on green belt land—like the Salvation Army site—but can’t wait to have their bellies tickled when it suits.” It’s a fair observation. What’s the difference between the sites? Why stand up for land outside of the council’s remit, but pro-actively carve up land in our own city?
Labour, having reinstated Government housing targets, have decreed Southend must build another 23,000 by 2040, but as Cllr Cox points out, “This proposal won’t even count towards housing targets, which means more pressure to build on remaining green spaces.” This means that Southend will see another 33,000 houses swelling the population to an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 people. Can you imagine what that will do to our precious community?
Very strange if true, Cllr Cox highlighted that the proposal directly impacts St Laurence ward (Cllr Cowan’s ward) and observed the secret squirrel nature in which it came about.
Both Green councillors were exemplary in their statements pointing out the numerous reasons not to destroy this land.
Cllr Daniel Cowan - Leader of Southend Labour and Southend City Council and his Labour, Lib Dem and Independent entourage are the reason this has all come about, but he was resolute in his defence.
One of his arguments is that the expression of interest for development had not just come from them—developers submitted their own. If they withdraw theirs, they would be handing control to developers who Cllr Cowan said “do not have this city’s best interests at heart.” I am sure Taylor Wimpey will be pleased to hear what the leader of Southend City Council thinks this about their organisation being that they will be partners. Nothing like an insult to forge good relations!
He claimed it is inevitable the land will be built on and so it is right to demand it be infrastructure-led.
He said “This administration is willing to stick our neck out there and say enough is enough, give us the roads and give us the hospitals.”
As Cllr Campbell pointed out, where is the guarantee? How many of us truly believe we are going to get a new hospital? If we cannot see a GP now or have to wait months or even years for operations with the infrastructure already in place, what naivety is required to believe this?
It is total fantasy and a con as far as I can see. If one day it happens I will of course eat many hats.
Being that the crux of his argument is make-believe why, then, would anyone back it?
Without irony, Cllr Cowan said that it was an “appalling motion” that was “manipulating the people of Southend” , and “shame on those willing to sell out our residents in this way.”
I entirely disagree.
This was the motion:
1) Ask the Chief Executive and Monitoring officer to carry out a full investigation into the
decision making process that allowed the expression of interest being sent in
November 2018 and the proposal that was submitted in December 2024, and to
recommend changes to the constitution to ensure that in future there is full
democratic oversight of key decisions.
2) Ask the Cabinet to consider not proceeding with the proposal to build a new town,
that was submitted in December 2024, consisting of 10,000 homes on the Green Belt
Land North of Bournes Green Chase.
3) Request that the leader instructs officers to write to the New Towns taskforce to
withdraw the proposal and ask that it is no longer considered by the New Towns
Taskforce as an appropriate location to present to Ministers when delivering their advice.
Personally, I do not feel manipulated or sold out. I think they are all perfectly reasonable asks and would have voted in favour.
Scratching for arguments he said “Many of you live in homes built on green belt land in the 1980s, yet now you want to pull up the drawbridge and deny future residents the same opportunity.” I just don’t think he understands there is a limit! We cannot just keep building because we always have. Let us not forget that there is no law that states Southend residents will get priority over new builds nor set a price that is even affordable. Perhaps the Leader can put it in writing that all Southend residents on the waiting list, and those that are waiting to be put on the waiting list, will ge guaranteed a home on this estate?
He finished by saying “this motion is a political stunt, an appalling attempt to mislead the people of Southend—and it’s the residents who will pay the price.”
No, Cllr Cowan, we will pay the price if you continually ignore the wishes of Southend residents. You are very fortunate it is a fallow year and there are no elections. You have a year to fix this until the 2026 local elections that you have not yet guaranteed to take place nor signed the petition to urge all councillors to do everything is their power to ensure they go ahead.
There are currently two e-petitions that we need your support on:
The first one is about stopping the cancellation of the 2026 local elections; https://democracy.southend.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=99&RPID=32847045&HPID=32847045.
The second is about saving our greenbelt next to Bournes Green: https://democracy.southend.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=102&RPID=32847059&HPID=32847059
References
Appendix 1
Letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is currently the Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP.
Dear Rt Hon Angela Rayner
RE: Objection to Proposed Development North of Bournes Green Chase, Bordering Southend and Rochford
I am writing to formally raise my concerns regarding the proposed development on land north of Bournes Green Chase, which borders the boroughs of Southend-on-Sea and Rochford.
This land has long acted as a vital green buffer that helps preserve the distinct identities of our neighbouring communities. It provides ecological value, contributes to flood resilience, and holds important visual and environmental significance.
The scale of development currently being considered would fundamentally undermine these benefits, while placing unsustainable pressure on already stretched infrastructure — including roads, schools, GP services, and public transport systems.
I am particularly alarmed that this land, understood locally to be protected from development, is now under review. I would appreciate your guidance on the following:
On what policy basis could development be permitted on land so closely aligned with greenbelt function and value?
What statutory and public channels exist for residents, community groups, and local parties to formally challenge or halt this development?
How does your department weigh local democratic objections, environmental evidence, and long-term sustainability in such decisions?
I write as both a concerned citizen and in my role as leader of the Southend Confelicity Party, a local political organisation formed by residents determined to protect the heritage, identity, and green spaces of Southend and its surrounding areas.
Comments made recently by the Leader of Southend City Council — who described the land as “just a load of low quality overworked agriculture fields which people can’t access anyway” — reflect a disturbing disregard for the value that our communities place on open land, regardless of accessibility or soil classification.
Unless decisive action is taken at a national level, I fear the proposed 10,000-home development will proceed unchecked, leading to irreparable damage to our local environment and quality of life.
I respectfully urge your office to investigate the status of this land, scrutinise any applications for development with due rigour, and ensure that proper public engagement is upheld throughout the planning process.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and advise if any intervention is being considered in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
James Miller
Leader, Southend Confelicity Party
Comments