2nd Mud Mound application passed

Contrary to 21 resident objections and objections from opposition planning committee members, the secondary mound application was passed at the planning hearing on Thursday 3rd June, by all four Conservative panel members.

The spoil from the new Harrow Lodge Sports Centre build would appear not to have been monitored by the Council or Contractors during the duration of the works.  This resulted in significant piles of spoil and mud being piled up behind residential properties of Wallis Close in St. Leonard’s Estate.  After being promised by Cllr Persaud and Cllr White from the  Conservative Administration that the mounds would be removed, the Council seem to have forgotten promises made in local newspapers that this problem would be alleviated for residents.

The mounds left in situ at the back of the sports centre have left residents of Wallis Close with flooded gardens, their properties being overlooked and residents have said they fear the risk of crime and disorder.  To hear that another application to landscape the next field with more spoil from the building works left the residents of Creasey, Henderson and Pett Close of St. Leonard’s Estate feeling a little exasperated and let down by the Council too.

Residents Association Members are pushing for answers as to how the spoil has managed to become such a problem?  The price of taking the spoil off site must have been quoted in the Contractors original bid? Why was this not being monitored during the build? Where was the Cabinet Member and Council Officers during this new build and why was there not any monitoring of the build up of spoil? Why have the Contractors been able to not remove the spoil or be held to account by the Council?  There are so many unanswered questions, and the mounds and spoil all stacked up, out of sight from users of the new sports centre.






Author: Jody Ganly

Jody is a Hornchurch Resident's Association Executive member for Hylands Ward.

1 thought on “2nd Mud Mound application passed

  1. All of the questions regarding contractor’s failure to perform to contract are perfectly valid. Either the contract failed to address the disposal of spoil, or the contractor failed to meet contract terms. It’s difficult to understand why the council is providing a get out of jail option, especially when the consequence is to the detriment of the residents whose best interests they are supposed to represent. The council should not be allowed to get away with not providing a full explanation. I very much sympathise with the residents concerned.

What are your thoughts? Why not share by commenting below: