ANGRY residents are fighting Rochford District Council’s plans to cut down a 40-year-old sycamore tree and build on a green.

The council wants to build a block containing two apartments on space between homes in Hambro Hill, Rayleigh.

A previous application in August was turned down due to a lack of car parking space.

But the council has now submitted revised plans for the piece of land used by residents and children as a recreational space.

Sue Keating, 59, whose home is next to the green, says neighbours in more than 20 homes in the road are planning to fight to keep the open space.

She said: “The council is doing this all over the district.

“They are cutting down more and more trees and building more and more homes.

“They will be able to get more for this land with planning permission but they are ransacking the area and just money grabbing.

“We believe we have found a way to stop this as a neighbour has found a covenant in her deeds which says the land can’t be built on. It was meant as an access to all the homes here but children use it to play football in the summer and birds nest in the sycamore. It’s a lovely tree and it upsets me to think it could go.”

An unnamed resident who wrote a letter of objection, said: “When the close was built there were no allocated parking spaces whatsoever. This area would be better used as a parking amenity to ease congestion of parking vehicles in the close.”

The application is for two, two-bedroom apartments with four resident parking spaces and one visitor space.

In its application the council said: “The area is dominated by residential properties, thus it should be deemed that there will be no negative impact on introducing the proposal with this cul-de-sac.” The plot, owned by the council, does not form part of its local plan.

A report by council officers said: “it is considered that the proposed appearance, scale and layout would be acceptable. The proposed development would not result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene.”

They added the development was proportionate with the scale of existing buildings within the area and “therefore not considered that the scale, bulk, height and appearance appearance of the proposed building would result in harm upon the character and appearance of the area.”