THURROCK Council's planning committee has stood by its decision to back a controversial housing development – even though their decision could land the authority in hot water the law and at risk of a big financial penalty.

The decision was described as borderline madness – 'kamikazi stuff' by the committee's chair.

Approval was granted for the second time of asking for 75 new homes on a triangle of green belt land opposite USP Palmer's College bordering Grays and Chadwell St Mary.

Members voted for the scheme against an officer recommendation for refusal last month which meant they had to come back and consider the matter again on Thursday (16 July).

They did so and, despite stark warnings from legal advisors, planning officers and committee chairman Tom Kelly, four out of the seven members who were eligible to vote gave it the green light again.

It is now possible that the decision could be branded unlawful and might have to go before the full council to rebuke its planning members – or it could be called in by the secretary of state who could order a hearing that could land the council with a huge bill.

And a secondary problem comes because the senior planning officers who would have to present the council's case say they will not do it.

The council's major application planning officer Matthew Gallagher presented reasons why officers were against the site and said: "In summary, as it is a greenbelt site, and you are looking at inappropriate development, any decision will have to be referred to the secretary of state.

"If the matter is called in, this has implications for council officers who would have to defend your decision and to put it quite bluntly I couldn't."

Members backing the scheme had pointed to the lack of a five year housing supply in the borough and the scheme's potential contribution to affordable housing as factors in its favour, but Mr Gallagher said: "Weight will be given to that but it does not clearly outweigh the demonstrable harm to the green belt. The reasons for approval have not been addressed in our opinion."

And he added: "It's crucial your decision is lawful or it will not be permitted to stand. A judicial challenge to the council could be very costly to the council. If it goes to full council this is a grave process and is to be avoided at all costs.

"Your decision must be supported by robust evidence. The development is inappropriate and planning permission should not be approved unless in very special circumstances."

However, the four supporters of the scheme remained unswayed.

Cllr Gerard Rice quoted alternative legal advice said: "Members are not bound to accept the recommendations of planning officers, they may differ on the weight ascribed to matters, provided they do not act in irrelevantly or irrationally in doing so.

"That sums it up in a nutshell, these are the considerations we can take."

His argument was dismissed by Cllr Kelly, saying Cllr Rice's advisor's 'neck was not on the line here'. We have to be responsible. We do have to build homes, or the government will come in and take over, but if we build on green belt they will come in and take over again.

"I am not aware of a councillor who has been elected on 'vote for me and I will build on the green belt'. I recently voted in favour of building on the green belt at Langdon Hills but I can defend that."

Cllr Rice further questioned the reasons' for the officers continued disagreement saying it was his belief that the material considerations given by councillors were legitimate reasons to differ with officers.

He continued: "Every application is treated on its merits, because we are still working off an old local plan. This is why these applications keep coming forward and we have to judge them and, as the elected arm of this committee, make a decision. We are in this predicament because of the failure of this authority because we are still working off a local plan from 1996."

Mr Gallagher countered that by saying: "We're more up to date than that, we are working from a core strategy from 2015. We have made the decision to embark on a new local plan and that process is underway. We have to have that plan in place by 2023."

Cllr Angela Lawrence said the pressing need was the shortage of homes in the borough. She said: "I have had yet another email from a resident today, pleading with me to get homes."

Cllr Rice echoed that by saying: "We are getting bombarded with emails from people who need houses. We have got to take care of our residents just as we have to take care of the green belt. We can't have the blame game, our authority has not got a local plan, we have not got a five year plan. It's the authority's fault. Where we are now is we have a problem.

"This is an opinion of an officer and the opinion of myself. It's up to members to align the weights given to arguments. We have go to get homes for local people. Unless we start to be brave and grapple with these types of scenarios our residents will be left on a heap because they have nowhere to live.

"This is a sustainable development that is well designed. I regard this as an infill site The officers tell us that it's greenbelt and in the strictest sense that is right but we have to accept windfall sites, which this is."

Cllr Mike Fletcher said: "I have people in my ward who are homeless, it's an absolute tragedy, I am banging my head against a brick wall trying to get them somewhere to live. We do need to put more effort into building social housing. But 28 houses in a development that will probably be overturned is not that answer so will be voting against it."

Cllr Gary Byrne, who later voted against the scheme, appeared to side with the 'yes' lobby when he said the committee had to be consistent with its decisions – having previously approved a major housing scheme in similar circumstances on nearby Little Thurrock Marshes.

Perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, he said: "This is a scruffy piece of land on a greenbelt site, if we don't leave here tonight with this going through the people of Little Thurrock Marshes will not forgive us."

Cllr Kelly summed up by saying: "I have been on planning a long time now. I have my own opinions and this is a bad one. The fact is we have a responsibility to protect our residents from too much development.

"The site is a terrible design. To go ahead with this, I think, is borderline out of order. I get grief that we are building everywhere. I do think we need to protect the residents and this development is a very poor standard. If we say this is acceptable, we can't go back and say vote for me and I will protect your green belt.

"The fact that we are behind on our housing supply is not our fault, voting for this is an abuse of our powers. If this goes through it will be one of the worst ones we have every approved.

"Our residents do not want this. This is a real bad one, if we approve this we are doing our residents a disservice, there is not defending this. We will be leaving ourselves massively exposed."

Leigh Nicholson, the council's Interim Assistant Director - Planning, Transport & Public Protection said: "At best this could be a bad decision, t worst an unlawful decision."

However, the vote went in favour of the development, with Cllrs Rice, Lawrence, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick voting to approve the scheme and Cllrs Kelly, Fletcher and Byrne against.

When the votes were cast Cllr Kelly said: "It's borderline madness, kamikaze stuff but I have to be respectful of your opinions."

The decision will now be considered by the council's legal and monitoring officer who – says Mr Nicholson and the council's locum planning solicitor Caroline Robins – is likely to deem the committee have made an unlawful decision which will bring the planning committee before full council to have to explain its decision.

If it isn't deemed unlawful, planning officers expect it to be called in by the secretary of state for an inquiry into what has happened.

One saving grace on a night that may have big repercussions and followed a day when the council's political planning neutrality was questioned, at least the decision was apolitical. Of the four who voted for approval, two were Tory and two Labour, while the opponents against were a Conservative, a Labour member and an independent.