FIVE Conservative councillors voted to ignore significant local opposition to a new housing estate in the green belt, and their own officers' recommendation, and have approved it.

As reported on Thurrock Nub News earlier this week, members of Thurrock Council's planning committee debated the plan for the application for 230 homes on land at Linford last night.

The seven member councillors heard a detailed presentation from their own planning team who wanted to refuse the scheme and they heard ward councillor Fraser Massey give an impassioned plea to veto it.

And all the councillors acknowledged that almost 300 local residents had made submission opposing the scheme.

In support of the scheme Matt Suggit from site developers Ilke Homes outlined the nature of the development, its eco credentials and the fact it was a site with 100 per cent affordable homes.

Cllr Massey told the meeting: "In relation to this planning application, I would like to speak as East Tilbury ward councillor to object, fellow ward Cllr Sammons also objects for the same reasons. Primarily the reasons for objection are:-       

• Loss of greenbelt
• Highway Safety, road access and traffic generation
• General site location

"Firstly I am pleased to see Thurrock planning officers have recommend this application to be refused, this recommendation is alongside the 287 letters of representation which also objected. Historically this is a large number of objections for the ward.

"I agree with the conclusions and reasons for recommendation in relation to loss of greenbelt, I feel the very special circumstances to develop on the greenbelt have not been met. The semi-rural feel of the area is due to the greenbelt in the local area, any loss of the greenbelt in this area would urbanise an area which does not have infrastructure in place for hundreds of homes.

"The East Tilbury conservation area which is rated as 'very bad' condition in Historic England's heritage risk register, and although this application is not within the conservation area, it begins in terms I would describe as 'a stone's throw' away from this application boundary.

"The road itself in Linford which would has not changed for decades, adding houses and an access road in this location would only lead to more vehicles on the local road network which is already having many issues due to new housing and the proximity of the railway crossing, this is made worse by the increase in freight trains using the ports which join the tracks at Mucking, which will also increase with further industrial development at the old refinery sites.

"Effectively the gates are going down more and more often which will only increase, this creates a large amount of traffic which regularly blocks the road with queues all the way back to the small parade of shops at Linford. Not only is this idling traffic causing a lot of noise and air pollution but it prevents access by emergency vehicles when needed on the other side of the railway, this development would only add to the issue.

"If the committee were minded to overturn the refusal recommendation I would ask to consider a site visit on a weekday, around 6pm to see exactly how bad the traffic already is in the exact area where the proposed entry point for this development would be sited.

"This all being said the application does have some merits, the design and green credentials are not of particular concern.

"But even taking the smaller positive aspects of the application the overreaching reasons of loss of greenbelt, highway and traffic concerns, and general site location are seen as major reasons why this application should be refused.

"The area has already seen hundreds of new homes with very little in the way of infrastructure upgrades, and residents are still angry and frustrated that another nearby development has not been completed and has stalled bringing no benefit to the community.

"Adding further new housing on the greenbelt in this location would be a detriment to the area, the general areas infrastructure has not changed to allow for a large number of new homes. We are heavily impacted and restricted due the railway crossing, flood areas and general road access.

"I would ask the committee to hear the concerns of ward councillors and the 287 letters or comments and refuse planning for this application.

At the end of the presentations and debate Tory councillors Tom Kelly, James Thandi, Paul Arnold, Adam Carter and Terry Piccolo voted for the scheme – Labour's Lee Watson and Sue Shinnick voted against.

Cllr Kelly, the meeting chair, said: "I don't think there any right or wrong decision.

"Looking at the benefits throughout the report it matches health and education benefits, there is £250,00 for the local community but ultimately, it's about people who need homes

"We have got a developer here who has come in at the right time and is delivering things they need.

"For me it's a go. We should be approving this sort of development."

Cllr Arnold said: "I spoke with ward Cllr Sue Sammons this afternoon, I have listened to what Cllr Massey says with interest and I have read the residents' comments but tonight I am voting for this application because I think there are enough very special circumstances.

"It is the future. It is a marvellous thing, it is well designed. They are super-efficient homes. It is surrounded by good quality amenities there is lots and lots of green space in the area for residents.

"The impact on the local village is minimal. I can only see this as being of major benefits to the retail outlets in the area. This is all jobs and prosperity.

"I think the vehicle movements coming out of the estate will be turning right, with the correct markings, I don't personally think it's going to be an issue. If anyone goes left it is to use those retail outlets.

"It's not going to impact on the roads too much.

"It's an absolute no-brainer, we desperately need new homes. As soon as I picked up this report and started reading it. I was more and more pleased. I think it is marvellous."

Cllr Carter said: "I find this exciting, it brings a lot to the local area. We should look towards going with it, the affordable homes this site offers is a big plus. I will be supporting this.

Cllr Thandi was of the same mind, saying: "I think we should welcome this. We need houses. It's a great, great opportunity. We should have arms open to the company and hope they build again in the borough."

Cllr Piccolo said: "I can understand the local residents' and councillors' concerns, but these seem to be good quality homes. I can understand the traffic concerns but there are 445 cars in the scheme They will not be leaving or entering the estate at the same time

"As long as the access and egress is controlled by yellow boxes so traffic is not blocked I think that will solve a lot of the problems.

"We are always going to get this thing about affordability being 70 per cent we could refuse everything on that assertion alone.

"I think on balance will be supporting application. I understand the residents' concerns but I don't think it will have the impact everybody fears."

In opposition Cllr Watson said: "We are getting wound up up on affordability, that's 70 per cent of market rate, that's still unaffordable for the majority of people in Thurrock. We need to think about what is really affordable, to the average person this is not that affordable.

"The scheme itself is a lovely scheme, I like the way it's set out but where it is, is wrong. There is an issue with flooding. There will be a lot of traffic by the train station.

"I don't really want it to be built on this significant area of green belt when it could be built at other places in the borough. It is not a 'no brainer'."

Cllr Shinnick added: "I must take notice to the hundreds of letters of objection, the ward councillors' objections and the fact it is in the green belt. I will not support this."

However, the majority of councillors voted for it.

Under the council's constitution, as an officer recommendation was refused, the plan will have to come back to an second meeting for full ratification and further debate in the light of officers' additional responses.

That is likely to be in January.