DESPITE an impassioned plea from the only local councillor present, sage words of warning from a seasoned rural campaigner and a welter of local opposition - a majority of members of Thurrock Council's planning committee have given the green light for a controversial plan for to up to 412 homes to be built on green belt in Corringham. 

The scheme has been promoted by property agent Iceni Projects for applicants Mulberry Strategic Land Limited, a partnership that has successfully pushed through a number of big housing schemes in the borough including 1,000 homes in East Tilbury and Linford. 

The decision was greeted with dismay by local residents in the council chamber for this evening's (Wednesday, 21 January) meeting – many of whom have expressed their opinions against the scheme on the council's planning portal. 

And their mood was not helped by former planning committee chair, Conservative Cllr Tom Kelly, who told the meeting: "I really do think Corringham's got to take its bit." 

He said that, despite a number of references in the meeting to an adjacent site, literally across the road, where approval was given just a couple of months ago for 300 new homes. 

The scheme approved tonight is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for the construction of up to 412 dwellings, land being made available for a primary school and a care home. The full application can be read here and the report to the meeting is here. 

Planning officer David Stewart outlined the scheme to members and James Bompass, a former planning officer for the now defunct Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (TTGDC) – which outlined the site for development as far back as 2008 – who also worked for Thurrock Council before joining Iceni detailed the developers' intention. 

This evening's planning committee.

They were adamant the scheme met the government's recently introduced 'grey belt' criteria and that there were far more pros than cons in favour of the development. 

However, Mr Stewart detailed details some major concerns about potential flooding, rainwater run-off and foul water disposal and a lack of response from Anglian Water about how they saw the site. 

He touched on the issue of the planned store, which he described as a 2,000sq foot supermarket and the school site, about which he said it was: "In my opinion, the council's responsibility to see the school is built."  

Cllr Cathy Sisterson  questioned the location of the store on the edge of the site, suggesting it should be in the centre of the development so neighbours in adjacent homes could also use it. 

Cllr Roy Jones was the most vehement of councillors against the scheme and he challenged Mr Stewart about his knowledge of the proposal after the officer referred to the former Gable Hall (now Mossbourne Fobbing academy) as Mossbourne Portside – the former Hassenbrook school a couple of miles away! 

In the first of a number of criticisms, he challenged and asked if developers were working in liaison to bring linked schemes through in different applications. 

He added: "Anglian Water has serious concerns about both these sites, they are not happy about the assessment of water disposal and run-off and disposal of foul water. They were very disappointed about drainage, ditches and hedgerows. 

"There are definitely issues there and they need to be resolved.  

"But we don't know the layout of this place, we don't know what's what, and how it's going to look. I have serious concerns." 

Council planning officer David Stewart.

Mr Stewart responded by saying he wasn't a water engineer and added: "If you look at what the water industry have to do, it is duty bound to produce a connection and supply with 18 months of a request being put in. They recover costs from the applicant or through rates charged through each individual property. 

"There is a duty for them to act. There are clearly some issues about how surface water is disposed of but I am satisfied." 

Council planning director Ashley Baldwin told the meeting conditions could probably be mitigated by implementation of conditions, saying: "We can insert conditions, the obligation here is on the industry to resolve. If you were minded to look at refusal, on that basis we wouldn't have a strong position. We have gone as far as we possibly can. The application does as much as it possibly can." 

Cllr Russell Cherry spoke about access problems to the site, citing the congestion caused when parents were dropping children off outside Fobbing Academy. He said he had tried to visit the site but couldn't get there because of the congestion 

Previous plans for the site inclided a rail station. That was later abandoned but Cllr Tom Kelly said it should be included.

He also raised the issue of a rail station which had been included in earlier TTGDC proposals for the site - a matter picked by Cllr Kelly who said the council should 'bend over backwards' to try and make it part of the plan. 

Cllr Jones returned to the issue of flooding, saying: "We have got to start taking responsibility for these things. I know this site and the flooding can be horrendous. 

Steve Taylor, a co-opted member of the committee representing the views of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) asked: "Do we have any idea why what is clearly one development is put forward in two halves? - referring to the development approved last year. 

Mr Stewart responded by saying: "All I know is that another party got involved on the land in the south and they got to committee in December rather than now. 

Mr Taylor, a veteran of many years of debates on the planning committee, said: "When we got through this loop, which we seem to have gone through a lot recently when we talk about what grey belt is and what green belt isn't we talk about restricting sprawl but from what I see, this is urban sprawl. How are we restricting urban sprawl by proving urban sprawl? 

"It's a very big change from what people used to understand as green belt." 

He expressed the fear that there would be more applications to build on green belt land, saying: "There's a hell of a lot of land between this development in Stanford and Corringham and Basildon. I wonder what's coming next." 

Cllr Jones spoke again, saying: "Planning officers are in the middle here, pressured by government but I look at things in a common-sense approach. If I see land growing food, it's green belt. 

"This is described as a mix of arable and pastoral fields - which is green belt - but then it called grey belt. That's why members of the planning committee who are residents have differing views. You must look at it from our side of it as well. 

"We are under constant threat that we will get a telling off by government and it's not fair. We are making decisions for our residents. 

"I have got big issues with this application, to my mind it is pure green belt. This land is there to restrict urban sprawl, which has been said in previous reports. What did we spend money on those reports for us then to ignore it? It's not grey belt, it's farmland. 

"I still don't like dealing with outline planning matters because we have not seen how it looks; the plan of it; the type of buildings. We have seen nothing like that. 

Cllr Tom kelly (left) backed the scheme while opposition came from Cllrs (from left) Jacqui Maney, Roy Jones and Srikantha Panjala

"If this is all passed through then they can change it at later date and there is nothing we can do. 

"This is in a busy area on top of a school and Performers College which is enormously busy 

"Our doctors' surgeries are at breaking point, we can't get dentists. You can sit in Basildon hospital for 12 hours before you are seen. These have to be considered. 

"The road structure is insufficient.  

"I feel that because that lot passed in December, they thought they would try this because it's easy-peasy. I don't agree. I will be opposing this big time." 

Cllr Jacqui Maney agreed, saying: "I will not be voting for this. I came in with an open mind but I find it increasingly difficult to vote for this. 

"Alluding to what Roy said, this is arable land with watercourses and hedgerows. Nothing in the statement says 'grey' to me. Nothing at all." 

Cllr Cathy Sisterson said: "I feel to have outline permission with a lot of unanswered questions means we are being steamrollered into something we don't know the repercussions of. We don't know what's going to happen."  

She commented on the lack of detail and unanswered questions, adding: "Flooding is a real issue, I think to go merrily ahead goes against the grain for me - though I fully recognise we need decent housing schemes. 

"When we get all the detail, I may be able to approve it but for the moment I can't."  

Cllr Kelly said: "You have to consider what's in front of you. That's all you can consider. I feel its green belt but it is an enclosed space and we do need to build a lot of houses. I really do think Corringham's got to take its bit.  

"A lot of issues could be sorted by conditions so I will be voting in favour. 

"I understand the concerns over outline applications. It is difficult, but whether we like it or not, these schemes are going to be built over time. 

"The scheme is pretty decent, all in all urban sprawl has happened all over Thurrock and that's the reality. I will go with this one, with reservations." 

Cllr Cherry contributed: "Congestion is horrendous, if we saw how the house looked it would help. And for Corringham itself there are some benefits. You will be getting a primary school and a supermarket that helps that bitter pill that is building on green belt."  

Cllr Srikantha Panjala suggested members making a site visit before voting, saying: Yes we need houses I recommend a site but he got no support. 

Mixed views: Committee chair Cllr Mike Fletcher backed the proposal, his deputy Cllr Cathy Sisterson abstained.

Cllr Jones and Mr Taylor made last moment pleas against the scheme with Cllr Jones saying: "Yes, we need housing, but what we really need is more council houses. Yes, we need to take our share in Corringham, but not with this," while Mr Taylor said: "We are agreeing in principle whether that land can be developed or not.  

"All we ever seem to do is want to destroy green belt. It's not an infinite resource. When you eat it up you can never get it back. I struggle with the concept of this development and what concerns me then is what comes next! This enhances urban sprawl." 

Summing up, committee chair Cllr Mike Fletcher said: "It's not where we like it, it's according to the law as it is now. If we knock it back, does the argument hold water?" 

A recommendation to support the officers' recommendation of approval was proposed by Cllr Kelly and seconded by Cllr Steve Liddiard who has become something of a bastion of support for controversial private developer schemes, repeatedly referring to the housing shortage in Thurrock.  

Cllrs Kelly, Liddiard, Fletcher, Cherry and Aaron Green voted for the scheme, Cllr Sisterson abstained and Cllrs Jones, Panjala and Maney voted against – meaning the proposal was approved 5-3.