THURROCK Council's legal bill for trying to protect green belt land from developers totalled more than £87,000, it has been revealed.

The council lost an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over a development spanning Linford and East Tilbury that could result in up to 1,000 new homes.

Previously, agents for developers Mulberry Strategic Land had warned Thurrock's planning committee the new Labour Government would be likely to overturn a decision to refuse the homes over their green belt location, prompting criticism from the chair of the council's planning committee.

Despite employing a costly King's Counsel for the three day hearing, the council failed to successfully defend itself against the development.

Mulberry appealed on the grounds that Thurrock Council did not determine the planning application "within the appropriate period". The council had dragged its heels for several years and failed to bring the application before councillors for determination. Ultimately, after the hearing was called, the committee did consider the application and said it was minded not to approve - but by then the damage had effectively ben done and the initiative was with the developers.

James Pereira KC was appointed as the council's barrister for the public inquiry and advised throughout the process. However, at the hearing the council withdrew its objections, which had been summarised by councillors at the planning meeting but ultimateley were determined not to carry enough weight.

Despite the council facing a £3million deficit, Cllr Fraser Massey, an independent councillor representing East Tilbury defended the decision to fight the case. He said: "The developers also had a Kings Counsel present so I feel the council always need to protect against green belt building in whatever method is appropriate.

"In this case the council's position was not successfully defended but despite the cost I feel we should always try and protect the greenbelt wherever possible."

advertisement

Lee Watson, councillor responsible for good growth, spoke of her "bitter disappointment" following hearing.

She added: "The truth is that is the Conservatives – who were running the council when this application was received – completely failed to even bring it before the planning committee, meaning the decision was taken out of our hands. They should be ashamed of themselves."

Following the planning committee decision to refuse the application in July, the council said officers had to deal with 213 emails from the developer's appeal team offering evidence and new information.

Despite the complicated and costly fight by the council the planning inspector said: "The proposal would deliver market and affordable housing in an area with an extremely poor record of delivery of both, with no signs of this improving in the future. I have attributed very substantial weight to this.

"It would deliver what is agreed to be a much-needed bridge over the railway line through East Tilbury, to which I have afforded significant weight."

The council received 180 objections to the proposal following consultations launched last year which closed in May. These included fears access to the site was unsafe, additional traffic, urban sprawl into the green belt and loss of farmland and wildlife.