THURROCK Council planning officers have vetoed a plan for nine new homes on a rural plot in Stanford-le-Hope, despite the applicants' assertion that the proposed location is grey belt land and meets recently-introduced legislation under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to support housebuilding.

The plot concerned is the site of two former homes, now demolished, on High Road – which is a gated road that links Rainbow Lane and the new access road to London Gateway port.

The land, previously developed, is now unused scrubland. It is infrequently used as for storage associated with a nearby farm.

A report by council officers says the surrounding area is predominantly open countryside and forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

It says: "Stanford-le-Hope lies to the northwest of the site, while Corringham is situated to the northeast. To the south of the site lies open countryside, with the River Thames located further beyond in the wider landscape.

"Approximately 300 metres to the northwest is Billet Park, within which a small cluster of buildings provides local nursery and childcare facilities. Immediately north of the site is a single-storey electricity distribution building.

"The site itself falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt, comprises Grade 2 agricultural land, and is located within the Greater Thames Estuary Landscape Character Area."

In recent weeks council officers have supported several proposed developments on what applicants describe as green belt.

In Stanford-le-Hope, for example, they backed an infill development for eight new homes off Fairview Avenue – despite ward councillor protests and a substantial campaign against the development from neighbours and residents. In the end planning committee councillors rejected the application against officer advice – and the matter is now in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate after the applicants appealed.

Similarly, at a recent planning meeting, Thurrock Planning officers designated a field used as a paddock and adjacent green belt land as 'grey belt' in support of an application for 150 houses at Baker Street, Orsett. Again, planning councillors rejected the officer recommendation.

However, in this instance at High Road, officers say the submission by applicants Pyrmont Homes, who argued the land meets the updated NPPF grey belt criteria and redevelops a redundant site with minimal impact on openness, should be rejected because it is inappropriate development.

Officers state: "In terms of harm the proposal would result in a significant loss of both spatial and visual openness and would conflict with green belt purposes, particularly those relating to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and encouraging urban regeneration."

The planning officers say there would also be access issues with the site that would give rise to safety concerns for road users and pedestrians – a consideration they rejected in the densely-populated and very busy Fairview Avenue application.

Stanford West ward councillor Neil Speight, who called in the Fairview application and spoke against it, says: "To be honest this decision on High Road completely perplexes me.

In contrast to the site of demolished hopes in an open area with no traffic, this site is deemed suitable for development by planning officers:-

"It shows up exactly what a dog's breakfast local planning currently is. I looked at this application and saw few issues, certainly not enough to call it in.

"I actually would have approved it on the very argument put forward that it helps local housing need – without all of the problems associated small infill developments.

"I don't understand how planning officers can determine that a site like Baker Street, where grazing land in an open rural field is grey belt, while the site on High Road is a previously developed area and it's determined green belt.

"Nearby in Corringham on Rookery Hill, on a narrow country road, houses are being built on a very similar site that got approval.

"There is no consistency in the thinking and decision-making of officers in my opinion. What we might as well do is forget detailed reports and just toss a coin. We'll probably get the same level of outcomes without spending a great deal of money!

"It appears planning has become a game of chance, so let's make it a proper one. As a councillor I'm sick of being accused of taking brown envelopes in support of random decisions, but when you get complete contradictions like these recent recommendations you can understand why people jump to that conclusion."