TO rounds of applause from the public gallery, Thurrock Council planning councillors have rejected plans for 150 new homes in Orsett in the hamlet known as Baker Street.

After a long debate last night (Tuesday, 9 December) councillors voted and were split 4-3 in favour of rejection of the scheme, which everyone agreed would have been unlikely to have been passed a couple of years ago.

However, the applicants Barratt David Wilson Homes (BDW) believe the land is now classified as grey belt, rather than green belt – an assumption planning officers agreed with. Officers recommended the application for approval.

Planning officer David Stewart presented his report to councillors, saying the plot met the designated criteria for approval – though he conceded some aspects of the scheme were contentious.

Villager Richard Hughes spoke on behalf of residents who opposed the scheme, giving reasons why it should be rejected.

He told the meeting: "A residential scheme of this scale is 'unsustainable in this location'. Not my words, they are the words of the council's own urban design department.

"Unsustainable. The exact term also used by your education department and your health care department.

"Without a tick for sustainability the justification for reclassifying this much-valued green space as grey belt falls down."

Focusing on the meaning of 'sustainable' he added: "The report alleges that Orsett has everything needed for day-to-day living. Untrue! There's a single convenience store which the report concedes is more than a reasonable walk away from the site. And a car is required to do the 'big shop'.

"There's an oversubscribed GP and an oversubscribed primary school. The developer's solution? Send 45 additional primary school kids to schools around the area.  

"Again requiring a car as buses provide, at best, an hourly service."

How the site would have been laid out.

Head of Planning at BDW Eastern Counties, Ray Houghton, responded by saying: "We want to do something special, something fundamental in Thurrock that has not happened for a generation - build truly affordable houses in Orsett.

"Many residents in Thurrock find themselves locked out of affordable housing in Orsett. We are proposing 50 per cent affordable housing, we have listened to Cllr Lee Watson (TBC portfolio holder for good growth) and reduced the affordable rent to 70 per cent of market value rather than the standard 80%

"That means that a two bedroom semi would be £420 a month cheaper than the market rate. That puts these homes in reach of more of your residents.

"We believe that we are the first major housebuilder to come before you with this offer."

Co-opted member Steve Taylor, who represents CPRE (the former 'Campaign to Protect Rural England'), questioned whether the planning officer dealing with the application, Mr Stewart, had ever visited the site or village,

Echoing Mr Hughes' comments. he said: "Relatively good provision of shops and services? I don't know what that means in your terms but one corner shop does not.

"No one is really aware of what that site is all about, how it is used currently and how could be used.

"This is going to exacerbate the problem of school places in a village where the only primary school is oversubscribed and has been expanded to its maximum

"It's a completely inappropriate development in that site. I don't have a problem with the actual development; I have a problem with its location.

"It will totally overwhelm it. It just destroys another hamlet, there's very little left in Thurrock."

However, Cllr Tom Kelly was more supportive of the application. He said: "Planning has changed over the last 12 months. The government do want new homes, and they've thrown in new legislation which is grey belt. I do think what we are experiencing here tonight for the first time in a very long time is how much the game has changed.

"This application would have been up for refusal years ago but grey belt has come in and I do have sympathy with how the officers are now trying to dissect legislation.

"Even appeal inspectors are having trouble trying to work out what is grey belt and what is green belt.

"There's quite a bit before us tonight. There's quite a bit there to sink your teeth into. But if the professional officer's opinion on grey belt is the same as the planning inspectors', then we haven't seen nothing yet in Thurrock.

"Probably a controversial point, but I live south of the A13 and we've taken a lot, other areas need to take their fair share as well. It is a good scheme but an incredibly difficult one. If it goes to appeal it will be interesting to see what happens, but I'll stick with the professional officer's opinion.

Cllr Cathy Sisterson was less supportive, saying: "We are obliged to build houses and we need houses but I think this is a controversial scheme that I don't think we have to define it as grey belt. I've got a big problem with education putting in an objection,

"A big problem in planning is that there is no infrastructure, here we have education telling us there is no infrastructure here.

"On the face of it, it looks a good scheme - if it were somewhere else."

She also questioned where the affordable housing would be viable, saying: "They might come back and say it's not viable and put the rents up."

Cllr Jacqui Maney was particularly concerned about the rising trend of people coming into Thurrock with large families, saying Thurrock schools will become oversubscribed very fast.

"I'm also concerned about the definition of grey belt. I dont recognise this as grey belt. We are really stretching the boundaries of what is grey belt.

Cllr Russell Cherry also opposed the scheme, saying: "I don't trust this assessment that it's grey belt and can be built upon. There will be other opportunities to build, even on green belt, and then we will be honest about what we call it. This is quite insincere to call this a grey belt area. It is green, to call it something else is insincere."

Another who supported the application was Cllr Steve Liddiard. He said: "No-one likes to build on green belt, or grey belt. There are many arguments in favour and against. Our expert recommends it. I'm very much 50-50.

"But we have 7,000 families on the waiting list and 600 families in temporary accommodation so with heavy heart I am in favour of accepting the recommendation.

And there was support too from Cllr Aaron Green who said: "There are people waiting for school places here in Thurrock, but on the other side we have an urgent need for houses. The advisement on grey belt says it is an urgent need and the category has been met so with a heavy heart I go with this one."

Committee chair Cllr Mike Fletcher said: "It strikes me there are a number of points - on one hand the need for more homes but children, if they are brought up in an area ought to be able to go to school in that area."

Advising members on what they had to consider in terms of the green or grey grading and supporting the application he said: "It's one if you agree with the designation of this site as grey belt but and if you don't agree, if there are very special circumstances to build in the green belt.

"Personally, I don't like it, it feels to me like the lack of housing is going to be a stick to beat us with on every large development.

"Just because we need more homes it doesn't mean we need them in this location.

"But we have to find a substantial reason why we cannot agree this is green belt."

Cllr Russell said: "It's a green field. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, it's a duck. This is green belt", while Cllr Maney chipped in with: "It's green. green, green."

In the end four councillors (Fletcher, Sisterson, Russell and Srikanth Panjala) voted to reject the recommendation to approve while Cllrs Kelly, Green and Liddiard supported it.

After the vote to reject Cllr Green suggested a counter recommendation to approve but with a section 106 contribution for education but that was rejected.

Councillors were challenged to come up with reasons to refuse and agreed the project was harmful to the green belt and facilitated urban sprawl and that it should not be classified as grey belt land because of consideration of boundaries an inappropriate scale. Also that there was a lack of infrastructure in terms of healthcare and education.

An opportunity to defer the matter for further consideration was considered but rejected and so the application has been refused.