A CONTROVERSIAL plan for 150 homes near Orsett has been rejected for a second time as developers denied claims they "bullied" councillors into reconsidering the scheme.

The proposal, from BDW Trading Ltd, sought to demolish one existing property and build a large housing estate on land behind Baker Street and High Road, close to Chapel Farm.

The application was refused in December 2025 by a majority of 4-3 but returned to committee this month, ostensibly after councillors were told two of their original refusal reasons were legally flawed. Officers originally recommended the application for approval, and did so when it was brought back before the committee on Tuesday (10 March).

In the interim between meetings Thurrock Nub News exclusively revealed details of pressure and threats brought to bear by the developers. They wrote to the council after the original decision and the matter was discussed behind closed doors at a meeting in February.

Nub News received a copy of a letter BDW Trading's planning lead, Ray Houghton in which he said: "BDW would have a very high prospect of planning success at an inquiry, and can appreciate that officers would be unwilling to defend a refusal at appeal and it would likely be the chair of the Planning Committee who would be cross-examined.

"If that were to be the case we would also consider applying for an award of costs against that individual if their testimony were to collapse under scrutiny."

Committee chairman Mike Fletcher and co-opted member Steve Taylor were criticised by developer after committee rejected their application.

Mr Houghton also made claims about the conduct and comments of co-opted member Steve Taylor in a bid to discredit his statements to committee on behalf of countryside charity CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England).

advertisement

At this week's meeting, objector Richard Hughes, who had spoke at the first meeting, again addressed members with a passionate argument against the scheme.

He told the committee the scheme remained "unsustainable," arguing it would double the size of the small hamlet and overwhelm already stretched infrastructure. He said developers had offered "no viable solutions" for oversubscribed GP services, school capacity or traffic pressures, adding: "Unsustainable in December, unsustainable now. Nothing has changed."

Watch Richard Hughes' speech to the planning committee

Mr Hughes also claimed members were pressured into revisiting the application after BDW "vilified individual members and threatened them with personal liability" if they did not agree to a second hearing.

He criticised planning officers for failing to issue the December refusal notice promptly, suggesting this "left the door open" for the developers' challenge.

Mr Houghton then spoke and rejected criticisms, emphasising the urgent local need for new housing and the scheme's 50 per cent affordable homes.

He said rents had been lowered to 70 per cent of market value, putting a two bedroom home at around £420 a month. He also argued the site met the Government's definition of "grey belt" and would not harm the wider Green Belt.

Ray Houghton.

Mr Houghton told councillors the firm would make appropriate contributions through a Section 106 agreement, including £109,000 for healthcare and £113,000 for special educational needs provision.

Despite officers recommending approval, it was rejected again, and Cllr Fletcher proposed a refusal on the grounds of over intensification and lack of sustainable infrastructure.

He said: "The scale of the development would fundamentally and negatively impact the character of the village… the existing infrastructure does not support the size of development being proposed."

The committee voted 4–3 in favour of rejecting the plans.

When the debated and decision were confirmed, Cllr Fletcher dismissed claims of bullying, saying members simply acted on legal advice warning that their previous refusal contained "legal error" and could risk judicial review.

A spokesperson for Barratt and David Wilson Homes Eastern Counties said they were disappointed with the decision, adding: "It is simply untrue to say we have been anything other than professional and respectful throughout the planning process.

"We feel the reasons for the Committee's refusal are not robust and we are considering our options, including appealing the decision and requesting costs."