DESPITE a warning they might face legal action and cause embarrassment and huge financial loss to the authority, members of Thurrock Council's planning committee backed their decision to overrule planning officers and give approval to a huge development on a borough golf course.

Councillors at tonight's meeting of the committee found themselves on the end of a stern lecture from councillor solicitor Caroline Robins. Speaking from her home as part of a virtual meeting, Ms Robins warned councillors they could make a mistake that would end up with the "council washing its dirty linen in public which would not be good."

Councillors were debating, for a second time, ambitious plans for the Langdon Hills Golf and Country Club, on Lower Dunton Road in Bulphan.

Under the plans, there would be a 64-bed care home with dementia facilities, apartments and bungalows for independent living for the over 55s, homes for care workers and a range of leisure facilities including a new golfing academy, a swimming pool, gym, and spa.

Officers recommended refusal of the application when it came to the committee in February but councillors rejected their advice and voted for it.

Under council rules they had to bring the matter for a second debate and councillors found themselves on the need of Ms Robins' stern warning.

She told them that councillors had to show string reasons for over-ruling the seven strands of council officers' advice. She paraphrased by saying: "If members are minded to approve you must provide technical information refuting officer evidence. You must demonstrate reasonable planning grounds that are clear and convincing and substantiated by evidence."

While she was speaking to a virtual audience. Members of the public rushed to make comments on the council, calling her statements "a disgrace and bullying". Several said it was "disgusting."

As soon as the solicitor had finished, Cllr Gerard Rice made an instant rebuttal against her advice – quoting a senior barrister who had previously represented the council and saying that he had brought forward completely contrary arguments that justified members voting against officers.

Cllr Lawrence asked why there were already a number of houses on the site and families living there. "How did that happen if this is green belt?" she said.

Planning project officer Chris Purvis responded by saying some people lived in the 'hotel' completely omitting to mention 12 houses on the site that were built on the site of a former driving range!

She said she had carried out a great deal of research on the scheme and found many reasons why it should be supported. "It is our duty to give our residents the opportunity to live life on their own terms," she said.

Cllr Gary Byrne said he was swayed by his head and his heart and while he said he was 'all for the scheme' he was going to abstain. However, he then seconded the motion to back the officer's recommendation for refusal.

Cllr Rice said: "I have not changed my mind. This is a good scheme. We talk about positively responding to an aging population in Thurrock. Lots of people in Thurrock could afford this. We are going to have a facility that has added value.

"We are a failing authority, underperforming in all the league tables for finished units we are at the bottom of the table. This is an opportunity, if we do not take it will disappear to Brentwood or Chelmsford which would be wrong. We must grasp this opportunity."

Cllr David Potter said there was a pensioner boom and "this development ticks all the boxes. I am going to vote for it."

Cllr Mike Fletcher said: "There are subjective opinions on both sides. The real picture is not as it's been presented and not enough weight has been attributed to the benefits of this scheme.

"Can we materially overcome all seven objections? I don't think we can. There are too many reasons why this is not the right place for me personally. I was slightly towards it before but there are too many reasons why it is unsupportable."

However, when it came to a vote, the majority of councillors - including committee chair Tom Kelly - voted in favour of the development.

They then went through each of the officers' seven significant objections, giving considered reasons why the scheme should be approved.