THURROCK planning councillors stuck to their guns and gave approval to a home rebuild in the green belt – despite coming under intense pressure from officers and a legal officer not to do so.

At times the planning committee meeting, where the issue of the demolition of a dilapidated bungalow at 'High Fields' on Lower Dunton Road near Horndon on the Hill was debated, resembled a row as officers insisted the scheme should not go ahead – but councillors rebutted the argument and said it was their right as elected members to make a decision based on their local knowledge and experience.

And officers found themselves in the firing line for taking a tough line on 'one individual dwelling' while they turned a blind eye to massive green belt planning breaches like the huge Buckles Lane expansion in South Ockendon – where tough enforcement action was promised.

That was more than a year ago – but little seems to have been done.

The point about Buckles Lane was made by a clearly frustrated Cllr Georgette Polley who said: "It just feels like we are having a row in public. As elected members we are the checks and balances. Sometimes common sense has to apply. I am an elected member for Belhus, I'm going to mention Buckles Lane.

Shown to the same scale. These satellite images compare the development on Lower Dunton Road (right) with the largely illegal Buckles Lane development in South Ockendon. Which development poses the greatest threat to the green belt and demands council enforcement action?

"That is years' worth of inappropriate development, unlawful development in green belt. This council hasn't managed to address any of that.

"That is an example where something is harmful to the openness of the green belt, it's inappropriate development.

"We are talking about an individual dwelling here with an established site in situ. Our legal officer says she is struggling with our position, I am struggling even harder!"

The debate was about plans for an existing detached chalet style dwelling which the applicants, who live on the site, want to demolish and replace with a four bedroom dwelling including associated landscaping, hardstanding, cycle store and refuse/ recycle storage area.

At a meeting in July, councillors gave approval to the scheme despite officer opposition – something which means that under the council's constitution the debate had to be held a second time after officers has considered the councillor's decision.

That debate happened again – with the same outcome – and now the matter will be determined by the council's monitoring officer who has the power to veto the councillors' decision as unlawful.

At the latest meeting last week planning officer Ian Harrison told councillors the planned new building on Lower Dunton Road was 'materially larger than the existing building on the site' and therefore was inappropriate development and harmful to the greenbelt.

He added: "Even though councillors considered that the visual impact was acceptable, that was clearly something that officers disagree with. In our opinion it is not acceptable and is at odds with the area and out of keeping with nearby properties.

"Even if councillors think it is acceptable, that is not in itself a reason to consider the replacement building as acceptable.

"The presence of other recent developments near the site was also discussed, but they are entirely different in terms of what the development involved, where they were, what they were delivering and is not comparable to this development.

"Considering things on its own merits would set a parameter for the future so accordingly so no weight should be accorded to this factor."

Mr Harrison's comments came despite the fact that councillors visited the site and examined the existing building. Their view that its condition was poor and the area would be improved by a new building was rejected by Mr Harrison who told members 'no survey of the existing building has been provided, therefore this has not been supported by evidence'.

Drawings of the proposed new building to replace the chalet bungalow.

He also rejected the suggestion that weight should be given to the fact that the new building would improve the well-being of its occupiers. "I appreciate where the occupiers are coming from but this isn't a public benefit," he said.

He also rubbished the suggestion by councillors that there would be benefits to the environment by higher standards from a modern house - saying nothing had been quantified. 

In the debate and questions that followed Cllr Terry Piccolo said: "To my mind it doesn't impact on the green belt visually. Anybody driving past would find it hard to see any impact from this building, that really should be taken into consideration."

Cllr Polley said: "As we are always reminded, with planning there isn't precedent, so if this development was allowed it wouldn't lead to other applications, so we are not setting a precedent by this individual judgment,

She added that if the applicant wasn't allowed the size of building he required he could legally put the 'monstrosity of a big caravan in his back garden'. Mr Harrison conceded he could!

Cllr Piccolo continued to battle for the redevelopment, saying: "I can understand the concerns of officers but I do think this is an exceptional site. For those that know the site, it's visible for one second if you are lucky. And drivers shouldn't be looking there anyway.

"There will be no visual impact at all by this building. I believe the size of the overall plot is relevant, this is an enormous garden at the back of this house, the size of the plot needs to be taken into consideration."

He said the officers were arguing the principle of precedent which is not something that should be considered and every application, should be taken on its merits.

He added: "We can be very precise about the reasons why we have approved this. Anyone who tries to use this case as leverage would have to be able to prove the same things this property has."

Committee chair Cllr Tom Kelly said: "Firstly, I think the officers are between a rock and a hard place. They are the professionals in this situation, who we trust on planning policies.

"I am struggling though. We have had recently applications within the borough which have seen acres of development in the green belt.

"There are considerations here. Having been to site, that put everything into context. The officers' advice has been very clear and I do thank them for that but sometimes I think that policy can be wrong."

Cllr Piccolo continued: "Why is the planning committee formed if we are only to approve recommendations. There's no point of having a planning committee if we are told to do what officers present. We are here to challenge."

And Cllr Lee Watson agreed, saying: "For me, I just cannot approve the officers' recommendation to refuse. I have not moved from my original decision."

Members of the planning committee

Cllr Kelly added: "It is awkward. I don't disagree with the recommendation in a sense but at times we have to be practical. We have to have the freedom to make a decision."

That prompted an interjection from senior planning officer Leigh Nicholson who said: "The officers' view is clear the application should be refused."

He failed to win any councillor over and Cllr Piccolo said: "When you bear in mind, the existing building is dilapidated and dishevelled and does nothing to enhance the area, the new building will improve the appearance of the area."

And Cllr Polley added: "I struggle with argument about the inappropriateness of this within the green belt. We are not setting a precedent, it is already developed land. I get it if it is virgin land, but it isn't.

"As to the openness of the green belt, my common sense says if there is already a building there, the principle has been established."

Cllr Kelly also referred to the existing building and its size and poor state saying it would 'not be approved in this day and age'. He said that visual impact was a matter of judgement and that the new home would be of high quality and would enhance the area. It would not set a precedent, he concluded.

Cllr Polley also reflected on the over-arching issue of creating new and appropriate homes. She said: "We know that we are in the process of producing a local plan and one of the issues we do have is predatory developers looking at the area. I am aware that every decision we make, whether for a single dwelling or a larger scale development is being monitored. And I do want to reiterate how much we do support the officers in advising us.

"The housing numbers that we are looking to deliver are huge and we don't have the right tenure of housing within Thurrock at the moment.

"We have a lot of flats development that isn't allowing people to live in Thurrock as a place of choice.

"They are moving out of the area to places like Brentwood and neighbouring boroughs that have go larger family homes.

"And I think one of the considerations on this application is that this is a resident of Thurrock looking for a development in the borough."

The council's legal advisor Caroline Robins, whose recommendations on planning and councillors decision-making have come unstuck in the past when challenged elsewhere, remained adamant the application should be refused, saying the councillors were on 'shifting sand, pretty shaky ground'.

The decision to reject the officer recommendation and approve the application was agreed unanimously by the four councillors who could vote.

The complete High Fields site application can be viewed via this link.