ANGRY residents who saw their campaign against a controversial planning application end in defeat last week say council officers and councillors 'pulled every stroke in the book' to force through an unwanted and unjustified plan.

Despite a strong and co-ordinated campaign from the Blackshots Residents Objection Group and a fledgling Residents Association, with presentations to last week's planning meeting by Blackshots resident Faye Peake and ward councillor Steven Pester, councillors were not swayed to turn down the development for 54 homes on green belt land in Grays.

They were also influenced by Thurrock Harriers Athletics Club, whose representative and chair Geraldine Heapy told members the developers, Stonebond Properties would make a £50,000 donation towards a new track at the Blackshots Stadium.

The application didn't get unanimous support, Cllr James Poyntz was one of those against it, questioning whether a £108,000 contribution towards improvements to Blackshots Lane would be sufficient.

However, it passed comfortably – though residents now hope the path to a signed deal has a bumpy ride.

They believe that there were many flaws in the presentation and that officers misrepresented some of the facts around the site and its potential.

They say planning documents contained incorrect addresses, inconsistent development details, an incorrect Scheduled Monument reference, and outstanding questions concerning archaeology, highway safety, biodiversity and drainage.

So much so they have prepared a list, calling for a review of the decision and its legality.

The residents' groups are calling for full disclosure of the relevant documents and an independent examination of the decision-making process.

Among their concerns, they have listed 34 points of contention:-

1. Habitats Regulations Assessment: Apparently signed on 14 October 2026, after the committee voted to approve on 13 October. Exact date requires confirmation.

2. Incorrect Scheduled Monument reference: Council and Stonebond correspondence recorded "100213" instead of the correct "1002134" for the Cropmark Complex at Orsett.

3. Incorrect archaeological development details: Archaeological documentation referred to 70 dwellings and Brentwood instead of 54 dwellings at Blackshots Lane, Grays.

4. Incorrect drainage report address: GTA Drainage Technical Note identifies "Land off Snails Lane, Blandford, BH24 3PG" instead of Blackshots Lane, Grays.

5. Archaeological investigation: Essex County Council initially requested a pre-determination geophysical survey, but investigation appears to have been deferred through planning conditions.

6. Scheduled Monument: Outstanding questions concerning the development's archaeological impact and effect on the adjoining nationally protected monument.

7. Biodiversity application form: An incorrect "No" answer was reportedly entered on the updated biodiversity form.

8. Biodiversity Net Gain: Approximately 0.77 off-site biodiversity units still require clarification regarding provision and legal securing.

9. Ecological consultation concerns: Earlier objections concerning biodiversity calculations and habitat trading rules require a clear explanation of how they were resolved. This is covered under the environment Act.

10. Highway width: Council report paragraph 13.8.7 acknowledges sections of Blackshots Lane are narrower than the recommended 4.8 metres.

11. Road Safety Audit: Original inspection reportedly conducted at 7:30 pm, outside school-run hours.

12. Revised highway observations: Conducted around 3:45–4:05 pm, potentially missing the busiest William Edwards School departure period of 3:00–3:45 pm.

13. Road widening: Proposed widening addresses only part of Blackshots Lane, not the full length affected by existing restrictions.

14. Highway funding: £108,000 contribution reportedly covers only approximately 27% of the estimated widening costs.

15. Nearest Bus route 269: Limited and irregular service, often approximately every two hours.

16. Second nearest Bus route 44: Questions remain over its practical availability and usefulness for residents of the proposed development. Service once an hour.

17. Bus-stop contribution: £20,000 proposed for bus-stop improvements without a guaranteed increase in bus services.

18. Sustainable transport: Concerns that the development would be heavily car-dependent despite national and local sustainable transport policies.

19. Green Belt/Grey Belt: Agricultural Metropolitan Green Belt land assessed as Grey Belt, with questions about the application of national policy tests.

20. Emerging Local Plan: Committee report paragraph 13.3.23 confirms the site was not selected for growth in the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan.

21. Anglian Water: Earlier surface-water concerns require confirmation of how they were resolved.

22. Failed infiltration testing: Developer's drainage documentation records unsuccessful infiltration testing.

23. Overland flood flows: Developer's assessment identifies existing water flow paths towards Blackshots Lane and potentially William Edwards School grounds.

24. Winter groundwater monitoring: Outstanding questions over whether the monitoring requested by the flood authority was completed.

25. Drainage storage: Requirement for approximately 1,045 cubic metres of northern swale and basin storage requires verification against the final design.

26. Drainage conditions: Concerns that detailed drainage information could be submitted after construction begins.

27. Condition 28 removed: Proposed planning Condition 28 was reportedly removed during the 13 October committee meeting. The reasons and consequences require clarification. This was put in to prevent pooling and flooding as the development is on a level one flood risk plane. Stonebond have had complaints from residents who bought their houses in the past about flooding, see attached photographs.

28. Lower Thames Crossing: Questions over whether cumulative construction traffic, air pollution, noise and environmental effects were adequately assessed.

29. Ownership Certificate C: Changes identified in the planning documentation require explanation and confirmation of compliance with ownership notification requirements.

30. Residents' petition: Approximately 1,087 signatures recorded, but only around 300 classified as valid local signatures, no provision in law to disregard them.

31. Council Constitution: Questions over whether the committee's amendments, officer delegations and subsequent decision-making complied with the constitutional rules applicable on 13 October.

32. Post-committee documentation: Questions over whether material documents were completed or amended after councillors voted and whether officers had authority to adopt them.

33. Formal planning permission: Confirmation required of whether a decision notice has been issued and whether outstanding matters were resolved beforehand.

34. Chair of the committee was emailed afterwards to explain why he abstained, he said he couldn't see any legal reasons to object to anything in the red line. He was challenged as to why he abstained, when he saw nothing to oppose. What was his motivation for that?

On behalf of the campaign groups, resident Andrew Panrucker has also lodged a list of requests for detail on a number of issues under the Freedom of Information law.

Campaigners say they will not rest until all their questions and concerns are answered, accusing the council of 'pulling every stroke in the book' to force through matters of great concern to the public to try and meet their housing targets with a development that has many flaws.