EXCLUSIVE REPORT - 'another sorry chapter in an increasingly sordid story of Thurrock Council planning!'

---

A MAJORITY of Thurrock planning councillors have once again controversially over-ridden the views of their officers and backed a housing development in the green belt.

And once more the two councillors in the vanguard of the decision to approve a bid to build 57 houses and 18 apartments on land adjacent to Wood View and Chadwell Road in Grays were Cllr Gerard Rice and Angela Lawrence - who have led the resistance against officers on a number of other recent controversial decisions, including the green light for the Langdon Hills Golf Club retirement village.

The drama was played out in somewhat controversial circumstances too, at a planning meeting from which the public and media were physically excluded.

There was a mix of actual and virtual participation in last Thursday's meeting in the civic chamber but the quality of the broadcast was so bad it was difficult to hear and see what was going on - so much so that one councillor, David Potter, actually left the meeting having spent 40 minutes trying to draw attention to the fact he couldn't hear.

The meeting ended up lasting close to four hours and though all the business on the agenda was completed, the decisions left something of a sour taste in the mouth of those trying to follow proceedings.

The most controversial part of the evening surrounded the decision by councillors to back the homes plan on land opposite USP Palmer's College.

Officers, committee chair Cllr Tom Kelly (Con) and Cllrs Michael Fletcher (Lab) and Gary Byrne (Ind) – together with non-voting member Steve Taylor - were adamant the proposal should be vetoed as there were not sufficient special circumstances to support the plan.

However, the cross party alliance of Cllrs Rice (Lab), Lawrence (Con), Sue Shinnock (Lab) and Sue Sammons (Con) supported each other in a cross party alliance to drive the plans through.

Councillors told the principle of building on the land could not be revoked

Had Cllr Potter (Con) remained in the meeting and voted against, the plan would most likely have been thrown out on Cllr Kelly's casting vote.

As it is, because of council protocols when officer advice is rejected, the matter will now have to come back to the next planning meeting to be rubber-stamped – but even if he is against it, Cllr Potter may not be entitled to vote because he missed the initial debate.

The outline application is for a residential scheme comprising 57 houses and 18 flats with all matters reserved. Detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings are proposed and indicative plans have been submitted for these house types. The developer has pledged to make 35 per cent of the houses 'affordable'.

Senior planning officer Matthew Gallagher then gave a detailed summary of the proposal and outlined in detail why it should be opposed because it breached many guidelines on the green belt. He stressed the fact that though there was little detail in the application, giving it a green light would establish the principle of building on the land – which could not be revoked.

He warned councillors: "This outline application seeks to establish the principle of residential development. The principle is at stake, which is if you were to go against the recommendation, and decide that you want to support the scheme, you have established the principle of development."

The meeting then heard written statements from a neighbor opposing the scheme, stressing the current 'horrendous' traffic situation in the area, and the agent for the developer who gave reasons why it should be approved.

"It looks like a bit of green grass to me"

The agent's argument was almost instantly dismissed by Mr Taylor – who represents the Campaign to Protect Rural England. He said: "Even when you sum together all the special circumstance they claim, they don't equal the harm being done to the green belt. .

In response, Cllr Lawrence immediately got onto the front foot and suggested the scheme should go ahead – through she admitted she hadn't really researched the validity of the area as a green open space. She told the meeting: "I didn't realise what the area looked like, though I have driven past it. I hadn't realised until seeing these pictures this evening. It doesn't look like it's a nature reserve, it looks like a bit of green grass to me."

She was later to add: "To me it looked like a load of rough old grass, nothing at all" and added it was surrounded by trees and bushes.

Mr Gallagher attempted to stress the importance of the land as an open space, saying: "The primary characteristic of the green belt is the openness. This is about keeping land permanently open. The fact that it is not of significant nature conservation interest and the fact you can't see it - you should put from your minds.

"Your own local plan policies are about protecting openness. This is a fundamental green belt consideration."

Mention of the local plan was red rag to Cllr Rice. He said: "We do come back to the old burning issue, we are working from an old local plan.

"The government have requested us to produce 32,000 homes. Somehow we have got to grasp this nettle. We could be looking now for a new local plan that could be 2024, 25 or even 26 before it comes in but we still have to find these housing numbers. I am curious how our present levels are, are we not in some sort of special measures because we have not built enough houses?"

That prompted intervention from Leigh Nicholson, Interim Assistant Director - Planning, Transport & Public Protection – who said: "The new local plan is the answer, but it has to be planned delivery, not specific ad hoc developments.

"I think this is a nice little green lung leading in into Chadwell"

"Housing need does not trump the green belt. In terms of the housing numbers, delivery is in the hands of housebuilders. It isn't the answer to give consent to any application that comes up, just to make up the numbers."

Cllr Kelly then joined in, saying he was minded to back the officers, adding: "I think this is a nice little green lung leading in into Chadwell. Traffic is a big issue already. We need to be careful about how much traffic we allow on these roads. For me this is a big no no."

Cllr Lawrence was then back in the fray, pitching job needs into the equation and saying: "Palmer's College has got to a point they are so desperate they were thinking of using some of the ground to build units on. You could get some really nice places on this land for teachers.

"These are things we should consider. Sometimes things get turned down and then three of four months later we see a really big development nearby. I wish everything was clear and transparent, we would all work better together!

"You could mould this site to get some houses for teachers on it. If we work together we could do some good things.

"To me it looked like a load of rough old grass, nothing at all and all I can think of is Palmer's College needs all the help they can get."

That prompted Cllr Byrne to respond, saying: "We can't just talk about this and that is its about building for jobs, we are not a job centre, we are a planning committee. It does tick every box when you look at it, from five bedrom houses that takes top earners, right down to smaller flats and when you look at that you say yes. But looking at the green belt you have to say no and move on."

Mr Taylor interjected to say: "You have to understand the rules around greenbelt are very Draconian - which gives you a view on the nature of green belt. This is a piece of green belt land, with nothing special about it, but it is still green belt. This is used for grazing and cattle and I would suggest that is a much nicer environment to look at than anything else."

And in turn Cllr Rice spoke up to say: "We are in a borough, whether we like it or not, with a shortage of homes. The applicant recognises this and makes a contribution. We have to start to bite the bullet. We have people on our housing lists, there tis a ten year wait. You can't go away from that.

"We are having difficulty in attracting people to this borough - we need homes for key workers. To me it is a difficult one, I know the area. This is a rough piece of ground but at the of the day people need homes and we can't run away from that. I understand the need for the green belt, but we need homes.

"The applicant has said they will provide 35 per cent affordable homes, the council's preference is for one and two bedroom home sand the applicant has agreed to that.

"We either start to build council homes using council money, or we have to go down this route where every applicant has to make a contribution, These are difficult choices.

"We have to grasp these situations and take the 35 per cent of affordable homes offered by these developers. We haven't got a local plan, we have got great difficulties. We are a failing authority which doesn't sit comfortably with me. Every application we do approve will go towards fulling those gaps. We need to look at every application on its merits and say is this pristine green belt?

"If we are honest, we have an application here that will give us homes. It might not sit comfortably but it's my belief we should look at this seriously. We should run with this."

"They will keep coming back and coming back getting bigger, bigger and bigger"

Steve Taylor warned that once the principle was established "the developer doesn't have to build on it. Then he comes back and changes the mix. l we have heard these horror stories with developers saying it's not viable. So this is about the principle.

"As soon as we establish the principle of building here, they will keep coming back and coming back getting bigger, bigger and bigger - based on the so-called affordability because of the price they paid for the land. We end up picking the can for it.

"The buck always gets stuck in the council's direction. It's green belt, it shouldn't be built on. You can have no idea what is going to go on there but I can guarantee it won't be anything like the current proposal."

Caution and opposition to the build was the watchword from Cllr Fletcher too. He said: "I don't think this small parcel of land is the answer, even if we got the 35 per cent affordable houses. At some point we are going to have to build on green belt - to go big or go home, but this is not it.

Cllr Byrne refuted Cllr Rice's argument about the housing list, saying the development would make no difference to the council home waiting list. He said: "If we build this people who haven't got homes won't get this – it's affordable not social housing."

Cllr Kelly summed up by saying: "Not only is this green belt, but if housing is built because of the traffic it will be covered by a two and half metre acoustic fence, I could just about justify building this without a fence but this site needs a fence.

"Green belt is precious - if we build on here, where is the difference between Chadwell and Grays going to be? We need to able to justify building on the green belt and I can't justify it here."

However, he and Cllrs Byrne and Fletcher proved to be in a minority as the officers' recommendation was rejected and the four remaining councillors voted to approve the build. It isn't the end of the matter – but it's another sorry chapter in an increasingly sordid story of Thurrock Council planning!

And next month or possibly two, another major application for a housing development in the green belt - just a couple of hundred yards away in Chadwell St Mary, comes before the planning committee.