A LEADING Thurrock councillor has spoken of her "bitter disappointment" after a Planning Inspectorate decision to approve permission for up to 1,000 new homes on green belt land despite local opposition and view from the borough's planning committee that it would have been minded not to give it the green light were it the determining power.

That opportunity for the council to make a decision did not happen because the developers got fed up with waiting for the council to make a decision and went direct to the government's planning inspectorate.

The council tried to muster its forces to oppose the scheme at the inspectorate's hearing and employed a costly King's Counsel on their behalf, but the barrister's words were not enough to dissuade inspector Richard Schofield from backing the project which will bring up to 830 homes to East Tilbury and Linford if the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed or 1,000 homes if it does not.

Delivering his verdict after the three day hearing, Mr Schofield ackowledged the project would bring harm to the green belt, but that was outweighed by the need for new housing.

The Planning Inspectorate's decision followed project developers Mulberry Strategic Land warning Thurrock's planning committee the new Labour Government would be likely to overturn a decision to refuse the homes over their green belt location. That prompted a retaliatory response from Thurrock Planning committee chair Cllr Mike Fletcher, who warned Thurrock would not be bullied.

Cllr Lee Watson, councillor responsible for Good Growth, said: "I am bitterly disappointed by this decision. It's the wrong development in the wrong place.

"It isn't an appropriate use of our green belt, it takes up valuable agricultural land and it will put more strain on our roads."

Cllr Fletcher has also commented on Mr Schofield's decision, saying: "We are naturally disappointed that the Planning Inspectorate saw this application differently, but we respect the decision they have reached.

"As I explained when this application came to the planning committee, our role is to represent the community when reviewing potential new developments.

"We do so from a position of mutual respect, whether we agree with the initial decision or not, and we expect applicants to do the same. 

"We will continue to judge each application we review on its merits, not on who shouts loudest."

The application includes a new primary school, health centre, new road network and a pedestrian railway crossing.

The council received 180 objections to the proposal following consultations launched last year which closed in May. These included fears access to the site was unsafe, additional traffic, urban sprawl into the green belt and loss of farmland and wildlife.

However, Mr Schofield said: "I have found that the proposed development would harm the green belt for reasons of inappropriateness and loss of openness. I have not found any other harms arising from the development proposed. I give substantial weight to the harms to the Green Belt.

"The proposal would, however, deliver new homes and affordable housing in an area with an extremely poor record of delivery of both, with no signs of this improving in the future. I have attributed very substantial weight to this."

Thurrock Council currently faces another controversial and difficult planning decision with widespread public opposition following an application to build up to 2,000 new homes in the north of the borough - largely planned by the agency behind the one in East Tilbury.