DESPITE widespread public objections and a campaign by residents - backed by concerns from Essex County Council officers who wanted a decision delayed - a majority of Thurrock councillors at tonight's planning committee have approved the building of 2,100 homes on borough farmland.

To the dismay of residents of West Horndon and Bulphan who sat in the gallery, four councillors voted for the Horndon St Mary's application, three voted against it and two abstained.

It took almost two hours to reach a conclusion after two residents spoke against the scheme and representatives of the applicant, Horndon St Marys LLP supported by the Iceni Projects group. 

Three councillors, Jacqui Maney, Russell Cherry and Roy Jones spoke passionately against the development, as did lay member Steve Taylor who represents CPRE, the countryside charity formerly known as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. He does not have a vote but Cllrs Maney, Cherry and Jones voted against.

Councillors Tom Kelly, Sue Shinnick, Aaron Green and chair Mike Fletcher voted in favour. Cllrs Srikanth Panjala and Cathy Sisterson abstained so the vote was carried 4-3.

The meeting followed a deferment in December and a subsequent site visit on Tuesday, 27 January by councillors.

The application sought to transform 257 acres of land, much of which is currently being farmed, into a mixed-use community featuring 2,100 homes alongside a primary school, hotel, care home, commercial space, and community facilities. 

It is an accepted fact that it is only phase one of a number of proposed developments in the area, with thousands more homes in the pipeline.

At tonight's (Tuesday, 10 February) meeting the application was presented by planning officer William Allwood to members who heard that Thurrock planning officers were still recommending the scheme for approval. 

Councillors were informed members that one of their concerns, access for children to both primary and secondary schools would be mitigated by a revised bus strategy and that the applicants would fund buses for five years. 

It was also reported that a doctor's surgery would be included on the site. Councillors suggested that additional funding for healthcare could be met by the applicants - they were told that was not something the council could support and applications for additional funding should go direct to the NHS.

Concerns by councillors over disposal of foul water and sewage, were also dismissed, with councillors told they were regarded as within available capacity by Anglian Water. "Concerns about foul water and sewage can be managed", councillors were told by Mr Allwood - who added 'there is no reason to refuse this application, the planning balance is clearly in favour of granting permission in this case."

Two speakers from the public gallery were then invited to speak against the application by chair Cllr Fletcher who said: "I have allowed two speakers in opposition because I consider there are exceptional circumstances in this case mainly because of its size and scale."

However, their pleas fell on a majority of deaf ears.

The scheme will now go ahead with a number of conditions, which have not yet been laid down but will be drafted, without consultation to the committee, by the council's director of planning, Ashley Baldwin, from his recollections of tonight's meeting.

Leslie Lewis from West Horndon Parish Council was the first to speak in opposition.

She said: "Having previously outlined the objections from West Horndon Parish Council and its residents I will not repeat these again but instead raise serious issues that still remain. 

"First, this proposal sits firmly within the Thames Chase forest boundary, an area created for landscape regeneration recreation biodiversity and public enjoyment.

Thurrock Council is a signatory to the Thames Chase agreement which clearly expects that no major housing or industrial development should take place within the community forest area.

"The Trust's new 2025-2035 plan reinforces this position and makes no provision for a new urban settlement.

"Approving this application would directly contradict that longstanding commitment.

"Secondly the proposed active travel route beside Freshwater Gardens is fundamentally flawed. The narrowing under the railway bridge means it cannot meet the legal width required for an active travel corridor.

"This is not a minor detail, it is a basic design failure that undermines the scheme's sustainability claims and will cause significant disruption to residents.

In addition the developer has raised concerns about public safety near the railway line - concerns so serious they propose a two metre high concrete anti trespass wall.

"Yet this issue is not addressed at all in Thurrock's planning assessment.

"Third the traffic impacts on West Horndon are unacceptable. 

"The development has three access points while an existing access for our village is removed. This leaves West Horndon with just two routes. One is a residential road with a primary school that already feeds into a difficult T junction on the A127. The other pushes traffic towards the A128 and the Dunton Hills development.

"The resulting increase in congestion pollution and road safety risks will be substantial the question must be asked why should West Horndon suffer a severe negative impact through the closure of Saint Mary's Lane solely to benefit a new development?

"Fourth, aviation safety has been overlooked. Two active airfields Barnard's Farm and Damian's Hall sit close to the site. The National Planning Policy Framework Policy is clear, local authorities should avoid development at or near airfields where it may conflict with aviation operations. The 2023 incident at Damyns Hall, where an aircraft lost power shortly after take-off shows these risks are real and foreseeable.

"Placing a new town beneath these flightpaths introduces unnecessary and avoidable danger.

"Finally I must raise concerns about process.

"At the previous planning meeting many significant issues were brushed over due to time constraints despite councillors clearly having reservations.

"Following the deferral for a site visit it was extremely discouraging that no representative from Brentwood Council was invited to provide essential local insight.

"As such we must insist that any element of this application within the Brentwood boundary should not be determined at this time and we ask that planning approval is not granted."

Quizzed by Cllr Russell Cherry about the impact of closing a current bridge as part of the scheme, Ms Lewis said: "It will have a massive impact, not just on residents but on the industrial estate. Some of those HGVS currently go over the bridge towards Upminster. They will now have to come through the village." She added that the bridge had been closed for works recently which 'caused a huge impact' in the village.

The traffic concerns and access to existing busy routes were also raised by Essex County County highways officer Ashley Heller - who spoke for a second time about his authority's objections to granting planning permission based on the limited and unverified information put before Thurrock Council.

He warned of unresolved issues around station access, school transport links and a lack of coordination with neighbouring authorities. "Our objection on highways grounds still stands," he said, urging councillors to delay the decision.

In particular he identified issues including 'future proofing' the land around the train station ensuring bus and pedestrian access.

And he shared vconcerns about the bridge closure, saying: "We have not has sufficient time to asses the situation regarding the bridge. We request the planning committee to further postpone a decision."

Cllr Jones asked: "How much more time do you need?" and added: "I get the impression that the area is not ready for the amount of traffic this will generate. Dunning Lane, how much traffic will that road be subject to with this new estate? What will Essex Highways do about improvng that road, its speed limit and its safety. Should the developer contribute to the cost?"

Mr Heller said it was difficult to answer some of those questions because of a lack of information but said: "At this point you should have assurance that that this will be safe, which is why we want to postpone a decision. We need the opportunity to interrogate evidence put forward by the applicant late in the day."

Pressed on a timescale for a postponement by Cllr Fletcher, Mr Heller said: "It won't take years, but it will take time including third parties and consultants. Three to six months would be an estimate I guess, but I'm happy to go away and come back with more details."

Cllr Sisterson suggested it would be good for Essex to look at the active travel plan for the nearby approved Dunton Village development, approved by Brentwood Borough Council in December 2023, which is due to have at least 3,700 homes. She rhetorically asked 'wouldn't it make sense to integrate Horndon St Marys into it?'

Defending the scheme, Leona Hannify of Iceni Projects spoke for a second time to the committee, referring back to her first appearance when she said:"Thurrock is ambitious and unafraid of growth, provided it is well-planned and infrastructure-led. West Horndon has immense untapped potential, with strong strategic connections and an underutilised railway station at its heart."

Readdressing the committee she said: "We fully support the updated planning officers' report and are grateful.

"Since the last time we met, we have engaged with Essex CC. It is clear they are not opposed to the proiciple of this application. Their concerns can be address through conditions."

She then said: "We have sought to genuinely engage with those living locally," prompting jibes of derision and laughter from the public gallery.

She concluded her address by adding: "The applicant is committed to the long term delivery of this site. Members are being asked to support the principle of his application, the updated officers report clearly demonstrates there is no strong reason for refusal."

Questioned by Cllr Cherry, who said: "Do you feel a development of 2,100 homes where it is, that those roads are fit enough to support that development without considerable money being spent to upgrade them." Ms Hannify responded by saying: "In essence for the planning application, at the end of the day people want to get into their cars. We have to accommodate all forms of transport."

Mr Taylor asked: "What's the logic of closing the bridge?" and was told: "We believe there would be a substantial amount of traffic using the bridge to access to other roads."

The meeting then moved into debate, begun by Cllr Cherry who referred to the unstable world situation and possible confrontations and turned to history and the need for a nation to feed itself by saying: "Churchill said the battle we fear most was the battle of the Atlantic. I am against building on foodland - I'm not calling it green or grey belt but foodland. We are being set up for the future by this and other developments of up to 20,000 homes on our foodland.

"This will also impact on roads which will be severely damged. I don't see how we can dictate to the people of West Horndon, that we can shut their bridge.

"What we as Thurrock councillors know is we live in Thurrock and we don't want to see Thurrock turned into a big housing estate that will benefit people from London."

Cllr Shinnick said: "I understand why people of West Horndon don't want to see these houses built there. but we have a housing waiting list of 7,000 and we have to start building somewhere."

Cllr Maney followed up by saying: "It's not often Cllr Cherry and I agree but I couldn't agree more with him. I absolutely will not be supporting this."

Cllr Jones said: "First of all thanks the team for our day out. It was a day out but it gave a good chance to see. They organised it well so we saw so many different areas.

"I'd like to thank Iceni for lovely drone footage of the development. What that showed me that it was farmland growing food because you can see the tractors working there.

"It is farmland, being worked. I know people are saying we need homes but I can't see this.

"Equally the drone footage showed how congested the roads as the A127 was snarled back for miles.

"Our legal man here has alluded to us that we can't refuse. Im my determination I don't think we are ready for this now.

"We've heard from the residents, we've heard from Essex CC and West Horndon PC. If we are going to do this, we need to do it right.

"I keep hearing we will sort the problems tomorrow after we pass something, but tomorrow never comes.

"The applicant says they will support the busses for five years, but they also say this is a 15 year development. We may have a 1,000 kids to go to school!

"We should listen to Essex CC and maybe look at it again."

Cllr Sisterson said: "What worries me it the piecemeal approach" and expressed concern about the closure of the bridge and added: "The station needs to be properly thought out.

"We do have to have mind of what might be coming. I understand this is in principle but my worry is once it is agreed it's difficult to stop things."

Cllr Green said: "We have 2,100 properties with 50 per cent affordable. 50 per cent affordable for familes who haven't got a home, who will be able to go there.

"I see no reason to object this evening."

Cllr Panjala was more circumspect view, acknowledging the housing numbers issue by saying: "We only have one year's housing supply" but he added: "I would suggest that this is green belt and farmland, very beautiful. Losing green land, I cannot support this one."

A contrasting vuiew came from Cllr Kelly who said: "Cllr Kelly said that having listened to the comments he believed five people would vote against the recommendation so he said: "It could be moving towards rejection so I am not going to fight for this too much though I do think it should go ahead. I think my main concern is that grey belt green belt policy is new and we are still trying to get our heads round it.

"Ultimately if we do reject and it goes to appeal, there's a strong chance it loses, and then of course, we lose the Section 106 benefits."

"It's just an opinion, as a committee I think we are quite protective of the rural area, I think a little too protective. 

"When you look at the things we have approved in the last four or five months in heavily built up areas like Stanford, Corringham and Ockendon and it wasn't that long ago we built a large scheme in Aveley so unfortunately if you only concentrate in one area they are the areas that get hit the most so I do think rural areas need to take their bit as well.

"It's my opinion that if we refuse this will be overturned but that's not a reason to refuse or approve."

Cllr Fletcher summed up by saying: "What everyone in the room can agree on is that this isn't how we would like it. There are clearly a number of things as we would not like them to be.

"But everything that we have gone into in great detail can be addressed with conditions.

"If you don't agree with the principle, fine, vote that way. If you have concerns about how it should be developed then the correct road would be conditions."

And that is how the decision ended up, with those undetermined conditions expressed by a number of councillors through the evening to be decided by a senior planning officer who clearly wanted the scheme approved - a decision that left residents in the gallery angry and disappointed. "We must appeal this" said one. However, that is not an option. The developers will have to come back with 'reserved details' for the layout of the new houses but the principle of the size and nature of the development is now determined.

The meeting can be viewed online via this link.