Planning committee chair blasts members as they vote for controversial housing scheme that is set to land authority in hot water

THURROCK Council’s planning committee has stood by its decision to back a controversial housing development – even though their decision could land the authority in hot water the law and at risk of a big financial penalty.

The decision was described as borderline madness – ‘kamikazi stuff’ by the committee’s chair.

Approval was granted for the second time of asking for 75 new homes on a triangle of green belt land opposite USP Palmer’s College bordering Grays and Chadwell St Mary.

Members voted for the scheme against an officer recommendation for refusal last month which meant they had to come back and consider the matter again on Thursday (16 July).

They did so and, despite stark warnings from legal advisors, planning officers and committee chairman Tom Kelly, four out of the seven members who were eligible to vote gave it the green light again.

It is now possible that the decision could be branded unlawful and might have to go before the full council to rebuke its planning members – or it could be called in by the secretary of state who could order a hearing that could land the council with a huge bill.

THURROCK Council’s planning committee has stood by its decision to back a controversial housing development – even though their decision could land the authority in hot water the law and at risk of a big financial penalty.

The decision was described as borderline madness – ‘kamikazi stuff’ by the committee’s chair.

Approval was granted for the second time of asking for 75 new homes on a triangle of green belt land opposite USP Palmer’s College bordering Grays and Chadwell St Mary.

Members voted for the scheme against an officer recommendation for refusal last month which meant they had to come back and consider the matter again on Thursday (16 July).

They did so and, despite stark warnings from legal advisors, planning officers and committee chairman Tom Kelly, four out of the seven members who were eligible to vote gave it the green light again.

It is now possible that the decision could be branded unlawful and might have to go before the full council to rebuke its planning members – or it could be called in by the secretary of state who could order a hearing that could land the council with a huge bill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.