A CONTROVERSIAL plan for 150 homes near Orsett has been rejected for a second time as developers deny claims they “bullied” councillors into reconsidering the scheme reports the Local Democracy Reporter.
The proposal, from BDW Trading Ltd, sought to demolish one existing property and build a large housing estate on land behind Baker Street and High Road, close to Chapel Farm. The application was refused in December 2025 but returned to committee after councillors were told two of their original refusal reasons were legally flawed.
Objector Richard Hughes told the committee the scheme remained “unsustainable,” arguing it would double the size of the small hamlet and overwhelm already stretched infrastructure. He said developers had offered “no viable solutions” for oversubscribed GP services, school capacity or traffic pressures, adding: “Unsustainable in December, unsustainable now. Nothing has changed.”
Mr Hughes also claimed members were pressured into revisiting the application after BDW “vilified individual members and threatened them with personal liability” if they did not agree to a second hearing. He criticised planning officers for failing to issue the December refusal notice promptly, suggesting this “left the door open” for the developers’ challenge.
BDW’s planning lead, Ray Houghton, rejected criticisms, emphasising the urgent local need for new housing and the scheme’s 50 per cent affordable homes. He said rents had been lowered to 70 per cent of market value, putting a two bedroom home at around £420 a month. He also argued the site met the Government’s definition of “grey belt” and would not harm the wider Green Belt.
Mr Houghton told councillors the firm would make appropriate contributions through a Section 106 agreement, including £109,000 for healthcare and £113,000 for special educational needs provision.
Despite officers recommending approval, it was rejected and committee chairman Michael Fletcher proposed a refusal on the grounds of over intensification and lack of sustainable infrastructure. He said: “The scale of the development would fundamentally and negatively impact the character of the village… the existing infrastructure does not support the size of development being proposed.”
The committee voted 4–3 in favour of rejecting the plans.
Mr Fletcher dismissed claims of bullying, saying members simply acted on legal advice warning that their previous refusal contained “legal error” and could risk judicial review.
A spokesperson for Barratt and David Wilson Homes Eastern Counties said they were disappointed with the decision, adding: “It is simply untrue to say we have been anything other than professional and respectful throughout the planning process. We feel the reasons for the Committee’s refusal are not robust and we are considering our options, including appealing the decision and requesting costs.”
