Planning appeal decision
Land For Development, Muckingford Road, Linford, Essex, SS17 0RR
Planning appeal 3342882 at Land For Development, Muckingford Road, Linford, Essex, SS17 0RR (Thurrock Borough Council) was allowed on 4 November 2024 by Inspector Richard Schofield, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and its purposes.
application for outline planning permission with some matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved: Proposed development of up to 830 dwellings (Use Class C3) if the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed (scenario 1) and up to 1000 dwellings (Use Class C3) if the Lower Thames Crossing does not proceed (scenario 2), a new local road network including a vehicular / pedestrian railway crossing, a primary school, local centre and new areas of open space, including formal recreation
- Authority
- Thurrock Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Richard Schofield
- Postcode
- SS17 0RR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and its purposes
- whether the appeal proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, regarding noise
- the effect of the appeal scheme upon the operation of an existing business (being EMR)
- whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The very substantial weight attributable to the delivery of market and affordable housing in an area with an extremely poor housing land supply record, combined with other benefits, clearly outweighed the substantial Green Belt harm and established the very special circumstances needed to justify the development.
Substantial weight attributed to Green Belt harm (inappropriateness, loss of openness and harm to purposes) was clearly outweighed by very substantial weight to housing delivery, significant weight to the rail bridge, and moderate weight to biodiversity, primary school provision, recreational facilities and economic impacts, amounting to the very special circumstances required to justify the grant of planning permission.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- PMD6PMD1CSSP2CSTP2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 134Paragraph 152Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 193
- Judgments
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Thurrock
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Allowed5 October 20266008794Milo, South Avenue, Langdon Hills, SS16 6JG
- Dismissed29 September 20266009919Land Rear of Ewen House, High Road, Fobbing, SS17 9JH
- Dismissed23 September 2026601022370 London Road,, Thurrock, Grays, RM17 5YB
- Allowed28 August 202660088789 Lyndhurst Road, Corringham, SS17 7SJ
- Allowed27 July 20266010667Willow Cottage, Windsor Avenue, Grays, RM16 2UB
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®