Planning appeal decision
Kings Farm Parkers Farm Road, Orsett, GRAYS, RM16 3HX
a mixed-use development comprising up to 750 no. residential dwellings, medical facility, retail and commercial units. Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed. ____________________________________________________________ 1
- Authority
- Thurrock Borough Council
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Unknown
- Inspector
- Woodwards O
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the appeal site is an appropriate location for development of this type having regard to local and national planning policy and guidance, with particular regard to accessibility by non-car based modes of transport
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, in particular landscape character
- whether or not the proposal represents an acceptable form of development having regard to its flood zone location and the provisions of the Framework
- whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to include considerations regarding Grey Belt
- if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it
What decided it
The proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing substantial harm to openness, and the identified harms (Green Belt, unsustainable location, character and appearance, noise) were not clearly outweighed by the benefits, so very special circumstances did not exist.
Very substantial weight to market and affordable housing, significant weight to economic benefits, moderate weight to BNG, and limited/very limited weight to open space, off-site flood risk improvement, DP World transport potential and Horndon St Marys benefits, were not clearly outweighed by substantial weight given to Green Belt harm and the inappropriate unsustainable location, significant weight to character and appearance harm, and moderate weight to noise impacts, so the balance tipped against the proposal and very special circumstances were not made out.
Framework references: 11, 49, 58, 77, 110, 115, 117, 143, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 170, 173, 174, 175, 181, 187
Plan policies cited: CSSP1, CSSP2, CSSP4, CSTP2, CSTP6, CSTP15, CSTP16, CSTP18, CSTP19, CSTP20, CSTP22, CSTP23, CSTP27, PMD1, PMD2, PMD5, PMD6, PMD7, PMD8, PMD9, PMD11, PMD15, PMD16, DPM1
Judgments cited: Test Valley BC v. Fiske [2025] 1 P. & C.R. 20; Vistry Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 2088 (Admin); R (Hampshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2022] QB 103
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®