Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed24 November 20253358576

Kings Farm Parkers Farm Road, Orsett, Grays, RM16 3HX

Planning appeal 3358576 at Kings Farm Parkers Farm Road, Orsett, Grays, RM16 3HX (Thurrock Borough Council) was dismissed on 24 November 2025 by Inspector Woodwards O, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: 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.

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
Postcode
RM16 3HX

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.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
CSSP1CSSP2CSSP4CSTP2CSTP6CSTP15CSTP16CSTP18CSTP19CSTP20CSTP22CSTP23CSTP27PMD1PMD2PMD5PMD6PMD7PMD8PMD9PMD11PMD15PMD16DPM1
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 49Paragraph 58Paragraph 77Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 117Paragraph 143Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 156Paragraph 157Paragraph 159Paragraph 170Paragraph 173Paragraph 174Paragraph 175Paragraph 181Paragraph 187
Judgments
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

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

62 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Thurrock

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

  1. Allowed5 October 20266008794
    Milo, South Avenue, Langdon Hills, SS16 6JG
  2. Dismissed29 September 20266009919
    Land Rear of Ewen House, High Road, Fobbing, SS17 9JH
  3. Dismissed23 September 20266010223
    70 London Road,, Thurrock, Grays, RM17 5YB
  4. Allowed28 August 20266008878
    9 Lyndhurst Road, Corringham, SS17 7SJ
  5. Allowed27 July 20266010667
    Willow 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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.