Thurrock Council – Kings Farm Parkers Farm Road Orsett Essex – Appeal Dismissed

MHCLG Reference: APP/M1595/W/25/3358576

By a decision letter dated 15^th April 2026 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has dismissed a (recovered) appeal against the decision of Thurrock Council to refuse to grant planning permission for a mixed use development comprising up to 750 residential dwellings, medical facility, retail and commercial units at Kings Farm, Parkers Farm Road, Orsett, even though “the Council’s housing delivery situation is woeful”.

• “the car would likely remain as the mode of transportation of choice for the majority of journeys for the foreseeable future, and there would not, therefore, be a genuine choice of transport modes other than by car”;

• • “the proposed payment of £250,000 towards diverting the existing school bus service into the appeal site has not been justified or explored in any way by the appellant, and it has not been demonstrated that the service operator would be willing to make such a diversion. The Secretary of State therefore agrees that it is not possible to know whether the payment is compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.”

• • “whilst the proposed extension of bus route 565 into the site would bring the route within easy walking distance of the proposed dwellings, an hourly service is a limited and unattractive offer by comparison with car journeys, and its utility to commuters to London would be limited given the relatively late start and early finish to the service. He agrees that it would not offer a genuine alternative to the car.

• • The Secretary of State also agreed with the Inspector’s analysis (12.16-12.18) that:

“The UU also contains clauses pertaining to subsidising an increase in frequency of the 565 route and that it start earlier at 06:00 and finish later at 20:30 hours. The Council has raised several points of concern regarding this offer. To pick up on one in particular, the UU secures a declining subsidy model. For this to break even at the end of the 12-year term, both the appellant’s assumption on 7% patronage from the appeal site and an increase in usage from persons off-site brought about by the increased frequency would need to occur. 12 additional offsite persons, although not evidenced, is a reasonable assumption across the entire route. However, 7% is very high for a rural location. The current bus share in the wider area is 1% and no convincing justification is provided for such a step change in mode share. It is therefore likely that at the end of the 11-year term, the bus route would require ongoing subsidy to operate. There is therefore the possibility that the increased frequency of the 565 route would not continue to operate when the subsidy from the UU ends.

“Superseding these technical concerns, however, is that even as changed the bus service would remain a relatively infrequent route serving limited destinations, all northwards from the appeal site and away from the majority of the employment and leisure offer to the south and east, eg Thurrock, Lakeside, DP World or Basildon. I do not, therefore, believe that the increase in frequency and extension of operating hours of the bus route as proposed in the UU would make a meaningful difference to patronage of the route in any event. The proposed subsidy to fund an increase in frequency of the 565 route, therefore, even if it were practicable, is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It is not, therefore, compliant with the CIL Regs.

“In addition, the cost as proposed by the appellant would be £3,200,000. This is disproportionate to any likely improvement to the choice of transport modes. The proposal is also, therefore, not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.”

• “the intrinsic harm to the appeal site would be significant, and would harm some key characteristics in particular the open, flat, rural character and a sense of tranquillity including dark skies, and this would only be partially mitigated by the context that the site is an operating airfield, rather than agricultural land. He agrees there would be further harm from the appearance of a large new settlement in an isolated location, but still sufficiently close to Bulphan village so as to negatively affect its setting”;

• “it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site could accommodate the 750 dwellings proposed, together with the other uses and associated car parking spaces as have been applied for, with particular regard to density, layout, boundary treatment and the proposed woodland area”;
• As regards NPPF policy regarding Green Belt, “the proposal would cause substantial harm to openness, and exception 154(g) of the Framework is not met by the proposed development”
• As regards NPPF policy regarding Grey Belt:

“the Secretary of State agrees that the site is not in a sustainable location with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, and paragraph 155(c) is not met.”

“the proposal fails to successfully secure necessary improvements to local infrastructure, i.e. the bus services, and does not meet the requirements of the Golden Rules at Framework paragraph 156(b).”;

• therefore “the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt”; “the proposal would cause substantial harm to both visual and spatial openness, would be an obvious and large scale encroachment of built form into a currently mostly open site and that overall the proposal would harm purpose (c). He further agrees that substantial weight should be given to the identified harms to the Green Belt”;
• “55. Weighing in favour of the proposal are market housing and affordable housing which each carry very substantial weight; economic benefits which carry significant weight; BNG which carries moderate weight; provision of open space and off site flood risk improvements which each carry limited weight; and the potential for DP World to generate its own transport solutions, and potential sustainability benefits arising from the resolution to grant permission at Horndon St Marys which each carry very limited weight.

56. Weighing against the proposal are Green Belt harm and the inappropriate unsustainable location of the development which each carry substantial weight; the harm to the character and appearance of the area which carries significant weight; and the noise impacts which carry moderate weight.

57. The Secretary of State considers that in this case, the potential harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, harm to purposes, harm to openness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, as identified in paragraph 56 above, is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, and therefore there are not Very Special Circumstances which would justify this development in the Green Belt.

58. In the light of his conclusions on the Green Belt test the Secretary of State considers that there are protective policies which provide a strong reason for refusal. Under paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply.

59. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be refused.”

Richard Humphreys KC represented Thurrock Council.

Kevin Leigh, Maurice O’Carroll and SanMari Martins of Counsel represented the Appellant, Grasslands Ltd.