Update Following Planning Decision
You’ve probably heard that the council approved the Planning Application to develop the horses’ field. Anyone who watched the meeting—either in person or on YouTube 🔗, could be forgiven for thinking they had stumbled into a farce. What follows isn’t a full account, but it gives a clear indication of what unfolded. You can view the video (link above) for the whole sorry story.
The meeting initially proceeded in an orderly manner. There were excellent speeches from our representatives and many councillors. There were also presentations from the developer’s agent and the planning officer.
Councillors asked many questions—most of which the officer either avoided or evaded. Here are just two examples from many points of concern:
Non-compliance
The plan does not provide sufficient parking spaces, many that are provided are not in a desirable location. Because of the proposed pedestrian cut through into Viking Way it is inevitable that overspill will end up there.
In response to these points the planning officer simply noted that Essex Highways had not raised any objections.
The Committee Chair pointed out that the Parking Policy is a Brentwood Council policy, not Essex Highways.
Who Benefits?
The plan clearly lacks biodiversity protections and infrastructure support. When asked whether these would be fulfilled in the immediate area the best response offered was that the “immediate area” would be prioritized. If that proved unworkable, they’d deliver improvements elsewhere..
One of the most obvious needs noted were improved cycle routes to help ease traffic volumes. Short of asking householders in Doddinghurst Road to give up some of their front gardens, how could this happen? Without binding commitments in the development agreement, money for transport and biodiversity almost certainly won’t be spent here.
Meanwhile
In general, it seems that the Planning Officer approached the project:
- without a critical eye towards ensuring that local policy objectives were achieved and
- a lack of desire to push back against the developer’s overreach.
The recommendation made by the planning officer to the committee was to approve the application seemingly without caveats.
In the background, councillors and the Committee Chair raised concerns about the threat of an appeal. In past cases, when councils rejected applications that officers had recommended, developers won—and the council had to pay significant costs. These costs can easily run into 6 figure sums.
Unsatisfactory End
At this point it seemed that many councillors were unhappy with the application but nobody seemed inclined to either propose approval or rejection. The Chair was repeatedly requesting a closed private meeting between committee members and officers.
Eventually, without a formal discussion & vote (seemingly in breach of procedure), the committee and officers left the chamber for fifteen minutes. They turned off the cameras, held a private discussion, and returned to approve the application—with just one abstention. They never turned the cameras back on.
What you can do
If you have specific concerns that you might want to raise about this decision then there are courses of action.
Compliance Officer
If you believe that the decision was achieved without adherence to due process you can complain to the council’s compliance officer. You can see a template for you to adapt to your priorities at the end of this article.
Write to our MP
The Conservatives are under a lot of pressure right now, mainly from Reform, and our MP will be wanting to show us how supportive he is of his constituents.
You can eMail Alex Burghart MP at alex.burghart.mp@parliament.uk.
Template to write to Compliance Officer – please change to reflect your concerns
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
Ms. Mann, Monitoring Officer
Brentwood Borough Council
Town Hall.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Brentwood Planning Committee Procedure and R16 Application Decision
Dear Ms. Mann,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the Planning Committee at its meeting on 16th September 2025, when considering the planning application for site R16.
During the hearing, the committee members left the chamber for a private discussion. No motion was proposed or voted on to exclude the public under the Local Government Act 1972, and no lawful reason was given for this withdrawal. This is contrary to the Council’s own constitution and undermines the requirement for decision-making to be open, transparent, and accountable.
Following this private meeting, the committee returned and voted in favour of the application. This was despite clear evidence being presented by the local residents’ group and the Council’s own compliance measures not being properly addressed.
The combination of a private discussion, absence of a proper exclusion vote, and disregard for presented evidence raises serious concerns about the legality and fairness of this decision-making process. It gives the appearance that the outcome was predetermined or that material considerations were not openly debated, which risks rendering the decision unsound.
I therefore request that:
- The Monitoring Officer investigates the conduct of the meeting and confirms whether the committee acted in breach of the Council’s constitution and relevant legislation.
- The Council issues a clear public explanation of the reasons for the private discussion and how the requirements for transparency were met.
- The Council confirms what steps will now be taken to ensure that decisions are made lawfully and with proper regard to both procedure and the evidence presented.
Given the seriousness of this matter, I reserve the right to seek further remedies, including a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman or initiating Judicial Review proceedings.
I look forward to your acknowledgement of this complaint and a full response within the statutory timeframe.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]