Four-pitch traveller site at Pilgrims Lane, Pilgrims' Hatch

The site

The 0.45-hectare Green Belt site lies beside a private lane, bridleway and footpath, near homes, a nursery, a listed church and a wildlife site.

“The application site relates to a 0.45ha parcel of land located within the Green Belt, to the south of Pilgrims Lane. Pilgrims Lane is a narrow rural lane that is a…”

“Within the immediate vicinity are sporadic residential dwellings, generally set within spacious plots as well as Mapleton Growers which is a nursery site with a number of glasshouses. St Pauls Church is located approximately 220 metres to the northwest of the site (off Mores Lane) which is a Grade II listed building and The Mores Local Wildlife Site is situated at the western end of Pilgrims Lane approximately 100 metres from the site.”

Officer report

Earlier activity on site

The site had no relevant planning permission, while enforcement action followed caravans arriving and hardstanding being laid in August 2025.

“There is no relevant planning permission history for this site. • On 2 nd August 2025, a Temporary Stop Notice was issued by the Council’s planning enforcement team following reports of caravans moving onto the site and the laying of hardstanding. The TSN requires the occupiers to cease the carrying out of engineering or other operations on the land and discontinue residential use of the land. • An Interim Injunction Order was granted to the Council on 2 nd August 2025.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the site grey belt, the need unmet, the location acceptable overall and the proposal free from significant harm or technical objections.

“The site is located within a rural location outside of the settlement of Pilgrims Hatch. However as advised above, it is considered that the location of the site, would, on balance, be deemed acceptable for the development.”

“It has been established that the proposal does not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it meets the definition of Grey Belt in accordance with NPPF paragraph 155. Therefore, the development accords with Local Plan Policies HP10 and MG02, Policy E of the PPTS and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-six objections raised Green Belt, landscape, biodiversity, highway, sustainability, infrastructure, agricultural land, precedent and Gypsy and Traveller need concerns.

“Where applications are subject to public consultation those comments are summarised below. The full version of each neighbour response can be viewed on the Council’s website via Public Access at the following link: http://publicaccess.brentwood.gov.uk/online-applications/”

“Inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances exist • Personal circumstances do not outweigh any harm • There is no need for additional gypsy/traveller sites • Harmful to the character and appearance of the area • Biodiversity and Environmental Harm • Impact on highway safety • Intention unauthorised development • The site is not sustainable • Loss of value to nearby dwellings • Inadequate infrastructure • Would set an undesirable precedent…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways found the impact acceptable with conditions, while environmental health and ecology requested drainage, contamination, landscaping and biodiversity safeguards.

“Environmental Health & Enforcement Manager:”

“From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to the following conditions:”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke against the application, an agent spoke in support, and two non-committee councillors gave reasons for refusal.

What members debated

Members discussed residents’ consultation, grey belt status, traffic, sewage, drainage, land rights and whether the proposal was inappropriate Green Belt development.

“Cllr Russell, not a Committee Member, spoke giving reasons for refusal of the application. These included inappropriate development of greenbelt, significant landscape and development harm and noncompliance with certain policies. Cllr Wagland, also not a Committee Member, gave her reasons for refusal which included the rights over the land.”

“Cllr Gelderbloem, Ward Councillor, raised concerns including consultation with residents, the grey belt status, movement of traffic, and sewage and drainage conditions.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application, with twelve votes against approval and no votes against refusal or abstentions.

“Following an extensive debate including the reasons why the site is not considered to be grey belt, Cllr Mynott MOVED a motion to REFUSE the application. This was SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne.”

“A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found Green Belt purposes unmet, the location unsustainable, harm to residents, policy conflicts, encroachment on greenfield land and no proven grey belt status.

“HP10 A, D & G- unsustainable location; adverse impact on local residents. This site has not come through the planning process, it is an encroachment on a green field.”

“No case to prove that this site constitutes grey belt.”

Minutes