BEHIND-CLOSED-DOORs talks were held over rejected plans for 280 homes after the applicant launched an appeal against the decision.

Tendring Council’s planning committee held the private discussion over the plans for the 44-acre site, south of Thorpe Road, Weeley, at a meeting last Tuesday.

The blueprints include a new primary school, 56-place nursery, 3,000sq metres of offices and public open space.

The council rejected the scheme last year, but in January the developer lodged an appeal against the decision.

Carol Bannister, from Weeley, was one of more than 100 residents to submit letters of objection, criticising the scale of the proposal.

The committee agreed, saying the application represented “disproportionate scale of growth in relation to the size and character of Weeley”.

Mrs Bannister said she was suspicious of the secrecy surrounding the latest talks.

She added: “Until this most recent agenda was published, I cannot recall a previous occasion when an exempt item was included.

“Where planning issues are being discussed, transparency and openness are crucial in order to show respect and consideration for neighbours and the local community.

“The published information gave no indication as to who would be present.

“It is highly probable that Tendring Council officers, their legal advisers and possibly somebody representing the landowners will be in attendance at this behind closed doors meeting, which has obviously been called for a reason.

“One would surmise that attempts could be made to influence any future decisions regarding these agricultural fields, which surely contravenes planning law.”

A Tendring Council spokesman said the press and public were excluded because of “confidential legal advice” ahead of a forthcoming public inquiry into the appeal.

John White, chairman of the council’s planning committee, added: “It is unusual for the committee to hold a session closed to the public.

“I appreciate some may express concerns that this matter was not taken during the public part of the meeting, but I would like to reassure residents this was done for the right reasons, to protect our legally privileged advice.

“Our role as councillors is to act for the district in such matters, and to make such democratically accountable decisions in accordance with council policy.

“In very rare circumstances this has to be done in private.”