Get Involved
• Conservation
There are now two separate proposals for new service stations on the M25 between junction 28 and the M11.
This is where Moto wants to put two new service stations:
We oppose these developments because they undermine the success of the Green Belt in preventing London’s outward sprawl, which relies on open countryside as a buffer between Havering and Brentwood.
• Education
The M25 sits within one of the narrowest strategic Green Belt gaps, which has been protected for the last 40 years for good reason.
These extensive developments would extend beyond the motorway, causing a return to the outward sprawl of London that the Green Belt has effectively controlled for the past 70 years.
Random, competing applications are not the right way to address something so crucial.
Who are we?
We are residents living on either side of this stretch of the M25.
These planning applications came unexpectedly, and we decided to voice our objections.
If you share our concerns, join us.
Useful Links
Moto (Proposal Overview)
(Unavailable at Present)
The Moto and Welcome Break Applications
Moto has proposed two service stations on either side of the M25 in Navestock and Noak Hill. Welcome Break plans to submit another application soon.
The proposed service stations are enormous.
We measured the concrete footprint of Moto’s buildings, forecourts, and parking areas to be 166,843 square meters (43 acres).
You could fit more than 600 houses on that land – it is the size of Brentwood Town Centre or Brent Cross.
And yet, planning policy here prohibits even a single house from being built.
The Moto application can be viewed on the Council’s website here.
The Green Belt Gap
Post-war London expanded eastwards along the A12 and northeast towards Harold Hill and Noak Hill.
This growth was halted by the Green Belt 70 years ago.
The M25 was constructed within the gap that the Green Belt preserved as open countryside, with an understanding that development alongside the motorway would be restricted.
The gap between the urban edge and the M25 here is very narrow, less than a mile.
The proposed service stations would introduce large urban developments, obliterating this gap and extending beyond the motorway.
This is precisely what the Green Belt was established to prevent, and allowing such developments would render it meaningless.
How Services Break the Green Belt Rules
Motorway service stations are, by definition, inappropriate developments in the Green Belt, causing substantial harm.
The sheer scale of these developments conflicts with the core purpose of the Green Belt, which is to maintain openness.
Moto and Welcome Break claim to have “very special circumstances,” but their arguments do not hold up.
They argue that their service stations do not create urban sprawl, but with a footprint equivalent to 600 houses, this claim is implausible.
Moto’s application only measures the buildings’ footprint. Including parking and forecourts, the true extent of the concrete is 16.6 hectares – ten times larger than what they claim.
Moto argues that it’s acceptable because the stations will resemble the motorway. But they overlook that a four-lane motorway is not a natural feature of the countryside! Adding more concrete only exacerbates this.
Both Moto and Welcome Break suggest that services should be located every 28 miles. However, the stations here would be 31 and 33 miles apart, with other alternatives in between. That is clearly not a sufficient reason to abandon the longest-standing and most robust planning policy we have ever had.
It’s also noted that this is one of the busiest sections of the M25. So why add more slip roads and more filtering to slow it down again just after spending huge sums on widening it? It’s madness.
What’s needed is proper strategic planning instead of this chaotic free-for-all. There are viable solutions that wouldn’t compromise the Green Belt – they just require some thought and planning.
No effort has been made in that direction, and it should be.
Other Concerns
Local residents are understandably worried about the direct effects of these service stations if they are to live right next to them: inadequate access roads for staff and servicing, narrow rural lanes, increased lighting, noise and pollution, disruption to wildlife, and the nightmare of the construction process.
This is not the right approach.
While these are real concerns, our primary appeal to Brentwood Council and the Secretary of State is to reject these applications because they destroy the Green Belt’s primary purpose in this area.
Get these applications refused and undertake proper planning to meet the needs in ways that work with, not against, the Green Belt.
Act Now
Become a member of the residents’ association to receive updates on the campaigns work, and invitations to our meetings.
Please ensure that if you are signing up multiple people in your household, each member uses a unique email/phone number. Otherwise, they won't be added as separate members in our system. The more individual members we have, the better!
The Moto and Welcome Break Applications
Moto has applied for planning permission which, if granted, will allow it to build a service station on each side of the M25, in Navestock and Noak Hill. Welcome Break has said that, before the end of the year, it will submit an application for planning permission to build another motorway service station, a few miles north.
The proposed service stations are enormous.
We measured the concrete footprint of Moto’s buildings, forecourts, and parking areas to be 166,843 square meters (43 acres).
You could fit more than 600 houses on that land – it is the size of Brentwood Town Centre or Brent Cross.
And yet, planning policy here prohibits even a single house from being built.
The Moto application can be viewed on the Council’s website here.
Other Concerns
Local residents are understandably worried about the direct effects of these service stations if they are to live right next to them: inadequate access roads for staff and servicing, narrow rural lanes, increased lighting, noise and pollution, disruption to wildlife, and the nightmare of the construction process.
This is not the right approach.
While these are real concerns, our primary appeal to Brentwood Council and the Secretary of State is to reject these applications because they destroy the Green Belt’s primary purpose in this area.
Get these applications refused and undertake proper planning to meet the needs in ways that work with, not against, the Green Belt.
How Services Break the Green Belt Rules
Motorway service stations are, by definition, inappropriate developments in the Green Belt, causing substantial harm.
The sheer scale of these developments conflicts with the core purpose of the Green Belt, which is to maintain openness.
Moto and Welcome Break claim to have “very special circumstances,” but their arguments do not hold up.
They argue that their service stations do not create urban sprawl, but with a footprint equivalent to 600 houses, this claim is implausible.
Moto’s application only measures the buildings’ footprint. Including parking and forecourts, the true extent of the concrete is 16.6 hectares – ten times larger than what they claim.
Moto argues that it’s acceptable because the stations will resemble the motorway. But they overlook that a four-lane motorway is not a natural feature of the countryside! Adding more concrete only exacerbates this.
Both Moto and Welcome Break suggest that services should be located every 28 miles. However, the stations here would be 31 and 33 miles apart, with other alternatives in between. That is clearly not a sufficient reason to abandon the longest-standing and most robust planning policy we have ever had.
It’s also noted that this is one of the busiest sections of the M25. So why add more slip roads and more filtering to slow it down again just after spending huge sums on widening it? It’s madness.
What’s needed is proper strategic planning instead of this chaotic free-for-all. There are viable solutions that wouldn’t compromise the Green Belt – they just require some thought and planning.
No effort has been made in that direction, and it should be.
The Green Belt Gap
Post-war London expanded eastwards along the A12 and northeast towards Harold Hill and Noak Hill.
This growth was halted by the Green Belt 70 years ago.
The M25 was constructed within the gap that the Green Belt preserved as open countryside, with an understanding that development alongside the motorway would be restricted.
The gap between the urban edge and the M25 here is very narrow, less than a mile.
The proposed service stations would introduce large urban developments, obliterating this gap and extending beyond the motorway.
This is precisely what the Green Belt was established to prevent, and allowing such developments would render it meaningless.
