Council and democracy

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.

Contact: Charlotte Raper, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email: Direct.Democracy@thurrock.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

93.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 110 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 February 2017.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 February 2017 were approved as a correct record.

 

94.

Item of Urgent Business

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

 

95.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

The Vice-Chair declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest regarding Item 10: 16/01649/FUL: Athlone House, Dock Road, Tilbury, RM18 7BL in that he had attended a meeting with the Head of Planning and Growth and the Development Management Team Leader to discuss the application.

 

96.

Declarations of receipt of correspondence and/or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning application or enforcement action to be resolved at this meeting

Minutes:

The Chair declared, on behalf of all Members of the Committee, that regarding Item 9: 17/00099/FUL: Church Hall, Rigby Gardens, Chadwell St Mary, Essex, RM16 4JJ an email had been sent to the Committee by the Agent, James Ware.  He had also received some correspondence from residents regarding the same item.

 

Councillor Kent declared that, regarding Item 8: 17/0086/CV: St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School, Ward Avenue, Grays, Essex, RM17 5RW, he had been lobbied by residents as the Ward Councillor.  He assured the Committee he was not predetermined but in the interests of transparency he would not participate in that item.

 

97.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Piccolo noted that the Committee had been presented with an updated version of the Planning Appeals Report.  The figures did not add up correctly, though they did in the report included in the Agenda.  Members were advised that the data would be updated before the next meeting.

 

98.

17/00086/CV: St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School, Ward Avenue, Grays, Essex, RM17 5RW pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

Members were advised that since publication of the Agenda further correspondence from residents had been received regarding the application and therefore there had been 19 letters in total, 18 of which had been letters of objection.  The application sought permission to remove condition 7 (Traffic Management Scheme) from the original permission granted in 1997.  Since the School closed its gates to vehicles in September 2016 Highways had received an increased amount of complaints and therefore the need for the Traffic Management Scheme remained.  The application was recommended for refusal by officers.

 

A resident, John Seal, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of objection.

 

The Applicant, Chris Birtles, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of support.

 

Councillor Piccolo queried whether there were any other schools in the borough where vehicles entered the site.  Members were informed that there were two other schools with this model; St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School had been the first and the model had been passed on to other schools and was considered favourable.

 

The Vice-Chair asked whether there were any public car parks nearby for parents to park in to avoid congestion in the immediate vicinity of the school.  There were none within a ten minute walking distance although the Highways Department tried to encourage systems where parents and children walked to schools from nearby car parks where possible.  Councillor Rice explained that the nearest parking facilities were either Sockett’s Heath or Grays Library which were both quite a long way away.

 

Councillor Ojetola asked whether the Committee could compel the School to leave the gates open to parents.  Members were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to remove the condition from the planning permission, if they wished to make an amendment that would be their prerogative.  All the letters of objection highlighted the fact that congestion in the local area had become worse since the decision to shut the gates had been made and the number of complaints received by the Highways Department had increased since that time.  A copy of the police report regarding the accident which occurred in September 2016 was read to the Committee.  The report stated that the driver had failed to look correctly.  A pedestrian was struck by the vehicle as it turned into the school whilst crossing the road.  The casualty fell to the floor and had been carrying a small child at the time; the child also fell to the floor and hit its head on the tarmac.

 

Councillor Rice recalled, as a former pupil of the school, that there had always been problems with parking hence the introduction of the Traffic Management Scheme when the School was extended in 1997.  The roads nearby were chaos at peak time.  He supported the Officer’s recommendation.  There were issues across the borough around school gates and this type of system worked to alleviate some of the pressures.  The responsibility to police the parking management and separate children from cars fell to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

99.

17/00099/FUL: Church Hall, Rigby Gardens, Chadwell St Mary, Essex, RM16 4JJ pdf icon PDF 867 KB

Minutes:

The Committee heard that there had been seven letters of objection received since publication of the agenda.  Residents’ objections covered:

  • Parking
  • Traffic / access
  • Overdevelopment of the site
  • That the development would be out of character of the area
  • Overlooking of nearby properties
  • Noise concerns
  • Biodiversity

 

These were similar in nature to the objections to the previous application for this site. The application complied with all policies, aside from failing to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the church hall was reasonably and robustly marketed since it became vacant in May 2016 which was contrary to Policy CSTP10; the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

 

The Chair clarified for the Committee that the previous application had been for 6 homes and had been refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the loss of the community facility.  The application was now for 4 homes which was acceptable but there was still the overlying issue of the community facility.  There had been no meaningful evidence submitted by the applicant that there was no demand to retain its use

 

The Vice-Chair had queried whether there was a time period for such buildings to remain vacant and it was confirmed that the Riverview Methodist Church had been vacant for 5 years before Members agreed to its redevelopment and that Members had more recently applied this same policy in relation to The Bricklayers Arms regarding the loss of a community facility.

 

Councillor Rice notified the Committee that he had spoken to residents regarding this application; they were not opposed necessarily to the development.  They wanted fewer houses but that was a matter of planning.  He queried why the application referred to the church hall when the space had most recently been used as a play centre for children.  It had not been a church hall for years and he was concerned that, if refused, the applicant might appeal and the Council could be seen as pedantic over its advertisement.  The Committee was informed that whether or not it was a church hall was irrelevant.  The issue was a lack of evidence provided by the applicant, namely robust marketing, that there was no desire to retain the community facility.  The applicant had not advertised the site to let as a community facility; it had only been marketed for sale and as a residential opportunity.

 

The Head of Planning and Growth interjected that there was also a need for consistency from the Planning Committee; other similar applications had been refused due to a lack of proper marketing.

 

The Agent, James Ware, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of support.

 

Councillor Ojetola queried section 6.6 of the application which advised that the information provided had been limited and was not considered sufficient.  The Agent had stated otherwise in his statement and Officers were asked to verify the issue.  The evidence submitted by the applicant was the same as with the previous application, which had been refused.  There was still no clear evidence of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

100.

16/01649/FUL: Athlone House, Dock Road, Tilbury, RM18 7BL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

Members were informed that the application sought permission for the redevelopment of the former sports and social club site for residential purposes.  An independent viability assessment had found the development to be unviable and so there would be no social housing provision.  The Committee was advised that since publication of the agenda the applicant had increased the offered NHS contribution to meet the full figure of £38,000.

 

Councillor Ojetola asked the Senior Highways Engineer to confirm that the routes leading to the development would not be overly affected by car movements of the additional residents and visitors.  As not all residents and visitors would be using their cars at peak times there was not deemed to be a significant impact on the highways, especially given the proximity to the train station and bus routes.

 

Councillor Ojetola expressed concern about the viability report and the lack of affordable housing.  The development looked lovely but Tilbury was an area of financial depravity and he requested further information.  He also sought clarity as to the need for any educational contribution and whether all these aspects had been considered together by Officers.  The Committee was informed that the viability report had been independently assessed as valid.  Land values in Tilbury were lower than other parts of the borough and there were a number of abnormal costs compared to sites outside of the flood zone area.  The development had been assessed as financially unviable therefore the decision to progress was at the risk of the applicant, not the Local Authority.  It could not be guaranteed that another applicant would develop the site and the applicant had offered the full NHS contribution.   The Educational Authority had advised that no contribution was required due to the high number of 1 bedroom flats.  Officers had considered all material planning matters, particularly the quality of the design and the need for 1 bed flats in the area.

 

Councillor Piccolo requested clarity as to whether the scheme had been assessed as unviable with financial contributions and social housing or unviable altogether.  He was concerned that if the current application had been considered financially unviable there was a risk that development could come to a halt before completion.  The site had been considered financially unviable.  The applicant had offered of his own choice to provide the NHS contribution as the health issues in Tilbury had been raised by the NHS and the Health and Wellbeing Board.  The Committee could not refuse planning permission due to the viability assessment; its purpose was to show what range of contributions could be taken.

 

Councillor Rice sought clarification that the low land values in Tilbury had impacted the provision for social housing.  Land value was a big factor within viability assessments, as was property prices; the proposed 1 bedroom flats had a sale value of approximately £120,000 - £130,000.

 

A Ward Councillor, Councillor John Allen, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of objection.

 

The Applicant, Steve Boyling, was invited to the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.