Council and democracy

Agenda and minutes

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

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

Items
No. Item

22.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 107 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 27 July 2017.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 27 July 2017 were approved as a correct record.

23.

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.

 

24.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interests.

25.

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:

There were no 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.

26.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 86 KB

Minutes:

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

 

Councillor Piccolo asked whether there had been another application on the site of 17/00342/HHA, as he believed there were currently works underway on site.  It was confirmed that there was currently a live application for that site, but it had not yet been approved.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Committee noted the report.

27.

17/00727/FUL: Iron Latch, The Manorway, Coryton, Essex, SS17 9LE pdf icon PDF 841 KB

Minutes:

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a two storey office building to be positioned towards the South West corner boundary, a service centre building located centrally in the site and a wash bay building site to the south east corner of the site. HGV parking would be provided within the site. The site was located within the Green Belt but, while the buildings would constitute inappropriate development, there had been larger buildings on site in the recent past and the applicant had put forward a list of ‘Very Special Circumstances’.  It was the Officer’s assessment that these Very Special Circumstances outweighed any harm to the Green Belt and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

 

Councillor Redsell asked the Principal Planning Officer to clarify whether there would be more space available for HGV parking.  The proposal would offer slightly less space for HGV parking, as there would be a building to be situated in the centre of the site, however there were not currently clearly marked out parking bays but the proposal included 41 parking bays for HGVs which would be laid out as per the plan.  Councillor Redsell asked where the additional lorries currently using the site would go and expressed concern that it may cause issues along the Manorway.  The Committee heard that the site was not currently being used to its full potential and permission had been granted for another lorry parking site adjacent the entrance to the London Gateway which was soon to be used following the recent discharge of planning conditions.

 

Councillor Piccolo asked if the site was that which DP World was currently using for lorries which were too early for their arrival slot.  Officers could not confirm this; however it was the only site other than the logistics park itself.  Councillor Piccolo stated that there had previously been issues along the Manorway around HGVs parking along unused slip roads and damaging curb sides.  This had ceased recently but he was concerned that the problem could resurface if the site no longer provided a free parking area for these HGVs.

 

Councillor Hamilton asked if there were any reason why the previous buildings had been demolished prior to this application, given that approval would have been more likely if they were still on site.  There was no specific reason, the buildings had been demolished several years ago and now this application had been presented.  Councillor Hamilton continued to ask if there was a difference between servicing and repairs, and if was likely that there would be a possibility for drivers to park overnight and use facilities to avoid them parking elsewhere along the highway.  The Principal Planning Officer outlined that if servicing highlighted a serious repair was required overnight parking would be an option however it would be an ancillary use of the site and was not expected to happen on a regular basis. 

 

Councillor Jones noted that the site had not been used to its full potential under its temporary permission.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

17/00224/FUL: Goshems Farm, Station Road, East Tilbury, Essex pdf icon PDF 493 KB

Minutes:

The application sought planning permission for a temporary jetty, for a maximum of five years, comprising a new pontoon and access bridge.

 

Councillor Jones felt that the application was good as the current jetty caused difficulties at low tide. He considered that although the site was within the Green Belt the area to be built on was very small and the permission was only to be temporary but would provide a much needed facility.

 

Councillor Snell echoed these sentiments.  It was a working river and anything that could be done to increase its use and reduce road movements was positive.  There would only be marginal impact on the Green Belt and he felt it was a good scheme.

 

Councillor Redsell noted that the Borough had lost a lot of its jetties and should strive to use rivers more and reduce the number of HGVs on Thurrock’s roads.

 

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative felt it was a good idea but did express concern around the risk of the temporary permission becoming temporary over an extended time period, as had happened previously within the Borough.  Provided the reality remained as proposed he supported the application.

 

Councillor Redsell queried whether there would be any dredging undertaken.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed there would be none in connection with the construction of this jetty.

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Churchman and seconded by Councillor Jones that the application be approved subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

For:                  Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair in the Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Terry Piccolo, Graham Snell and Joy Redsell.

 

Against:           (0)

 

Abstain:           (0)

 

29.

17/00799/HHA: 1 Paddock Close, Orsett, Essex, RM16 3DL pdf icon PDF 834 KB

Minutes:

The application sought planning permission for single and two storey extensions to the front and rear and conversion of an existing detached garage to habitable accommodation, including linking that garage to the main house.

 

Mr Brian Little was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support on behalf of the applicant.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Churchman that the application be approved subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

For:                  Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair in the Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Terry Piccolo, Graham Snell and Joy Redsell.

 

Against:           (0)

 

Abstain:           (0)

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be approved, subject to conditions.

 

30.

17/00921/FUL: 2 Theobalds Avenue, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SA pdf icon PDF 401 KB

Minutes:

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing double garage and side extension and the construction of a new 2-bedroom dwelling.  The proposed dwelling would be adjoined to the existing dwelling on site and would result in the creation of a terrace of 3 dwellings instead of a pair of semi-detached dwellings.  It was not clear from the plans whether parking was proposed for either the new or existing dwelling, which was contrary to the Council’s Draft Parking Policy as 2 parking spaces were required.  The total available private amenity fell significantly below the expectation of 100sqm each and was indicative of overdevelopment of the site.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Councillor Redsell sought clarification around the number of properties to be added on the site.  The Committee heard that the proposal would add one additional property to the site, but as the existing property was one of a pair of semi-detached houses it would become a terrace of three.

 

Councillor Piccolo queried the parking situation within the road at present.  The Senior Highways Engineer advised Members that, following concerns raised by residents, an extension of the controlled parking area was being considered to include Theobald’s Avenue.  It was evident therefore that parking within the road was already an issue.

 

Councillor Piccolo, taking into a count the Highways report and the lack of parking proposed, reminded the Committee how frequently they discussed insufficient parking within applications.  He felt it was not ethically right to remove the current parking and increase the number of vehicles parking on the road as it would impact other residents and therefore supported the Officer’s recommendation.  

 

Councillor Snell agreed that a recurring topic of debate for the Committee was lack of parking and the application proposed no parking for either property.  The lack of garden space was also an issue and he could not recommend approval for the application.

 

Councillor Redsell stressed that there were already enough parking issues within Thurrock, and children were staying at home longer, increasing the number of cars per property.  She added that the photos did not really give a clear indication of the parking within the road, which was often not good.  She supported the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Chair also agreed with Members due to lack of parking and private amenity space.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Snell and seconded by Councillor Piccolo that the application be refused, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

For:                  Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair in the Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Terry Piccolo, Graham Snell and Joy Redsell.

 

Against:           (0)

 

Abstain:           (0)

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be refused.