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.

There were no items of urgent business.

Councillor Thandi declared an interest in Items 8 and 9, following advice from the Monitoring Officer on the perception of bias.

The Chair of the Committee declared that all Members had received correspondence from residents with regards to planning application 22/01370/FUL - Land Adjacent Watts Wood Including Mardyke Farm, Ship Lane And Broomhill Arterial Road, Purfleet-on-Thames, Essex and 22/01672/FUL - Thurrock Football Club, Ship Lane, Aveley, RM19 1YN.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection

presented the report to Members.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. 

The Major Applications Manager presented the report to Members, and in doing so also provided an update to the application, explaining the Environment Agency had removed the flood risk objection to the application, subject to the sequential test for flooding and conditions in relation to mitigation against flood risk. He continued by advising Officers had received a number of late representations from residents which included a petition opposing and a petition supporting the application and a number of representations in objection and support of the application.  Reference was also made to the Council’s recently published Employment Land Availability Assessment (ELAA) which had been cited by the applicant.

Members sought clarity as to the report referencing employment land demand as part of the application. The Major Applications Manager explained current policy advised that demand for employment land within the area didn't necessarily outweigh established Green Belt policy. He continued to explain the applicant had referred to the Council’s ELAA  but given the status of this document Officers had given only limited positive weight to this factor.

The chair of the Committee enquired as to whether the Green Belt considerations promoted as very special circumstances had been taken into account and if so was there still a concern given the site was Green Belt land. It was explained by the Major Applications Manager there were a range factors and benefits referred to by the applicant which attracted different weight in the balance of considerations. However Officers concluded that there were no significant reasons to clearly outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.

It was asked whether mitigation for flooding on the site had been taken into consideration given the ‘flood plain’ status of the site. Officers explained the Environment Agency had initially raised a holding objection with regards tothe flood risk designation of the site, he further commented that the Agency had prior to the meeting removed their objection subject to the application of the sequential test and conditions.

The Officers were thanked for the detailed report and it was queried as to whether there would be a harmful impact on traffic as a result of the development. It was further sought if it was safe for the Committee to make a final decision on the application, given comments from technical consultee and that some information was still being awaited. The Major Applications Manager explained that further traffic modelling was submitted prior to the Committee meeting and that consultees would need to review this information and comment.  However, as the applicant was keen to bring the case before Committee the Officers report included a reason for refusal referring to insufficient highways information..

Speaker statements were heard from:

• Statement of Objection: Mrs Maney, Resident
• Statement of Objection: Councillor Pearce, Ward Member
• Statement of Support: Mr Solder, Agent/Applicant  

During the debate Members expressed they were keen to carry out a site visit to be able to see the site in person.

The Chair, Councillor Kelly proposed that a site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager, who updated Members as to the representations received from residents. Members heard there had been a total of 276 representations received: 56 were in objection to the application and 220 were in support In addition to the representations received, officers had been presented with a petition which had 618 signatures.

The Committee thanked the Major Applications Manager for the report and enquired as to the proposed vehicle turn around and impact HGV's could have in the area given the PDI centre was seeking to have 1204 vehicle spaces. The Senior Highways engineer commented a Transport Assessment had been carried to consider impact in the area including transport implications for the M25. He continued by suggesting that if permission was to be granted a planning condition could require that HGV's used a route via junction 31 of the M25 which would allow vehicles to access towards the rest of Essex and Kent, without using local road networks.

It was enquired as to whether mitigation had been put in place with regards to flooding. The Major Applications Manager advised Members the officers had consulted the Environment Agency as the site was located in an area at a  high risk from flooding., However subject to the Sequential Test and relevant planning conditions there were no objections to the application on the ground of flood risk.

Speaker statements were heard from:

• Statement of Objection: Mr Rowles, Resident
• Statement of Support: Mr Jarvis & Mr Sutton, Joint Applicant  

During the debate Members expressed they were keen to carry out a site visit and to be able to walk the proposed pitches.

The Chair, Councillor Kelly proposed that a site visit of the application been undertaken and was seconded by the Vice-Chair Councillor Polley.

For: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Georgette Polley (Vice-Chair), Paul Arnold, Adam Carter, Allen Mayes, Sue Shinnick and Lee Watson

Against: (0)

Abstained: (0)

Councillor Mayes proposed that a site visit of the application been undertaken and was seconded by the Chair Councillor Kelly.

For: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Georgette Polley (Vice-Chair), Paul Arnold, Adam Carter, Allen Mayes, Sue Shinnick and Lee Watson

Against: (0)

Abstained: (0)