To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 September 2023.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 September 2023 were approved as a true and correct record.

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.

No interests were declared.

The Chair confirmed that he had received correspondence from Hannah Garlinge in relation to Greystead and so had the other Planning Committee members.

Councillor Liddiard confirmed he had written about the Youth Zone and therefore he would like to be excluded from this item.

No Planning Appeals were discussed.

Due to the high level of public interest, the Chair decided to hear the Flagship Centre item first.

Councillor Liddiard left the meeting.

The Major Application Manager presented the application and highlighted the following points:

·        The application is for a youth facility on Anchors field with a sports hall, fitness centre, martial arts and boxing room, indoor climbing wall, external multi games area/ kick Pitch, outdoor recreation area, facilities for arts and crafts, music suite, teaching kitchen, café and performing arts studio. The facility would be for 8-19 year olds and the expected hours of use would be after school 4pm-10pm. The permitted hours of use 8am- 10pm. The application is from a Charity organisation called on-site.

·        The Multi-Use Game Area will be lost (MUGA)

·        The Tilbury Town Investment Plan references a youth building and outdoor site on Anchors Field, it isn’t a document that sits within the Planning policy.

·        The charity has other sites across the country, there is one close by in a park in Dagenham (example shown in Officer presentation)

·        The proposal would create a new youth zone centre and outdoor space for the benefit of young people of Tilbury and Thurrock Council. It would result in the loss of an area of public open space and MUGA on Anchor Fields. However, on balance the principle of the development is considered acceptable. The proposal would create a high-quality designed development. The site is located in an easily accessible sustainable town centre location. There are no objections with regard to all other material planning considerations. The recommendation is for approval subject to S106 legal agreement to secure highway improvements and subject to planning conditions.

Members asked the following questions:

·        Councillor Watson queried if the field was protected under a covenant. The Major Application Manager confirmed he did not know as that would fall outside the planning application. It is designated public open space and owned by the Council.

·        Councillor Watson also queried whether the relocation of the MUGA would be funded by the Council. Councillor Watson requested more clarification that the funds will be there. Councillor Watson also queried if other sites had been considered. The Major Application Manager clarified that within the Application there were other sites that the Applicant looked at and the reasons why they were discounted.

·        Steve Taylor queried who owns the land and if it will be gifted or bought. The Major Application Manager stated that the Council owns the land although matters of land ownership fall outside of the Planning process, he understands a long lease is likely to be agreed between the Council and the Applicant.

·        The Chief Planning Officer reminded Members that planning sits with the land not the ownership. Applications have to be determined as to whether it is acceptable under planning considerations, questions about ownership are not relevant. If the principle in planning is acceptable it does not mean it can be legally be built in law.

·        Councillor Polley raised that there is already a children’s centre and the MUGA on the Anchor Fields and there was a sports centre. Councillor Polley raised concerns about parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The Principal Planner presented the application and highlighted the following:

·       The application relates to a detached dwelling and outbuilding in the Green Belt in Orsett.

·       The proposal seeks to erect a single storey extension to provide a garage to the existing pool outbuilding.  A previous planning application for a similar, albeit slightly larger, scheme was refused and dismissed at appeal in 2019.

·       The proposal comprises of inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is considered disproportionate and therefore harmful by definition and to openness.  The additional information submitted by the applicant has been fully considered but does not clearly outweigh the harm caused.  The application is recommended for refusal on page 39.

Speaker Statements were heard from:

Statement of Support: Mrs K Frost, Owner

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·       Councillor Polley noted it was being used for a personal hobby but queried if it could become a commercial entity. The Principal Planner stated a condition could be included to state it would not be used for commercial purposes however from an officer point of view her hands were tied due to the impact on the Green Belt.

·       Councillor Piccolo queried if a site visit could assist to see the impact it could have

·       Councillor P Arnold stated that he did not need a site visit

·       Councillor Liddiard commented that it seemed a bit excessive

·       Councillor Maney queried if the extension could become residential in the future. The Principal Planner confirmed that any proposal for a different use would require additional planning permission.

·       Councillor Shinnick confirmed she had no problem with it going through

·       Councillor Watson commented that the family want to live there forever, it will stop the noise going outside, she therefore didn’t think it would be that detrimental.

·       The Chair stated that he could not approve the application without a site visit

Members took a vote, but the Chair used his discretion afterwards to propose something else. The Chair proposed the application should be deferred to allow for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor J Maney.

For: (5) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Georgette Polley (Vice Chair), Terry Piccolo, Jaqui Maney, Lee Watson

Against: (3) Councillors Steve Liddiard, Paul Arnold and Sue Shinnick

The Principal Planner presented the application and highlighted the following:

·       The proposal relates to the redevelopment of a garage court site to the rear of residential properties in Lyndhurst Road and Mackley drive, Corringham.

·       A further letter of objection from a resident has been received which raises similar concerns to those mentioned in the report already. 

·       The Proposed Site Plan and Proposed Ground Floor Plan refs. 003 and 001 respectively, have been revised and updated so that they should read 003 Rev B and 001 rev B as new plans were received today.  These plans are included in the presentation but these details will need to be updated in the plans table of Condition 2 on page 58 as well as in the report on page 43. 

·       The proposal seeks to redevelop the site to provide 6 two storey houses.  A short terrace of 4, 3 bed houses are proposed to be sited immediately south of the existing terrace fronting Lyndhurst Rd.  These 4 dwellings would be well-positioned and follow the existing pattern of development locally.  A pair of semi-detached dwellings would be sited to the north-eastern corner of the site and would be accessed via an internal access road leading to the units. Parking provision would be made to the south and north-eastern boundaries of the site, and the majority of the existing accesses would remain.

·       The proposals would be acceptable in principle and would comply with all technical policies in relation to amenity space, parking and highway matters and neighbour amenity impacts.  The devt would provide 6 affordable housing units and would be operated by the Council.  The application is recommended for approval as per page 57.

·       All dwellings would retain rear access except 2 Mackley Drive

Members asked the following questions: -

·       Councillor P Arnold queried what steps are being taking to future proof these buildings. The Principal Planner confirmed that the application was subject to pre-application advice. There will be solar panels on the roof of all the units and a good standard of noise insulation on the windows.

·       Councillor Watson queried if they were confident there was enough access as it looks narrow. The Highways officer confirmed there are two routes in for access and he had no concerns. The proposals have been checked with refuse collection too. There are therefore no concerns from a Highways point of view.

·       Councillor P Arnold queried if the access route will be properly paved. The Principal Planner confirmed it is a condition of the hard and soft landscaping that the surfacing would be replaced.

Statement of Objection – Mel Thomas (Neighbour)

Statement of Support – Newground Architects

The Principal Planner confirmed there will be a traffic condition and a traffic management plan. The hours of work, waiting restrictions will all be detailed in the condition. The Highways Officer clarified that lorries will be arriving outside of school times as it is close to Giffards school.

During the debate members commented as follows: -

·       Councillor P Arnold commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Principal Planner presented the application and highlighted the following:

·       It is a full planning application submitted by Treetops School.

·       The application site lies within the Green Belt and relates specifically to the existing minibus garage at the Treetops School site.  The proposal seeks no operational development but the COU from Education uses to a dual education community use, to enable the building to be used as a gym to provide fitness programmes form SEN pupils at the 3 schools on the wider site, and to the wider SEN community.

·       The proposal would provide a gym for the use by the Treetops Community Trust schools and the wider SEN Community.  The hours proposed would not be considered harmful to residential amenity, and the use would unlikely result in any harm to the highway network locally. The proposal is considered acceptable and in compliance with all relevant policies and is recommended for approval subject to condition on page 74

Standing orders were raised at 20.30 so the meeting could continue beyond 20.30pm

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·       Councillor Arnold stated that the new access road was fantastic

·       Councillor Polley stated that it was an outstanding facility and she welcomed it.

·       Councillor Shinnick confirmed that she also welcomed the application

Councillor Polley recommended that the application was approved, this was seconded by Councillor Liddiard.

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Georgette Polley (Vice Chair), Terry Piccolo, Jaqui Maney, Lee Watson, Steve Liddiard, Sue Shinnick, Paul Arnold

Against: (0)

Abstained: (0)