The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 26^th October 2023 will be presented at the January 2024 meeting of the Planning Committee.

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 Vice-Chair confirmed that members of the committee (Councillors Kelly, Maney, Piccolo & Shinnick) undertook a site visit of Greystead, Parkers Farm Road, Orsett on the 15^th November 2023.

Planning Appeals were discussed.

·       Councillor Polley inquired about the appeal of 63 Wharf Road, Stanford-le-Hope. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the appeal had only very recently been received in the last 48 hours, and after the publication date of the agenda. The details of the appeal will be in the next agenda.

·       Councillor Polley asked how the Local Authority is holding up on appeals. Officer directed members to page 8 of the agenda and an appeal performance table.

·       Councillor Arnold expressed his disappointment and frustration with the appeal decision at 63 Wharf Road and informed the Committee he believes it to be a poor decision and a shame for residents of the area. The Officer was surprised by the decision given the planning history at the site and a summary would be picked up next month.

·       Councillor Watson sought clarity and asked if there was a way to challenge the decision. The Officer informed the Committee that legal advice had not yet been obtained but would be sought. Officers will update Members next month on the issue within the appeal summary.

·       Councillor Liddiard noted an appeal that was lodged in Sycamore Close, Tilbury for a felling of a Sycamore Tree and argued against the felling of the tree. Officer informed the Committee there had been a history of refusing the TPO applications for the felling of the tree, the Local Authority is aware of the importance of the tree and is defending its decision at appeal.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application, briefly reminding members of the previous presentation, and highlighted the following points:

·       The application is for a garage extension in the Green Belt and a site visit took place on Wednesday 15^th November 2023 where Members viewed the site. The garage is 60sq metres and would sit in line with the existing driveway.

·       The application is recommended for refusal.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Shinnick asked where the building would be in line with the conifer trees at the site.

o   Estimate of 2 metres from the boundary.

·       Councillor Piccolo asked if there were any photos of the parked cars.

o   Officer went through the images of the site including the vehicles on site for the Committee.

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·       The Chair opened stating the site visit was useful and you could see the area was enclosed and that a garage could improve the situation as currently the cars were covered by tarpaulin. The Chair could see both sides of the argument and noted it wasn’t an easy decision. The Chair noted the recommendation and how the application could damage the Green Belt but also noted the merits of the application.

·       Councillor Arnold stated that the application was a development in the Green Belt that wasn’t necessary. The building may not be seen, but it would still be there and foresaw other applications of a similar nature being submitted across the borough. Councillor Arnold also stated a line had to be drawn in the sand somewhere.

·       Councillor Maney stated it is not wherever the building would be visible or not but the fact the garage would be on the Green Belt. Councillor Maney was also concerned by the scale, was conflicted and understood why the application was submitted by the resident.

·       Councillor Piccolo was glad he visited the site and noted the site would not be visible from any angle and believed that the area/view would improve if the cars were able to be put in a garage. Councillor Piccolo argued for an exception to be made.

·       Councillor Liddiard stated if the premise is used that buildings can’t be seen in the Green Belt and therefore allow them applications would increase in number and cause chaos and was of the opinion the application should be refused.

·       Councillor Watson didn’t understand why the building needed to be so big and agreed with Councillor Liddiard and said we shouldn’t set a precedent.

·       Councillor Polley noted that it had been said the building couldn’t be seen due to the conifer trees and added that conifer trees can become diseased and/or felled and are not there for time immemorial. Councillor Polley also noted that the Committee’s decision can influence the future. There had been continued extensions to the footprint of the property and supported the officer’s recommendation.

·       The Chair closed the debate stating he saw both sides of the argument and called for a vote.

The Chair, Councillor Kelly read the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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

·       The application relates to the demolition and clearing of all existing buildings on the site for redevelopment of 28 units.

·       39,636sq metres of employment land floorspace. The site covers an area 13.79 hectares, of which 9.12 hectares is usable. The site sits 17 metres lower that the surrounding ground level.

·       The proposal seeks to build small, medium and two large sized business units for general industrial, storage and/or distribution usage. Area is designated as an employment area.

·       The application is recommended for approval.

Members asked the following questions to the Major Application Manager and Highways Principal Engineer:

·       Councillor Arnold asked if there would be any improvement to the junction on Hogg Lane

o   Highways team is seeking improvements.

o   Models show it would not impact on the junction at Hogg Lane, there would be an impact at the site, but queues are not expected.

·       Councillor Arnold further asked if the well-established trees on the site would be protected.

o   No plans to remove trees. Plans to increase trees.

o   Tree lined avenue would remain.

·       Councillor Polly had concerns regarding site access and asked if the Fire Brigade had been consulted and what the emergency evacuation plan would be.

·       Councillor Polly further inquired about the travel plan and asked if a shuttle bus service to the unit could be added to the lease agreement.

o   Only one vehicle access

o   Units would be built to meet fire safety regulations.

o   Evacuation procedures fall under health and safety legislation.

o   Site is a flood zone, and a flood evacuation plan would need to be put in place.

o   Car club places proposed onsite.

o   If there is a requirement for a shuttle bus a service could be set up in the future.

o   Site will have better pedestrian access to town centre and railway station.

·       Councillor Liddiard asked if the area is currently derelict and what the net increases of jobs would be.

o   Business operations in the area are low.

o   86 jobs on site currently, with a predicted increase to 650 jobs.

·       Councillor Maney asked how close the existing houses were to the site and if there would be an impact.

o   All buildings would be in the confines of the quarry, with nothing projecting above the cliff face.

·       Councillor Watson overall liked the plan but had a few concerns. One concern was regarding possible future flooding and asked if there was a flood would there be any contamination coming from the units and how it would be managed. A second concern was regarding the road network and asked what the impact would be with increased HGV traffic. How far out did the traffic model look. Councillor Watson also asked if only £50,000 had been highlighted for pedestrian work.

o   In high-risk floodplain but there is no objection from the Environment Agency.

o   Site has contamination at present and would be decontaminated before any occupation of the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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

·       The application relates to the demolition and clearing of all existing buildings on the site to allow redevelopment for a two-story distribution warehouse with a total floorspace of 61,983sq metres.

·       The site is situated of the western side of the Lakeside basin at Thurrock Retail Park

·       The application is recommended for approval.

Members asked the following questions to the Major Application Manager and Highways Principal Engineer:

·       Councillor Watson shared her concerns with the amount of HGV traffic that needs to use junction 31 of the M25 and asked how junction 31 could cope and what would be done to help the movement around the junction for the surrounding towns and villages.

o   Could potentially reduce traffic at junction 31 as traffic would be taken off in models.

·       Councillor Watson stated she would challenge those findings and was of the opinion that junction 31 could not handle additional traffic.

o   If approved, future models for other developments would need to consider the traffic generated by this application.

·       Councillor Watson asked what the purpose was of the triangle of land in north of the site.

o   Remain as car park.

·       Councillor Watson asked if gates would be installed at the entrance and exit of the site to stop car cruising and racing.

o   The road does not loop round the building. The road shown is on an upper level and is not connected to the ground level road.

o   There are existing barriers at the site.

·       Councillor Watson was also concerned with the amount of traffic needing to use the roundabout on Weston Avenue.

·       The Chair was interested in the design and noted it was the first building of its type. The Chair asked for the number of traffic movements in a day and if it was 24-hour operation.

o   Currently

§  1,211 vehicles in Saturday peak between 13:00pm – 14:00pm.

§  144 vehicles in the morning peak.

§  543 vehicles in afternoon peak.

o   Worst case scenario model.

§  86 vehicles in Saturday peak

§  385 vehicles in the morning peak.

§  197 vehicles in afternoon peak.

o   24-hour operation

·       The Chair asked if the units could be operated by separate companies.

o   Yes, 2 companies 1 per floor.

·       Councillor Watson asked what the impact of 24-hour operation would have on the residents in Lakeside.

o     A traffic route plan would be put in place to avoid residential areas.

·       Councillor Watson asked what would be done to monitor HGV traffic.

o   Most direct route would not go through residential areas to minimise driver milage.

The Chair paused the meeting for a break at 20:12pm

·       Councillor Polly shared her concerns regarding junction 31 of the M25 and would not like to the borough only to be a distribution employment zone. Councillor Polly asked if there was existing retail space in Lakeside to absorb the retail business currently on the site.

o   From a customer view there are other retail options  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.