Major Applications Manager presented the application and during his update advised on late representations and highlighted the following:

• The site was located in the Green Belt
• It was noted that the connected application 22/01673/FUL for a 3G pitch at Belhus Park had been withdrawn by the Agent.
• An updated response received from Sport England (SE) raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of the specific considerations in the response letter. This was subject to conditions and/or a s106 agreement for a financial contribution towards ‘offsite playing field mitigation’, transfer of freehold of site to Grays FC or alternative sports body and a Community Use Agreement. SE noted that £570,000 “would not be sufficient” to fund a full artificial 3G pitch and floodlighting. (£1.1m would be likely to be required). The contribution could cover other sports infrastructure items for example at Belhus Park – but there has been no feasibility study.
• Contribution proposed by applicant wouldn’t deliver a 3G pitch, so scope of proposal would have to be widened if accepted. Thurrock Council Sport and Leisure Manager advises 3G pitch would cost £900,000 - £1million. There is a funding gap and no way to make up that gap to fund a full 3G pitch at this time.
• Additional neighbour letter from resident in objection.
• Email from Cathy Sisterson in relation to lack of HGV movements on Ship Lane.
• A prior approval application for demolition of the Football Club has been submitted (but this is a different application)

During discussions the following points were acknowledged:

• Mitigation of the former football pitches raised no objection from consultation with Sport England, who made it clear that the funding being provided wouldn't deliver a full size 3G floodlit pitch and so the money would have to deliver either a smaller pitch or would have to be used for other sporting facilities.
• The HGV turn point would be located within the PDI site and although expected to be used solely for the PDI site, it would be available for errant HGV drivers to be able to use if, they were heading north from Junction 31 of the M25, which they shouldn’t be doing.

During the debate Members commented as follows:

·       The Chair of the Committee stated he felt the £570,000 offered as part of the application was sufficient to develop a new pitch and that by approving the application it would encourage business rates and jobs into the Borough.

·       Councillor Watson confirmed she was still against the application and agreed with Officers recommendation to refuse. Sport England had clearly stated the funding provided was not enough to complete the proposed 3G development off site and on top of this the application was detrimental to the Green Belt. She considered business rates should not be taken into consideration.

·       Councillor Arnold echoed that he too was still against the application and agreed with Officers recommendation to refuse. Could not support it on the level of destruction to the Green Belt with such limited benefits, including very low level of job provision.

·       Steve Taylor noted that a reason put forward by the applicant was proximity to the Strategic Road Network (SRN) but the SRN was all over the country and there didn’t appear to be any other locations in the UK considered/discounted. Concern also about low level of job provision. Concern also about number of battery vehicles, in time, being stored on site.

·       Councillor Polley spoke in favour of granting permission for the application given the lack of sports provision in the Borough and to enable an option to tackle obesity in the Borough.  She mentioned she felt the application was at a different place from when it was first presented and welcomed the proposal of jobs into the Borough – there would be support jobs in the Borough as well as the onsite jobs. She continued by commenting even if Members were to refuse the application, it was still possible for the PDI centre to be developed in Aveley. The 2-year timeline since the previous refusal had made a big difference in terms of background circumstances. A petition of 4000 signatures of support had been received in support, nothing similar in objection had been received.

Councillor Kelly observed that during the debate it was clear the vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation of refusal was split. The Members for and against were as follows:

For: (2) Councillors Paul Arnold and Lee Watson

Against: (2) Tom Kelly (Chair) and Georgette Polley (Vice-Chair)

Abstained: (0)

With the Chair having the casting vote, Councillor Kelly proposed that the 6 reasons listed with the report be put forward to support a recommendation for approval of the application, which was seconded by Councillor Polley.

A motion for approval was therefore put forward.  The Council’s Legal Advisor also provided advice to the Chair regarding the Council’s required next steps to the National Planning Casework Unit should the new motion be agreed.

For: (2) Tom Kelly (Chair) and Georgette Polley (Vice-Chair)

Against: (2) Councillors Paul Arnold and Lee Watson

Abstained: (0)

</AI6>

The Chair exercised his casting voted and the application was approved, subject to conditions, s106 Agreement and referral to the Planning Casework Unit (as a departure from policy).

Councillor Maney returned to the Chamber at 6.49pm