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 and the Youth Zone centre closing at 10pm and lots of young people hanging around affecting the noise levels. The hours of operation planning condition is 8am -10pm. The facility is for children 8-19 years old and therefore they will be attending school during the day so it will mostly be used between 4pm-10pm.

·        Councillor Polley raised that Sports England use a Community Use Agreement so residents have a mechanism to engage with the facility if there are frustrations. The Major Application Manager stated that they did ask the Applicant to enter into a Community Use Agreement however they declined as this was not part of their business model.

·        The Highways Officer highlighted that he has visited the Beacontree site in Dagenham where they also have a pick-up and drop off zone. The Applicants promote sustainable transport, staff are encouraged to use public transport. Highways have suggested that money is provided to put some double yellow lines in. Other parking measures could be introduced for residents once the building is completed and a sum of £10,000 has been suggested.

·        Councillor P Arnold queried if there had been a consultation with neighbours. The Major Application Manager stated that through the planning notice process, there has been a press advert, notices put up and letters sent out. There is a statement of community involvement, consultation leaflets delivered to 2700 addresses, the Applicant completed face-to-face events at the start of this year before they submitted the planning application.

·        Councillor P Arnold asked for confirmation as to why the Tilbury site differs from Beacontree. Highways clarified that they are similar in that they both sit in a residential area. Dagenham is an outer London Borough and more built up, the park is also a lot bigger. There are more public transport opportunities there than in Tilbury.

·        Councillor Shinnick queried at what time of day they completed the parking checks. The Highways Officer confirmed that they will have used the Lambeth method and will have completed parking checks in the evening as this is the same time as the proposed times of the operation of the facility.

·        Cllr J Maney queried the tree loss and the age of the trees. The Major Application Manager confirmed that an arboriculture assessment is within the application and no trees are subject to TPO’s. The proposed landscaping will allow for new and more trees to be planted and this will be secured through a planning condition. The report does identify some of the trees are over 20 years old.

Cllr Allen (Ward Councillor) – Statement of Objection

Craig Austin (resident) – Statement of Objection

Statement of Support – Adam Ponyer – On Site Youth Zones

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·        Steve Taylor raised a concern about what could be built in the future once planning was granted.

·        The Chair responded that nothing will be able to go through without the permission of the Planning Committee.

·        Councillor P Arnold stated that he was torn and there had been some good discussion. He did have concerns about parking and ownership. The facilities are top notch.

·        Councillor Shinnick stated that there will be more pressure on local residents, they will end up with parking permits which will be at a cost.

·        Councillor Watson confirmed that she is also torn. The Dagenham park which has a Youth Zone is a lot bigger than Anchor Fields. The Youth Zone is phenomenal, for all ages and a brilliant provision.

·        Councillor Polley stated everybody wants services and they have to build them somewhere.

·        Councillor Piccolo stated that he couldn’t see parents parking in a neighbouring road and waiting an hour or two hours. Tilbury could be gaining a lot of activities for local youths. Tilbury is not an easy place to get to, hopefully the local community will benefit from it.

·        Councillor J Maney stated that it is a good application but it is not the right place for it. It is likely to cause some problems for local residents.

·        Councillor P Arnold stated that he believes that the centre will operate to reduce anti-social behaviour, Tilbury is a high-density area and if he was a parent he would be glad this was coming to the area

·        The Chair stated that it is a tough one, the Youth Zone has a good track record.

Councillor Polley recommended the officer’s recommendation to approve, Councillor Piccolo seconded it.

For: (4) Councillors T Kelly, G Polley, P Arnold and T Piccolo

Against: (3) Councillors S Shinnick, L Watson and J Maney

Abstained: (1) Councillor Liddiard

Councillor Liddiard returned to the meeting.