The Committee heard that there had been seven letters of objection received since publication of the agenda.  Residents’ objections covered:

• Parking
• Traffic / access
• Overdevelopment of the site
• That the development would be out of character of the area
• Overlooking of nearby properties
• Noise concerns
• Biodiversity

These were similar in nature to the objections to the previous application for this site. The application complied with all policies, aside from failing to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the church hall was reasonably and robustly marketed since it became vacant in May 2016 which was contrary to Policy CSTP10; the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Chair clarified for the Committee that the previous application had been for 6 homes and had been refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the loss of the community facility.  The application was now for 4 homes which was acceptable but there was still the overlying issue of the community facility.  There had been no meaningful evidence submitted by the applicant that there was no demand to retain its use

The Vice-Chair had queried whether there was a time period for such buildings to remain vacant and it was confirmed that the Riverview Methodist Church had been vacant for 5 years before Members agreed to its redevelopment and that Members had more recently applied this same policy in relation to The Bricklayers Arms regarding the loss of a community facility.

Councillor Rice notified the Committee that he had spoken to residents regarding this application; they were not opposed necessarily to the development.  They wanted fewer houses but that was a matter of planning.  He queried why the application referred to the church hall when the space had most recently been used as a play centre for children.  It had not been a church hall for years and he was concerned that, if refused, the applicant might appeal and the Council could be seen as pedantic over its advertisement.  The Committee was informed that whether or not it was a church hall was irrelevant.  The issue was a lack of evidence provided by the applicant, namely robust marketing, that there was no desire to retain the community facility.  The applicant had not advertised the site to let as a community facility; it had only been marketed for sale and as a residential opportunity.

The Head of Planning and Growth interjected that there was also a need for consistency from the Planning Committee; other similar applications had been refused due to a lack of proper marketing.

The Agent, James Ware, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of support.

Councillor Ojetola queried section 6.6 of the application which advised that the information provided had been limited and was not considered sufficient.  The Agent had stated otherwise in his statement and Officers were asked to verify the issue.  The evidence submitted by the applicant was the same as with the previous application, which had been refused.  There was still no clear evidence of justifiable marketing for use as a community facility.

Councillor Ojetola also asked what weighting Members should give to the information they received from the Agent via email.  The information had been submitted with the application and was considered fully within the report but details were not made public due to the applicant’s confidentiality clause stated on the document.

Page 40 of the report stated that “Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application”.  Officers were asked to clarify the situation for Members.  The Development Management Team Leader advised the Committee that it highlighted the fact that outstanding issues, which had been raised with the applicant but could not be resolved, still remained.

Councillor Rice queried whether there were any planning considerations within the objections from local residents.  Members heard that while issues such as parking, traffic, access and the character of the development were indeed planning matters the proposal complied with Council Policy for each.

The Chair recognised the conflict of opinion between the applicant and Officers regarding the evidence provided.  He asked whether there was any example in Thurrock of similar, community facilities being given up.  The Council’s Policy was to ensure residential values could not usurp all community facilities.  The fundamental point was the desire, or lack thereof, to retain a community facility should be demonstrated by the applicant through reasonable and robust marketing exercises.

Councillor Ojetola asked whether there were other community facilities in the local area and whether they could be shown on the map.  Councillor Rice expressed that Chadwell was quite well covered and indicated to the location of nearby community facilities. 

Councillor Piccolo interjected that a number of them were heavily used and while there may be other halls nearby if they were fully utilised and no proper marketing exercise had been carried out there could be a need to retain the community facility in Rigby Gardens.  Other applications had been refused for a lack of evidence whilst those that demonstrated reasonable exercises had been approved.  He did not wish to risk setting a precedent for future applicants and so would support the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Rice expressed his view, as the local Councillor for the area, that there were a number of halls which were underused.  He also highlighted that residents were mostly concerned that the road was very narrow and parking would be an issue.  He felt torn as he wished to support residents but believed the applicant could win an appeal.  The matter of advertising the site sufficiently had been argued by the agent.  He proposed a site visit to see if the proposal was reasonable.  Councillor Ojetola added that he did not feel he knew the area well enough and seconded the site visit to provide clarity, and also to see what other facilities were available in the local area.

Councillor Kent asked whether deferring the application for a site visit would allow time for the applicant to obtain and provide evidence of marketing exercises.  The Head of Planning and Growth advised that if there was evidence which had not been submitted that could come forward but a deferral would not provide enough time for a new marketing exercise to be completed.  He reminded the Committee that the recommendation for refusal was not a matter of detail, but how the site had been marketed by the applicant.  The number of other community facilities in the vicinity was irrelevant to the application.  Members were being asked whether the proper process had been followed

The proposal for a site visit was put to the Committee and Members voted against the proposal.

Councillor Churchman stressed how difficult it was to book halls in the local area and community facilities were starting to disappear, so he would object to the application.

Councillor Piccolo clarified that the boxing club paid full rent for its premises for full time occupancy.  Even when not in use it may not be suitable for other purposes.  He stressed that if the Committee did not continue with its stance from previous applications it could affect its ability to refuse applications in future.

Councillor Kent recognised that it was a good scheme but also understood concern around setting a precedent and the fear that community facilities would be picked off by developers.  He was cautious that the applicant may be able to appeal the decision and expressed disappointment that the issue of evidence provided was not straightforward.

Councillor Ojetola echoed these views.  In all other areas the application complied with Council Policy and the applicant had reduced the number of properties since the previous application.  There was a real concern that officers advised there had not be robust marketing exercises demonstrated but the agent was of the view that there had.  The Committee was advised that in 2014 the site had been marketed for 6 residential units, the marketing for use as a community facility had occurred much later.

The Chair approved of the 4 homes and recognised that the applicant had improved the proposal based on feedback from the Committee previously.  Officers were of the view there was insufficient evidence regarding marketing while the applicant felt there had been.  The matter might go to appeal; however, as nothing had changed in relation to the advertising and marketing of the site for D1 and associated uses, and the previous application was refused Members should not approve this application.

It was proposed by the Councillor Rice and seconded by Councillor Churchman that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Kevin Wheeler (Vice-Chair), Chris Baker, Colin Churchman, John Kent, Terry Piccolo and Gerard Rice.

Against:           Councillor David Potter

Abstain:           Councillor Tunde Ojetola