Members were informed that the application sought permission for the redevelopment of the former sports and social club site for residential purposes.  An independent viability assessment had found the development to be unviable and so there would be no social housing provision.  The Committee was advised that since publication of the agenda the applicant had increased the offered NHS contribution to meet the full figure of £38,000.

Councillor Ojetola asked the Senior Highways Engineer to confirm that the routes leading to the development would not be overly affected by car movements of the additional residents and visitors.  As not all residents and visitors would be using their cars at peak times there was not deemed to be a significant impact on the highways, especially given the proximity to the train station and bus routes.

Councillor Ojetola expressed concern about the viability report and the lack of affordable housing.  The development looked lovely but Tilbury was an area of financial depravity and he requested further information.  He also sought clarity as to the need for any educational contribution and whether all these aspects had been considered together by Officers.  The Committee was informed that the viability report had been independently assessed as valid.  Land values in Tilbury were lower than other parts of the borough and there were a number of abnormal costs compared to sites outside of the flood zone area.  The development had been assessed as financially unviable therefore the decision to progress was at the risk of the applicant, not the Local Authority.  It could not be guaranteed that another applicant would develop the site and the applicant had offered the full NHS contribution.   The Educational Authority had advised that no contribution was required due to the high number of 1 bedroom flats.  Officers had considered all material planning matters, particularly the quality of the design and the need for 1 bed flats in the area.

Councillor Piccolo requested clarity as to whether the scheme had been assessed as unviable with financial contributions and social housing or unviable altogether.  He was concerned that if the current application had been considered financially unviable there was a risk that development could come to a halt before completion.  The site had been considered financially unviable.  The applicant had offered of his own choice to provide the NHS contribution as the health issues in Tilbury had been raised by the NHS and the Health and Wellbeing Board.  The Committee could not refuse planning permission due to the viability assessment; its purpose was to show what range of contributions could be taken.

Councillor Rice sought clarification that the low land values in Tilbury had impacted the provision for social housing.  Land value was a big factor within viability assessments, as was property prices; the proposed 1 bedroom flats had a sale value of approximately £120,000 - £130,000.

A Ward Councillor, Councillor John Allen, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of objection.

The Applicant, Steve Boyling, was invited to the Committee to give his statement of support.

Councillor Ojetola highlighted the need for housing across Thurrock and particularly within Tilbury.  The lack of social housing was a worry as the development might not benefit the people of Tilbury aspiring to own their own home. Parking was also a concern as each 1 bedroom flat could house 2 adults, each with their own car.  This might be mitigated by the proximity to the station but the impact on the local highways network was a real concern.  The lack of social housing was his real concern and he asked whether there was any room to amend the application.  The Committee was reminded that the development had been assessed as unviable even without the £38,000 NHS contribution the applicant had offered.  Members were also warned that 10% of 0 was 0 and if the scheme was made even more unviable it was likely no development would take place.

Councillor Rice noted that the viability report did not support a social housing provision and that the application was recommended for approval.  The land value in Tilbury was very low and it was pleasing that the applicant had offered the full NHS contribution.  There was ongoing work by the NHS to provide comprehensive GP care in Tilbury.  The site was close to Asda and the new Amazon site, which would provide 2000 additional jobs and people liked to live close to where they worked.  He supported the application and congratulated officers on a good scheme for Tilbury.

Councillor Piccolo outlined that he had been unhappy with the lack of social housing but had not considered the cost of these properties, which in reality was very affordable compared to much of Thurrock.  He welcomed that the viability report could be reassessed in 2 years if the development had not progressed above slab level.  He had been swayed and now supported the application.

Councillor Baker admitted it was sad that there would be no social housing but the reasons were known and understandable.  The strain on the NHS was a concern, as was the overlooking of nearby properties from the roof gardens.  The Committee was reassured that the full figure requested by the Health Authority had been met.  Condition 7 did cover the issue of overlooking but could be reworded to reflect the Committee’s concerns.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England representative welcomed the clarification between ‘social’ and ‘affordable’ housing.  He added that the entry was off the main roundabout by Asda which fed straight to the A13 and as such the smaller, local road networks should not be too greatly affected.

The Vice-Chair had originally had concerns but the proposed sale values were actually quite affordable and he felt the design looked lovely.  The Chair agreed it had not been a straightforward application but the debate had confirmed that Officers had made the right recommendation.  The viability had been assessed independently and the applicant had still offered an NHS contribution, which had now been amended to meet the full figure.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Churchman that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation, subject to an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and conditions.

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

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)