The application sought permission for the use of the land for open storage with an ancillary office building and a workshop building. The majority of the site would be dedicated to storage; with areas for car and lorry parking and turnaround areas.  The Principal Planner informed Members that, following further consideration of the conditions amendments had been proposed to No 5, 9 and 16; none of the amendments would affect the overall nature of the condition; but more tightly defined the parameters. 

Councillor Jones queried the finer details of “open storage”.  The Officer indicated that proposal was for storage of portable containers however it would not be restricted.  Councillor Jones continued that the vehicle movements would therefore be container lorries with cranes and asked how many there would be.  There were limitations set at 31 HGV movements per day.

Councillor Rice questioned whether there was anything planned to pursue a road from the site to the interchange taking traffic away from Stanford, similar to that proposed by the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation in the past.  The Senior Highways Engineer recalled those plans, which had previously been considered as a potential route, but had been limited by a number of constraints such as railway access and private roads.  He noted there were issues of flooding in Wharf Road which were currently being addressed.  In terms of the Local Plan process sites would need to be assessed at a high level regarding access needs and at present nothing specific was under consideration.  Councillor Rice emphasised the need to consider such options, particularly given the planned expansion of Stanford, such as 150 new homes on Victoria Road.  The local road network would soon become clogged and areas such as Stanford brought to a standstill he considered.

Councillor Churchman referred to paragraph 6.6 of the application and asked whether the restriction of vehicular movements of 31 per day was absolute or whether it would be possible to go above that figure.  Members were assured that the absolute maximum of HGV movements a day was set at 31, which could be controlled and monitored through the company’s log books.  Smaller cars and vans might attend but it was possible to limit the number of HGVs, which were the real concern.

Councillor Piccolo expressed concern regarding access and egress for vehicles via the major road network.  He sought clarification as to whether there were weight restrictions in place or the ability to direct HGVs to turn right onto Corringham Road to prevent them travelling through the town centre. A vehicle routing arrangement had been requested as part of the consultation response from Highways officers.  There had been difficulty in previous applications, given their scale, in securing that requirement.  The Highways Engineer advised that Council was currently looking at schemes, outside of this application to amend weight restrictions within Stanford as they currently included Wharf Road and Corringham Road meaning any HGV travelling via Church Hill would be subject to enforcement.  Councillor Piccolo was worried that the requirement might never be triggered as applications were all relatively small, despite a growing number using the site from combined applications. 

Councillor Jones noted residents were concerned about Wharf Road.  The principles of use for the land was stated as “light industry” but companies on the site used HGVs, tippers, crane lorries and low-loaders which struggled to turn right at the junction due to their size.  If the preferred option was for HGVs etc to turn right then the junction should be made more manoeuvrable for them.  He echoed concerns around increased number of vehicle movements through a build-up of small applications.  Members were informed that the extant permission on the site was around 500 HGV movements per day; this application’s transport assessment, factoring in growth, resulted in a condition of 31 HGV movements per day.  There was also a condition requiring no abnormal load movements be permitted and prohibiting lorry parking outside of the site. The proposed use of the site was far less intensive than that already permitted.

The Chair asked whether a level crossing might be an option to allow HGVs to access the site from the DP World side, given that the railway was only used by freight trains and did not form part of the public route.  A Highways Assessment would be required as part of the Local Plan process should the option of a new road arise, however the Highways Engineer indicated he considered it would be unlikely that the Council would be able to justify a new route; although it would be considered.  An option of a level crossing could be feasible, though Network Rail had a standing remit to close as many level crossings as possible and there was a fairly large amount of rail freight movement.  All of these factors would need to be assessed at present there were no road plans underway.

Councillor Piccolo noted that although the application reduced the amount of HGV movements compared to the extant permission, he was not happy with Wharf Road and also concerned about the operational hours on a Saturday.  He could find no planning considerations upon which to refuse the application but felt it was not a good application and could not support it, therefore he would be abstaining.

Councillor Rice expressed his view that none of the Committee was opposed to employment but there was a need to consider long term infrastructure or areas like Stanford would be brought to a halt, and weight restrictions just pushed traffic to other areas.  These issues needed to be considered as part of the Local Plan and he requested that officers make a case as there were problems throughout Thurrock and simply adding the proposed Lower Thames Crossing would not resolve the issues.  The Development Management Team Leader informed Members that the next stage of the Local Plan process was to consider the amount of growth in the borough and necessary associated infrastructure.  This application was not the way to address these issues, but yes they could be considered within the Local Plan.

The Chair agreed that now was the time to consider these matters, especially given the Local Plan process.  He reiterated the possibility of a level crossing as the rail line was only used for freight.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by the Vice-Chair that the application be approved, subject to conditions, as per the officer’s recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Tunde Ojetola and Gerard Rice

Against:           Councillors Graham Hamilton and Roy Jones

Abstain:           Councillors Terry Piccolo and Graham Snell

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions.