Council and democracy

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 January 2020.

On minute number 62, Councillor Rice questioned whether his request regarding the list of approved planning applications at Committee and awaiting s106 contributions, had been circulated to Members yet. Officers confirmed this had been circulated that afternoon.

Councillor Rice went on to raise concerns on the number of Planning solicitors in Thurrock Council as he was of the understanding that one solicitor attended the Council once a week to sign off s106 agreements. Leigh Nicholson, Interim Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection, reassured the Committee that the Council had two full time Planning Solicitors in house. Councillor Rice asked that an email be circulated to Members clarifying the level of legal resources available to support the Council’s Planning department.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 January 2020 was approved as a true and correct record.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business, however, the Chair mentioned that he had noticed that the planting at the former British Gas site on London Road that was under development looked a bit sparse. He had discussed with Officers who were following the matter up with the developer of the site. The Chair asked that Members be aware of similar incidences and to inform the Council’s Planning department.

Councillor Churchman declared a non-pecuniary interest on 19/01633/FUL as he was the Ward Councillor for Aveley and Uplands.

The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that emails had been received relating to 18/00551/FUL from a resident in objection. For 19/01662/FUL, an information pack had been received from the Agent and an organisation in support of the application.

Adding to this, Councillor Fletcher declared that he had responded to the resident in objection to 180/00551/FUL but declared that he was of an open mind and would give regard to material planning considerations.

For 19/01864/FUL, Councillor Fletcher declared that he and Councillor Byrne was part of the Waste Management Working Group and had been briefed on the household waste project.

The report was presented by Jonathan Keen, Interim Strategic Lead of Development Services. The Committee was satisfied with the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted the report.

The report was presented by Nadia Houghton, Principal Planner. There had been two further letters of objection to the application. One was in relation to the concern of badgers on the site which had been addressed on paragraph 1.2, page 24 of the Agenda. The other objection was in relation to the lack of information available on surface water drainage which had been available but had not uploaded to the website correctly. The information had been re-uploaded and the information had been sent to the objector. The application was detailed in Appendix 1 and was a proposal for the construction of 8 x two bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated access, car parking and amenity areas. Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions for the reasons listed on page 36 of the Agenda.

The full details of the application can be found on pages 23 – 46 of the Agenda.

The Vice-Chair noted the information given regarding the proposed materials to be used that would give the dwellings a modern appearance and that the properties did not meet the amenity space requirements. He went on to mention other developments that had been rejected for not meeting the minimum amenity space requirements and questioned why this proposal had not been refused for the same reason.

Nadia Houghton explained that there was a variation of size with gardens in the proposed dwellings but the average amenity space overall was 57.2 sq.m. She went on to advise that the gardens of houses in the surrounding area were also similar in size. The proposed dwellings were located separately from properties on Meesons Lane and Badgers Dene. The design was different from the surrounding houses within the area because of its proposed modern design but given their location there was no objection to the difference in design.

Councillor Rice noted that there had been concerns on overlooking from other properties and mentioned that past planning applications had been refused before on the grounds of overlooking of properties. He went on to say that a condition should be embedded into this application to ensure windows were obscured to control overlooking from other properties.

Nadia Houghton explained that the proposed dwellings faced directly to Helleborine that was over the road but there was no overlooking due to the intervening distance. The proposed bathroom windows would be obscure glazed.

Councillor Rice sought reassurance on the concerns raised over the possibility of badgers on site. Nadia Houghton replied that she had visited the site with the Essex Badger Protection Group and whilst it had been established that there was an inactive sett on site, there had been no evidence of recent badger activity.

The Vice-Chair queried the time of the site visit. Nadia Houghton answered that the visit had taken place during the day but was aware that badgers were nocturnal. However, if there had been badgers on the site, there would have been evidence left behind by badgers but there had been none.

Councillor Lawrence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Presented by Chris Purvis, Major Applications Manager, the report detailed the proposal of a hybrid application that sought planning permission for development on parts of the Langdon Hills Golf and Country Club. Since publication of the Agenda, Chris Purvis advised that Historic England had provided an additional consultation response advising that the application be recommended for refusal for a heritage reason which formed an additional reason of refusal to be included. Therefore reason number 8 for refusal was that:

• Insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development’s impact upon all heritage assets affected as required by paragraph 189 of the NPPF. In the absence of such information, the Local Planning Authority were unable to fully assess the impact upon the significance of heritage assets that are affected by the proposed development, which were contrary to the requirements of the NPPF, and policies CSTP24 and PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (2015).

Chris Purvis advised that the Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed on pages 124 – 125 of the Agenda.

The full details of the application can be found on pages 47 – 128 of the Agenda.

(Councillor Akinbohun arrived at 7.22pm and was unable to participate on this item as outlined within the Constitution, Chapter 5, Part 3, 13.5.)

Councillor Byrne commented that if the proposed care facilities were not included, the proposal would essentially be a village being built on the Green Belt. The Chair said that the information given on the application stated that the proposal was facilities for care and leisure uses.

Councillor Rice noted that there was a difference in opinions and highlighted the comments regarding the C2 and C3 use of the site within an information pack, that had been sent by a QC, on behalf of the Applicant, to Members. He sought a legal opinion on this. Chris Purvis said that Officers had received the Applicant’s QC opinion and that the Council’s Legal team had analysed the information and considered this alongside other planning applications stated within this information.  The conclusion was that the developments stated were different to the planning application that was before the Committee.

Councillor Rice noted that a statement from the QC pointed out that the proposal was for a retirement village which would indicate a C2 use of the site. Chris Purvis replied that the proposal had been looked at in detail and indicated that the proposal was a health village and not a retirement village. He referred the Committee to page 81 of the Agenda onwards which covered the proposal's details in C2 and C3 considerations.

Steve Taylor questioned whether the properties could be bought by someone who was under 55 years old. He went on to ask what controls were in place if the property was passed from an elderly person to someone under 55 years old. Chris Purvis replied that the requirement for properties to be occupied by people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Presented by Tom Scriven, Principal Planner, the report sought planning permission for the installation of internal and external roller shutters to all windows and doors of the Aveley Village Community Hub along with external lighting in the car park and CCTV. Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions for the reasons listed on page 135 of the Agenda.

The full details of the application can be found on pages 129 – 138 of the Agenda.

Councillor Churchman supported the application and said that the security proposed for the site was much needed.

Councillor Rice proposed the Officer’s recommendation with Councillor Churchman seconding it.

For: (9) Councillors Abbie Akinbohun, Gary Byrne, Colin Churchman, Mike Fletcher, Tom Kelly, Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice and Sue Shinnick.

Against: (0)

Abstained: (0)

Planning application 19/01633/TBC was approved subject to conditions.

The report was presented by Tom Scriven. There was an update in that new site plans had been provided which required an amendment to plan numbers in condition 2 on page 163 of the Agenda. A second update related to the deletion of Condition 11 on page 163 of the Agenda, as the contamination details submitted were acceptable.

The application sought planning permission for the extension and comprehensive redevelopment of the exiting House Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC). The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to referral to the Secretary of State and conditions for the reasons listed on page 162 of the Agenda.

The full details of the application can be found on pages 139 – 172 of the Agenda.

Councillor Byrne sought clarification on whether the bridleway on the other side of the road of the site would be affected to which Steve Lines, Senior Highways Engineer, confirmed that the bridleway would not be affected.

Councillor Byrne went on to comment that the scheme was ‘brilliant’ but would only work if there was enough funds to see the project through. He highlighted cost concerns in other projects ongoing within the Council. The Chair said that the Committee could only assume that there would be funds to support the scheme but could only look at the application on planning terms.

Steve Taylor sought clarification on the elevation of the ground level of the site as shown in the Officer’s presentation. He questioned if the ground level was elevated on the field side behind the site to which Tom Scriven confirmed that it was.

Councillor Lawrence mentioned that the temporary traffic lights in place near the site often did not work and caused traffic congestion in the area. She asked whether a condition could be attached to the application to ensure the traffics lights were in consistent working condition. Steve Lines explained that the temporary traffic lights were under the control of Persimmon Homes who were developing a site near the application site. He went on to say that the temporary traffic lights had no bearing on the application that was before the Committee. Councillor Lawrence asked whether the application could be put on hold until the situation with the traffic lights was resolved. Steve Lines explained that the matter of temporary traffic signals and traffic management would have to go through the Network Management team. The current situation was in place to protect BT chambers and was awaiting reconstruction works of these chambers. He went on to say that the Council had no control over when BT would undertake these works that would allow for the road to be fully opened.

Noting that the traffic lights were causing congestion within the application’s site area, the Vice-Chair questioned whether a condition could be imposed to restrict the timing of the planning permission to ensure the scheme was completed within a certain time frame. Tom Scriven explained that the issue arose from another development that had no bearing on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.