Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 11th February, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: This meeting will be livestreamed and can be watched via

Contact: Wendy Le, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email:


No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 372 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 7 January 2021.


Additional documents:


Councillor Rice asked for an update on Langdon Hills and Malgraves Farm. Officers said that an email would be circulated to Members.


The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 7 January 2021 were approved as a true and correct record.


Item of Urgent Business

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.

Additional documents:


There were no items of urgent business.


Declaration of Interests

Additional documents:


There were no declarations of interest.


Declarations of receipt of correspondence and/or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning application or enforcement action to be resolved at this meeting

Additional documents:


Members declared receiving correspondence from Agents on items 20/01394/OUT and 20/00827/FUL.


Councillor Lawrence declared receiving a photo in regards to 20/01394/OUT. She also declared a phone call from Chris Nixon.


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 199 KB

Additional documents:


There were no questions from Members.




That the report be noted.


20/00273/DCO Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant Fort Road Tilbury pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 41 – 156 of the Agenda was presented by Chris Purvis.


The Vice-Chair noted that the causeway proposal and questioned the impact of this on the riverbank. Chris Purvis answered that the causeway proposal was by the existing sea wall and a section of the existing sea wall would be removed to allow the development to start which would be managed with floodgates. As the site was situated to the east of existing development areas, it would not impact on the riverbank or existing infrastructure which was to the west of the causeway proposal.


In regards to the removal of the sea wall, the Vice-Chair asked whether the Council could request that the defences there be replaced or updated. He raised concerns on the impact on the riverbank without the sight of a plan. Chris Purvis answered that the Environment Agency was also a consultant on this application and would be responding on the flood defences and whether they would need to be upgraded and what could be secured through the process. He said that the Applicant was aware of the impact on the flood defences and had investigated this before reaching the proposals set out in the report. There would be gates and other measures in place to ensure the flood defence was secure to protect the area when vehicles were not crossing over. The application was an outline application and planning conditions would resolve these issues as part of the planning process. He went on to say that Members’ concerns would be raised with Environment Agency and Members would be updated as the application progressed.


Councillor Rice questioned if most of the traffic would be travelling along the A1089 to get onto Fort Road and would not be travelling through Chadwell St Mary. Chris Purvis confirmed this and said that during the construction phase, the route would via the Asda roundabout and then access the site from the  new road serving Tilbury 2. Once the site was operational, the amount of traffic would be reduced. He referred Members to the Local Impact Report and said that there was a separate application for another site in the Borough, the Arena Essex site, seeking a temporary planning permission where future workers could be bused to the site during the construction process in order to minimise traffic movements to the development. At the busiest times, the number of people on the development would be 250 to 350.


Steve Taylor sought clarification on whether the site was an existing site. He also questioned whether the chimneys mentioned were exhausts. Chris Purvis answered that the site was not an existing site but that it had an existing electricity infrastructure with the electricity substation of the former power station to the south. The proposals sought to use this existing infrastructure. He also confirmed that the chimneys were exhausts to emit the fumes and emissions from the power station.


Following on from the Vice-Chair’s earlier question on the sea wall, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.


20/00905/FUL Land Part of St Cleres Hall Adjacent to James Court, Stanford Road, Stanford Le Hope, Essex (deferred) pdf icon PDF 199 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 157 – 184 of the Agenda was presented by Nadia Houghton.


Councillor Byrne highlighted that there were still issues with the parking despite the installation of the fence. He said that he had seen a video on Youtube of the site which differed to the photos shown in the Officer’s presentation. Nadia Houghton pointed out that the photos in the presentation showed that a knee high rail fencing had been installed around the proposed development site and there was an existing rail fencing in place along the existing access road that led to 1 Clere Cottage. There was no physical access from this access road from London Road to the application site which could only be accessed through the main access to the application site.


Steve Taylor noted that the landscaping plans showed greenery but the photos in the presentation showed a concrete landscape. He questioned if this was temporary. Nadia Houghton answered that the development was still in the construction phase so had a temporary concrete landscape.


Councillor Sammons said that she had seen the fence installed on the site but pointed out that residents in the first two properties (where the white car was situated as shown in the photos in the Officer’s presentation) drove in that access. She said that couriers also used this access and felt that the issues had not been resolved. Nadia Houghton explained that there was an existing access from the service road that led to 1 Clere Cottage and that delivery vehicles could not be stopped from delivering to that cottage on London Road as that is its access. The knee high rail fencing installed was to prevent access onto the application site and the main entrance would need to be used to access the overall development. The Chair commented that the developer had installed the fencing to protect the development and that the concern was that vehicles were parking near the alleyway that was not a part of the application site.


Referring to paragraph 4.7, Councillor Lawrence sought clarification on this. Nadia Houghton explained that the amendments related to the detailed materials to be used and hard and soft landscaping details that were included as conditions as part of the application.


Councillor Lawrence said that the original application had proposed an open area with landscaping which was not in the current application that was before Members. She noted that fencing had been installed on the request of Members and pointed out that the site was a mess with unfinished work which should be completed before starting work on another development. She stated that she was not confident that the Applicant could complete the landscaping work or the other unfinished works. She was minded to refuse the application. Councillor Byrne agreed. Councillor Rice stated that he shared similar concerns with Councillor Lawrence and Sammons. He said that the fence may not be in place indefinitely and felt that it should be included within the s106 agreement. The Vice-Chair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.


20/00957/FUL Barmoor House, Farm Road, Chadwell St Mary, Essex, RM16 3AH (deferred) pdf icon PDF 469 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 185 – 218 of the Agenda was presented by Nadia Houghton.


Steve Taylor referred to the first application that was approved and questioned if that had been based on the amount of development allowed on that entire site to which Nadia Houghton confirmed was correct. He went on to comment that the Applicant was now requesting for more and was not building the original 6 dwellings that had been approved which would have enabled them access to the site.


Councillor Lawrence questioned if it was usual for Applicants to apply for one phase and then to come back and apply for a second stage. Nadia Houghton said that each application had to be considered on its own merits but in this application, the site was within the Green Belt when the original application was considered. The original application was for the demolition of the farmhouse and outbuildings and to be replaced with six dwellings and the Applicant was aware of the likely quantum of development that would be considered acceptable. Since then, the Applicant had come back having not built out the sixth dwelling. She said that smaller developments would not normally require phases and that the previous application had used up the quantum of development considered to be appropriate for this site. This current application sought to add built form where there was not any so was recommended for refusal.


The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.08pm to enable the

Agenda to be completed.


The Vice-Chair asked if the Applicant had been made aware of the amount of appropriate development considered for the site in the first application. Nadia Houghton said that the Council records showed that the Applicant had previously been informed of the total floor space allowed so they were aware.


Councillor Rice stated that he had not changed his mind since the application was heard at the last meeting. He pointed out that the Council did not have a five year housing supply and no 20% buffer and that Thurrock Council was on the Government’s list (for lack of housing) so the Council needed to increase the number of developments in the Borough. He stated that the Council was failing on its yearly housing targets. He said that the development would bring employment through the construction phase which was needed in these times as it would rise. He highlighted that there were accessible facilities close by on Defoe Parade and that Thurrock had a lack of housing provisions for older people. He also reiterated the points made at the last meeting in that the bungalows were of exceptional build quality that would be for over 55s and that the Council’s Core Strategy 2015 recognised a shortage of bungalows in the Borough.


Councillor Byrne pointed out that a person over 55 could buy the bungalow but could let this out to people under 55. Nadia Houghton reminded Members that the bungalows were not proposed to be for over 55s. She said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.


20/00827/FUL Former Ford Motor Company, Arisdale Avenue, South Ockendon, Essex, RM15 5JT (deferred) pdf icon PDF 389 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 219 – 266 of the Agenda was presented by Chris Purvis.


The Chair questioned if the Council’s limit for density was 70 dwellings per hectare and if it was possible to increase this. He also questioned the density of the other phases that had been carried out. Chris Purvis confirmed that 70 dwellings per hectare was the limit as set out in policy CSTP1 and increasing this would mean a departure from policy. He said that a high density development would be achieved here and that density should not just be about looking at numbers, the proposal met the limit in the policy and Officers considered the development to be of a high quality design. He said that this development was denser than previous phases due to the increased number of dwellings proposed.


The Chair commented that the number of parking spaces was below standards at the last application hearing. He noted this had now been amended with an additional three spaces and questioned if this now equated to 1.3 spaces per unit and if this was the limit. He also asked if there was parking available elsewhere on the site and if there would be parking enforcement. Chris Purvis explained that at the last Committee meeting, the scheme had 117 which met the minimum requirement of 115 in the Council’s parking standards. He confirmed that with the additional 3 spaces this time, it equated to 1.3 spaces overall and would be one space per flat, two spaces per house and 18 visitor spaces that were unallocated spaces. Phases four and five also had visitor spaces. He said that the application had the same recommended planning conditions that would manage parking enforcement same as earlier schemes.


Councillor Rice questioned whether there would be enough electric vehicle charging points. He also raised concerns on traffic speeds on Arisdale Avenue and asked if speed humps could be placed to control this. Referring to condition 11, Chris Purvis said that the Council would ensure that there would be enough electric charging points to meet requirements as the Applicant had to submit these details for approval through a planning condition.


Referring to the Chair’s question on parking on the site, Julian Howes said that the Highways Team had asked that the Persimmon site and Bellways site have waiting restrictions implemented at the appropriate junctions and locations within the sites to prevent parking in areas that would cause visibility and turning issues. This covered most of the site so would force people to park within the designated spaces. Referring to Councillor Rice’s question on electric charging points, Julian Howes said that a set number of spaces for this not requested but the Council asked that the infrastructure to be set in preparation for electric spaces to become available in that development. Regarding the speed humps on Arisdale Avenue, he said that recent speed data had been undertaken on that road and had not shown a speeding problem. However, further speed counts  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.


20/01743/FUL Stanford Le Hope Railway Station, London, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 0JX pdf icon PDF 606 KB

Additional documents:


Councillor Byrne asked for the application to be deferred as there were concerns over the application. Democratic Services advised that procedures be followed to enable the application to be heard before Members considered a deferral of the application.


The report on pages 267 – 282 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.


In regards to flooding, Councillor Byrne pointed out that the site had flooded nine days ago and that the riverbank would need piling as it was on a different level. He also questioned if there was a safe drop-off point. Matt Gallagher answered that there was a main river adjacent to the site so the site itself was within flood zones two and three. The site was protected along with the south of London Road but the north was not protected. He said that he was aware of the recent flooding and that flood risk was a planning consideration hence why the application had been submitted with a flood risk assessment. The Council had applied the sequential test and the exceptions test for this which had passed because there was nowhere else to put the station. The other key consideration was that the NPPF was clear that the application should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The consultant who had provided the flood risk assessment for the development had stated that there was no net loss of floodplain storage so this development did not make the situation worse which was the planning test. Therefore, an objection on flood risk grounds could not be submitted as there was no objection on that ground. Regarding a safe drop-off point, he said that this application was phase one and that the Council had recently received a request for pre-application planning advice for phase two which suggested that the Applicant was serious about making an application particularly where they had sought design advice from architects. Regarding piling, he said that this application was accompanied by a range of different studies and if piling was required, the Applicant would have instructed the technical consultants who would be aware of what was required to pile the station and aware of the site’s proximity to the main river so should follow the relevant processes. He highlighted that the Applicant was the Council that was a competent and responsible organisation and would follow the necessary consents and processes.


The Vice-Chair questioned if the two phases were being delivered by different architects. He also commented that it would be logical to view the whole application as one rather than in two phases as it was being delivered by the same engineering consultant. Matthew Gallagher said that it was the same engineering consultant who was familiar with the site and had produced a number of reports to support the pre-application advice of the site. He said that the application was a legitimate planning application. He went on to say that he understood Members’ concerns on the need to see phase two with phase one and stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.


20/01394/OUT Kemps Farm, Dennises Lane, South Ockendon, RM15 5SD pdf icon PDF 418 KB

Additional documents:


Due to the lateness of the meeting, Members agreed to move the last item onto the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting on 25 February 2021.