Agenda and minutes

Extraordinary Meeting, Planning Committee - Thursday, 19th November, 2020 6.00 pm

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

Contact: Wendy Le, Democratic Services Officer  Email:

Note: Extraordinary Meeting 


No. Item


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 an email from the Agent, Gary Coxall which contained information from the Applicant’s legal representative, Kevin Leigh, regarding 19/01373/OUT.


Monitoring Officer Report On The Decision Of The Planning Committee In Relation To Land Adjacent To Wood View And Chadwell Road, Grays (Application ref 19.01373.OUT) pdf icon PDF 313 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 5 – 32 of the Agenda was presented by Ian Hunt.


Ian Hunt highlighted that:


  • Planning application 19/01373/OUT had been called back before Members with the Chairs agreement to review the decision made at the previous committee. This was because of the details in the decision made had raised concerns over the legality of the decision.
  • The resolution provided by Members for approving the application had not adequately dealt with the significant test that was set out in the NPPF or the local policies regarding the Green Belt (GB), therefore there had been an omission of the Very Special Circumstances (VSC) test outweighing the harm to the GB. This created uncertainty in the decision made by Members and could be open to a legal challenge.
  • It was acknowledged that the Members of the Committee were the decision makers for the application and needed to ascribe weight to VSC with relevant reasoning and explanation within the wider policy and legislative framework to ensure a lawful decision.
  • The email that Members had received from the Applicant’s barrister, did not fully address the distinction between the two reports (item 6 and 7 of the Agenda) that was before the Committee. The first report asked Members to look at whether their previous decision made on the application was adequately reasoned and sustainable in legal terms. If Members approved recommendation 1.1 to rescind their decision, this would not determine the application, instead they would then go onto consider the application itself afresh in item 7 and Members would not be constrained by their earlier views of 16 July 2020.


Michael Bedford added that the Monitoring Officer’s report only asked Members to look at whether there were issues with the decision that they had made at the meeting of 16 July 2020. It was the view of the Monitoring Officer and Michael Bedford, that there were issues with the adequacy of the reasons given for the decision that Members had made on 16 July 2020. The recommendation for Members to rescind that decision provided Members with a chance to resolve those issues through making a fresh decision taking all material factors into account.


The Chair understood that the report recommended that Members rescind their decision due to the reasons given for the decision made so did not think it was Officers looking to necessarily overturn the overall outcome of the decision. He pointed out that other GB applications that Members had made a decision on against Officer’s recommendations such as Langdon Hills Golf and Country Club, had also been looked at by the Monitoring Officer and had not returned to Committee.


The Committee was made aware that if recommendation 1.1 was approved, the Committee would then move on to consider the application of 19/01373/OUT immediately after the report.




For Members:


1.1         To rescind the decision taken by the Planning Committee on 16July 2020.

1.2         To reconsider planning application 19/01373/OUT and to determine the application setting out legally adequate reasons for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.


19/01373/OUT Land Adjacent Wood View and Chadwell Road, Grays, Essex pdf icon PDF 554 KB

Consideration dependent on outcome of Agenda Item 6

Additional documents:


The report on pages 33 – 104 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher. Members were referred to the seven questions (on pages 46 – 52 of the Agenda) as a means to support their decision making  when considering their decision on the application.


Democratic Services read out the Speaker Statements from:


  • Shaun Meehan, Resident in objection to the application.
  • Joyce Redsell, Ward Councillor in objection to the application.
  • Gary Coxall, Agent in support of the application.


Regarding acoustic fencing, Councillor Rice mentioned that he had seen two showroom homes on the Hogg Lane development that had been converted into 40 flats with no acoustic fencing in place. He noted that the current homes in Woodview and other developments also had no acoustic fencing. Matthew Gallagher was unable to comment on the Hogg Lane development as he did not have that information and explained that the standards around noise assessments had changed over time and Woodview was likely to have been built during the war. Other developments may not have had noise issues raised before. He went on to say the Environmental Health Officer had looked at the noise assessment volunteered by the Applicant and following the guidelines of the standards set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) had concluded that acoustic fencing was needed to mitigate the impact of potential noise pollution from the proposed shared gardens and closely built homes.


Councillor Lawrence noted the affordable housing put forward by the Applicant and sought clarification on the education contribution. She felt that the education contribution would help with the demand for school places and residents in the area. Matthew Gallagher explained that the education contribution was a mitigation for the demand in school places that would arise because of the development if it was approved. The Council’s Education Team assessed the number of currently available school places against the potential number of children (requiring a school place) arising from the proposed development and if there were available school places, the Education Team would not have asked for a contribution. By asking for a contribution meant that there were no available school places and a contribution was needed to mitigate the impact of the potential number of children (requiring a school place) arising out of the proposed development.


The Vice-Chair sought clarification on whether the application could be adapted to enable it to be more acceptable for an approval. Matthew Gallagher said that the Officer’s report was clear in that the principle issue in the proposed development was inappropriate development and harm to the GB. Members were entitled to undertake a balancing exercise to balance harm against other considerations to reach their conclusion but it was the Officer’s views that the Applicant’s proposed development and Member’s reasons (for minding to approve the application) did not show that the harm was clearly outweighed for VSC to exist, therefore a refusal was the logical outcome.


The Chair commented that the site was GB and if it had potential for development, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.