To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 25 August 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 25 August 2016 were approved as a 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.

Councillor Piccolo declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of application 16/00593/FULwas employed by the voluntary sector although has no dealing with this site. It was confirmed that an open mind would be maintained.

There were no declarations.

The report before Members provided information with regard to appeals performance.

RESOLVED:

The report was noted.

The application was withdrawn prior to the committee.

The Principal Planner informed the committee that the application sought planning permission for the construction of a warehouse development (Class B8) with associated access, car parking and servicing areas and installation of a new footpath.

Members were informed of the relationship between the application and the Purfleet Centre Regeneration Project. Outline planning permission was granted in May 2013 under planning reference 11/50401/TTGOUT for the large scale redevelopment of Purfleet, totalling some 58 hectares including land within the site subject to this application. The Purfleet Centre Regeneration Project permission had not been implemented but remained a live consent with a 15 year time period for the submission of the reserved matters

The current application was submitted in advance of any future reserved matters applications being made at the Purfleet Centre Regeneration Project and an objection had been received on the basis that the development of this site could prejudice the wider regeneration of Purfleet.

However, the land subject of this application was owned by the applicant to this current application and not the applicant of 11/50401/TTGOUT.  Progression of the outline permission through to reserved matters stage will require the Council and/or a developer to purchase this land to allow for the development subject to the outline permission to be implemented in the future.

Councillor Piccolo questioned if the development would create new employment opportunities, the Planning Officer confirmed that there would be 15/20 vacancies on site for phase 1 of the building which is half of the warehouse building but this number did not including HGV drivers employed by the proposed end user. It was also explained that there is no end user for the second half of the building (phase 2) at this stage but the permission can attract a storage and distribution business to the site.

It was proposed by Councillor Kelly and seconded by Councillor Liddiard that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation.

For:                 Councillors Chris Baker, Tom Kelly, John Kent, Steve Liddiard, Terry Piccolo, Gerrard Rice and Kevin Wheeler

Against:         (0)

Abstain:         (0)

Members were informed that the application sought planning permission for the redevelopment of the former church hall site to provide 4 three bedroom houses and 2 two bedroom houses with associated car parking and landscaping.

The Principal Planner highlighted that the recommendation for refusal was on the basis that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the church hall was reasonably and robustly advertised and marketed for D1 use purposes since it became vacant in May 2016.

Councillor Rice questioned if the applicant had shown evidence of D1 advertisement would the application be deemed recommended for approval. The Principal Planner explained that the proposal was within the planning policy subject to insufficient evidence of demand through marketing and advertising.

Councillor Liddiard highlighted that there was a large number of community halls in Chadwell St Mary.  The Principal Planner explained that the issue was not about the level of existing provision in the overall area, as community facilities would rarely operate unless there was a demand for them, but it is about this site and whether there is a demand for a D1 use on this particular site.

Councillor Piccolo questioned what was seen as a reasonable amount of time for advertising was 6 months sufficient.  The Principal Planner assured the committee that 6 months’ worth of advertisement would be unlikely to be considered adequate; it was about the robust and meaningful evidence that the applicant could submit with an application which would demonstrate whether there was a demand.  The Principal Planner offered an example of other recent cases considered by Members where the site has been vacant for over 18 months but the applicant was unable to demonstrate any meaningful marketing had been carried out.  It was added that there had been no evidence provided of the site advertised for D1 uses for the church hall.

The Committee welcomed Trudi Patience a resident to make her statement of objection.

The Committee welcomed James Ware the agent to make his statement of support.

Members expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment and parking.

It was proposed by Councillor Rice and seconded by Councillor Liddiard that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation. 

For:                  Councillors Chris Baker, Tom Kelly, John Kent, Terry Piccolo, Gerrard Rice and Kevin Wheeler

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           Councillor Liddiard                                                               

Councillor Rice proposed that an additional reason for refusal was on the grounds of overdevelopment and lack of parking, this was seconded by Councillor Kent.

For:                  Councillors Chris Baker, John Kent, Steve Liddiard, Terry Piccolo, Gerrard Rice, and Kevin Wheeler

Against:           Councillors Tom Kelly

Abstain:           (0)