To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 January 2017.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 January 2017 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 Ojetola declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest regarding Item 9: 16/00307/FUL – Land to rear & north of Bannatynes Sports Centre, Howard Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays in that he had attended various meeting with the developers, at which officers had been present.

Councillor Ojetola declared that, regarding Item 9: 16/00307/FUL – Land to rear & north of Bannatynes Sports Centre, Howard Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays, he had received various correspondence as Ward Councillor.  He assured the Committee that he was nevertheless of an open mind.

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

RESOLVED:

The report was noted.

Members were advised that the application sought a deed of variation to the s106 legal agreement for planning permission ref. 14/01274/FUL in respect of affordable housing provision and that a decision had been deferred from the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 December 2016.  The original proposal sought to delete the requirement to provide any affordable housing and the item had been deferred to consider an increased provision.  Members heard that there had been two options presented by the applicant: 20% (26 units) of affordable housing and £640,000 financial contribution; or 22% (28 units) of affordable housing and £300,000 financial contribution.  On balance Officers favoured the first option, which offered a better balance between affordable housing provision and financial contributions to mitigate the impact of development.

Councillor Ojetola sought clarity as to why a lower percentage than the 35% required by Council planning policy was being proposed.  Members were directed to Appendix 1, the original report presented at the December meeting, which outlined the additional cost of removing unforeseen contamination on the site, namely asbestos and the revised financial viability report which had been independently assessed.  Members were reminded that the viability of developing brown field sites was a legitimate material consideration.  Following the Members previous comments, the applicant had reviewed the viability report and offered an improvement to the 0% affordable housing proposed in December.

Cllr Ojetola queried how the original application outlined that removing any requirement to provide affordable housing would only just put the project in profit, yet now it was possible to provide 20% of units as affordable housing.  The Committee heard that there would now be less than 5% profit from this project, but the applicant had stretched to deliver as requested by the Committee.

A breakdown of the £640,000 financial contributions was requested.  £473,600 would go towards education and the remaining £166,400 would contribute to recreation in the immediate vicinity of the site.  A potential scheme for expenditure on recreation facilities had been identified on King George’s Playing field, sometimes referred to as the Daisy Field, opposite.  Councillor Liddiard requested to be consulted moving forward on how the recreational contributions would be spent.

Members praised Officers for their work, increasing the affordable housing provision from 0 to 20%.  Whilst the originally proposed 35% would always be preferable there had been unforeseen costs around asbestos removal and therefore the Committee was satisfied with this new proposal.

Councillor Ojetola stated that it was important to ensure developers showed due diligence from the outset to prevent further applications to remove any requirement to provide affordable housing.  Alongside congratulating Officers for their work he highlighted the achievement of the Committee for taking a stand for the provision of affordable housing.

The Chair echoed Members comments that Officers did well but agreed it had been Members pushing for some provision and the Committee should be proud.  The development was of high quality and designed to redevelop a brown field site.  It would be an improvement to the area, especially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

The Committee heard that the principle of residential use of the site had already been established as planning permission had been granted to another applicant in 2009 for residential development.  Construction works had commenced but had come to a halt when the developer had experienced financial difficulties. The application to be considered proposed a residential-led mixed redevelopment of the site.  Given the current condition of the site there would be some merit in granting planning permission for redevelopment.  Members were advised that although there was a proposed increase in density, National Planning Policy Guidelines advised that quality of design was a key planning consideration rather than an over-reliance on density as a measure of a scheme.  Although, at seven storeys high, parts of the proposal were considered “tall” buildings by Core Strategy policy, the site was located in an urban landscape area, bordered to the north by an arterial road and therefore officers did not deem the design to be harmful to landscape character.  The affordable housing provision proposed was 27% but a financial viability report had been included with the application which had been independently assessed as reasonable.

Members were advised that there were two amendments to the application as listed within the agenda:

• Recommendation A (b) - delete and replace with “an appropriate tenure split for the affordable housing referred to by (a) above to be approved in writing by the local planning authority”
• Condition no. 18 - 2^nd line to insert the word “that” before the word “purpose”.

Following the Officer’s report, Members raised the following queries:

• The disproportionate number of residential units to parking spaces
• The mitigating obligations and restrictions in place elsewhere
• The number of spaces available for the GP surgery and commercial units
• The uncertainty around the financial contribution in the event that the approved accommodation for the doctors surgery were not occupied for its intended purpose, and the agreed timescale
• The height of the proposed development in comparison to other buildings within Chafford Hundred
• The difference in affordable housing provision from the previous approved application on the site.

The Committee heard that, whilst the proposal fell below the maximum draft parking standard, the provision of parking spaces was deemed to be acceptable and officers had sought to get multi-functional spaces such as those used by the medical centre.  The Applicant had offered a £10,000 financial contribution to improve controlled parking within that part of Chafford Hundred which would give the Council the ability to put restrictions in place in future to tackle displaced parking.  Due to the proximity to the train station, the public transport links in the area and the obligations to be placed on tenants, such as the car club, the requirements for parking were slightly reduced and these measures meant that the potential impact to the highways network was not deemed to be detrimental.

There was a level of uncertainty surrounding the proposed GP Surgery and the timeframe for a fall-back financial contribution; Members were welcomed to offer their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Members were informed that the application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing, derelict, buildings and removal of hardstanding and the erection of a health and wellness centre.  Although the site was previously developed, the proposed increase in floor area and volume constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  It was therefore necessary to assess whether the applicant had provided any very special circumstances in favour of the development to mitigate the harm to the Green Belt as well as other harm.  Officers had assessed the special circumstances as outweighing the potential harm, but Members were asked to consider the balance.

Members were cautious regarding inappropriate development of the Green Belt and sought confirmation that approval of the application would not set a dangerous precedent.  The Committee was assured that, as each planning application was to be assessed on its own merit, the very special circumstances, particularly the uniqueness of the proposal and the location and the opportunity to improve the appearance and conditions of the site, would, in combination, would warrant an exception and therefore would not set a precedent for future inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Chair asked if there were any similar centres in Essex, or the UK and whether they were successful.  Members were advised the proposed wellness centre would be the first of its kind in the UK.

The Applicant, Joy Jarvis, was invited to the Committee to give her statement of support.

Councillor Rice recalled the idyllic setting of the pub around 40 years ago and the fact that since it had fallen into disrepair and become an eyesore.  He expressed enthusiasm that CABE had been involved in designing the proposal.  He welcomed the proposed centre as providing both a service and employment opportunities within Thurrock.  He commended the applicant as the site currently stuck out like a sore thumb and it was time it was cleaned up.  He supported the recommendations of CABE and the planning officers.

Councillor Ojetola agreed it was a good application, and welcomed developments that were to be the first of their kind in Thurrock.  He was concerned about balancing the harm to the Green Belt.  He advised the Committee that he was still unsure about the application.

Councillor Baker echoed the concern regarding inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  He agreed the site was an eyesore in an otherwise lovely part of Thurrock and would welcome the development, provided it did not set a precedent for future developers.

The Head of Planning & Growth assured the Committee that, collectively, the special circumstances would not set a precedent.

Councillor Piccolo welcomed the reassurance regarding the risk of setting a precedent.  Whilst he did not doubt the unique opportunity he was doubtful how much the service would benefit Thurrock residents as it was likely to be targeted towards people who could afford it more than the local residents who might need it.  He expressed surprise that there were not more special circumstances to mitigate a development that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.