Council and democracy

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 18 May 2017.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 18 May 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.

Councillors Snell, disclosed non-pecuniary interests regarding Item 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury, in that his Party had presented a petition against the development however they had not signed it personally and confirmed they were of an open mind.  He had also received emails in objection but had not read or responded.

Councillor Jones disclosed non-pecuniary interests regarding Item 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury, in the same way as Councillor Snell.

Councillor Hamilton also disclosed the same non-pecuniary interests regarding Item 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury.

Councillor Liddiard disclosed non-pecuniary interests regarding Item 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury that was much the same as the Councillors before him.

The Chair advised that he had received emails from residents but had not responded to them.  He had received an email regarding Item 11: 17/00443/TBC: Car Park, Calcutta Road, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7QA regarding loss of light.

Councillor Rice confirmed he had received emails regarding Items 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury and 10: 17/00470/FUL: 3 Longley Mews, Grays, Essex, RM16 3AG.

Councillor Churchman informed the Committee that he had received email correspondence regarding Item 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury.

Councillor Piccolo stated that he had received emails regarding Items 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury, 11: 17/00443/TBC: Car Park, Calcutta Road, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7QA.

Councillor Ojetola confirmed he had received emails regarding Items 9: 15/01354/OUT: Land Part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury and 10: 17/00470/FUL: 3 Longley Mews, Grays, Essex, RM16 3AG.

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

Councillor Ojetola asked for some context regarding the statistics within the main body of the report.  41.6% of appeals had been allowed; he queried how that compared to the Key Performance Indicator (KPI).  The Committee was advised that there was no longer a KPI in place however the previous KPI had been 31% and that still served as a useful benchmark.

Councillor Rice referred to section 3.3 of the report, Application No: 16/00941/CONDC and recalled that the site had stood empty for some time.  The real question was when Thurrock would start to see homes there.  Members heard that if the appeal was dismissed the applicant would have to bring another application to the Planning Department but at present it was a matter of waiting for the correct process.  It was confirmed that the conditions had not been discharged properly and this was a matter for the Planning inspectorate to consider.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

The application sought approval of reserved matters for Phase 3 of the project, compromising of 113 residential dwellings, new public open space, car parking and associated infrastructure. The Principal Planner’s presentation clarified the drawing number changes and the additional condition [number 7] regarding the siting of the proposed dwelling on plot 109 being set further back into the site to achieve visibility splays on this road corner in this part of the site.  

Councillor Piccolo sought clarification regarding the previous application 17/00029/NMA to remove the requirement to comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes.  This had been approved, due to the code having been rescinded nationally by the Government and therefore not required for Phase 3.  The final affordable homes provision would be dependent upon viability.

Councillor Ojetola asked what the impact of all phases together would be upon the highways network.  A Transport Assessment had been undertaken when the original outline application had been submitted and was deemed to be acceptable.  The applicant had also made financial contributions to improve the junction as it would be severely affected.

Councillor Rice asked officers to confirm the affordable housing provision.  The provision was subject to another application as required as part of the  Section106 agreement to the outline permission, which required a minimum of 10% provision for affordable housing.

Councillors raised concerns regarding the parking provision.  The Chair agreed that it seemed insufficient, however as it met the Council’s standard perhaps the standard should be addressed and the application could not be penalised.  Members queried whether Phases 1 and 2 had highlighted any problems.  It was confirmed that officers were investigating a controlled parking zone scheme to be introduced next year at residents’ request.  Phases 1 and 2 included parking on adopted highways.  There had been some complaints around commuter parking and HGV parking. Phase 3 would include off-street parking in curtilages to reduce the reliance on parking courts and parking on highways, and increased visitor spaces.

Councillor Piccolo queried section 6.24 of the application, as the figures did not correspond.  It was clarified that there would be 11 flatted units, with 8 in block B and 3 in block D.

It was proposed by the Vice-Chair and seconded by Councillor Jones that the application be approved, subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice and Graham Snell.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions.

The Principal Planner (Major Applications) advised that there had been 2 late letters of objection received, including one from Essex Field Club who wished the site to be designated as a local wildlife site and objected to the proposed mitigation measures.  The second letter was from a resident, reiterating existing objections.  The Officer confirmed that there had been no habitat survey undertaken to determine if the site qualified for local wildlife site designation..  The application sought outline planning permission for the development of 13.11 ha of land, providing up to 280 residential units, a community facility and commercial floorspace with associated landscape, flood improvement and access works.  The site lay within the Green Belt and the development was deemed to be inappropriate and therefore harmful in principle and harmful to openness.  Members were advised that it was for them to assess whether the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant clearly outweighed that harm.

Councillor Ojetola referred to previous applications nearby whereby land had been taken out of the Green Belt for development purposes.  He queried whether any compensation had been made elsewhere to replenish the Green Belt loss at the time, and it was confirmed that there had been no compensation of Green Belt.

It was clarified that Section 4.3 should have read “These letters include responses from Councillors Aker, Gledhill and Okunade.”

Officers had tried to be consistent with previous applications and appeal decisions in their assessment of the weight to be afforded to the case for very special circumstances.  Section 2.25 of the report highlighted 4 factors which were considered to amount to very special circumstances when a previous application was approved on part of the site in 2009 and these factors were given to provide some background. 

Councillor Rice asked whether, as a Local Authority, Thurrock had enough land for the 5 year housing supply. Section 6.34 of the report confirmed that Thurrock did not have a 5 year supply.  He then asked whether the previously approved application had been for the entirety of the site.  The previous permission had proposed development of 3.8 ha with 9.6 ha to remain open.

Members were concerned as to liability for costs if they were mindful to refuse.  The Committee was assured that inappropriate development of the Green Belt was a material consideration and therefore it would not be problematic, although Officers considered that the issues of ecology, flood risk and highways impact were acceptable subject to mitigation and therefore should not form a reason for objecting to the proposals.

Councillor Hamilton referred to the watercourses on the site, and asked if they were incorporated to the best of the applicant’s ability.  The existing watercourse was designated a main river and therefore had a formal status and served a drainage purpose.  The applicant had submitted an addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment ensuring this watercourse was properly modelled.  New ditch sections were also proposed for surface water attenuation.  It was queried whether there would be further ecology considerations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Principal Planner advised that the application sought permission for an extension and dormer to convert a garage to a self-contained annex.  The site lay within the Green Belt and the dwelling had already been extended by the maximum amount allowed under Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy. 

The proposed floorspace was the same as a previous application which was refused and dismissed at appeal in February 2017.  The flat roof design was also considered to be contrary to Policies PMD2 and CSTP22 of the Core Strategy, which sought to ensure high quality design in all new developments.

Councillor Snell asked Officers to confirm that the applicant would have understood that the previous extension was likely to be the maximum allowance.  Officers confirmed that a previous, larger application had been refused on floorspace and the proposal did not address this issue.  Members were reminded also that the proposed floorspace was identical to a recently refused application.

The Chair invited the agent, Stuart Light, to the Committee to present his statement of Support.

Councillor Ojetola asked whether the Planning Inspectorate had rejected evidence of ill-health or whether they had not seen it.  The Principal Officer advised that the issue of health had been considered by the Inspectorate. Councillor Ojetola asked whether the previous application and Planning Inspectorate’s decision should be taken into consideration.  The Head of Planning and Growth confirmed that it was a material consideration; there was precedent of an identical application having been refused.

A site visit, so that Members could assess the real-life impact of the additional 8ft, was proposed by Councillor Rice and seconded by the Vice-Chair.

For:                  Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo and Gerard Rice.

Against:           Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Graham Snell and Roy Jones

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred for a site visit.

The Principal Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for 35 units, comprising a mixture of three and four storey buildings, provision of car parking and communal facilities, refuse and cycle stores, associated landscape proposals and formation of a new public square.  The development would provide 100% affordable housing for over 55s, specifically designed to meet requirements of the Council’s waiting list.

The Vice-Chair advised that residents within his ward were excited about the development.  He asked whether the cycle storage would accommodate mobility scooters, and provide a power supply.  Members heard there were 22 bays outlined for scooter parking.

Councillor Jones referred to concerns regarding the height of the building and proximity to an existing care home.  The Officer advised that there was a significant distance between the two sites and the height difference was acceptable.

Councillor Piccolo queried ownership of the alleyway behind the development, and responsibilities regarding fly-tipping.  It was confirmed that the alleyway would be retained by current residents, allowing continued access to their properties.  The responsibility for the alleyway would remain as presently.

Councillor Ojetola queried the level of parking.   He asked whether parking would be restricted and what provision there was for visitors.  The Principal Planner advised there would be an access gate for security purposes which would restrict parking. The Principal Highways Engineer advised that a parking scheme in Calcutta Road was currently under investigation at the request of local residents.  There were also plans to increase off-street parking in Tilbury.  The Vice-Chair interjected that HAPPI developments were designed for wheelchair users, vulnerable residents and it would be surprising if all the residents had cars.

Councillor Hamilton raised the issue of overlooking regarding properties on Toronto Road.  The Principal Planner advised there was a condition for screens to be built to prevent overlooking from the public walkway towards the back of Toronto Road properties that many properties overlooked the communal garden and the properties closest to Toronto Road had south-facing balconies.  It was queried by Members whether trees might be planted to further mitigate, the Principal Planner advised that due to the proximity to the boundary tree-planting would be  difficult, however there were no specific concerns.

The Chair invited a resident, Mr Trew, to the Committee to present his statement of support.

The agent, Marion MacCormick was invited to present her statement of support.

The Chair queried the impact on residents in Toronto Road, such as proximity, overlooking and loss of light.  The Committee heard that the units did not face directly onto the gardens and that there would be screens along walkways to mitigate.  Units were a satisfactory distance from the existing properties and there was negligible impact in terms of loss of light.

Councillor Liddiard agreed that he would be somewhat concerned about overlooking, but the balconies faced Calcutta Road, not Toronto Road.  The development was an ideal location for elderly residents, as it was 100 yards from shops and there were good bus links.

The Campaign to Protect Rural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.