To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 June 2017.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 June 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.

There were no declarations of interests.

All Members declared receipt of correspondence regarding Item 11: 17/00548/REM: Land to the east of Euclid Way and South of West Thurrock Way, West Thurrock, Essex.

Councillor Gerard Rice also declared that he had received correspondence regarding Item 8: 17/00470/FUL: 3 Longley Mews, Grays, Essex, RM16 3AG, as it was situated within his ward.

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

Councillor B. Little declared that his property neighboured the site of the application.  However, as he had not been present at the previous meeting, when the application had been deferred, he would not participate in this item.

The application, which sought permission for an extension and dormer to convert a garage to a self-contained annex, had been deferred at the previous meeting so that Members could attend a site visit. 

Councillor Rice asked the Principal Planner for confirmation that there had been no additional weight given to the medical circumstances since the item had been deferred.  The Committee was advised that no further medical evidence had been received in relation to the application since it was previously presented to Members.

The Chair expressed that he felt the site visit had been important in allowing Members of the Committee to assess the site of the application.  The report was conclusive, and since no additional medical evidence had been received there was the risk of setting an unhelpful precedent.

Councillor Rice interjected that the Committee was often reminded by the Assistant Director for Planning and Growth that each application should be assessed on its own merit and therefore there was no issue around precedent.  The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified that while each application was, rightly, assessed on its own merit, previous decisions of the Committee could be a consideration in future.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Piccolo that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Graham Hamilton, Terry Piccolo and Graham Snell.

Against:           Councillors Tunde Ojetola and Gerard Rice

Abstained:       (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused.

The application sought outline planning permissions for redevelopment of the site for the provision of up to 75 dwellings with vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access, internal access roads, footpaths, cycle ways, parking, public open space, landscaping and drainage infrastructure.  The application had been submitted with all matters reserved except for access, which was for consideration. 

The applicant had worked with the Education and Housing officer during the process of the application. A contribution of just under £176,000 had been agreed with the Education Officer. The applicant had also agreed to a policy compliant 35% affordable housing comprising 26 dwellings, with a 50 / 50 split between affordable rented accommodation and intermediate tenures. The Principal Officer confirmed that the report was recommended for approval subject to conditions and the above contributions towards education and provision of affordable housing.

Councillor Hamilton sought clarity that there was to be one vehicular access route and one route for pedestrian / cycle access.  This was confirmed to be correct.  Councillor Hamilton expressed concern that this would not be adequate.  The Principal Highways Engineer advised the Committee that for the proposed number of dwellings 1 access route was acceptable, and would not need to be increased unless there were 200+ dwellings proposed.  Devonshire Road was a very high category road and therefore was deemed to be suitable, and preferable to another junction on London Road, given queue lengths at the existing junction.

Councillor Ojetola queried whether the current 40mph speed limit would be reduced to 30 mph with the introduction of a new junction.  The Principal Highways Engineer agreed that it would conceivably be appropriate to reduce the speed for the proposed section of Devonshire Road, which was within the single lane per direction stretch.

Councillor Ojetola also queried the provision of green space available.  Members were advised that, while the plan at present was indicative and might not be final, the Planning department was satisfied that the space could fit the proposed number of units with adequate gardens. 

Councillor Piccolo highlighted the remaining parcel of green space and asked whether it might be developed at a later stage.  Members were advised that the land was in close proximity to the NuStar fuel storage (COMAH) site and for that reason the area could not be developed at this time. However it may be able to be developed in the future.  Councillor Hamilton asked if it might be used as parkland. Members were advised that  the proximity to the fuel tanks made it unsuitable for public use.

The Chair asked whether trees along the back of the site were existing or to be planted.  The Principal Officer advised that some were existing and would be part of landscaping and screening for the development.

Councillor Ojetola queried the catchment schools, which were confirmed to be Hathaway Academy, William Edwards, Grays Convent, Harris Academy and Gateway Academy.

A resident, Michelle Peters, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of objection.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Gerrish, was invited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The application sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing 5 bedroom house to 2 x 1 bedroom flats.  An existing building to the rear of the garden of the main house that was built as an ancillary outbuilding would be used as a separate dwelling.  A similar recent application for the conversion of the house into 3 flats was refused by Committee and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in January 2017. The refused application included parking in the rear garden area of the dwelling; that was the sole reason the Planing Inspectorate refused the appeal.  The current proposal saw all parking located to the front of the site or in the undercroft and accordingly the sole remaining reason for objection had been removed.

Councillor Ojetola asked for clarification regarding the proposed parking provision.  The Officer advised provision was similar to the existing layout. 

Councillor Hamilton asked whether cars parked in the undercroft would hinder access; the Officer advised it would be possible to fit past.

The Chair expressed that he was uncomfortable with parking beneath the property and splitting a house up into flats however the applicant had listened to all suggestions made by the Planning Inspectorate and therefore it would be difficult to refuse.

The Vice-Chair agreed that he was not keen but there were no material considerations on which to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Ojetola agreed that as it complied with rules, regulations and policies the Committee’s hand had almost been forced.

Councillor Piccolo noted that many properties included garages which formed an integral part of the building.  He was also unhappy with the idea of new premises within a back garden; however he could not see any way not to follow the recommendation for approval.

Councillor Hamilton sought confirmation of what was proposed for the space above the undercroft; it was confirmed to be a lounge and bathroom.  He asked whether vehicles could use the undercroft as a through route to the back property and it was confirmed that they couldn’t go further than the rear wall of the property.

Councillor Rice stated he felt duty-bound to support.  People within Thurrock needed homes and if brown-field applications were not supported it risked development of Green Belt land.

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

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

Against:           (0)

Abstained:       (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planner (Major Applications) began by informing Members that the department had received a late letter, which was not included within the agenda.  It referenced surface water drainage which was the subject of a condition of the outline approval and therefore not for consideration as part of this reserved matters submission.  The application sought approval of the reserved matters, namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, for Phase 1 of the outline (residential) part of permission ref. 13/01231/FUL.  This application comprised the construction of 214 residential dwellings, new public open space, car parking and associated infrastructure works.

Councillor B. Little queried the provision for affordable housing.  The Committee heard that there was no affordable housing included within the proposal, but this had been jusitifed by a viability assessment at the outline stage which had been considered by Committee in 2014.

Councillor Ojetola sought clarification around the point of access.  It would be via West Thurrock Way, with minor remodelling of the roundabout nearest KFC.  There was also a S106 requirement to ensure a bus link and the service would also be funded via a contribution within the existing S106 agreement.  If the proposed supermarket were built there would be another point of access from the same roundabout.

The Agent, Catherine Williams, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support.

Councillor Ojetola asked what impact the 214 units would have upon the local catchment schools.  Members were reminded that this was a reserved matters application and the impact upon local education, GP services etc. had been considered at the outline stage and found acceptable. 

Councillor Hamilton asked for further details regarding the proposed bus route.  The route would be part of the hopper service and this stretch was one piece of a larger picture, in attempts to create a circular route to encourage more users and visitors to the Lakeside Basin  to use bus services.  The route had been agreed with operators, and as the residential road would not have heavy traffic it was deemed that there would be no detrimental impact.  Everything requested at the outline stage had been provided.

Councillor Piccolo asked if there was any possibility of an updated viability assessment to see if there was any hope of affordable housing provision.  He expressed his concern that the residential route could become a ‘rat run’ during peak traffic.  Since the supermarket had been the main driver of the S106 contributions he asked whether it would be phased.

The Principal Planner (Major Applications) confirmed that Officers and Committee Members had been satisfied that the cost of decontamination of the site were high and that this factor influenced the capability of delivering affordable housing.  There would be bus control measures such as a bus gate as it would be undesirable for vehicles to cut through.  The S106 payments were triggered in part by commercial construction and in part by the residential development. 

Councillor Rice welcomed the application which would transform Lakeside into a town.  The site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Councillors Rice and Snell excused themselves from this item, as they sat at Gloriana board meetings.

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of 80 dwellings, comprising a variety of one – three storey houses, with associated roads, parking, refuse and bicycle storage and amenity space

The Committee queried the proposed access routes.  The application had been accompanied by a transport assessment and the access proposals proposed a one-way route through the new development, entering via Roseberry Road and exiting via Belmont Road.  A new road was also proposed along the Southern boundary of the site to maintain the existing rear access to properties, which would also be one-way.  The existing residential roads would remain two-way.

It was proposed by Councillor Ojetola and seconded by the Vice-Chair that the application be deferred for a site visit to enable Members to assess the capacity of the existing roads and fully grasp the proposed changes to access.

For:                  Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Graham Hamilton and Tunde Ojetola.

Against:           Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Terry Piccolo and Brian Little.

Abstained:       (0)

As there were equal votes for and against, the Chair exercised the casting vote and the proposal was dismissed.

Councillor B. Little queried the insulation standard and solar panels proposed, and what assurances were in place.  Condition 7 ensured roof-mounted photovoltaic panels and energy efficiency measures would be a building regulations matter as opposed to a planning condition, as the Government suspended the Code for Sustainable Homes in 2015.

Councillor Piccolo queried the capacity for parking within the turning heads compared to the additional spaces proposed within the application, to see if it would be sufficient to mitigate the loss of parking.  The Principal Highways Engineer advised the Committee that turning heads should not be used for parking.  The provision for parking within the application was above the Council’s draft parking standard and the applicant had strived to replicate the capacity within the turning heads.  The proposed changes also offered improved access for refuse vehicles.

The Chair accepted that there was a recurring “grey area” within Thurrock where turning circles were used as parking, which was understandable given some of the narrow roads.  He noted that there was no way to access the relief road from Roseberry Road and therefore its residents were seemingly worst affected.

A resident, Mrs Caramuscia, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of objection.

The agent, Judith Tranter, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support.

Councillor Hamilton expressed concern at traffic exiting the new estate and joining a 2 way road.  The Traffic Assessment had found that accessibility for existing residents would not be impacted materially.  The additional traffic movements and queue lengths were not considered to be unacceptable under the Council’s policy.

Councilllor B. Little asked what could be done to avoid construction traffic using the existing residential roads to access the site.  Condition 6(e)  required details to be submitted and approved.  There would ideally be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Principal Planner (Major Applications) advised that items 13 and 14 were related.  The application sought approval of amendments to the development parameters of the outline planning permission 12/00862/OUT.

Councillor B. Little asked for clarity around the proposed changes.  There were no changes to highways; the matter for consideration was principally the location of unit 2 which would be relocated closert to the southern boundary of the site than the approved parameters..

Councillor Hamilton asked whether traffic entering London Road could turn both left and right.  It was confirmed that access was permitted in both directions at a new junction onto the A1306.

The agent, Mark Stitch, was invited to the Committee to present their statement of support.

It was proposed by Councillor Ojetola and seconded by the Chair that the details reserved by condition no.6 (Parameter Plan) be approved, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Graham Hamilton, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Graham Snell and Brian Little.

Against:           (0)

Abstained:       (0)

RESOLVED:

That the details reserved by condition no.6 (Parameter Plan) be approved.

The application sought approval of reserved matters comprising appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline planning permission ref. 12/00862/OUT.

The agent, Mark Stitch, was invited to the Committee to present their statement of support.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor B. Little that the details be approved, subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Graham Hamilton, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Graham Snell and Brian Little.

Against:           (0)

Abstained:       (0)

RESOLVED:

That the details be approved subject to conditions.