To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11 January 2018.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11 January 2018 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.

The Chair informed the Committee that Item 11 – Application 17/01527/HHA: 2 Oval Gardens, Grays, Essex, RM17 5NR had been withdrawn by the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection due to discrepancies within the plans submitted.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection clarified that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be determined at a later date, to allow these concerns to be addressed.

There were no declarations of interests.

The Chair declared receipt of emails, on behalf of the entire Committee.

Firstly an email relating to Item 8 – Application 17/01504/FUL: Stanford Le Hope Railway Station, London Road, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 0JX from the speaker presenting a statement of objection and secondly an email from the applicant in relation to Item 10 – Application 17/01506/FUL: Former Harrow Inn, Harrow Lane, Bulphan, Essex, RM14 3RL.

Councillor Piccolo declared that he had met with residents regarding Item 8 – Application 17/01504/FUL: Stanford Le Hope Railway Station, London Road, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 0JX however he was still of an open mind regarding determination of the application.

The report provided Members with information regarding planning appeal performance.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Committee noted the report.

The application sought planning permission for redevelopment of the existing station to provide a new station building of 517 sq.m., a new footbridge, forecourt and associated vehicle drop-off and pick-up areas, 84 new cycle spaces and ancillary retail (Class A1/A3) premises.  The Committee was advised that there had been amendments to include updated plan nos.  It was suggested that Condition 7 should be amended to reference acoustic fencing; Condition 10 should be amended to read ‘The commercial unit hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes falling within the Classes A1 or A3 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning [Use Classes] Order 1987 [as amended] and for no other purpose.’  There should also be an additional condition restricting hours of operation of the retail unit to 6:00am-10:00pm.

Councillor Ojetola sought further information regarding the new parking area and bus drop-off point.  It was confirmed that the existing station building would be moved further south, allowing more space for a drop-off / pick-up area for taxis and potential for a bus turnaround area with a bus shelter.

Councillor Hamilton noted that plans showed the bus turnaround cutting across a zebra crossing and asked if that did not raise a potential safety hazard.  The Senior Highways Engineer confirmed that, provided the pedestrian crossing was marked correctly, there would be no real concerns.

Councillor Hamilton also queried how many carriages could be facilitated along the platform.  The platform had been extended in recent years and therefore there was potential for up to 12 carriages.

A resident, Paul Ward, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of objection.

The Agent, Stephen Humphry, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

Councillor Piccolo requested more detail regarding expected footfall and whether the additional 700 would be all at once, surely there would be limitations due to carriage capacity.  Officers confirmed that the application would facilitate an interchange to encourage sustainable transport and reduce vehicle movements which was supported by both national and local policy.  It would be difficult to qualify exact movements and times however ‘peak’ time was 7am-9am so it would not be the case that all 700 would arrive in one hit.  DP World and London Gateway had arranged their shift patterns so as not to coincide with peak time specifically to avoid such a scenario.  There was also the potential added benefit that these additional 700 commuters would be taken off the road network.

Councillor Ojetola appreciated the concerns raised by residents but felt officers had rightly balanced these concerns with the potential to reduce vehicle movements on the local road network.  He commended officers for their efforts to mitigate the impact upon neighbouring properties.  Were the application refused the increased footfall could still occur at the station and therefore he was happy to support it.

Councillor Rice agreed that it was a good application which would improve local infrastructure and take some cars off local roads.  It would also provide a long-term benefit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The application sought to vary condition nos. 2 (accordance with approved plans), 3 (duration of temporary permission), 10 (scheme of landscaping,) and18 (penetrative construction methods) of planning permission ref. 14/00836/FUL (Erection of solar Photovoltaic (PV) arrays with associated infrastructure (ancillary equipment includes inverters, transformers and substations), access tracks, fencing and security including pole mounted CCTV on Ockendon Landfill Site).  The Committee heard there was a proposed change in Condition 2 to include an additional plan amending the layout of the solar farm to introduce more capacity, although reducing the height of the structures.  The proposed amendment to condition no. 3 sought to extend the lifetime of the permission and consequential changes to landscaping were addressed by condition no. 10  The proposed amendment to condition 18 would address the potential for penetrative foundations into the capping layer above the former landfill site.  The Committee was advised that an additional drawing showing the individual land parcels had been submitted.

Councillor Ojetola questioned sought clarification as to why the work had not commenced within the timeframe for work to start, given the application was from 2014.  The application was not determined by the Planning Committee until November 2014 and then was subject to approval by the Secretary of State and s.106 discussions.  Final permission had not been granted until 2016 and during that time national subsidies for solar power had been reduced or withdrawn.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative queried the location of the site in relation to an overhead power line to the East and the proposed Lower Thames Crossing Route.  Members were advised that there was a power line to the east of the site, a gas easement to the north which would sterilise part of the site and the draft alignment of the Lower Thames Crossing which was in the public domain ran East to West immediately adjacent to the North of the Site.

Councillor Ojetola left the Committee at 19:59

Councillor Snell questioned asked if the reduction in height was in order to fit more rows of panels.  It was confirmed that panels would need to be arranged in such a way that they did not overshadow each other.  The original scheme did not include piles however this application had the potential to drive the aluminium frames into the cap layer without disrupting the landfill.  However this was only a potential and there was a condition whereby ‘in the event that’ such work could not commence without a scheme submitted to the Council for approval, therefore reserving the Committee’s position.

Councillor Piccolo noted that recommendation 18 was ‘if’ but queried whether there was a condition regarding how piles would be repaired or treated in 40 years’ time.  The Committee was advised that Condition 4 was a standard decommissioning agreement which required a Decommissioning Method Statement to be submitted and approved.

Councillor Churchman also questioned what would happen to the land after the duration of the temporary permissions, and if it would return to the public domain.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached 3 bedroom dwelling and detached quadruple garage to be ancillary to the approved Wellness Centre (16/01446/FUL) at the site.  The application was deemed to be inappropriate development of the Green Belt and detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt.  In addition the development would have a detrimental impact upon the open fenland landscape and the flood risk assessment which had been submitted related to the approved wellness centre and not for the proposed dwelling, therefore this did not demonstrate safety for its lifetime. The application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Snell sought clarification that the proposal did not remove the 2-bedroom flat within the wellness centre.  Officers expected the wellness centre to be built as planned, including the flat for managers accommodation.

Councillor Rice felt it was a question of security; the Chair questioned whether this was the case.  The Committee heard that the approved plans for the wellness centre included a 2-bedroom flat, within the main building, which would provide security and in terms of night-time security there would be external cameras and lights which could be controlled and monitored from the control room within the premises.  Officers advised that the original plans could be revised to seek a more favourable alternative to a large, detached dwelling, such as additional staff facilities within the Wellness Centre through a revised layout or a minor extension to the building.

The Chair noted the site had been derelict and queried what other developments were in the area.  The site was in a rural location and developments nearby were farms or other agricultural land use and landscaping.

The Chair continued to question the flood risk assessment, which had not been specific to the proposed dwelling, and why that raised concern.  The Flood Risk Assessment submitted referred to the wellness centre and not the proposed dwelling.  The Wellness Centre was located more in Flood Zone 2 whereas  the proposed dwelling was shown to  be located in Flood Zone  3A, which was the highest risk flood zone. 

Councillor Rice questioned whether revised accommodation within the footprint or nearer to the wellness centre would be preferable.  He didn’t want to see a business fail and staff security was important.  A separate dwelling would still impact upon the Green Belt and the approved building was already bigger than previous development on the site.  The proposal would add significantly to the footprint.  Officers reiterated that there may be an opportunity to redesign the approved wellness centre internally so as to not impact upon the Green Belt further.

Councillor Hamilton sought clarification that 6.31 of the application report identified no risk of reduced security and that 6.33 gave the impression of a large mansion.  He sought to be clear that no weight should be given to these circumstances, as outlined in 6.35.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative noted that there would be client bedrooms within the wellness centre, therefore the building would be occupied 24hours.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda, to be determined at a later date.