To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 August 2018.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 August 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.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor Kelly declared on behalf of all Councillors of the Planning Committee they received correspondence from Bellway Homes in regards to application 18/00507/FUL, Land Adjacent Moore Avenue, Devonshire Road and also a question received by a resident which was answered by the Committee.

Councillor Rice declared on behalf of all Councillors of the Planning Committee they received an email from the applicant sharing the statement of support in regards to application 18/00988/HHA Farmhouse Manor House Farm, Bulphan, Essex RM14 3TJ. The Chair was unsure whether this was received by all Members prior to the Committee

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted the report.

It was highlighted before the above item was discussed that Councillor Sammons would not have the opportunity to vote or comment on the above item as she was absent from the Committee when it was initially presented.

The planning application was a proposal for a redevelopment of the site to provide 102 dwellings and associated access, parking, public open space, landscaping and drainage infrastructure.

The application was initially presented at the Planning Committee on 16 August 2018, however it was deferred to enable Officers to consider whether funding could be secured for NHS England to improve local healthcare facilities. The Principal Planner explained that the NHS England have sought a financial contribution towards the Thurrock Health Centre in Grays.  However following further discussions with NHS England Officers advised that the contribution sought could not be secured without specific references to the Council Infrastructure Requirements List [IRL] as a specific CIL compliant project shall need to be listed in the IRL to enable the Council to secure a financial contribution. The Principal Planner advised that Officers would be working with the NHS to update the IRL with regards to the including the relevant healthcare projects on the IRL list.

The Principal Planner advised the Committee that since the publication of the agenda, the applicant had agreed to provide the full NHS contribution. Members were advised that The Heads of Terms of the s.106 had been updated to include the following:

(i)         The provision of 23% of the dwellings as affordable housing (intermediate tenure – 10 x 1 bed and 13 x 2 bed);

(ii)        Financial contribution of £568,389.07 (subject to indexation) payable prior to first occupation towards the cost of additional primary school places (Belmont Academy) and secondary school places (William Edwards).

(iii)       Review mechanism in the event that the scheme has not reached slab level on 50 units within 2 years of consent being granted

(iv)       Financial contribution of £40,227 (subject to indexation) towards local healthcare facilities payable prior to first occupation. NHS England to identify a CIL regulation compliant IRL project within three months of the date of planning permission being granted. 

(v)        In the event that NHS England do not identify such a project, the financial contribution of £40,227 will be distributed, at the Council’s discretion, towards the provision of affordable housing and/or education contributions.

This application sought full planning permission and proposed a new access road into the estate of 102 new dwellings, with the provision of 23% as affordable housing and the financial contribution of £568,389.07 (subject to indexation) payable prior to first occupation towards the cost of additional primary school places (Belmont Academy) and secondary school places (William Edwards).

The Principal Planner stated the planning conditions will remain the same from the previous Committee meeting.

The Chair opened the Committee to questions.

Councillor Rice wanted clarity on whether the land to the north of the site could be conditioned to be used for open space as it be difficult to develop as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Following Councillor Piccolo declaration of non-pecuniary interest he removed himself from the Chambers whilst the above application was being discussed.

The Chair also advised that he would leave the Chamber for the application as he was not present when the application was initially taken to Planning Committee.

The Chair and Councillor Piccolo left the Chambers at 19.20

The Principle Planner explained that this item had been deferred on two separate occasions from the Planning Committee in June 2018, initially it was deferred to allow a site visit to take place. The item was then considered at the Planning Committee in July 2018 where Members again deferred the application to request for the applicant to reduce the size of the building.

The planning application initially was for the proposal of a two storey block for A1 retail use, storage and office spaces. Since the application was deferred twice the applicant had made amendments to the height of the building reducing the height by 150mm.The Principal Planner explained that the applicant would not be able to reduce the height of the building any more as it would eventually remove full use of the 1st floor. The Principal Planner advised that this is the third planning application for this development.

It was recommended that the Planning application be approved subject to conditions. 

The Vice-Chair opened the Committee to questions

Councillor Jefferies asked what the difference in height was from the original application to the application being proposed at Committee this evening. The Principal Planner explained that since the July meeting amended plans have been received showing the proposed building reduced in height by 150mm. This means the highest part of the building would be 5.5m high instead of 5.65m high on the western elevation of the building. The proposed mono-pitched roof would slope to a height of 4.5m.

The Vice-Chair opened the Committee to debate the application

The Vice-Chair felt that the applicant had done their best to improve the design of the building and to satisfy local residents by reducing the height.

It was proposed by Councillor Liddiard and seconded by Councillor Churchman that the application be approved subject to conditions.

For (5): Councillor S Liddiard, C Churchman, A Jefferies, S Sammons and G Rice.

Against: (0)

Abstain: (2): Councillors T Kelly and T Piccolo

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to conditions.

The Chair and Councillor Piccolo entered at 19:28

The proposal was for full planning permission for the erection of a new warehouse and distribution centre (B8 Use Class) with ancillary offices, two associated gate house buildings and two welfare hubs, the proposal would also seek 24 hour use.

The Principal Planner advised the Committee that this was a larger development than previously submitted. The outline permission in 2014 for application 12/00862/OUT was followed by the reserved matters permission which permitted two warehouse buildings on the site. This application still remains a live consent until 22 August 2019, therefore it can still be implemented.

The Principal Planner referred to page 79 point 3.4 of the Agenda.

It was confirmed by the Principal Planner that the residents currently living in Purfleet would not be affected by the proposed building. The site located close to the Wennington junction interchange and Purfleet road had been realigned and noise barriers would be in place to ensure residents were not affected by the 24 hour use.

The HGV access to the site, would be a separate route into the warehouse and on leaving the site they would not have the opportunity to turn left at Purfleet Road due to the properties and a weight restriction in place.

The proposed warehouse would offer onsite parking for employees, with one large warehouse furthest away from all the homes on Purfleet road. There would be loading bays on site.

The newly developed warehouse would provide employment opportunities for residents in Thurrock and would allow a good access route to the Wennington interchange, which would reduce the opportunity for HGV’s driving into Purfleet.

The Chair opened the Committee to questions regarding the planning application 18/00830/FUL.

The Chair asked what precautions were in place to prevent HGV’s from turning left on Purfleet Road, as there were not any physical restrictions other than the weight restriction. The Principal Planner confirmed that the junction was designed to prevent anyone turning left out of the site as there was a weight restriction in place to the left of the junction.

Councillor Rice referred to page 80 point 4.10 as it discussed the various people consulted and the Flood Risk advisors have objected to the application and he asked if this had been rectified. The Principal Planner confirmed that this was resolved through the inclusion of a surface water management plan condition.

Councillor Sammons wanted clarity on the proposed building as the pictures shared looked as though the warehouse would be built directly opposite the residents properties on Purfleet Road. The Principal Planner stated the residents on Purfleet Road have a landscape bund and that this would screen the warehouse. It would be designed to ensure that the residents would not be affected visually and include noise barriers.

Councillor Churchman shared his concerns for residents that would be affected by the lighting of the warehouse and the lighting in the car parks on site. The Principal Planner advised the car park would be multi storey  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The planning application proposed a two storey front extension, single storey side extensions, and alterations to the roof, basement and single storey garage block with associated hard standing following the demolition of existing side extension and outbuilding. The site is located in Bulphan within the Green Belt.

The application was called in by Councillors G Rice, S Shinnick, L Worrall, C Baldwin and B Rice to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of the Green Belt policy.

The Principal Planner referred to a number of photos shown of the site and where the existing building is located.

The Principal Planner confirmed that there had been a number of Lawful Development Certificates granted since the previous appeal on the site although only one had been implemented.

The Principal Planner stated the only building which will be demolished would be the existing outbuilding.

The Principal Planner shared one update within the report on page 113 point 6.6, which stated that the existing building was original dwelling was for the purpose of Green Belt policy. However, it was confirmed that the two storey rear extension allowed under permitted development has been built. This two storey rear extension has a floor space of 93sqm which already exceeds the 46sqm proportionate extension allowance. The previous application in 2009 was refused by the Planning Committee as the proposed building would impact on the Green Belt.

The Chair opened the Committee to questions

Councillor Rice asked if there were any objections for the proposed application from neighbours. The Principal Planner confirmed there had been no letters of objection received in regards to this.

Councillor Rice asked if the applicant could extend the building through permitted development, although they would not have the right to do all that was being requested as part of the planning application.  He also noted that a Manor House is supposed to be a large building and would ask if conditions could be imposed to remove permitted development. The Principal Planner agreed if they are granting planning permission then the Permitted development rights could be removed, although it would not restrict a considerable amount or stop planning applications.

The Principal Planner briefed the committee on the extensive planning history on this site. In 2012 a two storey rear extension and increase in roof height to part of the existing roof slope and replacement chimney was proposed and this was approved at Planning Committee. In 2016 a single storey side extension and outbuilding was also approved, along with single storey side extensions in 2017.

The Principal Planner advised the very special circumstances argument put forward in this case was capable of being replicated elsewhere. There are a large number of houses in the borough that do have permitted development rights and could put forward the same argument.

Councillor Jefferies asked for clarity on the size and how it compares to the extensions which could be carried out under permitted development. Councillor Kelly shared that it was less than what was being proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Chair confirmed that the following application 18/01035/TBC had been withdrawn from the agenda and the Planning Committee meeting.

The Chair confirmed that the following application 18/01033/TBC had been withdrawn from the agenda and the Planning Committee meeting.

The above application seeks planning permission to replace the existing shop front and shutters with a new powder coated aluminium storefront a toughened safety glazing panel floor and roller shutter. This application was to be determined by the Planning Committee as the Council’s Corporate Property Department is the application.

The application was recommended for permission subject to conditions.

The Principal Planner confirmed that there would be no impact on the residents of Tilbury.

For (8): Councillors T Kelly, S Liddiard, C Churchman, A Jefferies, T Piccolo, G Rice, S Sammons and A Lawrence.

Against: (0)

Abstain: (0)

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to conditions as per the Officer’s recommendations.