Council and democracy

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 September 2018.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 September 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 interests declared.

The Chair declared on behalf of all Committee Members that he received correspondence in regards to the following applications: 18/00988/HHA, 17/00403/FUL and Councillor Rice declared that all Committee Members received correspondence in regards to 18/00994/FUL

The report provided information regarding Planning appeal performance.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the report.

The Chair praised the Planning Department at Thurrock Council for achieving the joint highest ranking for speed of determination of planning applications in the Country.

This application had been considered at the previous Planning Committee on 13 September 2018 however it was deferred to allow Officers to prepare a report outlining the implications of making decisions contrary to Officers recommendations. The application sought planning permission for a two storey front extension, single storey side extension, and alterations to the roofing, basement and single storey garage block with associated hardstanding following the demolition of existing side extension and outbuilding.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt which is harmful by definition and further harm was identified through the size and number of the extensions. The proposal would also have an adverse impact upon the street scene and the character of the area.

The Chair made the Committee aware that due to Councillor Shinnick sending her apologies at the meeting on 13 September, she would be unable to vote on this item.

The Chair informed the Committee that this was a deferred item from 13 September’s Planning Committee and it was not often Members go against Officers recommendations. Based on the conversations at last month’s Committee it was evident that it was almost unanimous across the Committee that they would potentially be voting in favour of this application. He went on to state that Members and Officers ensure that all applications are assessed on their own merits.

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained the recommendation remained one of refusal. 

The Chair begun the debate and felt the application should be approved.

The Chair moved a motion to approve the application against the report’s recommendations and it was seconded by Councillor Rice. The reasons for this were that Members did not feel the greenbelt would be harmed due to the extended building. He felt the extensions were more suitable than the works that could be carried out under Permitted Development rights.

Councillor Rice explained that a lot of information was provided at the last Committee regarding this particular item, however, under Permitted Development rights the applicant would be able to do a lot more than the current application and due to this he felt the application should be approved. There were no objections from members of the public against the extended building which was considered to be positive. He suggested the Permitted Development rights should be removed as part of a condition on the permission. He also noted that the site was surrounded by a number of tall buildings and it would be positive to have executive homes within the borough.

Councillor Piccolo felt the extended building would improve the area and it would still provide a reasonable amount of open space on the site after the extensions are completed.

The summarised debate and confirmed the very special circumstances identified by the Planning Committee were as follows:-

1.    The building is considered to be more suitable than what could be carried out under permitted development;

2.  The proposal would provide a large executive house for which there is a need for in the Borough;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Chair pointed out that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda and will be heard at a following Committee.

The Application sought permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide 256 dwellings, with associated private and public amenity space, means of enclosure, parking, vehicle and pedestrian accesses and drainage.  The application site comprises the former Gala Bingo, Frankie and Bennies, KFC and the parking areas to the north and disused land to the south.

The original hybrid application submitted in 2013 was for the wider site and full permission was granted for commercial development with outline permission granted for residential development (ref. 13/01231/FUL).  Reserved matters approval pursuant to the outline was granted in 2017 and Bellway Homes are developing this first phase which is under construction (ref. 17/00548/REM).  The full permission for commercial development (13/01231/FUL) has not been implemented which has resulted in the current proposal for residential development.

The proposed development includes two storey houses and three and four storey blocks of flats. Three blocks of flats are proposed to the front of West Thurrock Way, which would include a four storey high positioned horizontally to the road and would have double gabled roofing. The proposed dwellings are a short distance to Chafford Hundred station and Lakeside Shopping centre. There would be no provision for affordable homes or any other financial contribution for Education and Health Care due to the costs associated with remediation for contamination of the site. The applicant had produced a Viability Assessment which has stated they cannot provide affordable housing. This assessment had been independently verified on behalf of the Council.

There had been no objections made although there is a risk that the dwellings will be developed on flood risk zone 3 according to a Flood Risk Assessment which was submitted.

The Principal Planner highlighted an error on the report on page 91 conditions nos. 16 and 18 “Sound proofing/Noise Insulation” as the condition was included twice. Condition no. 18 should therefore be deleted.  It was also advised that the recommendation at para. 8.1 (i) of the report should include additional wording such that if a viability review is undertaken and that review concludes that financial contributions can be supported then those contributions would be considered in light of the consultation responses referred to in the report and priorities applying at the time of the review.

Councillor Rice agreed Thurrock is in need of newly built homes, however he felt it would be important for a charging point for electric cars to be explored, as this will prevent and reduce the pollution in the Borough. There were concerns with no affordable housing being offered within the 256 dwellings. The Principal Planner referred back to the question about charging points for electric cars as it was not included in the report on condition 9, page 89, “travel plan”. However the measures which conclude were not yet confirmed and this could be explored with the applicant to ensure something is put in place for this. 

Mr Taylor sought further information with regards to the Viability Review as the applicant had advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The application sought planning permission for the development of 127 homes which comprise one, two and three bedroom homes and apartments. The access to the site would be taken from a similar location which serves the existing field, but would be upgraded to form a bellmouth junction onto the Stanford Road. This will lead into the associated internal roads serving the development. To the North and North West of the site on Stanford Road a cycleway and footpath will be formed. The proposed development would comprise with a mix of houses and three apartment blocks and a play area for children. The layout of the site and the open areas to the South East are defined by the requirements of the flood zones and drainage strategy for the site. The applicant has spent a significant amount of time since the application was first received working with officers on the design of the scheme and has worked with CABE to amend the scheme. The parking provision would be within the Council’s required standards. The application proposes a policy complaint 35% of the development for affordable housing.

Councillor Rice noted that there would be 35% of affordable homes, however he felt it would be positive to take contributions off site and build on the Council’s own land for houses instead of flats. There had been no reference in the report regarding electric charging ports which should be essential on all new dwellings. Councillor Rice recommended as part of the conditions this should be included.

The Principal Planner confirmed that Housing Officers were in agreement with the proposed provision of affordable dwellings, and their type. The applicant was attempting to build a balanced community. Councillor Rice disagreed and felt that the Local Authority should be allowed to build houses instead of flats as families would need houses and not flats.

Councillor Piccolo understood what was being said by Councillor Rice, however he felt that the majority of applications do not provide affordable homes therefore this application should be accepted as they are willing to provide affordable housing although it may not be for families it will give youngsters the opportunity to get onto the housing ladder, which is already a difficult challenge for them.

The Agent, Mr James Bompas, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

The Chair was in favour of the application as the applicant was willing to provide affordable housing. He agreed that the electric charger points should be included and suggested this should be added to the conditions.

Councillor Rice did not agree with the application, due to the affordable housing provision as the applicant was offering flats and not houses. Although they were proposing 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties for the private market he felt a contribution should be made offsite which could provide a mix of houses. He felt as the proposed dwellings were not fit for families and there was a considerable amount of families on the housing waiting list.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The application sought permission for variation of planning conditions associated with the restoration of the site which was originally granted in 1986 and have been subject to subsequent change. The current planning permission is for the restoration and re-use of the site which was approved in March 2013 and this consent was issue as part of the s.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The restoration materials would be delivered via the river as HGV movements as ceased in 2016. The current permission required restoration of the site by June 2018, the applicant is now seeking a further 5 years for completion and to allow the aftercare of the site.

The applicant is required to re-profile the land as there are concerns with differential settlement and ponding which would require additional soil. On the northern part of the site the Essex Wildlife Trust is in full use, and there is a footpath along the site which is open to the public as a nature park. Due to the poor drainage the footpath to the south of the site is currently flooded. The applicant is looking to revise surface drainage arrangements to address this issue.

The site is located in the green belt, although the proposed engineering operations can be considered as appropriate development.  There had been no objections received and Officers agree it would be the best timing to progress with the site. The representation from Mucking Charitable Trust expressed their concerns with the length of time the restoration has taken to complete. There is an existing 106 agreement in place with relevant planning conditions.

Mr Taylor sought clarification on the application and what they were requesting to complete. The Principal Planner confirmed that the applicant is requesting an extra 5 years to complete site restoration. He referred to common issues of differential settlement, such as at Belhus landfill site which is undergoing restoration before it opens to the public as a country park.

Councillor Sammons asked what guarantees would there be in place to ensure that this application was completed in 5 years as the site was still ongoing. The Principal Planner agreed and advised that the applicant was intending to be completed by Summer 2018 however there are parts of the site which are currently available to the public.

The Principal Planner advised that there were no firm guarantees that restoration would be completed in 5 years, although the applicant has completed an assessment on the amount of material required to complete the restoration and this indicates that the material could be imported in 5 years. When the application was approved in 2013 by the Planning Committee legal advice indicated that options for enforcing a time limit for completion were limited. Councillor Sammons referred to an email she had received stating that the footpath was not accessible as there were trees blocking the pathway.

The Agent, Ms Sarah Holland, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support.

The Chair felt the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a 2 bedroom bungalow with amenity space together with hard surfacing to allow for 2 parking spaces. Access would be taken from Kirkham Shaw.

The wider application site had significant planning history for residential use back from 2006. In 2011 an application was approved for the cessation of the site for dog breeding purposes, with demolition of 3 buildings and conversion of 3 buildings to residential properties with associated, parking, gardens and landscaping (subsequent application to amend this scheme were made).

In 2016 planning permission was also granted for the replacement chalet bungalow at Dahlia Cottage, the permission sought a revised design from an earlier application in 2008 which was approved.

The site where the proposed dwelling is being requested was an area in which was to be left as open space and landscaped under the previous approvals.

The site is located within the Green Belt and the construction of a new residential property is inappropriate development and therefore unacceptable in principle.

The agent had not provided any very special circumstance for the application, however the contents of the Design and Access statement made a reference to the floorspace from the replacement Dahlia Cottage dwelling. The applicant based their case on the reduction in floor space between the two applications for Dahlia Cottage, the application approved in 2008 and the amended plan approved in 2016. The applicant stated the approved application in 2008 had a total floor area of 177.8sq.m and the area of the approved application in 2016 was 103.2 sq.m leaving 74.6 sq.m which the applicant said could be used for the new dwelling.

The Chair asked if there was a clear Google Earth image of the site to provide the Committee. The Principal Planner advised that the only images they could provide were the ones being shown.

The Applicant, Ms Jennifer Eaton, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support.

The Chair began the debate and felt this was a unique application.  He considered that there do not appear to be enough bungalows being built within Thurrock and they are being knocked down to building other dwellings. He disagreed with the comments made that the dwelling would impact on the openness and Green Belt, and stated there had only been one complaint received regarding the parking.

Councillor Rice proposed a site visit to the site to gather more insight on the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Rice and seconded by Councillor Shinnick that a site visit be arranged for the Committee. The planning application would be deferred until after the site visit had taken place.

Site visit:

For:                  (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Andrew Jefferies,  Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (1) Councillor Angela Lawrence,

DEFERRED:

Until after a site visit

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a terrace of 4 residential dwellings following the demolition of existing buildings on the site and associated hardstanding and landscaping. The site is currently under development which was approved through two previous planning applications. The terrace would propose a pitched roof design and with a parking area and new access road through the site. The accommodation within the terrace would be set over 3 floors.  This site itself is located on the south side of Stanford Road and was previously a redundant farmyard.

The proposed 4 dwellings would be located in the Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development unless it was to fall within one of the exceptions set out in the NPPF. The development relied upon the pre-existing buildings on the site to justify this development in the Green Belt. These buildings are required to be removed under conditions imposed on the previous permission.  As a result the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The terrace would be located in close proximity to Stanford Road and result in a significant adverse impact upon the street scene and general character of the area.

The site is located adjacent to the Grade II* Listed Building at St Cleres Hall. The proposed terrace is located in close proximity to the boundary with the listed building and would result in a significant adverse impact upon its setting.

The Principal Planner highlighted two amendments on the report as Historic England had responded and advised they do not have any comments to add. Officers should rely upon their own Historic Building Advisor.  The second amendment was on page 196, reasons for refusal point 3, and is to reflect the wording within the NPPF and should state “substantial harm to” instead of “significant adverse impact upon”.

Councillor Jefferies sought clarification on whether the dwellings would be seen from the road and from the maps shown during Committee. The Principal Planner advised that it would not be immediately in front of the road view, it would block the view of the grade II* listed building from Stanford Road.

The Chair opened the Committee to debate the item.

The Chair began the debate and explained the building would dominate the area and he would not be willing to support the application.

Councillor Rice proposed for a site visit to gather more information and understanding of the site in person.

Councillor Piccolo expressed the concerns with this application as it had been the 3rd application on the site. The application should have brought the whole site as one application. The proposed dwellings would be dominant from Stanford Road and it would sit very close to St Cleres Hall. The local residents have also made it clear they would not be happy with the proposed dwellings.

Councillor Lawrence explained that there was already a new building on the site which is accessed via the road to the rear of St Cleres Hall.

Mr Taylor remembered a debate on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The application sought a condition variation to the previous planning permission for a weight loss and wellness centre providing 21 rooms, with the demolition of the former public house and restaurant. The proposal sought changes to the previously approved plans to allow the main building to benefit from room layout changes and alterations.  These changes would also result in amendments to the window and door design of the building. The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and is surrounded by open space although there would be no greater harm to the Green Belt. Majority of the site is located within the highest Flood Risk Zone 3 as identified on the Environment Agency flood map.

Councillor Rice felt positively about the application as the site was previously a redundant pub out of use for around 20 years.

It was proposed by the Vice-Chair Councillor Liddiard and seconded by Councillor Shinnick that the application be approved.

For:                  (6) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Andrew Jefferies, Angela Lawrence, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved.

The application sought planning permission for the proposed an additional Manager’s accommodation with a double garage to the approved Wellness Centre on the site. The internal layout is separated into two and the ground floor will provide two entrances. One entrance would be for the Manger’s work space which will include a meeting training room and mangers office with an en-suite bedroom towards the rear with a kitchen area for the Duty Manager when covering the Wellness Centre. The second entrance would lead to the residential part of the property. The dwelling proposed would be two storeys high with a flat roof and include a detached double garage and store, substantial rear private garden area and hardstanding to the frontage. The new development would also be enclosed with a 3m high boundary fence.

The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and is surrounded by open land and the majority of the site is located within the highest Flood Risk Zone 3.

The Chair asked if there were any complaints received, and he wanted clarity on the height of the fencing around the building. The Principal Planner confirmed that there had been no complaints received and there was no clarity on why the fencing was 3 metres.

Councillor Rice had some sympathy for the applicant, he referred to the Lower Thames Crossing which will potentially be built and therefore should allow the applicant to have a 3 metres fence around the wellness centre. There were no objections received from the Flood Risk Manager.

The Principal Planner advised that there were no objections from both Environment Agency and Floor Risk Management subject to the proposal complying with sequential and exceptions tests as required by both the Environment Agency and national planning guidance.  The vast majority of the site will be in high flood risk zone 3. The use of the building as predominantly a dwelling puts it in a more vulnerable use when compared to the use of the Wellness Centre.

Councillor Rice stated that this would be the finishing touches to the Wellness Centre. The Principal Planner advised that the site area falls upon land which would form part of the landscaping for the Wellness Centre.  The proposed dwelling would be contrary to both local and national Green Belt policy.

The Applicant, Joy Jarvis, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of support. She confirmed that the fence was in fact 2 metres and not 3 metres and the plans, as submitted, were incorrect.

The Chair informed that the above statement from the applicant would need to be amended on the application.

Councillor Churchman asked if the flood risk assessment was generic on the site or if it was one that had been paid for by the applicant. The Chair agreed with what was being shared by the applicant. The Strategic Lead – Development Services explained to the Committee that the map shared was sent from the Environment Agency shows the majority of the site in high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The application sought planning permission for the refurbishment of the library including a new entrance ramp, changes to fenestration, external draught lobby and accessible parking spaces. The site is located to the rear of Stanford House in East Tilbury.

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

For:                  (9) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair) Colin Churchman, Andrew Jefferies, Angela Lawrence, Terry Piccolo, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to conditions.