Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 19th March, 2020 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. View directions

Contact: Wendy Le, Democratic Services Officer  Email:

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 269 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 February 2020.



Referring to planning application 19/01662/FUL, Councillor Lawrence asked why the application had not come back to this Committee meeting. Leigh Nicholson, Interim Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection explained that emails had been circulated to Committee Members outlining that a significant amount of new information had been submitted from the Applicant which required attention. The report was due to come back at the next available Planning Committee meeting.


The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 February 2020 was approved as a true and correct record.


Item of Urgent Business

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.


The Chair thanked Committee Members, Officers and members of the public for their attendance and reminded everyone to follow government guidance regarding the current Coronavirus situation.


Declaration of Interests


There were no declarations of interest.


Declarations of receipt of correspondence and/or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning application or enforcement action to be resolved at this meeting


The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that Members had received a phone call and email from the Agent in relation to planning application 19/01058/OUT.


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 197 KB


The report was introduced by Leigh Nicholson. The Committee was satisfied with the report.




That the Committee noted the report.


19/01058/OUT - Land part of Little Thurrock Marshes, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury pdf icon PDF 608 KB


The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher, Major Applications Manager. The report sought outline planning permission for a mixed residential and commercial development of up to 161 dwellings, 7,650 sq.m of Class B1(c)/B2/B8 floor space and ancillary development. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed on page 64 of the Agenda.


The full details of the application can be found on pages 29 - 66 of the Agenda.


Noting that Amazon was within the area, Councillor Lawrence asked if the site where Amazon was had previously been Green Belt. Matthew Gallagher confirmed that the site of Amazon had previously been Green Belt which had been promoted for development through the Core Strategy and therefore out of the Green Belt along with a few other sites.


Councillor Lawrence went on to ask how often the Core Strategy would be updated. Matthew Gallagher answered that the draft Local Plan had undergone 2 Issues and Options consultation stages. The recent Issues and Options Stage 2 consultation will inform the draft plan currently in preparation for future publication. Leigh Nicholson added that it would be 18 – 24 months for publication and advised Members that the timetable for the Local Plan had recently been presented to the Local Development Plan Task Force group.


The Chair noted that the previous planning application for the Little Thurrock Marshes site had been refused with a vote of 5 against and 4 in favour of the proposal. He noted that this had gone on to a public inquiry and the subsequent Inspector’s report had supported the vote for refusal. He went on to ask how Officer’s had come to the conclusion in this current planning application to recommend refuse planning permission.


Matthew Gallagher explained that the previous planning application had been recommended for approval due to the benefits that the proposal had offered at the time and Members had taken the view on balance and rejected the application. This refusal had been tested during the public inquiry and the Inspector had been robust in their report and had not been satisfied that the harm to the Green Belt was clearly outweighed by the benefits. The Inspector’s report was highly relevant to this current planning application before the Committee and helped to shape the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.


Councillor Rice mentioned that the Tilbury 2 would be opening on 1 April 2020 which would result in the creation of thousands of jobs. This would then lead to a high demand for homes in the locality and he felt the proposed dwellings would accommodate this potential new demand. He went on to mention that Thurrock had a low housing supply and homes were needed. The Chair questioned whether the Port of Tilbury had been involved in the consultation process of the planning application.


Referring to page 38 of the Agenda, Matthew Gallagher highlighted paragraph 5.16 which contained Port of Tilbury’s consultation response. There had also been further consultation with the Council’s Highways Team and Highways England.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.


19/01814/OUT - Tremorgan, Sandown Road, Orsett, RM16 3DD pdf icon PDF 617 KB


Matthew Gallagher introduced the report by stating that there had been 6 late objection letters received and a petition with 22 signatures objecting to the planning application. The consultation response from the Flood Risk Manager objecting to the application had also been removed.


The report outlined that the application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the construction of up to ten two-storey houses with associated amenity space, vehicular parking and landscaping. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined on pages 79 – 80 of the Agenda.


The full details of the application can be found on pages 67 - 82 of the Agenda.


Regarding the low affordable housing, the Chair questioned how the Applicant aimed to resolve this. Matthew Gallagher explained that 35% of proposed homes should be affordable housing but this did not form part of the proposal. He went on to say that if the Applicant wished to discuss other ways to secure affordable housing, this would be a discussion for the Council’s Housing team.


Councillor Rice said that he had visited the site which was complex and proposed that the Committee held a site visit to fully understand the development plans as there were also a number of units that were currently being built nearby.


Councillor Byrne noted the proposal stated up to 10 proposed dwellings and queried whether this could be lower such as 7 or 8 dwellings. Matthew Gallagher explained that the proposal requested outline planning permission which sought to reserve everything given within the planning application (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale). It was normal for planning applications to state ‘up to 10’ or a certain number and it was usually taken to mean that the application sought to build 10 houses or the number given.


Councillor Lawrence noted that the proposal outlined lacked certain details such as affordable housing and agreed a site visit would be ideal. She questioned whether this would also give time for the Applicant to clarify certain details within the application and sort through the reasons for refusal of the application. Matthew Gallagher answered that the Flood Risk Manager had withdrawn their holding objection but the issue of the Green Belt remained. He went on to say that if the application was deferred for a site visit, Officers would need to check if the site, where other units were being built could be visited. As there was also no offer for affordable housing, this would still form a reason for refusing the application.


Councillor Rice proposed a site visit and Councillor Lawrence seconded this.


For: (6) Councillors Mike Fletcher (Vice-Chair), Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.


Against: (2) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair) and Gary Byrne.


Abstained: (0)


Matthew Gallagher stated that the site was a construction site and would take a while to arrange a site visit.


This planning application was deferred for a site visit.