Council and democracy

Agenda and minutes

Venue: This meeting will be livestreamed and can be watched via https://www.youtube.com/user/thurrockcouncil

Contact: Wendy Le, Democratic Services Officer  Email: Direct.Democracy@thurrock.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

7.

Minutes

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 June 2020 will be approved at the next Planning Committee meeting.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 June 2020 will be approved at the next Planning Committee meeting.

8.

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.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

 

The Chair informed the Committee that item 10 would be moved down the Agenda and would be heard after item 12.

9.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

10.

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of receipt of correspondences.

11.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 191 KB

Minutes:

Councillor Rice referred to Chadwell St Mary and said that he was aware of a stop notice that was in place regarding the land and asked for more details. He went on to ask if the land would be cleared and landscaped back to its previous visual appearance. Leigh Nicholson explained that a stop and enforcement notice had been served to the landowner which included certain requirements that had to be complied with. The details would be circulated to Planning Committee Members via email.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Members noted the report.

 

12.

19/01140/OUT Intu Lakeside, West Thurrock Way, West Thurrock, Essex, RM20 2ZP pdf icon PDF 831 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report was presented by Chris Purvis which can be found on pages 19 – 82 of the Agenda. Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions and s106 as outlined on pages 52 – 82 of the Agenda.

 

The Vice-Chair noted that the proposed new bus station would be in a position that often had traffic congestion and asked whether there were plans for this to be managed. Chris Purvis explained that this had been assessed in the transport assessment of the report which had been through a thorough consultation process with the Council’s Highways Officer and bus operators. There had been no objections to the impact from the movements of the buses from the new bus station.

 

Councillor Rice queried whether the application was dependent on the road improvements from the A13 East Facing Slip Road. Chris Purvis confirmed that it would not be dependent upon this and went on to say that the application site had similar previous applications dating back to 2011 and 2016 that had approved the same amount of development and was therefore not reliant upon the A13 East Facing Access Scheme.

 

Councillor Rice asked if there would be job opportunities arising out of an approval of the application and how long it would take for the development to be implemented. Chris Purvis answered that there would be 3,700 jobs made available from the construction operational phases of the development. Chris Purvis explained that there were a few stages in the next steps of implementation that involved putting reserved matters forward and a phasing plan. There were no exact details of the phasing arrangements but this was a requirement of a planning condition. It was anticipated to be undertaken in the next 5 years as the planning consent was for 5 years and reserved matters would need to be submitted within this time. Councillor Rice mentioned that the Prime Minister had advised for projects to be ‘shovel ready projects’ explaining that projects should be implemented as soon as possible to provide extra employment opportunities.

 

The Applicant, Matthew Nicholson’s statement of support was read out by Democratic Services.

 

The Chair commented on how successful the recent £75 million leisure scheme at Intu Lakeside had been and that the proposal would further Intu Lakeside’s development. He was pleased that the developers planned to keep the car parking spaces as many people still travelled by car to the shopping centre and he hoped that phasing of the development would not take too long.

 

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Rice.

 

(In line with the Council’s Constitution, Chapter 5, Part 3, 13.5, Councillor Potter was unable to participate in the vote as he had been unable to hear the whole item clearly through MST.)

 

(Councillor Potter left at 7.05pm due to MST issues.)

 

FOR: (7)Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Angela Lawrence, Gary Byrne, Sue Sammons, Sue Shinnick and Gerard Rice.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

 

The application was approved subject to conditions and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

20/00408/FUL Manor View, Southend Road, Corringham, Essex, SS17 9EY pdf icon PDF 471 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by Chris Purvis which can be found on pages 83 – 100 of the Agenda. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission as outlined on pages 98 – 99 of the Agenda.

 

Councillor Rice raised several questions:

 

If the Committee were mindful to refuse the application, how would travellers be removed from the site?

What would happen if the application was refused and the decision was appealed by the Applicant?

 

Chris Purvis explained that the temporary planning permission for the site was expiring on 16 July and if the application was refused, then an enforcement notice would be issued to require removal of the occupiers from the site and the cessation of the use. The notice would outline the steps to follow to vacate the land and to restore the land back to its former use. The Council would also liaise with occupiers to see if there was an alternative location they could go to. If an appeal was submitted, then the Council would need to await until the outcome of the appeal before any enforcement action could be taken. The Council could still serve an enforcement notice and the Applicant would have the right to appeal that too. The Planning Inspectorate may consider the enforcement notice and the refusal of planning permission through an appeal. The timeframe for an appeal decision was usually around 12 months from when an appeal is submitted but there may be a backlog due to current lockdown restrictions.

 

The Vice-Chair felt that the neighbour's objections needed to be taken into consideration because if planning permission was granted then the temporary structures would become permanent. Chris Purvis said that if the Committee were minded to approve, officers would need to look at the reasons given for an approval and whether the structures on site could be permanent.

 

Referring to page 95, 6.36, Councillor Rice questioned how much weight had been given to unmet need for traveller sites. Indicating to the table on page 96, Chris Purvis said that the table identified the weight applied to the factors promoted as Very Special Circumstances. Unmet need for traveller sites was given significant weight which was consistent with appeal decisions. Paragraphs 6.32 and 6.33 also recognised the need for traveller pitches within the Borough and outlined that this would be addressed as part of the new Local Plan process.

 

The residents, Mr and Mrs Gunson’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

 

The Agent, Brian Woods’ statement of support was read out by Democratic Services.

 

Agreeing with officer’s recommendation, the Chair said that Ward Members had experienced similar applications in their own wards and sympathised with the neighbours effected. He felt that if the Committee was minded to approve, it could send out the wrong message regarding Green Belt sites. He said that he was aware of the shortage of traveller sites in the Borough but accepted that it would be assessed through the Local Plan process.

 

The Committee went on to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

19/01373/OUT Land Adjacent Wood View and Chadwell Road, Grays, Essex pdf icon PDF 511 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher which can be found on pages 111 – 138 of the Agenda. Since the publication of the Agenda, there had been two late letters of objection. The first objection referred to the potential for traffic congestion, increase in pollution and the loss of existing green space. The second objection referred to the issue of access to the site, potential for traffic congestion, potential for anti-social behaviour and a concern that there could be a noise disturbance from the new play area proposed within the application. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission as outlined on pages 135 – 136 of the Agenda.

 

The Chair noted a reference made to a Bulphan site that was similar to the application before the Committee which had gone to appeal and asked for more details. Matthew Gallagher explained that in June last year, the Committee had considered an application in Bulphan, behind Church Road, for 116 dwellings, for outline planning permission with all matters apart from access reserved. That application had been refused by Committee, the Applicant had subsequently appealed and the appeal had been very recently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. It had been dismissed on the basis that it was inappropriate development on the Green Belt and the impact that the development would have on the openness of the site. The Inspector had also considered whether or not the proposal would be in accordance with the environmental dimension sustainable development as outlined in the NPPF. The Green Belt conclusion was that there was harm by way of definitional harm; by way of harm to openness; and by way of harm to two of the Green Belt purposes. The Applicant, in the Bulphan application, had promoted a five-year housing land supply and also affordable housing as benefits and the Inspectorate had concluded that those factors attracted a significant weight in favour of the proposal. But in terms of the other benefits that the Applicant, in the Bulphan application, had relied on, which were built sustainability, improved community facilities and reference to the emerging Local Plan issues and options consultation the Inspector took these into account but said that the issues and options consultation was an option only, therefore it had no weight in the planning balance. So harm to Green Belt was not clearly outweighed in the Bulphan application, therefore that appeal was dismissed.

 

Councillor Lawrence asked if the application was for preliminary permission and whether the details in the proposals could be changed if given approval.

Matthew Gallagher explained that the application was for outline planning permission and that the Applicant was seeking to establish the principle of residential development. The proposed layout was indicative however it was the principle of agreeing or not agreeing on the residential development that was at stake and if the Committee were minded to approve, contrary to recommendation, then the principle of residential development would be established.

 

Noting the photos of the site shown in the officer’s presentation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

19/01824/TBC Land and Garages, Defoe Parade, Chadwell St Mary, Essex pdf icon PDF 267 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher which can be found on pages 139 – 148 of the Agenda. The proposal for the application stated a ‘conversion of existing garages’ and Matthew Gallagher stated that it was a ‘conversion and part extension of existing garages’ as there would be an extension of the garages. Officer’s recommendation was to approve subject to conditions as outlined on pages 145 – 147 of the Agenda.

 

The Committee welcomed the application’s proposal as the site area was derelict and the proposal would provide homes for the elderly as well as improve the area. The Committee suggested that similar types of garages in similar conditions should also be looked at particularly those in South Ockendon.

 

Councillor Rice proposed the Officer’s recommendation and the Vice-Chair seconded this.

 

FOR: (7) Councillor Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Gary Byrne, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons, Angela Lawrence and Sue Shinnick.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

 

The application was approved subject to conditions.

16.

20/00048/FUL Marvy Jade, Rear of 150 and 152 London Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 5YD pdf icon PDF 383 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by Nadia Houghton which can be found on pages 101 – 110 of the Agenda. Referring to page 109 under 8.1, 1, Nadia Houghton pointed out that CSTP23 should read CSTP22. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission and to follow up with enforcement action as outlined on page 109 of the Agenda.

 

The Chair noted that there were complaints of smells from objectors to the application as mentioned in the report and sought more details. Nadia Houghton explained that neighbours had made complaints to the Council’s Environmental Health regarding the smells arising from the site area. However, the application referred to the use of the storage containers for electronic goods and not for dried fish but the siting of the containers were harmful to the appearance and character of the residential area.

 

The Ward Councillor, Tony Fish’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

 

Steve Taylor noted that there was a school within the area and raised concerns over potential traffic congestion with potential deliveries being made to the containers. Nadia Houghton explained that there had been no objections from the Council’s Highways Team and that the issue was that the containers were not visually appropriate for the area.

 

Councillor Lawrence sought clarification on which retail unit along London Road the containers belonged to. Nadia Houghton answered that the current use of the retail units was not known as the units fell outside of the application site. She went on to say that the yard comprising of the application site outlined in red had been sold and ownership of the retail unit and yard area had been separated over the years.

 

The Chair felt that the containers were not ideal for the site and a purpose built storage unit would be a better option.

 

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation and was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

 

FOR: (7) Councillor Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Gary Byrne, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons, Angela Lawrence and Sue Shinnick.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

 

The application was refused planning permission.

17.

19/01837/TBC Riverside Business Centre, Fort Road, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7ND pdf icon PDF 577 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by Nadia Houghton which can be found on pages 149 – 172 of the Agenda. Officer’s recommendation was to approve subject to conditions as outlined on pages 160 – 170 of the Agenda.

 

A business representative, Craig Austin’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

 

The Chair noted issues of access raised within the speaker’s objection statement and asked how these could be resolved. Nadia Houghton answered that discussions had taken place with the Council’s Highways Team who were content that adequate manoeuvres could be made within the final development as shown in the application’s site plans and in the construction phase. There were also adequate parking spaces available both during construction and after completion. She referred to condition 16 on page 168 of the Agenda which addressed the need to agree the parking layout and the issues that were raised by the tenant.

Councillor Lawrence proposed the Officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Rice.

 

FOR: (7) Councillor Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Gary Byrne, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons, Angela Lawrence and Sue Shinnick.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

 

The application was approved subject to conditions.