Council and democracy

Agenda and minutes

Venue: This meeting will be livestreamed and can be watched via www.thurrock.gov.uk/webcast

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

Media

Items
No. Item

65.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 281 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Referring to the Little Thurrock Marshes application, Councillor Rice said that he had mentioned accessibility to residents within the site and outside of the site that would make the area accessible within the list of the reasons given (Clerk’s note – added within the minutes of 22 October 2020). He said that he had also mentioned the Council’s five year housing supply with no 20% buffer and that the Council was failing the Government's targets for new housing (Clerk’s note – was not added within the minutes as this was not mentioned).

 

Referring to the Little Thurrock Marshes application, Cllr Lawrence said that she had mentioned that the development would provide a health and wellbeing benefit as it would enable people to walk and cycle to work and to the shops nearby (Clerk’s note – within the minutes).

 

Subject to those amendments, the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020 were approved as a true and correct record.

66.

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

 

The Chair announced that item 11 - 20/00342/FUL Land Adjacent 43 and to rear of 45 to 47, River View, Chadwell St Mary, Essex, was withdrawn from the Agenda as the call-in had been withdrawn.

67.

Declaration of Interests

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

68.

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee declared receiving correspondence from Nick Westlake in regards to application 20/01051/FUL.

 

The Committee declared receiving correspondence from Jamie McArthur in relation to application 20/00623/FUL.

 

Councillor Churchman declared receiving an objection letter in relation to 20/00985/FUL.

69.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 161 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no questions or comments from the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the report was noted.

70.

20/01051/FUL 40 High Road, Fobbing, Essex, SS17 9HN (deferred) pdf icon PDF 488 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report on pages 27 – 60 was presented by Lucy Mannion.

 

Councillor Byrne questioned whether labelling properties for over 55’s made a difference in planning laws; and in the example of an inheritance, whether someone under 55 could move into the property if the owner (over 55) passed away. Officers explained that the label of over 55’s made no difference in planning law and that a planning condition or s106 agreement (if Members were minded to approve the application) could be included to stipulate that properties were for over 55’s only. This restriction could be brought in under planning conditions but planning conditions could be changed.

 

Councillor Lawrence said that planning conditions would govern the proposal. She said that the bungalows proposed within the development were different to other bungalows as these were adapted for over 55’s. Councillor Potter said that McCarthy and Stone were a nationwide supplier of over 55’s accommodation buildings and had large complex on Crammavill Street, Stifford Clays and were strict on the age restriction. The Chair highlighted that the issue of over 55’s age restriction had already been debated at the last hearing of the application (22 October 2020) and said that clear planning reasons were needed if Members were minded to approve the application.

 

(Councillor Churchman left the meeting at 6.40pm due to technical issues.)

 

Councillor Rice highlighted that a report from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG – now known as Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) had researched and identified a need for age related housing especially bungalows which added to the reasons for departing (from the Green Belt (GB)). He went on to say that Thurrock did not have a five year housing supply or a 20% buffer and was failing each year on its housing delivery targets which were more reasons for departure (from the GB). Councillor Byrne pointed out that the report did not highlight building on the GB for housing.

 

Steve Taylor pointed out that there were a number of bungalows available for sale in Thurrock as of the morning of that day. He went on to say that (in relation to Councillor Potter’s comment) McCarthy and Stone leased their properties so were not owned. The proposed bungalows in the proposal would be sold and would be harder to enforce conditions.

 

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

 

FOR: (3) Councillors Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher and Tom Kelly.

 

AGAINST: (5) Councillors Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

The Officer’s recommendation was rejected.

 

Leigh Nicholson referred Members to the Constitution Chapter 5, Part 3, paragraph 7.4 and stated that any harm to the GB, as a point of law, must be given substantial weight and any reasons put forward to overcome this harm must clearly tip the balance the other way to overcome the harm by definition and any other harm identified from the proposal. He added that an appeal decision from a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

19/01800/FUL Medina Farm, Dennises Lane, Upminster, Essex, RM14 2XB pdf icon PDF 490 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report on pages 61 – 88 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.

 

Steve Taylor noted that the application sought permission for four years and said that the Applicant could appeal to request for a longer period of time to continue the works. Matthew Gallagher explained that there was a condition to limit the operations to four years on page 110 of the Agenda. This would apply from the commencement of works. He went on to explain that some sites may require longer periods of time such as Orsett Quarry because it was a large site but the current site should be quick as it was small and constrained in comparison.

 

The Chair questioned whether there were other concerns in regards to the application other than the additional vehicle movements in the area. Matthew Gallagher said that the area of the site was fairly isolated and the number of residential receptors were limited in Thurrock and that there were more receptors in London Borough of Havering Council. Noise movement could be noticed on the site from the works but the Environmental Health Officer did not have concerns. He said that HGV movements would be coming in from the west which was on the London Borough of Havering side but there were a limited number of receptors. He went on to say that Thurrock Council was satisfied with the application subject to conditions and that there would be a limited impact to residents.

 

Democratic Services read out the Agent, Amy McDonagh’s statement of support.

 

Councillor Rice said that to reduce the amount of dirt on the roads from HGVs, the service had to ensure that vehicle wheels were properly cleaned. Matthew Gallagher explained that the condition was that HGVs would travel along London Borough of Havering’s roads and the impact would be on those roads.

 

Proposer: The Chair.

Seconder: Councillor Rice.

 

FOR: (8) Councillors Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Tom Kelly, Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

72.

19/01799/FUL Medina Farm, Dennises Lane, Upminster, Essex, RM14 2XB pdf icon PDF 463 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report on pages 89 – 124 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.

 

Democratic Services read out the Agent, Amy McDonagh’s statement of support.

 

Proposer: The Chair.

Seconder: The Vice-Chair.

 

FOR: (8) Councillors Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Tom Kelly, Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

AGAINST: (0)

 

ABSTAINED: (0)

73.

20/00342/FUL Land Adjacent 43 and to rear of 45 to 47, River View, Chadwell St Mary, Essex pdf icon PDF 273 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda as the call-in had been withdrawn.

74.

20/00957/FUL Barmoor House, Farm Road, Chadwell St Mary, Essex, RM16 3AH pdf icon PDF 464 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report on pages 135 – 152 of the Agenda was presented by Nadia Houghton. Since the publication of the Agenda, she stated it had been noted that that the site plan attached to the Committee Report was an inaccurate red line plan but the report and planning application considered included all the correct plans and also referred to all the correct plans.

 

The Chair sought more detail on the bin stores as he noted Officer’s refusal reason number two and that the bins were close to the entrance of the site. Nadia Houghton said that the bins were located along the access road of Farm Road and that the bins were currently collected from the properties fronting Farm Road, from Farm Road. She said that in line with highways compliance, the refuse vehicle should be entering into the site at the back of Farm Road to collect the bins as the development was located to the rear of Farm Road which was a narrow road as shown in the site photos in the Officer’s presentation.

 

Councillor Lawrence mentioned that refuse vehicles in her road reversed back out and questioned whether the refuse vehicles could do the same after collecting other bins in the area. Councillor Sammons also pointed out that refuse vehicles were already collecting bins in the same area. Nadia Houghton explained that there were concerns on the design of the access and not just on refuse collection. There were no visibility splays that would allow for vehicles to move out from the road safely. Julian Howes explained that other service and emergency vehicles would also need to access the site and the Applicant had been asked to demonstrate that there were clear visibility splays at the access point and that there was sufficient turning facility for all vehicles to be able to turn around safely.

 

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.26pm to enable the Agenda to be completed.

 

Democratic Services read out the Agent, Russell Forde’s statement of support.

 

Councillor Rice stated that the site was within his ward and that residents had only objected to the roads. He suggested that a condition be included to ask that the roads be brought up to Council standards and that the application should be approved. He highlighted the DCLG’s report which identified a need for age related housing and it was also recognised in the Council’s Core Strategy 2015.

 

Steve Taylor said that the development to the front of the site was originally a single property and the current site before the Committee was the rear/garden of the development’s site and was GB. The development to the front of the site was already the maximum permitted development on the site. He highlighted that once the GB was built upon, it would not become a green open space again. The Chair noted that the site had been approved for development in 2018 and was a case of developers requesting for more development on the site. He noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

20/00985/FUL Land Adjacent Curling Lane Helleborine and Meesons Lane, Grays, Essex pdf icon PDF 423 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report on pages 153 – 174 of the Agenda was presented by Nadia Houghton. Since the publication of the Agenda, there had been two updates. The first update was that the site plan attached to the Committee Report was an inaccurate red line plan but that the application had been considered with the correct red line plan along with all plans submitted with the planning application. The second update related to the Essex Badger Protection Group who had sent their response to the Council stating that they had no objections to the scheme proposed subject to the conditions included in the application.

 

The Chair questioned whether there was an outcome on the appeal from the previous application for this site yet to which Nadia Houghton confirmed that there was not an outcome yet as the decision was awaited. He questioned why the Applicant had chosen to submit a new application instead. Nadia Houghton advised it was up to the Applicant as to whether a planning application was submitted, and explained that there may have been potential delays in the appeal process due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that submitting another application was an option to the Applicant.

 

The Vice-Chair noted that the site was not GB and questioned whether Officers had considered that this site was the only open space in the area that had not been built upon. He also pointed out that Chafford Hundred was overdeveloped but the area of this site was not considered overdeveloped by Officers. He was concerned about over cramping in Badgers Dene. Nadia Houghton explained that the site was designated as residential land so there was no consideration for loss of open space. There was an open space which was a children’s recreation play area very close by the site on Meesons Lane. It was considered that the proposal would not result in over cramping with the six proposed dwellings so there were no objections on open space grounds. She also said that each site had to be considered on its own merits and that the current site was on the edge of the estate. The proposal would not be removing any open space in the area and would provide fully compliant garden spaces.

 

Councillor Lawrence referred to paragraph 6.7 and questioned whether there would be overshadowing. She noted that the design of the proposed dwellings would have ‘yellow and red rustic brick cladding’ which she questioned whether this would be out of character with the area. She also raised concerns on badgers on the site and asked if this had been checked. She pointed out that badgers could not be seen in the day and highlighted her concerns that planning conditions could be changed.

 

Nadia Houghton explained that the roofs on the proposed dwellings meant the scheme had high ecological credentials and the development as a whole would provide an almost carbon-free development which was unusual. She referred to paragraph 6.7 and said that it was in relation to overshading which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

20/00623/FUL Waterworks, High Road, Fobbing, Essex, SS17 9JW pdf icon PDF 898 KB

Report to follow.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report (which can be found on the Council’s website https://democracy.thurrock.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=5884&Ver=4) was presented by Chris Purvis. Since the publication of the Agenda, there had been some updates:

 

  • The NHS had provided a consultation response that identified the financial amount of £66,400 needed to mitigate the impact on the healthcare sector;
  • Updated plans for condition 2.
  • Condition 25 had additional text that included surveys in regards to Great Crested Newts and reptiles.
  • Paragraph 1.2 should be read as 6 one bed apartments and 15 two bed apartments.
  • For the total parking, it should be read as 342 spaces for the allocated/unallocated that was in total and in addition to the visitor spaces which would equate to a total of 388 spaces in the site.
  • There were a couple of other minor changes.

 

Democratic Services read out the Resident, Vicki Barrett’s statement of objection.

Catherine Williams, the Agent, read out her statement of support.

 

Councillor Sammons note the reservoir within the site plans and questioned whether fencing would be placed around it. She went on to ask what type of fencing would be placed there and who would be maintaining that fencing. Referring to the railway barriers in the area of the site, she noted that these were half barriers and raised safety concerns and the dangers over these as her ward area also had half barriers. She noted that there was no response from the railway organisation on the consultation and felt concerned as this would be the near the proposed dwellings of the development and would be their exit route. Chris Purvis answered that there was an existing reservoir on the site that was covered up. He said that the proposal was to remove, infill and build in the location of  the reservoir. Regarding the railway barriers, he confirmed that these were currently half barriers that prevented people from crossing over when it was down. He went on to say that the barriers were the responsibility of Network Rail and that Network Rail had been consulted but had not provided a response which could mean that they had no objections to the proposal.

 

The Vice-Chair questioned what affordable housing meant for Bellway Homes and how much of the proposed homes were allocated for social housing. The Committee discussed the potential costs of the proposed dwellings. Chris Purvis said that the Applicant’s Planning Statement confirmed 59 affordable housing units which was 35% and consisting of a mix of one and two bed apartments; two and three bedroom houses; and four one bed wheelchair units. The tenure of these complied with Council policies in regards to 70% social housing and 30% intermediate housing which complied with NPPF guidelines. There was no detail on the pricing of the proposed properties.

 

Steve Taylor noted the response to the consultation from Highways in regards to the railway barriers and sought further details. He also highlighted issues in the road after the railway line of traffic queues that could potentially risk cars being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.