To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting held on 19 November 2020 and the Planning Committee meeting held on 26 November 2020.

Councillor Rice said that the figures quoted in the Planning Committee meeting on 26 November 2020 on the number of bungalows for sale in Thurrock was incorrect and asked that these be amended.

Subject to this amendment, the minutes of the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting held on 19 November 2020 and the Planning Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2020 were approved as a true and correct record.

Councillor Rice raised the following queries on past planning applications as a decision had been made on some of these applications (Malgraves Farm) almost a year ago:

• Malgraves Farm – when would the s106 be signed off to enable the hospice to be handed over?
• Little Thurrock Marshes – update on the s106 conditions and whether the application had been sent to the Secretary of State.
• Woodside – whether the application had been sent to the Secretary of State.

Officers explained that a decision to approve made by Planning Committee contrary to Officer’s recommendations to refuse followed a set of procedural steps to provide the required information for the Secretary of State before it was referred to the Secretary of State. This included Officers formulating conditions and agreeing these along with any s106 obligations with the Applicant, the Chair and the Assistant Director. Officers updated the Members on:

• Woodview – After the approval decision made by Members on 19 November 2020, the Agent was offered the opportunity to formulate conditions to speed the process along but Officers had not received a response. Officers would be following up next week.
• Little Thurrock Marshes – Officers had been in contact with the Agent regarding the conditions and Officers would be working out the conditions this week.
• Langdon Hills – There were outstanding conditions in relation to the health and social care elements of the agreement that was fundamental to the proposal. Officers would ensure these details were included and would be sending the response to the Applicant next week.
• Malgraves Farm – the Applicant had submitted an updated s106 agreement which had some slightly unexpected changes that Officers were reviewing. A revised draft would be sent back to the Applicant next week.

The Committee discussed the above applications further and Councillor Lawrence mentioned that the Agent for 20/01051/FUL had contacted her to let her know that they were awaiting a response from Officers.  The Chair would liaise further with Officers outside of Committee.

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.

Councillor Churchman declared an interest on 20/00592/OUT The Springhouse, Springhouse Road, Corringham, Essex, SS17 7QT as his family were members of The Springhouse Club. He would remove himself from participating and voting on the application.

Steve Taylor declared an interest on 20/00592/OUT The Springhouse, Springhouse Road, Corringham, Essex, SS17 7QT as he was a member of The Springhouse Club.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair declared:

·       Receiving an email on 20/00242/FUL from Councillors John Allen and Martin Kerin, who both supported the application.

·       Receiving an email on 20/00957/FUL from John Gatrell in relation to the access road being improved.

There were no questions or comments from Members.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The report on pages 37 – 60 of the Agenda was presented by Lucy Mannion.

Councillor Lawrence asked whether a solution had been provided for the issues at the traffic light junction where cars were ‘bumping up’ the kerb to park in front of the site. She also asked if the Applicant had provided Very Special Circumstances (VSC) as the site was on Green Belt (GB). Lucy Mannion explained that the highways issue had been considered at the site visit and that it was an existing right of way due to the garages adjacent to the site. The issue of cars ‘bumping up’ the kerb had stopped and had happened a few times previously. She went on to say that the site was GB but needed no VSC as it fell within an exception in the NPPF so did not constitute inappropriate development in the GB.

Councillor Sammons did not feel the issue of cars ‘bumping up’ the kerb had been resolved as she had seen a large lorry on the site visit ‘bump up’ the kerb for a delivery. The Chair sought clarification on the bins collection point; access to the site; and if a taller fence had been installed. Julian Howes explained that a knee high rail had been installed and that the temporary access from London Road would be turned into landscaping. Following on from that, a new rail would be installed at the end where it joined to London Road, to prevent vehicles from driving onto the grass verge. The Highways Team was unable to do this yet as vehicles were allowed to access the temporary car park there.

Regarding the bins collection point, Lucy Mannion would look into this. The Chair thought the landscaping of the temporary access would resolve the bins collection issue. He went on to say that the application was to be approved, it would be on the proviso that the bins collection issue and access issue would be resolved. The Committee further highlighted their concerns over the access which they felt should be resolved and that road infrastructure was important. Members felt the application should be deferred to enable the Applicant to resolve these issues. Councillor Lawrence felt the proposal was not in keeping with the area or with St Clere’s Hall which was next to the site and built in 1735. She questioned the development position of St Clere’s Hall. Members also questioned whether the access could be blocked off to enable the users of the garage to access it only.

Julian Howes explained that currently, users were using the access road that was in front of the properties on London Road which was over a drop kerb and there was no ‘bumping over’ kerb as it had been stopped. Once the development was completed, access to the development would be via the existing St Clere’s Hall golf course and if needed, fencing would be installed at the end of the grass area to prevent access from that direction entirely.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The report on pages 61 – 80 of the Agenda was presented by Nadia Houghton.

Members raised queries over the collection point for the bins as the photos in the Officer’s presentation showed bins in the proposed vehicular access road. Members questioned whether the refuse vehicles could reverse into that road and drive back out. Members mentioned that an email received by the Committee from the Applicant, John Gatrell, had suggested that the bins could be moved closer to the site’s entrance and asked if bins could be left at the entrance to the site.

Nadia Houghton explained that the bins that were currently on that road related to the new build bungalows and was serviced from Farm Road by a refuse vehicle. The proposed development was to the rear of that site and it was expected that refuse collection would be serviced entirely from its own site. She was unable to comment on John Gatrell’s email as Officers had not received this. She went on to say that there had been no other details received in regards to bin provision from any other location on the site. It was not ideal for refuse vehicles to collect bins from Farm Road as it could lead to further congestion on the road given the proposal could result in a total of  fourteen dwellings located on this short stretch of road that would cause congestion and potentially block off the access and the road. Julian Howes confirmed that the Highways Team had asked the Applicant to clarify if vehicles could get into the access road and be able to turn around to get out but had not received further details on this. If vehicles could do this, the Highways Team would find this acceptable as long as there was also appropriate visibility when vehicles exited the development as well.

Members commented that the issue of the refuse vehicles accessing that road could be resolved through s106 planning conditions if the application was approved and that the issue of the GB had to be considered. Members pointed out that some refuse vehicles stopped in the middle of the road to collect bins and Farm Road had little traffic and it would not be likely that all 14 cars would exit the site simultaneously. Steve Taylor mentioned that he had seen a refuse vehicle u-turn in the road and reverse down Farm Road before coming forward to pick up the bins.

Nadia Houghton clarified that she had referred to the 14 dwellings in her presentation earlier and not 14 cars. The concern was that the proposal had inadequate access that enabled servicing of the site and general access to the site. She went on to explain that the second reason for refusal was not in regards to bin access or storage, it was about the safety of the access in Farm Road which was a narrow road that was not wide enough for refuse vehicles to swing into. There were highway safety concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

The report on pages 81 – 156 of the Agenda was presented by Chris Purvis. An updated version of Appendix 1 was circulated to Members and uploaded on the Council’s website.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.17pm to enable the Agenda to be completed.

Councillor Rice noted that Network Rail did not have objections to the application and he asked if the half barriers were sufficient for 170 new houses. He said that Members objected to the half barriers and asked whether a s106 condition could be added to resolve this issue. He noted that it was mentioned that there were 400 lorry movements a day although some Members did not see a lorry move whilst on the site visit. Chris Purvis explained that Network Rail was responsible for the railway barriers and that the Council had been in contact with Network Rail to establish whether they would install alternative barriers. Network Rail confirmed that they had no objection and were not looking to change the barriers so Members would be determining the application with the barriers as they were. The half barriers were the responsibility of Network Rail and the Council had no authority to change these so adding an s106 condition would be difficult. He went on to explain that there could have been lorry movements seen on the other Member site visits (Clerk’s note - these had been separated into groups following national government guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic) and that the movements stated within the report was accurate and had been considered as part of the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Shinnick supported the proposal. She was pleased to see that the access had been moved further along the road which would take the pressure away from the railway barriers. Councillor Lawrence thought the access was still too close to the bend so an accident could still occur particularly when the barriers were down. She was still concerned on the half barriers particularly as foot traffic would increase with the development and she suggested that the Applicant could contribute some funds towards full barriers. She also disputed the lorry movements as the site was run down and did not have much activity although this would increase if the development was there. She sought clarification as to why Basildon Council objected to the application as she objected to the application for the reasons of the half barriers being in place and the increase of traffic that the development would have an impact on the roundabouts in the area. She also pointed out that the affordable homes proposed was near the railway line which was not a nice location. She thought the application could be approved with certain conditions otherwise it should be deferred until the issues she mentioned was resolved.

The Chair pointed out that the half barriers were Network Rail’s responsibility and could not ask for the Applicant to contribute funds for a new barrier and that the access had been moved to a more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The report on pages 157 – 202 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.

The Chair thought the proposal was good but questioned why there were no affordable homes. He noted that 1.7 car park spaces per dwelling was suggested and that the site was not near a train station. He questioned if car park spaces could be increased. Matthew Gallagher confirmed that there was no affordable housing and it was not a factor that weighed in favour of the proposal. The cost of a new football stadium was a factor and the viability assessment had showed that there was no money left over for affordable housing. If Members sought to approve an application without affordable housing, the Council’s Core Strategy highlights that this would could be justified through a viability appraisal. But Members were reminded that this case was different to previously approved GB applications where Members had highlighted the need for affordable housing and this factor had been promoted as contributing to very special circumstances.

Regarding car parking spaces, Matthew Gallagher referred to the table on page 160 of the Agenda and said that the detailed level of car parking provision would be settled through any reserved matters submission. However, the Applicant was not seeking that detail at this stage, they were seeking an upper limit to number of residential units which was 112. The residential layout plan was indicative and so was the number of car parking spaces of 192. If Members were minded to approve the application, a planning condition could be implemented to address car parking to ensure that the reserved matters were in line with the Council’s car parking standards. He went on to say that the site was not a town centre location but was also not remote and said that if Members were minded to approve the application, they could consider travel plans to reduce any potential overspill from residential parking. Officers were satisfied that there was adequate car parking for the football stadium.

Councillor Lawrence noted the points relating to flood risk and said that there were no objections from the Flood Risk Manager and also that Amazon was built in the same area. She accepted the harm to the GB but said that there were VSC to approve the application. She referred to a photograph of the GB which was opposite the junction of the A126 that she had sent to Members of the Committee and stated that the GB could look like that picture if it was not sorted out. She went on to say that she was supportive of the application and said that the VSC was that the football club had been there since the 1950s and was the only location that it could continue in. There were also health and wellbeing benefits and an opportunity for the Martial Academy Trust to relocate here. She said that the stadium would improve the area as well. Matthew Gallagher stated that Members needed to consider the application before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

The report on pages 203 – 240 of the Agenda was presented by Chris Purvis.

The Chair mentioned that he had seen a news article with a headline of ‘More Homes, Less Money for the Community and Fewer Affordable Dwellings’ which was in relation to this application. Chris Purvis answered that the article was factually incorrect as there was an existing outline planning permission and s106 that required contributions as part of a tariff approach. There was a viability assessment on this application and it was identified that the figures were not similar to the required contributions in the existing s106. Phase five had identified one block of flats for affordable housing which was 10%, the same as earlier phases within the Arisdale development due to the site being brownfield land and a former commercial use. The 31 houses that would have been on this site, would not have been for affordable housing and through a viability assessment, the current proposal offered 6% of the apartments for affordable housing. Although there were more homes proposed resulting in a higher density development, the plans had been carefully designed in terms of layout and scale to avoid overdevelopment. He went on to say that the proposal would make the best use and most efficient use of the land and along with other considerations mentioned, the scheme was considered acceptable.

Councillor Rice expressed disappointment at there being 6% affordable housing as he thought that an increased density should give at least 25% affordable housing if 35% was not possible. He felt the proposal offered no benefit to the community. Chris Purvis explained that if brownfield sites did not meet affordable housing policy then the policy allows for a viability assessment to be provided by the applicant. The viability assessment had been assessed by an independent reviewer and during the application process further work on the viability position was undertaken by the viability consultants for the applicant and the Council. The independent viability consulted advised the Council that 6% affordable housing was the most affordable housing that could be offered. He went on to say that earlier phases of the Arisdale development had only 10% and that the original outline planning permission had a clause in the s106 that allowed for viability testing.

The Vice-Chair queried whether an independent reviewer had ever disagreed with a viability assessment. He also questioned whether the Applicant could invest in improving the road at the top of Arisdale Avenue as it had deteriorated with the use of heavy vehicles using that road. He also said that if the development was approved, the road would further deteriorate with the extra movement of vehicles for the site development. Chris Purvis answered that independent reviewers had disagreed with viability assessments on sites in the past. This application’s viability assessment had required additional work from the Applicant through the application process to address certain points including land values. He said that land values in Thurrock were relatively low which caused difficulties in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Before the Officer’s presentation, Councillor Lawrence proposed a site visit to look into the details of the site. This was seconded by Councillor Byrne who suggested a site visit for a Saturday morning when Members could view how busy the access and junction would be. Steve Taylor said that the access and junction was also usually on Friday afternoons.

(Councillor Churchman would not be participating in this item due to his declaration of interest.)

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

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAINED: (0)

The application was deferred for a site visit.