Agenda and minutes

Extraordinary Meeting, Planning Committee - Thursday, 25th February, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: This meeting will be livestreamed and can be watched via

Contact: Wendy Le, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email:

Note: Extraordinary Meeting 


No. Item


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:


There were no items of urgent business.


Declaration of Interests

Additional documents:


Regarding 19/01418/FUL, Councillor Churchman declared that he was not the Ward Councillor for this application but it was close to his ward and that he would keep an open mind on the application.


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:


The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that emails had been received from:


           James Bompas in regards to 20/01394/OUT.

           A number of emails from residents and Councillor David Van Day in objection to 19/01418/FUL.

           Supporting emails from Grays Athletic fans, Grays Athletic Director and Councillor Martin Kerin on 19/01418/FUL.


The Vice-Chair, Councillor Shinnick, Lawrence and Sammons had received a phone call in regards to 19/01418/FUL.


Councillor Shinnick, Potter, Lawrence, Sammons and Rice had received correspondence on 20/01318/FUL.


20/01394/OUT Kemps Farm, Dennises Lane, South Ockendon, RM15 5SD pdf icon PDF 418 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 5 – 28 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.


The Chair noted that the building to the back of the site was already surrounded by existing custom build homes which had less substantial concerns in regards to heritage. He sought further details. Councillor Lawrence also asked how the proposed buildings that were indicative on the plans shown would affect the existing listed buildings. Councillor Potter questioned if there was a set distance from a listed building that could not be developed on.


Matthew Gallagher explained that the existing properties were for general purpose housing and that the two listed buildings were heritage assets with one having some built development to the south of it. He said that the setting of the buildings were historically surrounded by farmland and that although there was no direct impact to the buildings, the proposal would result in further development that would enclose around that heritage aspect and erode it. He said that the site layout plans were indicative in how the development would look. There could potentially be some form of development to the north of the site that was the farmland which was closest to the listed buildings on the site so the Heritage Officer had taken the view that there would be some harm to these heritage assets. He also said that planning laws required the Local Planning Authority to consider the impact of a proposed development on the setting of a heritage asset and that there was no set distance to refer to.


Councillor Rice pointed out that the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) would be going across the site which would already cause harm to the Green Belt and the heritage assets. He highlighted that the M25 was close to the site and questioned the harm of the development. He also asked if there would be electric charging points. Matthew Gallagher answered that the LTC was proposed to be about 300 – 500 metres away from the site. He said that the LTC was a national infrastructure and that the Secretary of State may take into consideration whether the national interest outweighed the impact to heritage assets. He highlighted that the proposed development and the LTC were on a different scale of projects. He added that electric charging points had not been considered as conditions for the proposals had not been formulated as the Officer’s recommendation of the application was to refuse planning permission. The Chair said that electric charging points should be considered if the application was to be approved.


In regards to design and heritage, Councillor Lawrence commented that phase one’s development had blended in well with the area and that it gave her confidence when looking at phase two. She said that the design code would help to remove further concerns and that more self-build homes were needed in Thurrock which the Housing Secretary had highlighted and the Council needed to identify the areas for this. She felt that the Applicant would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.


19/01418/FUL Thurrock Football Club, Ship Lane, Aveley, RM19 1YN pdf icon PDF 555 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 29 – 62 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher. Since the publication of the Agenda, he highlighted that there were five late letters received in objection to the application; a number of late letters received in support of the application; and that a £50,000 financial contribution had been offered to Thurrock Council for improvements to the road in the site’s area. The Chair added that Councillor David Van Day had sent a letter of objection to Members of the Committee.


Referring to pages 52 – 53, the Chair noted the Applicant’s proposal included a ‘HGV Loop’ to help alleviate the problems on Ship Lane. He pointed out that it would not completely solve the problem and that the Council was aware of the problems and was considering a roundabout which he thought would ensure that HGVs turned around and that restrictions could be implemented from there. He went on to say that in discussions with the Council, he was aware that there was no funding available for this and sought more detail as the report highlighted that Members could not add weight to the Applicant’s proposal of the HGV Loop. Julian Howes confirmed that the Council did not have funds at present for the roundabout option considered by the Council. He said that the Council did not have the powers to prevent HGVs going down Ship Lane or for camera enforcement to be installed but could only enforce powers under the Traffic Management Act where HGVs used bus lanes due to the wider lanes. Under the enforcement system, a facility had to be provided for a lorry to be able to turn around which the Applicant had put forward as a mitigation measure. However, the Highways Team was not convinced that this would work as lorries could still potentially ignore this.


The Vice-Chair asked what the size of the original stadium car park was in comparison to the new PDI car park. Matthew Gallagher answered that the PDI car park would be larger by a degree and that there was a material difference between a car park that could accommodate 1,224 vehicles. The Vice-Chair pointed out that even if the HGV issues were resolved, another issue would arise with the increase of vehicles along some parts of the road in an area that was already experiencing traffic problems. He commented that the PDI car park was proposed in the wrong place at the wrong time and would only add to the pollution and ‘rat run’ problem on the road. Matthew Gallagher pointed out that Highways England was not highlighting an objection subject to the mitigation of the HGV Loop. He said that if this mitigation was to be secured through a condition, this would be subject to legal tests for planning conditions and relevant to planning.


Councillor Byrne sought clarification on whether it would be two football pitches that would be lost in this application. Matthew Gallagher confirmed that the proposed PDI was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.


20/01318/FUL 32 Lancaster Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays, Essex RM16 6BB pdf icon PDF 600 KB

Additional documents:


The report on pages 63 – 74 of the Agenda was presented by Matthew Gallagher.


Steve Taylor questioned what the orange/red circles were on the plan to which Matthew Gallagher explained that these were trees/shrubs to be removed to accommodate development. Steve Taylor questioned whether the trees had a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Matthew Gallagher highlighted that there were two TPOs to the rear of the site.


The Chair noted that the last application had been dismissed at appeal by the Inspectorate and could not see much difference between the last application and the current one. The Vice-Chair said that he had called in the original application as he had felt that the plans had not been adequately considered at the time so had wished to give it full consideration at Committee. He noted that Members had visited the site at the first application and had gone through appeal after Members refused the first application so there was not much more information to consider.


Councillor Rice referred to the correspondence he had received in regards to the site and highlighted that the proposal was providing 140 square metres of amenity space which he thought was quite substantial and would be in keeping with Lancaster House. He pointed out that the site was a brownfield site and the delivery of a new home would contribute towards the five year housing supply and there were no neighbour objections. Matthew Gallagher referred to paragraph 11 and explained that there was a benefit of a new house but the Inspector had considered that in the balance but the factors of the character of the surrounding area and the cramped nature of the garden were not in favour of sustainable development. 


Councillor Lawrence felt the Applicant had worked to do what had been asked from before and the site was a brownfield site and the area would benefit from another house. The Chair pointed out that the Committee had rejected the first application and the Applicant’s appeal had also been rejected by the Inspectorate. He stated that he could not see a difference between the two applications.


Councillor Rice felt that the Applicant had addressed the Inspectorate’s concerns and was now proposing a 140 square metre of amenity space to which the Chair pointed out was not in the Officer’s report.


The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse and was seconded by Councillor Shinnick.


FOR: (6) Councillors Tom Kelly, Gary Byrne, Colin Churchman, David Potter, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.


AGAINST: (3) Councillors Mike Fletcher, Angela Lawrence and Gerard Rice.