Council and democracy

Agenda and minutes

Venue: South Essex College, High Street, Grays, RM17 6TF – Room W1.23 and W1.24 (sign in at reception)

Contact: Kenna-Victoria Healey, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email: Direct.Democracy@thurrock.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

74.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 352 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 10 February 2022.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2021 were approved as a true and correct record, subject to showing Steve Taylor as attending the meeting.

75.

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 commented that the long list of applications for the April 2022 meeting had been circulated to Members, this list had 11 Items to be considered. The Chair suggested that if Members were in agreement, it was possible to have an additional meeting in early April 2022. Members confirmed they were happy with additional meeting if one was required.

 

76.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

In relation to applications 20/01572/FUL and 21/01926/FUL, Councillor Halden declared that he lived on Wharf Road, however felt that he could hear the applications with an open mind.

77.

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:

Councillor Kelly declared the agent James Ware for application 21/02116/FUL had emailed all Members of the Planning Committee.

78.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 193 KB

Minutes:

The Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Public Protection presented the report to Members.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the report be noted

 

The Chair of the Committee advised as applications 20/01572/FUL and 21/01926/FUL did not have any speakers registered, that he would move them to the end of the agenda. Members agreed.

 

79.

21/02184/HHA: 7 Churchill Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6TW pdf icon PDF 233 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

 

The Chair of the Committee commented the application was a corner plot and sought if it was uncommon for an extension of this size on such a plot as presumably it would have a bigger impact on the area. He continued by stating that with the removal of the trees from the front garden the house was now quite exposed. The Principal Planner explained that the only property with similar in size extension and wraparound proposal as this application was the property on 1 Medlar Road. She continued by advising there hadn't been anything else in the immediate area like these applications and, even though this current proposal would result in a similar separation distance, the impact of the proposed wraps around two storey side and rear extension when walking or driving, it would be much more significant.  The proposal was considered out of character with the appearance of the locality for this reason.

 

Speaker statements were heard from:

 

  • Mr Hatcher, Resident in objection.
  • Councillor Mayes, Ward Member in objection.

 

The Chair explained the applicant Mrs Racinskiene was not in attendance but had submitted a statement which had been circulated to all Members.

 

It was queried by the representative for Campaign to Protect Rural England as to whether Churchill Road was delayed into the development which would be situated by Asda and Manor Road and as to whether this would be the entrance of the new site. The Principal Planner advised she would have to check the local plan map to be able to confirm this. The representative for Campaign to Protect Rural England continued by stating if this was the case then Churchill Road would be in access roads meaning that traffic along the road would increase significantly.

 

Councillor Byrne enquired as to the change on the application with regards to a home office or study. The Principal Planner explained the application before Members included a study and she considered it was unlikely this would be used for commercial usage given its size and scale. She continued by advising if Members had concerns conditions could be imposed on the application.

 

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

 

For: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)

80.

21/02116/FUL: Balkan Bites, 206 London Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 5YP pdf icon PDF 335 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

 

Councillor Halden thanked the officer for the report and enquired as to what made the proposed application potentially worse than its previous use as a launderette. The Principal Planner explained this use would result in peaks  of people attending especially at lunch times and in the evening whereas as a launderette the number of people using the service would be more consistent throughout the day without those peaks

 

During discussions Councillor Polley commented the photos which showed the property excluded a bus stop and a parade of shops she further mentioned there had always been an issue with traffic along London Road, and to refuse the application with regards to highways seemed confusing as any use would increase the traffic movement. The Highways Engineer advised members that a few years ago officers did look at the resident parking issue which included vehicles being parked outside of neighbour’s properties and inappropriate parking on double yellow lines and driveways.

 

Councillor Watson sought clarification as to the use of the property over the last six years and further mentioned the traffic issue for London Road was the HGVs using the road as access to Purfleet. Officers advised the last use of the property had been as a launderette and for the last six years had been vacant.

 

Following a query from Councillor Halden, Members were advised that officers suspected the 600 signature petition was that of perhaps the wider area rather than those in the immediate area who would be immediately impacted upon by the use. There were however nine online comments in objection to the application as part of the consultation process.

 

Members of the Planning Committee sought clarification as to the parking provision should the application be approved and queried as to whether it would be general parking in nearby streets. Officers advised in along with the application there were to be three parking spaces available.

 

Speaker statements were heard from:

 

  • Mr Bacon, Resident in Support
  • Mr Taylor, Resident in Objection

 

During the debate all members agreed they had a concern with regards to traffic movement down London Road and parking facilities for the application. That being said members also highlighted that should residents go to the restaurant of an evening it was likely that they would use public transport or taxing.

 

Councillor Byrne stated he would be in favour of approving the application as it was investing money into the Borough and providing jobs for local people.

 

Councillor Piccolo commented if the property was still trading as a launderette there would still be continuous traffic movements as people would drop off and return. He commented that listening to residents, there was a need for the restaurant in the area.

 

Councillor Watson commented as a Ward Councillor she knew there was a restaurant further up London Road which coped even with the traffic pressures. She continued by saying the property had been vacant for six years and the application would give a business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

22/00098/HHA: 33 Cherry Walk, Chadwell St Mary, Grays, Essex, RM16 4UN pdf icon PDF 224 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

 

Councillor Polley enquired as to whether this was backland development within a back garden. The Principal Planner explained that as the extension was to an existing ancillary outbuilding and the extension was 1.5 metres closer to the house it would not be classified as backland development, or an  overdevelopment of the site. She further explained that the original outbuilding would have been constructed under PD rights at that time, which were amended in 2008.

 

Councillor Watson queried as to whether the outbuilding exceeded the eaves height of the main dwelling. The Principal Planner explained that as the outbuilding had been reroofed with a flat roof was approximately 0.25m overall, and very slightly higher than the eaves of the bungalow given the outbuilding had a flat roof.

 

Speaker statements were heard from:

 

·       Councillor Muldowney, Ward Member in objection

·       Mr Quoodos, Applicant in support.

 

Following a question from the Chair with regards to Cadent Gas the Principal Planner explained there were no requirements because there were no gas utilities nearby the extension to the outbuilding. She confirmed there was no risk, if there were any issues regarding the siting of nearby gas apparatus then an informative would normally be included within the recommendation.

 

The representative for Campaign to Protect Rural England queried as to whether the use of the outbuilding was habitable. The Principal Planner explained that the original outbuilding was used for domestic storage and this extended outbuilding would be similarly used for storage and as a general utility room associated with the main dwelling.  The officer explained that, similar to modern conservatories, outbuildings were now often built with the insulation and heating appropriate to be used for habitable areas.

 

Members heard how previously this outbuilding was used for the garden and domestic storage. She continued by stating it could be used for ancillary use, which could be habitable, and the applicant had stated it would be general utility, domestic utility in storage, which was not uncommon in these applications and could be controlled via suitable planning condition which had been included in the recommendation.

 

During the debate Members commented they were surprised to see the application at Committee; Councillor Watson commented that she was one of the Councillors who had called in the application and it was for Committee to consider matters that had been raised by residents as a concern.  Members agreed that once the outbuilding had been completed and fully rendered the finished building would look a lot better than in its current state.

 

The Vice-Chair proposed the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by the Councillor Byrne.

 

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley, Elizabeth Rigby and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)

 

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.15pm to allow the agenda to be completed.

 

82.

20/01572/FUL: AB Installs, Stanhope Industrial Park, Wharf Road, Stanford Le Hope pdf icon PDF 522 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. There were no questions from Members.

 

During the debate Councillor Byrne commented he was pleased to see investment in Stanford Le Hope which would include jobs for local people and less HGV movements within the area.

 

The representative for Campaign to Protect Rural England commented saying his only concerned would be keeping the HGV and vehicle movements to a minimum and as this was already covered within conditions on the application, he felt there would be no major changes the current traffic movements.

 

Councillor Piccolo stated he was pleased to say there was no usage of HGVs included within the application thus safeguarding Wharf Road, which he felt was a positive part of the application.

 

Councillor Byrne proposed the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by the Councillor Halden.

 

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley, Elizabeth Rigby and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)

83.

21/01926/FUL: Vanderkamp, Stanhope Industrial Park, Wharf Road, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 0EH pdf icon PDF 435 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

Steve Taylor queried as to what the different lines were on the site map. The Principal Planner explained it highlighted where the land dropped away from the site and sloped towards the sea wall.

Councillor Piccolo enquired as to the condition regarding HGV movements and whether this meant if additional movements were required these could be requested on a daily or weekly basis to the Local Planning Authority. The Principal Planner explained that to be able to amend the conditions relating to HGV movements the applicant would have to put in for new application and if necessary, the application would be presented to the committee.

Councillor Byrne echoed his previous thoughts that he was pleased to see investment within Stanford Le Hope, more jobs for local people and less traffic through the area.

Councillor Piccolo stated his only concern was with the possibility of additional HGV movements within the town however was placed to hear should the condition require amending this would be presented back to Members.

 

Councillor Byrne proposed the officer’s recommendation A and was seconded by the Councillor Halden.

 

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley, Elizabeth Rigby and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)

 

Councillor Byrne proposed the officer’s recommendation B and was seconded by the Councillor Halden.

 

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley, Elizabeth Rigby and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)