Agenda and draft minutes

Extraordinary Meeting, Planning Committee - Thursday, 7th April, 2022 6.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 2, Civic Offices 3, New Road, Grays, RM17 6SL

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

Items
No. Item

84.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 246 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 March 2022.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2022 were approved as a true and correct record.

85.

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.

86.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

In relation to application 22/00048/ELEC, Councillor Halden declared that he was the Cabinet Member for Education at the time when Cabinet approved the Tilbury Freeport which he supported, however felt that he could hear the applications with an open mind.

87.

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 made by Members.

88.

22/00101/CV : Doesgate Farm, Doesgate Lane, Bulphan, RM14 3TB pdf icon PDF 444 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager, during which he updated Members advising one late letter had of objection been received from a neighbour to the development noting the garages were not envisioned or included when the application was first submitted.

The Chair of the Committee enquired as to the impact of building garages on the site would create and should they have been included in the original application would it have still been approved, given it was development in the Green Belt. The Major Applications Manager confirmed he was surprised when the original application was submitted with no garages, however there were parking spaces for each plot including visitor spaces. He continued by advising that in line with policy the current application was inappropriate development on the Green Belt.

 

Councillor Halden commented that he felt the officer judgement made on this application was perhaps subjective, as the original application to build five four-bed homes was approved, however, to now include the garages was being recommended for refusal. He asked whether officers had thought at the time that another application for garages or formal parking would be later submitted. The Major Applications Manager mentioned he did not feel it was subjective judgement made on the original application by officers. He continued by saying this was now inappropriate development on the Green Belt, he further advised the original application submitted by the applicant was an acceptable redevelopment on the Green Belt although current application ‘maxed out’ on the development footprint. Members heard consideration was to be taken on whether other considerations outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

 

The Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative sought clarification if the applicant had applied for the garages to be included on the original application whether this would have been refused by officers as the development would have exceeded the original footprint. The Major Applications Manager confirmed this was correct, should the footprint for the development been exceeded the original application would have been refused.

 

During discussions the committee heard how the recommendation to refuse was based on national policy and the impact of harm and openness to the Green Belt. Members sought clarity as to why the application for garages on the site was recommended for refusal  as there was currently hard standing parking facilities on the site. Officers explained the original application for five dwellings was approved last year as that application was considered appropriate development within the Green Belt under the NPPF, as the proposed development at that time replaced a current building and resulted in no greater impact. The Major Applications Manager continued to advise the application in front of Members now exceeded the original footprint and therefore under policy was deemed a greater impact on the Green Belt and planning permission was to be refused on that basis.

 

The Chair of the Committee explained that Ward Member Councillor Barry Johnson had submitted apologies to the meeting, however had submitted a statement in support of the application. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

89.

22/00048/ELEC : Tilbury Green Power, Tilbury Freeport, Tilbury, RM18 7NU pdf icon PDF 372 KB

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager, during which the Committee heard there was one late letter received from the Environmental Officer, with no objection to the application.

 

The Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative commented that the application was impressive especially with the effectiveness which was an increase of 10% based on the technology to be used. The Major Applications Manager commented it would take time for the technology to change however once in place would create a better power supply.

 

Councillor Polley thanked officers for the report and enquired if it would be the only plant within the UK using this kind of technology. It was confirmed this was potentially the first of its kind to be used within the UK, phase one was to be operational.

 

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

 

For: (9) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, Colin Churchman, Mike Fletcher, James Halden, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained (0)