No apologies were received.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4 June 2024.

Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the meeting held on the 4^th of June 2024.  

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 Sisterson declared she is ward councillor of Aveley and Uplands. This was noted in relation to items nine and ten on the agenda. The chair confirmed councillor Sisterson didn’t need to recuse herself from the items as long as she was prepared to listen to both arguments.

The Vice- Chair advised members received an email in relation to agenda item 8. The Chair agreed this communication be put aside for this meeting.

No reports were received for this item. The Chief Planning Officer agreed this will be set aside for this meeting.

The chair referred to the addendum that was produced confirming that covers items 7 and 8 on the agenda.

The Senior Planning officer provided an overview of the application. Advising the proposal outlines planning permission with some matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved for the proposed development of up to 830 dwellings (Use Class C3) if the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed (scenario 1) OR up to 1,000 dwellings (Use Class C3). If the Lower Thames Crossing does not proceed (scenario 2), the plan proposes a new local road network including a vehicular / pedestrian railway crossing, a primary school, local centre and new areas of open space, including formal recreation.

The committee were advised the proposals include a new bridge over the railway, landscaped open space, and 12%- 27% affordable housing dependent on the scenario. Review of viability indicates that the affordable housing could be 23% for scenario 1 and 35% for scenario 2.

The application is currently subject to an appeal against non-determination and a public inquiry will be held on 1 October 2024. The recommendation to the planning committee is to refuse planning permission.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that following publication of the agenda for the Planning Committee, further consultation responses were received from residents, consultees, and the Applicant’s agent.

Two consultation responses were received, including one in objection for the following reasons: access to site, additional traffic as the three main roads into Linford appear to be unclassified lanes; environmental pollution; out of character; loss of amenity by building on the green belt; road bridge needs providing.

One response was given in support of the application from DP World summarised as follows: contributing to the residential needs of growing their workforce; the need for balanced growth in the Thurrock; the number of freights trains is likely to increase over the coming years so the need for the bridge for access to East Tilbury is recognised.

It was confirmed that on 5 July 2024 HSE sent an updated representation advising against granting planning permission on safety grounds. The HSE’s advice is noted as an informative on this refusal and as a matter that will need to be addressed on appeal.

In addition to this National Gas provided an updated consultation to advise that buildings or structure within the easement of the high-pressure gas pipelines will not be permitted and any building proximity distances must comply with the HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology.

Councillor Kelly requested legal advice, advising that he is employed by DP World and noticed they provided a letter of support in the addendum. The legal representative advised to keep an open mind and advised they could proceed.

·       A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from a resident.

·       A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from the ward councillor.

·       A speaker statement was heard in favour of the application behalf of the applicant.

Members sought clarification from the applicant’s speaker on whether the bridge will be built  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Planning officer provided a summary of the report, advising that the application included an outline for planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access. It is proposed to include mixed use development comprising up to 750 no. residential dwellings, medical facility, retail, and commercial units.

The committee were advised there will be an indicative mix of housing and apartment with 35% of the properties being affordable housing, in line with policy. Main access to the site from A128 will provide a three-arm roundabout.

The Planning officer advised that the application is scheduled for determination by the Planning Committee because it is considered to have significant policy or strategic implications and constitutes a departure from the Development Plan (in accordance with Part 3 (b), Section 2 2.1 (a) of the Council’s constitution). The application was scheduled to be heard at two previous committee meetings in January 2023 & July 2023 and at those meetings it was agreed by the chairman of the Planning Committee that both items would be withdrawn from the agenda.

The main issues include harm to the greenbelt; harm to the landscape character, isolated location with reliance on private transport, along with insufficient access information/ impact on the town, and insufficient highways information. The recommendation is to refuse planning permission.

·       A speaker statement was heard in opposition to the application from the ward councillor.

·       A speaker statement was heard in support from the applicant.

Members questioned whether the active airfield needs to be protected. Planning officers advised that the site is large and underdeveloped, however there are some buildings on the site that are used in relation to the airfield at this time. In this instance they don’t think there is a reason for refusal on these grounds.

Members questioned whether the roundabout will be put in near the A128. They were advised this would only be approved if the application was approved.

The Co-Optee questioned whether there was on single access to the site. It was confirmed this was the case, however there was a second option for emergencies.

Members stated there is another village development in Brentwood with 4000 homes near A128 and wanted further clarification on whether access was the issue with this application. It was confirmed that it is a wider issue of sustainability as there is no footpath or cycle path to this site to access all the main services and facilities. Therefore, you would be reliant on having a car.

Members questioned whether there was any public transport along the A128, that would go through this development. The Highways Officer confirmed there is a non-frequent bus service that goes towards Brentwood. The applicant has suggested this could potentially be enhanced, however more details on this have not been provided.

The Chair summarised the key points advising members to consider the current policies.

Members moved to debate. The main points included that it is on the greenbelt and transport is an issue there and access on the A128 isn’t great. Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Principal Planner presented the report, advising the site is for redevelopment and the existing site is 36 x 1 bed units. The proposal is for 9 x 1 bed flats, 21 x 2 bed houses, 9 x 2 bed flats, 7 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 4 bed houses. The proposal is for a development by the Council Housing Team and would be for units owned by the Housing team.

The committee were advised the existing development is in a horseshoe shape and has little street scene presence. The proposal would provide a live frontage on Teviot Avenue.

In addition to this, the dwellings have been designed in a traditional style with modern features. The overall design is acceptable in terms of the wider character and layout of the area. Amenity space would be provided for each of the dwellings on a private basis and communal, amenity space and balconies for the flatted units.

The committee were advised that car parking would take place on street. The existing dwellings would be provided with parking. The new flats would be provided with a parking space each and (18 spaces) and the 30 houses would be provided with 41 spaces. 4 visitor spaces would be provided, and 2 car club spaces would also be provided.

The new dwellings would be suitably distant from neighbouring properties not to impact upon them and would result in suitable living standards for existing and new occupiers.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

·       A speaker statement was heard on behalf of the applicant.

Members questioned how many additional people they were likely to house. The speaker was unable to confirm a specific number but advised it would be a significant uplift.

The chair questioned whether the flats were social housing. It was confirmed that the new flats would have a mix of private and social housing.

Members queried whether there will be electric vehicle charging points. Officers confirmed some will be available.

Members moved on to debate. Members agreed it is a positive development and welcomed the improvement to some of the buildings that already exist.

Councillor J Maney declared that she had attended the presentations of the development that residents were involved in.

Members questioned whether on street parking would be a cause of concern. The highways officer advised they had assessed the parking, and they are happy with it. They are happy with the application in terms of the parking.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. This includes education and primary health care.

This was proposed by Councillor G Byrne and seconded by Councillor Liddiard. Members proceeded to vote.

For (8): Councillors Liddiard, Byrne, Shinnick, J Maney, P Arnold, Polston, Sisterston, Kelly

Against (0): None

Abstained (1): Councillor Fletcher

RESOLVED: Application approved, subject to conditions.

Senior Planning Officer presented the report, advising the application proposal consists of the construction and operation of a photovoltaic solar array, battery energy storage system and other ancillary development.

The Committee were advised the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, there are special circumstances which outweigh the harm of the proposal to the Green Belt and any other harm. There are no objections to the proposals on other planning grounds with appropriate conditions. Therefore, the recommendation is to approve the application.

·       A speaker statement was heard on behalf of the applicant.

Members questioned the risk associated with battery storage and whether any risk assessments had been carried out. It was confirmed that battery storage is highly regulated under other legislation. There is a condition for a battery storage management plan to be agreed before usage.

Members sought clarification on the statistics on solar power and whether it included the landfill gas capture. The committee were advised that the landfill gas capture is in addition to solar power.

Members questioned if the solar farm would be visible from the A1306. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it would be, but that it would be barely perceptible and will blend into the landscape.

Members moved to debate, advising that it is a great opportunity, good use of the land and will be supporting the recommendation.

The Co-Optee expressed concerns around the safety of the battery and solar farms and the proximity of the site to people’s homes. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that vehicles associated with the construction of the development would not be going through Aveley. The Co-Optee agreed that the proposed solar farm is an improvement on the pit and the landfill site.

Recommendation: Delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to Grant Planning Permission subject to the following:

(i)             Referral to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024;

And

(ii)           Subject to the application not being called-in by the Secretary of State for determination, grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report.

This was proposed by Councillor Liddiard and Seconded by Councillor Shinnick. Members proceeded to vote.

For (8): Fletcher, Liddiard, Kelly, Polston, J Maney, Shinnick, Sisterson,

Against (0):

Abstained (1): G Byrne

ACCEPTED: Planning permission granted.