To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 July 2024.

Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the meeting held on 9^th July 2024, subject to clarification on page 11, whereby it states “the new flats would have a mix of private and social housing”.  Members questioned if this should read “the new flats would be for social housing”. 

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 was one Item of urgent business in relation to a previous application 16/01232/OUT (East Tilbury – 100 Dwellings) Update Report.  It was agreed this would be heard after Item 10 on the Agenda.

Councillor Sue Shinnick declared she was the ward councillor for South Chafford.  This was noted in relation to Agenda Item 10.  The Chair confirmed Councillor Shinnick did not need to recuse herself as long as she was prepared to approach the application with an open mind.  

Councillor Ryan Polston declared he was the ward councillor for Ockendon.  This was noted in relation to Agenda Item 9.  The Chair confirmed Councillor Polston did not need to recuse himself as long as he was prepared to approach the application with an open mind.  

There were no declarations of receipts. 

The Planning Officer presented the Report. 

Members were advised of a typographical error in Item 3.7 on page 17 whereby the Application No. is stated to be “23/01503/OUT”.  This should read “16/01232/OUT”.  It was further clarified that the content and detail of the report summary was correct.

Members were advised the report, as set out in the agenda, was for noting and Members were invited to raise any questions.

There were no questions.

The Chair advised he had agreed, under advice from Planning Officers, to defer this agenda item.  The decision was made to defer following documentation, for review and consideration, being received after the publication of the agenda.  This Item would be brought back to committee.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda advising that the application had been called-in for determination at Planning Committee due to concerns relating to the potential impact upon neighbour amenity and privacy.

The Planning Officer summarised that the application had been submitted following a planning enforcement complaint. The application was not considered to result in harm to the appearance of the pub or wider locality.  The fencing, while higher than might normally be found locally, was not considered to have a detrimental appearance to the street scene.  It was acknowledged while higher for the immediate neighbour, it would provide the additional reduction in amenity impacts from the movement of the play area closer to the northern half of the site, along with the continued use of the pub garden for meals and drinking. It concluded there were no harmful amenity, neighbour, or highway impacts and the application is recommended for approval.

• A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from the neighbouring resident.
• A speaker statement was heard in favour of the application from the landlady of the Public House.

Members sought clarification from the Speaker of where the previous playground was situated in relation to the new playground.  It was confirmed there was a big treehouse in the middle and two climbing frames near to the neighbouring property.  It was further confirmed the previous climbing frames were taller than the new climbing frame.

Members expressed their dissatisfaction that this was another retrospective application, and questioned whether a more pleasing fence could be erected to compromise with the neighbours.

Members enquired whether they could visit the site. The Chief Planning Officer advised that before agreeing to the site visit, the debate and questions may be able to resolve some of the Members questions and concerns.  The Chair agreed that they would come back to the possibility of a site visit following the debate.

Members moved to the debate.

Members questioned whether the fence could remain at 6ft and if the fence was the issue or the play area. Members questioned whether the play area could be sited within the area away from the fence. The Chair reminded members that objections were not for the play equipment, but the unsightly fence and the height.

The Chief Planning Officer reminded Members that any decisions made must be based on material planning considerations that are set out in the report. Members have the right to defer for a site visit if necessary.

The Planning Officer clarified where the play equipment was previously and where it would now be, including the height. Advising in their professional opinion, by lowering the play equipment there would be minimal impact to the neighbouring amenity or privacy. Currently the fencing is not finished and was due to be completed. The Chair advised that he felt members could clearly see what the site looked like from the slides and therefore enquired whether members still felt a site visit would be required for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Planning Officer provided a summary of the Report as detailed in the agenda advising Members that the application had been submitted by the Council and related to the redevelopment of the former garage site to the northern end of Anton Road in South Ockendon.

The Planning Officer summarised, the proposal sought to provide 4 affordable homes in a fully policy compliant scheme and layout. The application is recommended for approval.

• A speaker statement was heard in favour of the application from the architect for the proposals submitted by the Applicant, Thurrock Council.

Members asked the following questions of the Planning Officer:

Steve Taylor sought clarification of Clause 7.3 of the report, whereby it is stated the proposal would provide 100% affordable housing by the Council.  He questioned whether the Clause meant the properties would be for rental purposes or to be purchased. It was confirmed the Council did not intend to sell the site and it is planned it would be affordable housing and they would be Thurrock Council rented houses at 80% of market value.

The Chair moved to the debate.

Members debated that this site needs to be redeveloped and felt it was a good scheme and was not overloaded. They praised design; stating it is a brownfield site and noted the Council was desperate for housing.

The Chair moved to the recommendation to approve subject to conditions.

This was proposed by Councillor Shinnick and seconded by Councillor Liddiard.  Councillors moved to vote.

For (9) All 9 Members of the planning committee

Against (0)

Abstained (0)

Recommendation to grant planning permission and the application was approved.

The Planning Officer presented the Report as detailed in the agenda and advised members that the application had been called in to Planning Committee to allow members to consider the antisocial behaviour and noise complaints from residents. 

The Planning Officer summarised, subject to conditions to agree the improvement of the landscaping along the boundary of the extended car park, and agree the final details for the lighting, it was considered that there were no unacceptable neighbour amenity, visual amenity or highway impacts from the application.   The application is recommended for approval.

• A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from a resident of Fleming Road.

The Chair advised, the committee could only look at the application that had been presented to the committee but agreed that there were other issues that needed to be addressed with other areas of the Council.  Chair advised members that the only decision for the committee were on the merit of the additional car park.

Members sought from the speaker whether the restaurant was busier during the weekend and whether the car park was used for other purposes other than the restaurant.  The Speaker confirmed every night was busy and was never closed. Patrons used the car park at all hours of the day and night. 

It was further confirmed there had been no problems with the previous proprietors. 

Members questioned, as this was a retrospective application, where officers confident that the car park extension matched the materials and drainage of the existing car park and had been built to a safe standard and could documentary evidence be given to confirm this. The Planning Officer confirmed they had no concerns, but noted members had valid concerns.

Members sought clarification whether the committee could enforce recommendations to ensure the lighting was changed to benefit the residents.  Members were advised the Report detailed recommended conditions to include a suitable landscaping provision which had been discussed with the applicant and that the detailed lighting scheme should be met within 3 months of the planning application being granted as detailed on page 111 of the agenda.  Members could agree conditions regarding the lighting and the planning officer would take these into consideration when agreeing the lighting provision with the applicant.

Clarification was sought that officers had confirmed no complaints had been made against this business. Members were aware that Councillors had registered complaints in the past. It was questioned if these had been considered. Planning officer confirmed there had been planning enforcement complaints in the past around blocking the public highway and unneighbourly parking and it was felt the extra car parking would alleviate some of these problems.  However, the Council’s Community Safety Partnership Manager had confirmed there had been no incidents of note regarding anti-social behaviour or relevance reported to Essex Police.

Members asked that it be noted they had reported antisocial behaviour at this property and had received complaints from residents.

Members questioned whether fencing could be put up on the roadside to alleviate some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

The Planning Officer updated members of the planning application that had been heard at the July planning committee and was subject to a live appeal to determine the planning application. The Report was to seek a decision on two points as detailed in the agenda. The committee were familiarised of the site and reminded of the planning applications two scenarios, one if the Lower Thames Crossing goes ahead (830 units to be built) and the other if the Lower Thames Crossing doesn’t go ahead (up to 1000 units).

The committee were further advised that there was a lot of ongoing work between the Appellant and the Council on the instruction of the Planning Inspector to agree the position before the public enquiry in October. The Planning Inspector would like there to be common ground established where possible, to narrow the issues during the public enquiry process in October.  There were ongoing discussions happening around the education reasons of refusal and around Highways reasons of refusal.

Therefore, it was explained why delegated authority was being sought, in consultation with the Chair.  Assurances were given that all documents were being looked at in depth and by Kings Counsel ahead of the public enquiry.

It was confirmed the delegated authority would be limited to the terms of the reasons of refusal.

The Chair moved to the recommendation to approve the items as requested through the Report.

This was proposed by Councillor Liddiard and seconded by Councillor Polston. Councillors proceeded to vote.

All 9 Members voted to agree the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

1.     Members agreed to not defend reason of refusal 8.

2.     Members agreed to delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair, in the case of any further changes required to the reasons of refusal throughout the planning appeal process and to allow for any work associated with a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.  It was further agreed members of the Planning Committee would be informed via internal correspondence should any changes to the reasons of refusal be made.

A full recording of this meeting can be found from the following link: Planning Committee – Thursday 8 August 2024, 6:00pm - https://thurrock.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/876982