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 has previously called in for agenda item 6, and decided to recuse herself from that item.

There were no declarations of receipt of correspondence, meeting or discussion held in relation to any agenda items.

The Planning Officer provided a summary of the report to committee. Outlining the planning application for the erection of a crematorium, including a wetland sequestration area.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee in accordance with the Constitution Chapter 5, Part 3 [b], 2.1 [d] as the proposal has been ‘called in’ by five Members of the Council. These include Councillors Kelly, Coxshall, Gledhill, Halden and ex- Councillor Piccolo.

The Member's reasons for the ‘call in’ are so the Planning Committee can assess the impact of the proposal upon the Green Belt and as a major infrastructure project. The application was deferred at the 8 August Planning Committee meeting to allow for the Council’s Highways Officer to review of a Transport Technical Document, submitted by the applicants shortly before the committee meeting.

The Committee were advised that it is an inappropriate development, and the recommendation is to refuse planning permission.

·       Speaker statement was heard from the applicants.

·       Speaker statement was heard from residents in objection to the application.

·       Speaker statement was heard from Ward Councillor Barry Johnson objection to the application.

Members sought clarification from the applicants regarding what drew them to the crematorium. The Committee were advised that this was a result of open engagement with the community.

The Co-optee questioned whether the original application was for a nursing home. It was confirmed, that was the original application, however this was refused.

Members questioned the applicants on the carbon zero elements of their application and how they plan to address this. The Committee were advised that the applicants did not have specific data however the pollution created would be offset.

Members sought clarification from the planning officer regarding carbon dioxide and carbon emissions. The committee were advised there was a lack of information or data in the application that was submitted. Advising the applicants stated they would use a wetland sequestration area to isolate and store carbon dioxide, however provided no evidence of or figures on whether it is deliverable.

Members queried if the ecologist had previously agreed to it and the planning officer confirmed that was a separate issue.

Members raised concerns around the fact that it is an open rural village queried the impact of traffic with little transport options and accessibility to the site. They queried the impact of the traffic. The Committee were advised the traffic impact was not severe enough to provide this as a reason for refusal.

Members proceed to debate. The majority agreed this would cause damage to the greenbelt and argued it was the wrong location. In addition to this there is the lack of data in relation to sustainability. As well as issues with accessibility, safety, and limited ways to use the site.

Recommendations: Refuse planning permission

Proposed: Councillor Liddiard

Seconded: G Byrne

Members proceeded to vote.

For (6): Councillors Liddiard, G Byrne, Heath, J Maney, Polston, Sisterston

Against (1): Councillor Kelly

Abstained (1): Councillor Fletcher.

Recommendations to refuse planning permission APPROVED.

Suspended standing orders were agreed at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the committee. Advising the outline proposal for residential development of up to 90 dwellings including vehicular access, parking, open space, attenuation, and infrastructure works. It was advised the application was deemed an inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however factors for very special circumstances (VSC) were assessed. The factors put forward as ‘very special circumstances’ include the added factor within the addendum report that the site is effectively landlocked. The VSC’s are assessed in paragraphs 6.10 to 6.19 of the main report. The proposal was assessed against the five purposes of the Green Belt and has limited conflict to these purposes This is considered alongside the factors towards VSCs put toward by the applicant. It is considered that the planning merits of the application are finely balanced, but through this assessment the factors put forward as VSC clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Therefore, the recommendations are to approve planning permission on those grounds.

·       Speaker statement was heard from the applicants.

·       Speaker statement was heard from Ward Councillor Sisterson in objection to the application.

Members queried the value of the 36 affordable homes. The applicants were unable to provide the figure, however they advised 50% will be shared ownership, and 50% will be affordable rent and offered to residents. Adding that affordable rent is based on the Local Authority rent caps.

Members queried whether a mixture of houses and flats would be available on the development. The applicants confirmed it is currently an outline, once it is in the reserved matters stage it will inevitably be a mix of houses and flats.

Members raised concerns regarding capacity in education and if the roundabout at the junction of Lance Corporal Nicky Mason Way and Park Lane, could sustain the amount of traffic going to the area. Officers confirmed the roundabout was significantly under capacity and the developers have agreed contributions towards primary and nursery schools, as there is capacity at secondary level. The Committee were reminded this it is an outline application and mitigation measures include education and health as calculated by the standard formulas.

Members queried if the Urban Design Officer did not support the proposal, why the recommendation had changed to approve planning permission. Officers confirmed the Urban Design Officer has a view of the proposal, whereas Planning Officers must consider all matters and policies. The applicant is funding a toucan crossing to make the site more accessible.

Members queried whether officers were influenced by the proposed section 106 funds. Officers confirmed they carry out a balanced assessment and the proposed mitigation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

The Co-optee queried what the economic benefits are that offset the development being on the Green Belt. The Senior Planning officer advised there will be a car club contribution, along with a contribution to Belhus Park.

The Co-optee queried what the environmental benefits are. The Senior Planning Officer advised there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Principal Planning Officer presented this item to the committee. Advising the proposal is to change the use of C4 House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to a larger HMO. The recommendations are to approve subject to conditions.

·       Speaker statement was heard in objection to the application.

Members sought clarification that the current HMO license extended to 7 persons across 4 households. This was confirmed to be accurate by the officer who also confirmed that the proposal sought to have a maximum of 7 persons, living in 7 individual single households, meaning that a total of 7 people would live at the overall site.

Members queried whether the anti-social complaints would affect the license. The Principal Planning Officer advised the planning team are not responsible for the license. This is something the Housing HMO team would oversee and control.

Members moved to debate. The Vice- Chair raised there is a need for housing with approximately 150 families being moved out of the Borough, therefore he was inclined to agree with the proposal. Majority of members agreed.

The Chair added that from a planning perspective there was little they could do about anti-social behaviour and that this would need to be addressed by the anti-social behaviour team. Any complaint regarding the potential overpopulation within a HMO property could be investigated by the planning enforcement team to establish whether a breach of planning control, or material change of use, had occurred.

The Principal Planning Officer added that a planning condition limiting and restricting the maximum number of occupants at the site had been included.  Cllr Sisterson asked whether further clarification within that worded condition, to stipulate the households should be single households, to ensure it was clear that a maximum of 7 occupants could live at the site can be added.  The officer confirmed that further clarity could be provided within that condition.  The officer also confirmed that a further condition to ensure the current off street parking area on the frontage of the site remains available could also be included if Members wished.

The Chair added he would talk to the anti-social behaviour team to address concerns from residents.

Recommendations: To approve subject to conditions including the revised occupancy limit Condition and additional parking condition.

Proposed: Councillor Liddiard

Seconded: Councillor J Maney

Members proceeded to vote.

For (8): Councillors Liddiard, G Byrne, Heath, J Maney, Polston, Sisterson

Against (1): Kelly

Abstained (0):

The Major Applications Manager presented this item to the committee advising Members that this item had been brought back to committee to consider the proposed changes to the s106 obligations and the use of an additional condition only, rather than reviewing the application which was resolved to be approved by the Planning Committee on 30 November 2023. Advising that the overall proposal is for the demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site for B8 (storage and distribution) use including servicing, parking, access (including access ramp), landscaping, means of enclosure and associated development.

Members commented on the good work on this application. There was nofurther debate.

Recommendation: To approve subject to conditions and obligations.

Proposed: Councillor Liddiard

Seconded: Councillor Heath

Members proceeded to vote.

All councillors voted unanimously in favour of the application.

RESOLVED.

The Principal Planning Officer presented this item to the committee. Advising the proposal seeks permission to fell the two preserved Oak trees (T1 and T2), as they are responsible for subsidence damage to the conservatory at the property No. 78 St Michaels Close. Recommendations are to grant consent for the removal of the trees.

Members sought clarification on the statement in the report that said if they were assessed now, they wouldn’t be approved. It was confirmed the location, their limited visual amenity value, given they are located to the rear of the properties and have limited visual impact from any public realm, all informed the officer view and the recommendations made by the tree specialists. The committee were informed that they run the risk of making the Local Authority liable for paying compensation to the owner if consent is not granted.

Members queried whether the onus was not with the property owner. It was confirmed the Council control the protection of the TPO trees but that the trees are owned by the landowner.

Members moved to debate. Stating that there was not much they could do at this point and wanted to avoid Thurrock Council becoming liable. Members raised concerns that TPOs can be invalidated by later buildings. The Principal Planning Officer advised the team would need to consider this with future planning applications.

Recommendations: To grant consent for the removal of the trees.

Proposed: Councillor Polston

Seconded: Councillor Liddiard

Members proceeded to vote.

All 7 councillors voted unanimously in favour of the application (apart from Cllr Tom Kelly who left prior to the start of this item).

RESOLVED.