To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 September and 17 October 2024.

Minutes of the meeting 12 September 2024 and 17 October 2024 were approved as an accurate record of both meetings.

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.

There were no declarations of interest, however two councillors were not present in the previous meeting for an item that was deferred to this meeting therefore they recused themselves from that item.

Another member recused themselves during the last meeting for the item that was deferred, therefore recused themselves from the same item on this agenda.

The Chair advised that he did receive an objection to a potential application that is due to come to the Planning Committee.

The Major Applications manager provided a presentation for the committee on the East Tilbury appeal.

The Committee were advised that this was a non-determination appeal that was presented to committee in July 2024 and progressed to appeal in October 2024. The Proposal included up to 830 dwellings if the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed or up to 1000 dwelling if the Lower Thames Crossing is not constructed. It also included a new local road network including a vehicular/ pedestrian railway crossing. As well as a primary school, local centre, and new areas of open/ recreational space.

It was confirmed that the appeal was allowed. Subject to 51 conditions including information required for future matters applications. It was also allowed subject to section 106 agreement that would secure the bridge over the railway, the primary school education provision, affordable housing, highways work, governance of community assets, a noise deed variation, and other financial contributions.

Members were informed that the original application advised it would be harmful to the greenbelt, however they reviewed special circumstances that would justify planning permission. Stating that the proposal would deliver market and affordable housing in the area that has a poor record of both that attributed substantial weight. It would also deliver a bridge over the railway line through East Tilbury to which was afforded significant weight. Moderate weight was placed on the benefits in relation to biodiversity, primary school provision, recreational facilities, and economic impact. It was felt that these factors outweigh the harm to the greenbelt.

Members stated that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to sum up these applications and understand what is harmful to the Greenbelt and what isn’t. There appears to be a change in attitude towards the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and not to the policy itself. Members agreed that the bridge over the railway was needed, and wondered if this could be implemented early in the building stages.

The Major Applications Manager advised the Committee there hasn’t been any changes to the NPPF since last year December, however they are aware of the consultations that went out in the summer. Members were advised that other councils are in similar situations to Thurrock in terms of not having a 5-year housing land supply. The housing land supply is where the substantial weight has been given for this decision.

The Committee were informed that further information was provided during the appeal stage to address councillor highways concerns along with further mitigations. The Highways officer added they worked with highways consultants to gather the required information. Advising there will be further mitigations at the Manor Way roundabout and additional lane along Muckingford Road.

The Co-optee raised concerns that approximately 50% of houses that were bought in Thurrock were purchased from people outside of Thurrock. When new houses are bought its usually by people that are being disgorged from London, however it doesn’t resolve the housing crisis in Thurrock. The Co-optee queried whether the Council had any influence to make sure Thurrock  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Agenda Item 8 was moved to be heard before agenda item 7.

The Principal Planner presented the report to the committee. Advising the planning application seeks the variation of Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 18/00551/FUL (Revised proposals seeking the development of 8 no. two bedroom semi-detached low carbon dwellings with associated access, car parking and amenity areas) varied by permission 21/00771/CV (which revised the footprint and layout of the dwellings to increase the private amenity space and provide access at ground floor levels, and to amend external materials) to allow for a change to the layout and use of the lower ground floor space as a store for each dwelling.

Members were advised the application site has consent for the erection of 8 two-bedroom semi-detached low carbon dwellings with associated access, car parking and amenity areas, the detailed plans for which were varied under ref 21/00771/CV determined in July 2021. It was confirmed the current section.73 planning application seeks to amend one aspect of that previous consent to allow for the use of part of the lower ground floor of the dwellings for storage, in lieu of what was previously shown as a void area.

Members were advised the application was called-in for determination at Planning Committee by Councillors J Kent, Morris-Cook, Kerin, Watson, Green and Hartstean to consider matters relating to habitat disturbance; parking; overdevelopment, and whether the development is not in keeping with nearby properties. Given the limited external changes proposed to the previously agreed scheme, the application is recommended for Approval.

·       Speaker gave statement to the committee.

There were no further questions.

There was no formal debate.

Recommendations to approve variations.

Proposed: Councillor Kelly

Seconded: Councillor G Byrne

Members proceeded to vote.

For (8): Councillors, P Arnold, G Byrne, Fletcher, Kelly, Liddiard, J Maney, Shinnick, Sisterson

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Recommendations Approved.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee. Members were reminded that at the meeting held on 17 October 2024 the application was deferred, as members were minded to refuse planning permission for the proposed development based upon the following summarised reasons:

·       Substantial harm to the Green Belt with a reduction to openness.

·       The impact upon infrastructure with specific regard to the impact upon the primary school and healthcare services.

·       The lack of transport links.

·       For the urban design reasons based on their consultation response from the Urban Design Officer.

Members were advised that Officers sought separate legal advice to assist the Planning Committee in their decision making. This was through external counsel advice from an independent barrister.

Counsel advised.

“In departing from the recommendation of Officers, Members will also need to give detailed and cogent reasons for not accepting professional advice. They will need to clearly demonstrate on planning grounds why a proposal is unacceptable and provide clear evidence to substantiate that reasoning. Further, the reasons for refusal should also be precise, and clearly articulated, and refer to relevant policies in the development plan so as to comply with Article 35(1)(b) of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 which states that “where planning permission is refused, the notice must state clearly and precisely their full reasons for the refusal, specifying all policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision”.

It was summarised that in response to the development being inappropriate to the Green Belt there is substantial weight with very special circumstances factors that the site is landlocked by existing development to the east, south, west, and by Ormiston Park Academy playing fields (which are also part of listed Belhus Park to the north, therefore reducing its openness.

Members were advised that there was very substantial weight for the provision of market housing and affordable housing to help address acute need and lack of supply. In addition to this concerns around access to services such as GPs and education have been mitigated with the developer agreeing to s106 contributions required by the NHS and Education.

The developer has also agreed to provide a toucan crossing and the development will provide self/custom built plots.  In addition to this some weight was given to the utilisation of sustainable site, economic benefits, and environmental benefits.

Members were advised there are no objections to the proposals on other planning grounds with appropriate conditions, therefore the recommendation was to approve planning permission.

Members queried why officers felt it was necessary to seek counsel opinion. It was confirmed they take counsel advice frequently, particularly if there is risk to the council at appeal stage. The Legal representative added that seeking counsel opinion during this phase is less expensive, particularly as the advice was from a junior barrister.  

The Co-optee raised concerns regarding applications going forward. The likelihood of changing opinion is remote. Advising that members are there to represent electorate and currently not in the position to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.