Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 10th June, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL (limited seating) and livestreamed via

Contact: Wendy Le, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email:


No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 233 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 April 2021.


Additional documents:


The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 April 2021 were approved as a true and correct record.


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.

Additional documents:


There were no items of urgent business.


The Chair informed the Committee that planning application 20/00284/OUT had been fully withdrawn by the Applicant.


Declaration of Interests

Additional documents:


Councillor Churchman declared an interest on 20/00592/OUT in that he had family and friends who were members of The Springhouse Club. He confirmed that he would not participate in the item.


Steve Taylor declared that he was a member of The Springhouse Club.


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

Additional documents:


The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that emails had been received by a resident, Beverley Johnston, and by the agent, Jennifer Wrayton on planning application 21/00243/FUL. Councillor Polley declared that she had received emails on the same application.


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 193 KB

Additional documents:


There were no questions or comments from Members.




That the report be noted.


2020/21 Planning Performance Report pdf icon PDF 280 KB

Additional documents:


The Chair asked that officers update Members outside of Committee on s106 contributions for applications that had been approved at Committee.




That the report be noted.


20/00430/FUL - Coach Park, Pilgrims Lane, North Stifford, Grays, Essex, RM16 5UZ pdf icon PDF 317 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by Ian Harrison.


Councillor Fletcher noted that the report mentioned that the traffic movements on the site would be reduced and asked what the Applicant was comparing these traffic movements to. He said that there was not much traffic movement that was current going in and out of the site. Ian Harrison explained that the Applicant had based this on the full capacity of the coach and car park if it had been used. Councillor Fletcher commented that this approach was theoretical and questioned if this same approach had been used in the previous application for a three year permission. Ian Harrison said that the previous application had never been determined and this current application had been amended to seek permission for five years.


Steve Taylor commented that the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) route was not determined yet and that this site was not near the route either. He asked why the site was chosen by Highways England and reasons for a five year temporary use of the site. Ian Harrison confirmed that the site was not near the proposed LTC route but the site was unused land which was why the Applicant had chosen this instead of a Green Belt site. The site would be used to investigate and monitor the LTC route for a temporary five year period.


Councillor Piccolo questioned how close the exit of the site to the main road was. Julian Howes answered that the exit of the site was past the roundabout on the main road.


Councillor Polley questioned if the site would be returned to its original use after the end of the five year permission. She raised concerns that the site was close to an area where there was a lot of traffic movement and asked what type of vehicles would be going in and out of the site. She mentioned that there had been large vehicles used on the site before for piling work and that there had been an accident involving a crane previously. Ian Harrison answered that the site would revert back to its original use after the five year permission ended. He said that the site would use contracted larger vehicles. Julian Howes added that the site had been used by the A13/M25 group for construction purposes two or three years ago.


Councillor Byrne pointed out that the traffic around the site would increase the traffic issues around area and sought more detail. Julian Howes answered that most of the traffic would be outside of the peak hours so would not worsen the traffic around the area. He said that the site had been in use for the past 18 months with vehicles going in and out of the site which had not increased the traffic around the area.


Councillor Piccolo sought clarification on the 7am – 7pm traffic monitoring hours and asked if it included peak hours which Julian Howes confirmed that it.


The Vice-Chair agreed with the concerns raised on traffic from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


20/00592/OUT - The Springhouse, Springhouse Road, Corringham, Essex, SS17 7QT pdf icon PDF 934 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by Chris Purvis. He informed Committee that there had been an update to the Essex RAMs payment outlined in recommendation B. He said that the new payment was now £12,093.30 as this was increased due to the new financial year.


The Chair thanked Members who had attended the site visit on Wednesday 9 June. In regards to the football pitches, he asked if these were managed by the Applicant and asked why these were not used. He also asked if permission was needed to access the pitches. Chris Purvis answered that the football pitches were maintained by the Applicant and that the pitches shown on photos were from five years ago. He said that the Applicant had informed that the pitches could be used and reinstalled if needed but this area was outside of the application site’s proposal. To access the site, he said that permission would be needed from the landowner.


The Chair said that more parking spaces were needed and also acknowledged that more green spaces were needed. He asked why the service had requested for more green spaces instead of parking on the proposal. Chris Purvis explained that the site needed a mixed balance of amenity and green space, and to create a better visual appearance rather than the development being parking dominant aspect. He said that the parking spaces proposed met the Council’s draft parking standards.


The Chair pointed out that there were only three visitor parking spaces in the proposal which would cause parking issues. He noted the double stacked parking design and sought more detail. He also asked who would be managing the car parking and what the Council’s parking standards were. Chris Purvis indicated on the site plan on where the double stacked parking was proposed to be built. He said that cars would park underground with another car park level on top which required less land use and that there was a planning condition that required full details on this to be provided. He went on to say that there was a car parking management scheme under condition 18 that would require the Applicant to provide the Council with details on the car parking management company. On the Council’s parking standards, he explained that the medium accessibility applied in this case which was 1 to 1.25 parking spaces. However, the location of the site was close to the town centre and was considered sustainable so one parking space per dwelling was acceptable.


Councillor Byrne questioned whether the football pitches could be built on in a future planning application. He asked if this land could be protected from development through the planning application that was before the Committee. Chris Purvis answered that the pitches were on private land. He said that if the Applicant proposed to build on this in a future application, there would likely be an objection from Sports England if that sports facility was lost. He said that the site of the football pitches was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


20/01709/FUL - Land to rear of Bannatynes Sports Centre, Howard Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays pdf icon PDF 590 KB

Additional documents:


Councillor Akinbohun declared that she had shown pre-determination on this application as she had made her objections to the application publically. Therefore, she would not be participating on the item.


The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher. Since the publication of the agenda, he stated that three further objections had been received which were the same points from other objections outlined within the report. There was also an updated response from the Council’s Urban Design Officer. The Applicant had sought to amend the elevation details from the officer’s earlier comments on sunlight and daylight issues. However, the officer’s objections still largely remained.


Steve Taylor questioned whether the underground parking area shown in the presentation went underneath the block indicated on the plan or if it extended further underneath the site. He also asked if the other side of the old A13 (A1306) was still designated as Green Belt (GB). He highlighted concerns of a ten storey block of flats built on the edge of the GB. Matthew Gallagher answered that the 2009 and 2018 planning permissions included a basement car park. As it was built over 10 years ago, it had been exposed to the elements since then and would require remedial works to resolve this. He indicated on the plan that the basement car park would be partially underneath both of the proposed blocks. He confirmed that the other side of the old A13 was still GB which also had a leisure use on that site. He said that developments did not have to be built on the GB to have a potential impact on the GB. The proposed development could have an effect on the openness of the GB and the Applicant had recognised this and submitted a landscape and visual impact assessment.


Speaker statements were heard from:

·         Gemma Lowry, a resident in objection.

·         Augustine Ononaji, ward councillor in objection.

·         Tim Bell, agent in support.


Councillor Fletcher started the debate by saying that there was too much development and not enough car parking spaces. The Chair said that he had approved the 2017 application that was still live and had a GP surgery. However, the NHS had deemed that the area was no longer suitable as it did not fulfil their vision. He stated that the proposal had too much development as well.


Councillor Fletcher proposed the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission and was seconded by the Vice-Chair.


FOR: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne, Colin Churchman, Mike Fletcher, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson.







20/00284/OUT - Land West of Lytton Road, River View, Chadwell St Mary, Essex pdf icon PDF 473 KB

Additional documents:


This application was withdrawn by the Applicant.



21/00243/FUL - Wick Place Cottage, Brentwood Road, Bulphan, Essex, RM14 3TJ pdf icon PDF 467 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by Nadia Houghton.


Speaker statements were heard from:


  • Beverley Johnston, a resident in objection.
  • Barry Johnson, ward councillor in support.
  • James Wiley, agent in support.


Councillor Fletcher sought clarification on whether the smithy was being replaced or restored. Nadia Houghton answered that the smithy would be completely replaced. She said that the footprint of the new smithy was similar to the existing smithy but would be taller in height overall. The materials would be similar but it would be a different structure.


The Chair asked if there had been similar developments in the area. Nadia Houghton answered that she was familiar with the former Pieris Place site that was now the Bonham Grange development. The site had been granted permission in 2015 despite being in the GB but had been identified in the former Development Plan as a potential future site for residential development. There had been a range of Very Special Circumstances (VSC) put forward that had outweighed the harm to the GB in that instance. The application had been consequently recommended for approval because of the VSC including the high quality design materials and the housing supply.


Councillor Polley asked if the smithy building was designated as a heritage asset and what its current use was. Nadia Houghton answered that the building was not listed so was not a heritage building and it was not used as a smithy. The smithy had been built in the 19th century and was currently used for agricultural storage according to the applicant’s plans.


Councillor Byrne sought further clarification on why this application was recommended for refusal when the other application had been recommended for approval and was also on the GB. Jonathan Keen explained that the Pieris Place site had been put forward as a potential housing site as part of the work that was being carried out on the Local Plan at that time. This had been highlighted in a Site Specific Allocations DPD document in 2015. The service had placed some weight on this and in combination with other factors, this tipped the balance over in favour of approval. Applications submitted in the same area and for the current application, could not rely on the same DPD document as those sites including the one in the current allocation had not been identified in that DPD document.


Steve Taylor pointed out that the site in the Pieris Place application had been surrounded by three roads. He said that the current application’s site was in an open piece of land that was part of the GB with no roads behind it. The Chair said that approving this application would set a precedence for similar future applications on the GB. Matthew Gallagher explained that the background of the Pieris Place application should not be given weight in this current application. He pointed out that the current application could not be compared against other similar live applications either as each application site was assessed on its merits. However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.