Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 19th August, 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 276 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 July 2021.


Additional documents:


The minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2021 was 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.


Declaration of Interests

Additional documents:


Councillor Halden declared that he was pre-determined on 20/01761/FUL. He stated that he would remove himself from participating on this item and would be speaking as the Ward Councillor.



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:


On behalf of the Committee, the Chair declared that correspondence had been received from all three of the Aveley and Upland Councillors, Julian Sutton (agent) and a number of residents of Ship Lane on application 21/00931/FUL. 


Councillor Byrne declared that correspondence had been received from a CEO of a Football team #United on application 21/00931/FUL. 


Councillor Halden declared that correspondence had been received from a resident addressing him as the Deputy Mayor on application 21/00931/FUL. 


Councillor Liddiard declared a telephone call had been received from Andy Ansell on application 21/00931/FUL. 


Councillor Fletcher declared that telephone calls had been received from Ward Councillors for Aveley and Uplands and the agent’s communications team on application 21/00931/FUL. 



Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 173 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee was satisfied with the report.




That the report be noted


20/00592/OUT The Springhouse, Springhouse Road, Corringham, Essex, SS17 7QT (deferred) pdf icon PDF 251 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager.                                                                                                          


The Chair commented on the podium parking, suggesting that the lower car would go down underground. Officers explained the photo within the presentation was an example of how the podium parking could look. The Chair continued by enquiring as to who was managed parking on the site the Major Applications Manager explain the on-site manager from the management company would be responsible for parking on the site and further explained it would be for residents to use the podium parking with additional visitors parking being provided.


The Chair further enquired as to the football pitches, although they were not part of the application if Members were minded to approve the application whether they include a condition that the field be used for football. The Major Applications Manager explained to Members this had been raised with the applicant, who had explained that the football pitches had last been used 4/5 years ago and at present there was not an interest in using the pitches. He continued to advise that the applicant was happy to work with the Council in the future and if the sports pitches were to be re-used again.


Councillor Byrne commented when the application was last presented to the committee he felt he would support it, now he was not sure. He continued by commenting the application was close to town centre impacting on parking in the area, although he could see the merit of the podium parking. He further enquired if there was any future prospect for development of the football pitches.. The Major Applications Manager advised that it was just the application before Members which they were to make a decision on, however at present there were no plans or live planning applications to redevelop the football team pitches which were protected by the planning policy.


Councillor Fletcher commented on the list of conditions on the recommendation for approval. He further stated the construction of the podium parking was a good idea however he was concerned it may be difficult to fix should something go wrong such as a power cut, and sought as to whether there was somewhere else within the country this car parking system has been used and was working efficiently. The Major Applications Manager referred the Committee to condition 18 within the report which related to the podium parking and confirmed there were other applications for other sites around the country which has used the podium parking system.


The Chair of the Committee stated this was the first time podium parking was to be used within the borough and mentioned it would be interesting to see it up and running in a few months’ time.


During debate the Chair stated he felt it was the right action for the Committee to have deferred this application and he would be interested to visit the site in a few months’ time to see how the development was getting on. Councillor Byrne commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.


21/00931/FUL Thurrock Football Club, Ship Lane, Aveley, Essex RM19 1YN pdf icon PDF 456 KB

Additional documents:




The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager, who started by updating Members with the following housekeeping items which included:


  • One additional objection from a member of the public who raised concerns about traffic pollution, excessive noise
  • There was letter received from one of the Aveley Ward Councillors, Councillor Pearce. Although it was noted that the site was actually within the West Thurrock and South Stifford Ward.
  • Email from Councillor Churchman who agreed with the raised by Councillor Pearce.
  • Emails regarding concerns of traffic, Green belt flood risk and HGV movements
  • A letter from the Planning Agent



The Chair sought clarification that when comparing to a similar application like Tilbury football club, officers were saying because the Ship Lane Stadium was previously developed there could be a scenario where developers could reapply with a PDI centre and on the basis the application could be up for approval.


The Major Applications Manager commented when Members were presented with an application back in January which was for the consideration for Tilbury football club and which was judged on its merits, that too was a Green Belt site for refusal, however it proposed residential development and a new stadium with a 3G pitch. He continued to explain the current applicant had said they could have a fallback position whereby if the application were unsuccessful they could make a new application in the form of a PDI facility on the site of the existing stadium and as long as there would be no greater impact on the existing site it could be policy compliant with paragraph no. 149 of the NPPF.


The meeting was adjourned at 7.24pm for technology issues to be resolved. The meeting recommenced at 7.37pm.


Following questions from Councillor Little Members heard how the applicant had provided officers a plan showing an idea of how the proposed width restriction and bus lane would work. In relation to the highway the plan did show some localised widening of Ship Lane to facilitate the bus lane, however this would be subject to further detailed design, and the applicant entering into a section 278 agreement with the Council to facilitate those works. The Chief Highways Engineer commented that Members should be confident that if agreed the layout of the bus lane and width restriction would be to the Councils design standards, and the applicant would then have to offer it up for adoption with the council as it would form part of the Highway. The Chief Highways Engineer continued to advise with regards to the route and vehicles entering into Aveley village, as part of officer’s comments they had recommended subject to a section 106 agreement there would be no material impact in the village. 


The Committee heard there was quite a substantial amount of PDI and car storage which had been permitted at Purfleet and as suggested there were new access arrangements as part of that package of schemes. Works had started in terms of diversion works on the network, although  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.


20/01761/FUL - Windy Ridge, 251 Branksome Avenue, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 8DF pdf icon PDF 743 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by the Senior Planning Officer.


Councillor Byrne enquired as to how many dwellings were required for Section 106 money to be required. The Senior Planning Officer explained Section 106 funding was generally captured for a minimum of 10 dwellings, however this site was proposing 9 dwellings. Councillor Byrne followed up his query by stating residents of the Homesteads felt they were protected from infilling on sites and sought clarification from officers as to whether this was the case. The Senior Planning Officer explained there were some areas within the Homesteads which were protected from development however this site was not one of them and therefore planning permission had been identified as acceptable development.


Councillor Fletcher raised concerns at to policy CSTP23 and whether this would be unsustainable at appeal. The Senior Planning Officer responded explaining when the application was presented at the January 2020 meeting it was refused planning permission relating to the issue of character, most of which was in relation to the existing bungalow outside mainly because the bungalow was single storey and this was adjacent to a two storey property. She further commented that the applicant had taken on officers and committee Member comments and therefore the application in front of Members was for approval. 


Members enquired as to whether there would be an impact of traffic in the area due to the new housing. The Senior Planning Officer explained on the site there was resident parking spaces as well as visitor parking. She continued by stating Highway Officers had been consulted and they had no objections to the application commenting the application was in line with the draft parking standard. Councillor Little continued by seeking as to the effects of the increased traffic in the surrounding areas. Councillor Byrne stated there were 4000 car movements a day along Branksome Road including vehicles speeding. The Chief Highways Engineer commented that the current speed data and volume data on Branksome Avenue of two-way traffic flow was nearer to 4000 movements a day, and the peak hour flows were around 200-300 movements in the morning peak times.


Speaker Statements were heard from:

·         James Halden, Ward Councillor – in objection.

·         Mr Jolins, Resident – in objection

·         Michael OConnell, Applicant– in support.


During the debate Councillor Byrne stated that nine dwellings being developed on the site was just under the recommended amount before an applicant would have to pay the funds toward the Council and would produce daily issues for the residents living on the site as it was for current residents who lived in new infilled sites for services such as bins collections. In addition the area was already trying to cope with up to 4000 car movements a day.


Councillor Fletcher stated he felt the application was over development within the area with the quantity of homes been too many, he also felt it was changing the character of the area which they were seeking permission to develop.


The Chair commented by reminding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.