Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 28th October, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: South Essex College, High Street, Grays, RM17 6TF - rooms W1.22/W1.23 (sign in at reception required).

Contact: Kenna-Victoria Healey, Senior Democratic Services Officer  Email:

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 252 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 September 2021.



The Chair stated that there was a time limit for the use of South Essex College venue which was until 9.30pm. He said that if the items on the agenda were not concluded by 9.30pm, the meeting would be adjourned and would recommence at the next Planning Committee meeting on 2 December.


The minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 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.


There were no items of urgent business.



Declaration of Interests


In relation to 21/01061/OUT, Councillor Polley declared that the applicants were related to a colleague of hers but had not discussed the application or any planning related matters. She stated that she had sought advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer which would not require her to remove herself from participating the application.



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


Members declared that they had received an email from Andrew Blakely in relation to 21/01309/FUL.


Councillor Fletcher declared he had received an email in relation to 21/00894/TBC.


Councillors Halden and Polley both declared an email from Councillor Hebb in relation to 20/00064/FUL.



Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 265 KB


The Committee was satisfied with the report.




That the report be noted.



20/00064/FUL Town Centre Car Park King Street Stanford Le Hope Essex (Deferred ) pdf icon PDF 387 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by the Principal Planner.


Councillor Fletcher enquired as to the parking on the site and how officers came to the decision to allow three hours free parking. The Principal Planner explained it was felt three hours was a reasonable amount of time for shoppers to have the freedom to do what they needed to do, given the shops which were located on King Street and the High Street. Councillor Halden commented he felt that three hours was a reasonable amount of time given the range of shops on King Street such as hairdressers, restaurants etc. and that by only having three hours free parking and being close to the station  would put a stop to commuters parking in the car park all day.


Councillor Fletcher sought clarification as to the impact of the view of the church, officers explained that further information and line of sight views had been provided by the applicant which demonstrated that the church was screened with foliage and therefore it was deemed the development would not impact on the view of the church.


Councillor Halden commented he was struggling with the health contribution, he continued to state within the report the contribution was to provide additional floor space and this would be utilised for the Corringham integrated hub, however to his knowledge planning permission and the total budget for floorspace was approved two years ago via Cabinet. The Principal Planner commented that the NHS reconsultation had confirmed the funding would be directly provided to the medical centre and benefit the medical centre and patients of the Corringham Surgery. During the discussion Councillor Halden commented he just wanted to be sure that what had been promised for residents could actually be delivered. The Principal Planning officer explained that a specific IRL reference for healthcare provisions in Stanford le Hope and Corringham had been set up to ensure  that the contributions offered would be put towards local healthcare and as a result complied with policy.


During discussions Members sought assurances that the three hours free car parking would not be removed from the application and the section 106 agreement would confirm this. It was explained to Members that there would be no planning approval issued until the section 106 agreement was secured and completed and that free parking for the site was included in this. If the applicant wanted or needed to modify any parking this would differ from what Members have given a resolution to approve and any material changes to the free car parking would have to come back to committee.


The Chair commented that three years ago the committee rejected the application due to no parking which Members felt was important, having now returned to the committee with three hours free parking the Chair felt the applicant had listened to Members and didn’t feel the application was a bad idea, he actually liked the design of the flats.


Councillor Halden commended the work of officers in being able to secure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.


21/01061/OUT Land Adjoining Balgownie Farm Lower Dunton Road Bulphan Essex pdf icon PDF 172 KB

Additional documents:


The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager.


Councillor Byrne commented that a previous application for a bigger development seemed to sail through with approval from officers, however this application which was a smaller development and in the same location was being put forward for refusal.


The Major Applications Manager explained that the location had key differences at the time when the application in question came through it was in line with the local development framework, where the need for a hospice was highlighted. He continued by explaining the sites were not linked and the local authority had carried out a planning test as with all sites.


Speaker statement was heard from:


Mark Jackson, agent in support.


Councillor Byrne commented that Members needed to be consistent in our approach for this type of development as we had said yes to a much larger development nearby the site. He commented that this current application had been submitted by a family business who also looked after the local church. He continued by mentioning that a bigger development had been approved by the committee which was located across the road from the current site and he could not understand why Members were happy to approve that application yet seemed to have concerns with this one.


Steve Taylor stated that the location of the development was on the narrowest part of the Green Belt, which when established was between 25 to 35 miles around London which was why it was called the metropolitan greenbelt. He continued to state that the location where the development was suggesting to be built had about 5 miles of greenbelt remaining, this would be cut in half should the Local Thames Crossing go ahead, he further commented that the location of the development had no pavements for children to walk or local services, no bus stops and no special circumstances that he could see for the application to be approved.


Councillor Byrne mentioned that the development would result in creating up to 200 jobs for our captains of industry.  Councillor Piccolo queried with Councillor Byrne where these 200 jobs would be coming from in relation to this development.


Councillor Halden mentioned when he first looked at the application he was happy to support Officers recommendations and oppose the development on the grounds that it was to be built on the Green Belt however as 2 of the 3 reasons were openness and characteristics of the site. He found this difficult to agree with as there was now a housing development site on the other side of the road which had already created the characteristics for the road and limited openness of the greenbelt.


Councillor Fletcher stated he knew how Councillor Halden felt, as looking at the application it was principle against practical consideration, which was why he had queried the building north-west of the site and if this was to be replaced as part of the application the site would be no more open than it currently was.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.


21/01309/FUL Land Adjacent Blackshots Stadium And Stanford Road Grays Essex pdf icon PDF 865 KB


The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer and included the following updates:


-          There were some plan references and date updates to Condition 2

-          Condition 6 had a sentence added referring to a drawing reference

-          Condition 7 refers to dpc rather than ground level

-          Condition 8 omits the words ‘off site’ to the title

-          Condition 9 included a plan reference number with respect to the proposed footway/cycleway recently received

-          Condition 22 will also refer to a plan ref no which is based upon advice from the FRM

-          Condition 23 had now been omitted as is not required as the license has been signed and agreed

-           Condition 24 had a plan reference update change

-          Condition 30 had a sentence added to say ‘in particular no flooring and lighting shall be installed in the sports hall until the specification has been agreed with Sports England’

-          Condition 31 had been omitted as it not required

-          Finally there are very minor reference and word changes to Conditions 37 and 41

Steve Taylor commented he wasn’t aware that the application spread over both sides of the road and enquired where the boundary was for the up-and-coming Lower Thames Crossing on Stanford Road. Officers explained the distance between the application and the boundary line was around 100m Highways England had been consulted with and had no objections to the application. Members are further advised there was access to both north and south of the highway which included a pedestrian crossing and as part of the recommendation £20,000 would be included for highway improvement as part of the development.


Councillor Byrneenquired further to the email from a Ward Councillor which had been circulated to Members as to whether any weight had been given to drop off and pick up points as part of the application. The Principal Planning Officer explained it was vital there was to be no dropping off on Stanford Road and in addition a detailed travel plan had been included as part of the application which included pick up and drop off points.

During discussions it was confirmed that access to Treetops School was included as part of the development and that works had been consented by the Highways Authority and were due to start in the New Year.


The Chair of the Committee enquired as to the use of King Edward Drive and Buxton Road and asked if the existing entry for Treetops School via these roads was to be discouraged. The Senior Highways Engineer confirmed that once the new road had been completed this would be the desired entry and exit to the school.  Councillor Kelly, Chair of the Committee continued by enquiring as to what officers would do should parents park on King Edward Drive instead of the drop-off and pick up point located within the school grounds. The Senior Highways Engineer commented that there were not many children at present who would be attending the new school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.


21/00304/FUL Land Rear Of Ewen House High Road Fobbing Essex pdf icon PDF 504 KB


Due to the limited time left in the meeting, this item was deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting.




21/00894/TBC 13 Loewen Road Chadwell St Mary Essex pdf icon PDF 508 KB


Due to the limited time left in the meeting, this item was deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting.