Agenda and minutes

Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 6th November, 2018 7.30 pm

Venue: Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. View directions

Contact: Wendy Le, Democratic Services Officer  Email: Direct.Democracy@thurrock.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

16.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 62 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committeemeeting held on 11 September 2018.

 

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Extraordinary Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committeemeeting held on 17 October 2018.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Regarding the minutes of the Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11 September 2018, the Vice-Chair drew Members’ attention to several points:

 

·         That following a request from a motion at Full Council, the Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee were to consider whether 800,000 homes could be built in Thurrock. This was to be added to the work programme but may change now due to the newly formed Local Development Plan Task Force.

 

·         That the Committee had not yet seen the Terms of Reference for the Local Development Plan Task Force.

 

The minutes of the Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11 September 2018 were approved as a true and correct record.

 

The minutes of the Extraordinary Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 17 October 2018 were approved as a true and correct record.

 

17.

Items 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.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

18.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

Councillor Piccolo declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a Member of the Planning Committee.

 

The Vice-Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a Substitute Member of the Planning Committee.

 

19.

Briefing: Purfleet Centre Update pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report was presented by the Officer, Rebecca Ellsmore, which provided an update on the Purfleet Centre project. Accompanying the report was a presentation given by Ken Dytor, the Purfleet Centre Regeneration Ltd (PCRL) Representative.

 

Councillor Pothecary thanked the PCRL Representative for the presentation and mentioned that she had lived in Purfleet at a young age so was excited to see where the project plans laid. She appreciated the detailed presentation. In relation to the Highways England objection mentioned in the report, Councillor Pothecary sought more detail on the objection and the bearing of the objection on the Purfleet scheme. She went on to query on the units of lost land in regards to the Environment Agency’s objection due to the possible use of land for a future Thames barrier and asked if this would affect the economic viability of the proposed Purfleet town centre.

 

The Swan Representative, Duncan Innes, stated that the Highways England objection was based on the impact of the Purfleet scheme on Junction 30 of the M25. However, PCRL’s view was that the Purfleet scheme would not have a significant impact on the said junction and Highways England had come in at a late stage to object. PCRL was in the middle of resolving this objection with Highways England.

 

Regarding the matter of the Environment Agency objection, the Urban Catalyst Representative, Jason Robinson, explained that the loss of the land was a significant amount. PCRL was working with its architects on the loss of space and there were plans to redistribute residential and other facilities elsewhere in the masterplan. The re-provision on the loss of land would still allow the Purfleet scheme to attain the targeted 2850 new homes and the finer detail would be looked at on how this would be delivered.

 

The Vice-Chair voiced his opposition to the Highways England objection. Going on to thank PCRL for the presentation, the Vice-Chair asked the representatives to expand on the Environment Agency objection and where the possible Thames barrier would be. The PCRL representative replied that the Environment Agency had no clear plans on where the possible Thames barrier would be and there would likely be no further detail on the barrier for a considerable amount of time. The Purfleet scheme had gone through many consultations and the objection from Environment Agency had only come in during the planning stage. PCRL had been working closely with Thurrock Council and Environment Agency to reduce the impact of the barrier on the Purfleet scheme. In regards to the loss of land, it would not be left vacant but would probably not be capable of accommodating residential development.

 

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, Councillor Coxshall, to speak.

 

Regarding the late objection from Highways England, Councillor Coxshall was surprised but thought the one half of Highways England that was in discussions with the Lower Thames Crossing Task Force should be communicating with the other half of Highways England. Councillor Coxshall felt the objection was serious  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

Fees and Charges Pricing Strategy 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 114 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Presented by the Corporate Director, the report outlined the proposed charges which would take effect from 1 April 2019 unless otherwise stated.

 

Councillor Piccolo stated that the appendices accompanying the fees and charges report were too small to read. He thought it would have been useful to have used a colour coded system to highlight what charges had increased or decreased.

 

Agreeing with Councillor Piccolo’s comments, Councillor Pothecary mentioned struggling to see the charges as well. She went on to ask who would be impacted by the increased fees and charges. The Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Public Protection gave examples of where fees had been introduced. This included scooter training in schools which had been funded previously but schools now requested this. In the National Planning Policy Framework, informal discussions had taken place to acquire money to drive planning applications forward. The service may review those charges in a year’s time. However, the planning charges were necessary to drive development schemes, such as the Purfleet Regeneration scheme, forward. Overall, very few fees had increased. In response, Councillor Pothecary said the scooter fee had been one that she had been concerned about but could see the cost was small which was £30 for 10 children.

 

Referring to the licenses for highways, the Vice-Chair sought an explanation on the increased charges. The Assistant Director for Highways, Fleet and Logistics explained that the fees and charges had been benchmarked against other local authorities and were in line with current market value. These charges would also encompass staff costs and retained costs for possible damage to highways from vehicles as a result of works or activities undertaken in relation to the license.

 

On the mention of highways licenses, Councillor Pothecary queried the charge for skip licenses. She sought clarification on whether the charge would have an impact on companies and went on to say that the service did not want to be discouraging people from hiring skips. Councillor Pothecary also asked whether it was the people hiring skips or the companies that would absorb the cost. The Assistant Director for Highways, Fleet and Logistics answered the charge had been introduced to help control unauthorised skips on the highway. It was uncertain whether this charge was passed on by companies.

 

The Vice-Chair felt the Committee had not had the opportunity to pick up the smaller details of the fees and charges due to the format. He asked if comments could be provided to Officers in the next day or two. The Corporate Director answered comments could be picked up via email through Democratic Services but the recommendations could be agreed subject to comments by Members.

 

Councillor Piccolo asked for a colour coding system to which the Corporate Director answered that a method would be used to highlight the increase and decrease of charges.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.1  That the Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted the revised fees, including those no longer applicable, and commented on the proposals currently being considered within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

Work Programme pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Minutes:

The Vice-Chair queried on the process of the Local Development Plan Task Force. The Corporate Director answered a date for the first meeting would be confirmed after the Issues and Options 2 consultation went to Full Council. The first date could possibly be January 2019. The Vice-Chair went on to question the process of the Freight and Logistics report. The Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Public Protection explained the service was still working on this.

 

No changes were made to the work programme.