Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 21st March, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, 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

90.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14 February 2019.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 February 2019 were approved as a correct record.

91.

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.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

 

The Chair announced that item 9 – 18/01802/FUL, Beauchamp Place, Malvern Road, would be moved up the agenda to be the first item to be heard due to the amount of public members present for the item.

 

92.

Declaration of Interests

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

93.

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

Minutes:

The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that they had received emails regarding item 8 – 18/01760/HHA, The Lodge and item 10 18/01635/FUL of the agenda.

94.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 80 KB

Minutes:

Leigh Nicholson, Strategic Lead of Development Services, presented the report.

 

The Committee was satisfied with the report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Planning Committee noted the report.

95.

18/01802/FUL - Beauchamp Place, Malvern Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 5TH pdf icon PDF 262 KB

Minutes:

Jonathan Keen, Principal Planner, advised that the planning application sought planning permission for the use of the land for gypsy traveller families. The proposal was for 5 mobile homes, 5 touring caravans and day rooms with associated parking and fencing within the site. At present, there were 2 mobile homes on site with one occupied by the applicant and their family.

 

The application was recommended for refusal due to the proposal representing inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Agent’s statement of support for the application had been received and the issue of the medical condition of one of the children had been considered but it was not enough to constitute very special circumstances. The medical letter received regarding the child’s medical condition from the Agent in addition to the statement of support had also been in draft format and unsigned, so limited weight could not be afforded to it.

 

The Chair opened the item up to the Committee for questions. He went on to ask if the personal consent attached to the appeal on application 13/00574/FUL (as indicated in the current application) had ceased, when the previous named occupiers had left the site in mid-2018. The Principal Planner confirmed that the personal consent had ceased when the previous occupant had left the site in mid-2018.

 

The Chair asked if the Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) that had been served, had been given to the applicant. The Principal Planner answered that the TSN had been placed on a post at the entrance to the site which would have been obvious and the current occupiers had breached the notice already. The Chair went on to ask if the applicant had raised any issues regarding the site history or whether they were aware of the site history and that it was on the Green Belt. The Principal Planner confirmed the applicant had been aware of the site’s history and that the site was on the Green Belt.

 

Regarding the medical letter relating to applicant’s child, Councillor Hamilton asked whether it was dated. The Principal Planner replied that the letter was dated November 2018 and contained private medical details that could not be shared with the Committee. Councillor Hamilton went on to ask if there was a residential area to the north of the site and whether it would be possible for encroachment further up and past the houses. In response, the Principal Planner said that the boundaries of the site was defined as shown by the red lines in the map and that the applicant did not own any further land past the houses. It would not be possible to encroach into another person’s owned land for development works.

 

Regarding the Green Belt and openness of the site, the Chair thought that a huge volume of work had already been undertaken judging from the photos shown. He asked the case officer for more details. The Principal Planner answered that there was more hard core surfacing on the site than there had been previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

96.

18/01760/HHA - The Lodge, Fen Lane, Bulphan, Essex, RM14 3RL (deferred) pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planner, Tom Scriven, gave a brief outline of the application which had been heard at Committee on 14 February 2019 and had been brought back to outline the implications of approving the contrary to Officer recommendation. The key issues of the application was that:

 

              The site was in the Green Belt;

              Permitted development rights had been removed;

              The total square metre of the extension would be twice the size of what local policy allowed for; and

              There were no special circumstances that would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt.

 

Adding to the application, the Locum Planning Lawyer, Bob Capstick, referred to section 70(2) and section 38(6) outlined on page 23 of the agenda. He went on to refer to the procedures outlined in paragraph 7.4 and 7.5 in the Constitution. The Locum Planning Lawyer stated that this meant the Committee had one chance to set out the reasons for departing from the Officer’s recommendations which needed to be clear, convincing and demonstrate planning grounds.

 

(Councillor Churchman was unable to participate in the item as he had not been present for the initial hearing of the application.)

 

The Chair opened the item up to the Committee for questions.

 

Referring to policy PMD6, the Vice-Chair noted it would be unlawful to grant the application approval. He went on to ask if there would be penalties to individual Councillors if they passed the application. The Locum Planning Lawyer answered that there would be no direct penalties.

 

Councillor Hamilton said that his main reason for refusing the application lay in the last paragraph on page 23 of the agenda. He went on to say that a successful legal challenge to the approval of the application could come from the neighbours and that future similar applications could use this application as precedence for their applications.

 

The Chair reminded the Committee that the item was still open for questions. He went to ask the case officer whether the application would set a precedent for future similar applications. The Principal Planner answered that the application would not necessarily set a precedence as each application was considered on their own merit. However, consistency was necessary in how the policy was applied.

 

Agreeing with the Principal Planner that each application was considered on their own merit, Councillor Rice said that there were specific reasons within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that allowed the Committee to pass the application.

 

Referring to Councillor Rice’s point, the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection, Andrew Millard, said that this was in part correct but the development plan and the material planning considerations of the application had to be taken into account. The total square metre of the extension fell contrary to the development plan.

 

The Chair opened the item up to the Committee for debate.

 

Noting the legal advice given by the Locum Planning Lawyer, Councillor Rice referred to the paragraph 145, item C of the NPPF ‘…the extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

97.

18/01635/FUL - FBS Salvage, Stanhope Industrial Park, Wharf Road, Stanford le Hope, SS17 0AL pdf icon PDF 368 KB

Minutes:

The Principal Planner, Jonathan Keen, presented the application which sought permission to build a two storey commercial building. Another condition was recommended to be attached to recommendation B in paragraph 8.2 which was that lorries would be prevented from leaving the site from 7.00 to 19.00 Mondays – Saturdays and no lorries allowed on Sundays and bank holidays.

 

The Chair opened the item to the Committee for questions.

 

Councillor Churchman sought clarification on the objection stated in paragraph 4.6. The Principal Planner explained that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) were not a statutory consultee but had been concerned on the proximity of the site which lay within 500 metres to the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area. There had been no objections raised regarding this from Natural England but had requested a number of conditions.

 

Regarding the birds, Councillor Lawrence questioned whether works would be undertaken during the birds’ nesting season. The Principal Planner explained that the ground was hardstanding at present and there were no areas of work to be undertaken which would disturb the birds.

 

The Chair thought the proposal would help to bring in more business to the area and moved the application on to voting based on the Officer’s two recommendations to approve. Recommendation A was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Hamilton.

 

For: (8) Councillors Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained: (1) Councillor Angela Lawrence.

 

Recommendation B was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Sue Shinnick.

 

For: (8) Councillors Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstained: (1) Councillor Angela Lawrence.

 

The application 18/01635/FUL - FBS Salvage, Stanhope Industrial Park, Wharf Road, Stanford le Hope, SS17 0AL was approved.

 

98.

18/00450/OUT - Greenwise nurseries, Vange Park Road, Vange, Essex, SS16 5LA pdf icon PDF 493 KB

Minutes:

Tom Scriven, Principal Planner, presented the application which sought planning permission for development of the site for up to 31 custom-build homes. The site fell within the definition of the NPPF regarding previous development of the site and there was an existing lawful use of the site.

 

Referring to page 83 of the agenda, Steve Taylor questioned the ‘fall-back position’ mentioned in the table. The Principal Planner explained that this referred to the lawful use of the site which was currently used for storage.

 

The Chair invited the speakers to present their statements.

 

The Agent, Mr James Bompas, presented his statement in support of the application.

 

The Chair asked if there were any similar type of developments to the application in Essex that were successful. The Principal Planner was aware of one successful planning appeal with a similar type of development but there were none in Essex.

 

Noting the objection regarding access on page 70 of the agenda, Councillor Hamilton asked whether there were problems in this area. Answering that Highways had been consulted, the Principal Planner said there had been no objections to the proposed access.

 

The Chair felt the development proposed was exciting and situated in an interesting location. The item was opened up to the Committee for debate.

 

Councillor Lawrence welcomed the application and was aware of building companies wishing to build in Thurrock and having a design code in place was good to ensure quality. She went on to say she had seen the site which needed tidying up.

 

Councillor Rice agreed that it was great to see custom build homes proposed as the government was encouraging this type of development. It was good to see that Thurrock was ahead on this type of development.

 

Councillor Hamilton questioned if the houses would be built simultaneously. The Chair said that this would depend on planning permission. The Principal Planner answered that uptake of the development would not be at the same time and developers would have to stick to the parameters outlined in the design code. Councillor Hamilton went on to ask if there was a limit or cut off point on building works. Explaining that this was not within the Planning Authority’s control, the Principal Planner said that there was no definite timescale of building works given the amount of people waiting for the scheme.

 

The Chair commented that developers were usually aware of the risks involved and 3 years to build was usually given upon permission although land was a different matter. The Principal Planner explained that once the land for the site was approved, development works on the site could commence. There was demand for the scheme and the uptake should be fairly quick.

 

Regarding the education contribution mentioned on page 70 of the agenda, Councillor Hamilton questioned how this would be arranged. The Principal Planner answered that the education contributions was arranged through the legal agreement with terms agreed.

 

Councillor Churchman welcomed the development and thought it would help to improve the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.