Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 25th April, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. View directions

Contact: Wendy Le, Democratic Services Officer  Email:

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 109 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 March 2019.



Regarding item 98 – planning application 18/00450/OUT Greenwise Nurseries, in the minutes, Councillor Rice questioned if the application had received a response from central government yet. In consulting with the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection, Andrew Millard, the Chair answered that no response had come back yet but the application had been sent.


The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 21 March 2019 was approved as a 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


The Chair declared a pecuniary interest on item 12 – planning application 17/00723/DVOB as he was an employee of DP World Development so would be unable to chair on that item and would be vacating the meeting upon the hearing of the item. He went on to mention that a Chair would need to be elected when the Committee came onto that item to chair that specific item due to the Vice-Chair’s absence as well.



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


The Chair had received an email regarding agenda item 10 – application number 19/00267/FUL Silver Springs from an individual.


The Chair and Councillor Rice had received an email regarding agenda item 10 – application number 19/00267/FUL Silver Springs from the Agent representative for objectors to the application, Barton Willmore.


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 144 KB


The report was presented by Leigh Nicholson, Strategic Lead for Development Services.


The Committee was satisfied with the report.




That the Planning Committee noted the report.


17/01668/OUT Development Land East of Caspian Way and North and South of London Road, Purfleet, Essex pdf icon PDF 2 MB


Presented by Matthew Gallagher, Principal Planner, the application outlined the planning issues raised by the proposals for the redevelopment of land in the centre of Purfleet which was known as ‘Purfleet Centre’. He mentioned the late email that was sent by the Agent representative for objectors to the application, Barton Willmore.


Regarding point 13.35, page 146 of the agenda, from the 10th and 11th line down, the Principal Planner said that from the sentence beginning ‘Planning conditions could…’ was ‘will’ rather than ‘could’ as condition L9 in Appendix 1 covered this point. In the same paragraph, the food retail floor space would be 2,750 sq. m. (gross) and other retail floor space would be as set out in the paragraph.


On point 18.13 on pages 170 and 171 of the agenda, the Principal Planner said this referred to an anticipated application for a 3G pitch for Harris Riverside Academy. The Principal Planner confirmed that an application had already been received and this application was also referred to within the planning history section (4) of the report as the last entry on page 66.


The Principal Planner also gave a summary of the following details within the application:


·         Not less than 10% of the residential dwellings proposed would be affordable;

·         Railway facilities and the station would be upgraded and moved to allow the town centre infrastructure to take place;

·         Railway lines and platforms would remain uninterrupted;

·         4 new crossings would be implemented over the railway lines;

·         The 2011 application previously submitted had proposed mixed use of the site and had been approved following referral to the Secretary of State;

·         The northern part of the site was Botany Quarry which was currently in industrial use and discussions were being undertaken on buying parts of the site that was not owned by the Council;

·         Proposed demolition plans if approved included commercial buildings within Botany Quarry and at the International Timber site and some vacant residential terraces near London Road;

·         Harris Riverside Academy was brought forward as a separate application and was already under construction following approval in 2017; and

·         There was a reserved matters submission for zone 1A that proposed the 61 residential dwellings which was currently under consideration.


Key planning considerations outlined by the Principal Planner included:


·         Purfleet was one of the 5 regeneration hubs identified by the Council’s Core Strategy;

·         There would be community and commercial uses within a new local centre. A sequential test had been undertaken in accordance with Government guidance and conditions were recommended to mitigate the impact of the proposed local centre on existing town centres, as set out in appendix 1, point L10 on page 260 of the agenda;

·         The material planning considerations raised by the proposals were outlined within the report. It was noted that the Environment Agency would remove their outstanding objection if the recommended conditions were agreed;

·         An independent viability consultant had confirmed that the scheme was not financially viable, but the applicant would be prepared to accept a lower financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.


19/00219/FUL Barvills Farm, Princess Margaret Road, East Tilbury, RM18 8PA pdf icon PDF 289 KB


Presented by Tom Scriven, Principal Planner, the application sought to demolish two agricultural buildings to the north of the site. In place of this, it was proposed that 3 detached, 4 bedroom dwellings would be erected with associated open cart lodges, hardstanding and vehicle access road and landscaping with proposed access to be from Station Road to the south of the site.


The site was on Green Belt and as the site did not constitute previously developed land, this was considered to be inappropriate development on the Green Belt in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. There were also no very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The application was recommended for refusal.


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


Noting the cowshed and herding unit within the photos shown in the presentation of the report, Councillor Little queried whether these were considered to be a ‘footprint’ of the site and if it would be a part of the proposals to be built. The Prinicpal Planner answered that the current buildings on the site were not listed and the applicants were relying on the removal of these to enable their planned dwellings to be built.


Steve Taylor, Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative, asked the end date for the solar farm that was located behind the site. The Principal Planner replied that solar farms were given temporary permission on land which was for around 25 years. The solar farm behind the site had been in place around 2015.


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


Mentioning the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), Councillor Rice said the proposed service area for the LTC was proposed to be 1000 yards from Barvills Farm. He went on to say that by central government legislation, Thurrock needed to build 32,000 homes and despite the approved application of the previous item heard (17/01668/OUT Purfleet Centre) that would give 2,850 homes, Thurrock would still be short on the given figure of 32,000. Councillor Rice continued on to say that Thurrock’s land supply was just over a year when it should be 5 years. The proposal of the homes on Barvills Farm should be seized as the proposed LTC service station may be 1000 yards away and from the report, there had been no objections especially noting Natural England and Landscape and Ecology Advisor which would be the case used to allow the Committee to depart from Council policy.


Continuing on, Councillor Rice said that the Committee may need to pass planning applications similar to Barvills Farm and allow building to commence on Green Belt. Homes were needed and this application was proposing 3 dwellings and the Committee had to bear in mind that the proposed LTC service station may be 1000 yards away.


Disagreeing with Councillor Rice’s comments, Councillor Little did not agree with building on the Green Belt and said the figure of 32,000 homes to be built in Thurrock was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.


19/00267/FUL Silver Springs, High Road, Fobbing, SS17 9HN pdf icon PDF 392 KB


The Principal Planner, Tom Scriven, outlined the planning application which proposed the demolition of Inglefield and the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated access road, landscaping and amenity space. The application also proposed side and rear extensions to the host dwelling Silver Springs. The site was located on the Green Belt and a large proportion was currently open garden land. As a result a significant proportion of the site could not be considered to be previously developed land. Even if the site was considered to be previously developed land, it would have a greater impact upon openness than the existing development on the site. Therefore the proposal was considered to be inappropriate development that would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The circumstances put forward with the application were not considered to constitute very special circumstances which would clearly outweigh the harm to openness.


Since the publication of the agenda, an additional letter of objection had been received from a neighbour whilst there had been an additional letter of support from the applicant. The matters raised within the letter of objection had already been covered within the Officer Report. The letter of support was primarily concerned with the weight afforded to the very special circumstances submitted with the application. Having reviewed this letter it was considered that the appropriate weight had been afforded to these circumstances. Therefore, the application was recommended for refusal as set out in the agenda.



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


Regarding the current construction, Thames View Farm, that was taking place on the other side of High Road, the Chair questioned how Thames View Farm had been approved for building and why the current application of Silver Springs was recommended for refusal. The Principal Planner explained that Thames View Farm had been identified within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document which was covered in points 6.23 – 6.26 of the report. This was a consideration in the determination of the Thames View Farm application but had never been adopted.  As a result this allocation no longer carried any weight.  In addition Silver Springs did not fall within this draft allocation and the situation on the two sites was different as Thames Farm was a small holding whilst the Silver Springs site was open garden land.


The Chair questioned if there was an avenue for the applicant to apply for allocation if the application was to be refused. The Principal Planner answered that this was part of the Local Plan process and the case could be put forward that the site could be requested to be released from the Green Belt for allocation in the future Local Plan. This was a process that was outside of the consideration of a planning application. The Chair went on to ask if the applicant could apply immediately or would they have to wait for the revised Local Plan to develop. The Principal Planner said that the consultation on the Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.


19/00271/FUL Land Adj A13 A1306 and to front of 191-235 Purfleet Road, Aveley, Essex pdf icon PDF 538 KB


Presented by Chris Purvis, Principal Planner, the application sought full planning permission for the erection of a new warehouse and distribution centre with relevant facilities to accommodate staff and users of the warehouse. The proposal would use the newly created access point from Purfleet Road and a 'left-in' access from London Road along with landscaping, boundary and drainage treatment.


Table 3.4 within the report pointed out the differences between this current application and the previous application that had been heard at the Planning Committee in September 2018. This application was larger than that application but smaller than the approved outline/reserved matters application which were all live consents.  The current application demonstrated improvements in terms of design, benefits to the Borough in terms of economic growth and job creation. The site is well linked to the nearby strategic road network for the A13 and M25 from the Wennington Interchange for HGVs. The application was recommended for approval subject to the planning conditions and obligations stated within the report


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


Councillor Little noted the number of available HGV parking spaces and questioned whether these were private or open to all HGVs. The Principal Planner answered that the number of available HGV parking spaces were less than the previous application but the application includes provision for van movements and that these were proposed to be on either side of the site. The previous application included HGV docking on 3 sides of the building. Councillor Little went on to ask if there would be cafes and toilets for people using the site. The Principal Planner confirmed that there were welfare facilities located within the buildings and enough to cater for staff and other users.


Noting the scale of the proposed warehouse and distribution centre, Steve Taylor wondered whether there was an opportunity for the local businesses from Botany Quarry (that was mentioned in the earlier application of the evening 17/01668/OUT Purfleet Centre) to relocate to this site. The Principal Planner replied that the applicant had an end user for the proposed site. The Chair commented that Steve Taylor’s suggestion was good and one to bear in mind.


Councillor Lawrence said that planning permission had already been granted on the first application from September 2018 and the Applicant must have noted it was not big enough at the time. She sought more detail on point 6.29 of the report as the noise impact description seemed vague. The Principal Planner explained that noise control through the construction process could be managed through a Construction Environmental Management Plan planning condition on big construction projects . The Applicant would need to provide measures to the Council on how the site would be managed.


Regarding piling works, Councillor Lawrence asked when piling would begin and at what times of the day. The Principal Planner answered that the application was going through the consultation process and the conditions of piling were set out in points 19 and 20 on page  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.


17/00723/DVOB - DP World Development, London Gateway, Stanford Le Hope pdf icon PDF 405 KB


The Chair excused himself due to his declared pecuniary interest on this application. Councillor Rice took over as Chair.


The Principal Planner, Matthew Gallagher, presented the application which sought to modify an existing s106 planning obligation associated with the London Gateway Logistics Park Local Development Order (the LDO). It was recommended that the existing s106 agreement be varied in accordance with the table as set out at Annex 1 to the report.


The Committee was satisfied with the report.


The Committee moved onto the vote on the Officer’s recommendations.


For: (8) Councillors Rice, Abbie Akinbohun, David Potter, Sue Sammons, Sue Shinnick, Sue Little, Graham Hamilton and Angela Lawrence.


Against: (0)


Abstained: (0)


Application 17/00723/DVOB DP World Development, London Gateway, Stanford le Hope was approved.