The report was presented by Chris Purvis which can be found on pages 223 – 230. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission as outlined on pages 228 – 229 of the Agenda.

Councillor Byrne questioned whether HGV drivers had riparian rights over residents on Wharf Road. He went on to say that the name of the road was termed to mean a road that provided access to the wharf so the road was a right of access for HGV drivers. Councillor Byrne also noted that the site was owned by the developers, Mersea Homes, who would lose contracts if they did not follow the time restrictions in place and result in job losses. He questioned if riparian rights were outdated as other legislations were in place such as the Road Traffic Act 1984. Matthew Ford explained that the classification of Wharf Road was an adopted highway of Thurrock Council and was the responsibility of the Council to maintain the road. Operators had the right to access the development site as it was the only access route into the site and as it was an adopted highway which the public also had the right to pass on Wharf Road. There was no particular group that had more right than another to access Wharf Road. He went on to say that the Highways Act 1980 and Road Traffic Act 1984 would have superseded previous legislations.

The Chair questioned if there was a difference between road access and access times as the application requested an extension of operation times. Chris Purvis explained that the planning application was to vary a planning condition  to allow for works on the site to start at 6am instead of the current time of 7am and the main issue with the application was the consideration over earlier traffic movements along Wharf Road where there were houses and therefore there is a consideration  to protect residential amenity for local residents living in that road which was why the application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Byrne raised the issue of riparian rights again and pointed out that the wharf was on the site before residents had moved into the area. He raised concerns on the jobs of those who worked on the site. Chris Purvis explained that the application sought to vary the hours for 5 HGV movements to start from 6am instead of 7am so it was not clear how this would cause job losses from a refusal of the application. He reiterated the point on residential amenity.

The Vice-Chair questioned if the extra hour would result in more HGV movements along Wharf Road. Chris Purvis reiterated the application details for 5 HGV movements between 6am to 7am and the point on residential amenity.

Referring back to riparian rights, Matthew Ford said that riparian rights were access rights for the maintenance of water courses but not access right to the water course. He gave an example where a roadside ditch owned by a farm would have riparian rights that would enable them to maintain the ditch from the roadside. This was not the case for the application before the Committee as there were no roadside ditches that the Applicant would need to access from the highway. He went on to say that the site was located on the southern side of the DP World Gateway and the adopted highway was close to that and in terms of the riparian rights the Applicant would not necessarily have riparian right to Wharf Road. Through the Road Traffic Act 1984, there was also a weight limit on Wharf Road that would limit unauthorised HGV access and there were also the planning conditions to the original planning permission that sought to reduce the amenity harm to residents through the current hours of movement.

A resident, Tara Haroon’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

The Ward Councillor, Terry Piccolo’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

Some of the Committee Members felt that there was already enough amenity harm caused to residents in Wharf Road as there was also HGV movements on the road during Saturdays. There were comments that the site could be moved into a non-residential location and that there were environmental harms caused by HGVs. Matthew Ford said that vehicles could only be operational during the hours of operation agreed under planning conditions and within the weight limits under legislation.

Councillor Rice proposed the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Shinnick.

FOR: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Colin Churchman, Dave Potter, Gerard Rice, Angela Lawrence, Sue Shinnick and Sue Sammons.

AGAINST: (2) Councillors Mike Fletcher (Vice-Chair) and Gary Byrne.

ABSTAINED: (0)

19/01739/CV was refused planning permission.