Agenda item

20/00623/FUL Waterworks, High Road, Fobbing, Essex, SS17 9JW

Report to follow.


The report (which can be found on the Council’s website was presented by Chris Purvis. Since the publication of the Agenda, there had been some updates:


  • The NHS had provided a consultation response that identified the financial amount of £66,400 needed to mitigate the impact on the healthcare sector;
  • Updated plans for condition 2.
  • Condition 25 had additional text that included surveys in regards to Great Crested Newts and reptiles.
  • Paragraph 1.2 should be read as 6 one bed apartments and 15 two bed apartments.
  • For the total parking, it should be read as 342 spaces for the allocated/unallocated that was in total and in addition to the visitor spaces which would equate to a total of 388 spaces in the site.
  • There were a couple of other minor changes.


Democratic Services read out the Resident, Vicki Barrett’s statement of objection.

Catherine Williams, the Agent, read out her statement of support.


Councillor Sammons note the reservoir within the site plans and questioned whether fencing would be placed around it. She went on to ask what type of fencing would be placed there and who would be maintaining that fencing. Referring to the railway barriers in the area of the site, she noted that these were half barriers and raised safety concerns and the dangers over these as her ward area also had half barriers. She noted that there was no response from the railway organisation on the consultation and felt concerned as this would be the near the proposed dwellings of the development and would be their exit route. Chris Purvis answered that there was an existing reservoir on the site that was covered up. He said that the proposal was to remove, infill and build in the location of  the reservoir. Regarding the railway barriers, he confirmed that these were currently half barriers that prevented people from crossing over when it was down. He went on to say that the barriers were the responsibility of Network Rail and that Network Rail had been consulted but had not provided a response which could mean that they had no objections to the proposal.


The Vice-Chair questioned what affordable housing meant for Bellway Homes and how much of the proposed homes were allocated for social housing. The Committee discussed the potential costs of the proposed dwellings. Chris Purvis said that the Applicant’s Planning Statement confirmed 59 affordable housing units which was 35% and consisting of a mix of one and two bed apartments; two and three bedroom houses; and four one bed wheelchair units. The tenure of these complied with Council policies in regards to 70% social housing and 30% intermediate housing which complied with NPPF guidelines. There was no detail on the pricing of the proposed properties.


Steve Taylor noted the response to the consultation from Highways in regards to the railway barriers and sought further details. He also highlighted issues in the road after the railway line of traffic queues that could potentially risk cars being trapped on the railway line and questioned whether there was a provision for another lane. Chris Purvis explained that Highways had raised the issue of the railway barriers and that Network Rail were responsible for replacing the barriers. On the road issues, he said that the roads mentioned fell outside the boundary of Thurrock Council so could not insist on a mitigation of a right hand turn lane. Julian Howes explained that the Highways Team had raised an issue in regards to the impact of the barriers on traffic queuing. In terms of traffic queue lengths, the Applicant had shown that the tailbacks at the crossing or towards the crossing were not very significant so the Highways Team had not found issues in traffic generations and queuing in and out of the proposed development.


Councillor Lawrence thought the site was a prime location and was disappointed to hear that the majority of the 35% affordable homes offered would be by the railway tracks. She felt the proposed development was a major project and proposed that a site visit be undertaken which Councillor Rice seconded. The Chair was not in favour of a site visit as he said there were no issues from Highways. The Vice-Chair felt there were issues with the railway barriers that had to be addressed.


FOR: (7) Councillors Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.


AGAINST: (1) Councillor Tom Kelly.




The application was deferred for a site visit.

Supporting documents: