The report on pages 81 – 156 of the Agenda was presented by Chris Purvis. An updated version of Appendix 1 was circulated to Members and uploaded on the Council’s website.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.17pm to enable the Agenda to be completed.

Councillor Rice noted that Network Rail did not have objections to the application and he asked if the half barriers were sufficient for 170 new houses. He said that Members objected to the half barriers and asked whether a s106 condition could be added to resolve this issue. He noted that it was mentioned that there were 400 lorry movements a day although some Members did not see a lorry move whilst on the site visit. Chris Purvis explained that Network Rail was responsible for the railway barriers and that the Council had been in contact with Network Rail to establish whether they would install alternative barriers. Network Rail confirmed that they had no objection and were not looking to change the barriers so Members would be determining the application with the barriers as they were. The half barriers were the responsibility of Network Rail and the Council had no authority to change these so adding an s106 condition would be difficult. He went on to explain that there could have been lorry movements seen on the other Member site visits (Clerk’s note - these had been separated into groups following national government guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic) and that the movements stated within the report was accurate and had been considered as part of the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Shinnick supported the proposal. She was pleased to see that the access had been moved further along the road which would take the pressure away from the railway barriers. Councillor Lawrence thought the access was still too close to the bend so an accident could still occur particularly when the barriers were down. She was still concerned on the half barriers particularly as foot traffic would increase with the development and she suggested that the Applicant could contribute some funds towards full barriers. She also disputed the lorry movements as the site was run down and did not have much activity although this would increase if the development was there. She sought clarification as to why Basildon Council objected to the application as she objected to the application for the reasons of the half barriers being in place and the increase of traffic that the development would have an impact on the roundabouts in the area. She also pointed out that the affordable homes proposed was near the railway line which was not a nice location. She thought the application could be approved with certain conditions otherwise it should be deferred until the issues she mentioned was resolved.

The Chair pointed out that the half barriers were Network Rail’s responsibility and could not ask for the Applicant to contribute funds for a new barrier and that the access had been moved to a more suitable location. The Vice-Chair agreed and said that there were similar sized developments with similar crossings so it should not be a reason to refuse the application. He suggested that Members could make representations to Network Rail to ask that they consider investing properly in the railway barriers. Chris Purvis explained that the option of contributing funds towards full barriers had been discussed with Network Rail but they were clear that they would not replace the half barriers. He said that there were no objections from Network Rail so was unsure what a letter representation could do.

The Vice-Chair questioned whether the Applicant was confident that the half barriers in place would be sufficient given that the site was going to have an increase in people using the crossing particularly on foot. He also sought this assurance from Network Rail. The Chair added that the letter would highlight Members’ concerns over the half barriers and it would be an issue for Network Rail to address. He went on to say that if Network Rail chose not to address the concerns, then they would be liable should a situation occur on the crossing. Chris Purvis said that Members’ concerns could be raised with Network Rail again. He advised that Members may wish to do this before determining the application and defer the application because once approval was given, it would be difficult to resolve those concerns afterwards. Leigh Nicholson said that a letter could be sent to Network Rail with Members’ concerns.

Councillor Byrne said that the site was a scrapyard which the Agent had said would take a year to clear and that there were no objections. He thought affordable housing in Fobbing was not possible and that the £66,000 NHS contribution was an insignificant amount. However, he felt the location was great for the SS17 postcode so he was supportive of the application. Councillor Lawrence reiterated her concerns and said that the relevant parties needed to work together to ensure the crossing was safe before an approval.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.37pm due to technical issues and recommenced at 8.45pm.

Councillor Potter and Rice also highlighted their concerns on the half barriers and suggested that the Council and the Applicant contribute funds to Network Rail to enable them to make the crossing safer. The Committee discussed deferring the application to enable the issues to be resolved and it was highlighted that the pressure was on Network Rail and not the Applicant as the Applicant would not be able to do anything with the half barriers. The Vice-Chair suggested that Network Rail show statistics to show if the half barriers they had in place were sufficient which would provide reassurances to Members.

Leigh Nicholson explained that there were no objections from Network Rail and the Council could not force them to make changes to the half barriers which were the responsibility of Network Rail. Planning conditions and s106 could only be used to make a development acceptable in planning terms which needed a harm to be mitigated and an objection to address. As there was no objection from Network Rail, there were no grounds for the Council to put in a condition or offer funds from the development towards the objection. He said that a letter would be sent to Network Rail as Members requested and the wording of the letter would be cleared with the Chair. The letter would highlight Members’ concerns and request for the crossing to be improved for the safety of pedestrians. Officers would liaise with the Applicant and potentially have a joint letter sent.

The Chair proposed the Officer’s Recommendation A and was seconded by Councillor Shinnick.

(Following Chapter 5, Part 3, para. 13.5 of the Constitution, Councillor Churchman could not participate or vote on this item).

FOR: (4) Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Gary Byrne and Sue Shinnick.

AGAINST: (4) Councillors Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice and Sue Sammons.

ABSTAINED: (0)

Following Constitutional procedures, the Chair had the casting vote in a tied vote and Recommendation A was passed.

The Chair proposed the Officer’s Recommendation B and was seconded by Councillor Shinnick.

(Following Chapter 5, Part 3, para. 13.5 of the Constitution, Councillor Churchman could not participate or vote on this item).

FOR: (4) Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Gary Byrne and Sue Shinnick.

AGAINST: (4) Councillors Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice and Sue Sammons.

ABSTAINED: (0)

Following Constitutional procedures, the Chair had the casting vote in a tied vote and the application was approved. Officers would send a letter to Network Rail as mentioned.