The report was presented by Chris Purvis. He informed Committee that there had been an update to the Essex RAMs payment outlined in recommendation B. He said that the new payment was now £12,093.30 as this was increased due to the new financial year.

The Chair thanked Members who had attended the site visit on Wednesday 9 June. In regards to the football pitches, he asked if these were managed by the Applicant and asked why these were not used. He also asked if permission was needed to access the pitches. Chris Purvis answered that the football pitches were maintained by the Applicant and that the pitches shown on photos were from five years ago. He said that the Applicant had informed that the pitches could be used and reinstalled if needed but this area was outside of the application site’s proposal. To access the site, he said that permission would be needed from the landowner.

The Chair said that more parking spaces were needed and also acknowledged that more green spaces were needed. He asked why the service had requested for more green spaces instead of parking on the proposal. Chris Purvis explained that the site needed a mixed balance of amenity and green space, and to create a better visual appearance rather than the development being parking dominant aspect. He said that the parking spaces proposed met the Council’s draft parking standards.

The Chair pointed out that there were only three visitor parking spaces in the proposal which would cause parking issues. He noted the double stacked parking design and sought more detail. He also asked who would be managing the car parking and what the Council’s parking standards were. Chris Purvis indicated on the site plan on where the double stacked parking was proposed to be built. He said that cars would park underground with another car park level on top which required less land use and that there was a planning condition that required full details on this to be provided. He went on to say that there was a car parking management scheme under condition 18 that would require the Applicant to provide the Council with details on the car parking management company. On the Council’s parking standards, he explained that the medium accessibility applied in this case which was 1 to 1.25 parking spaces. However, the location of the site was close to the town centre and was considered sustainable so one parking space per dwelling was acceptable.

Councillor Byrne questioned whether the football pitches could be built on in a future planning application. He asked if this land could be protected from development through the planning application that was before the Committee. Chris Purvis answered that the pitches were on private land. He said that if the Applicant proposed to build on this in a future application, there would likely be an objection from Sports England if that sports facility was lost. He said that the site of the football pitches was outside or the red boundary line of the current planning application but could add a planning condition that the football pitches be used as a sport facility only.

Councillor Fletcher asked who had access to the football pitches. He also commented on the lack of car parking spaces as some households would have two cars. Chris Purvis said that the football pitches were within the Applicant’s land. Football clubs wishing to use the pitches would have to contact the Applicant as it was private land. On car parking, he explained that the site was centrally located and people would be able to access the site by bus, walking or cycling. Julian Howes added that the current car ownership from the National Census was 0.75 car parking spaces per flat.

The Chair noted that the site was centrally located and pointed out that there was only a bus route and the site was not close to the train station. He felt that parking issues would likely arise in the local area with the development. He asked if there were mitigation measures in place for this. He commented that people could currently park on the road outside the site and this could potentially happen if there were no spaces in the development’s car park. He asked whether double yellow lines or Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) would be installed to prevent this from happening. Julian Howes answered that the walk from the train station was 20 minutes and that the area had accessible transport links. He said that the Council had requested that the Applicant contribute towards a car club and potentially, a number of the parking spaces would be put towards this. He went on to say that the site was within a medium accessible area and although there was a concern of two cars in a household, the parking standards were based on a normal capacity assessment and not at full capacity. He explained that there were public parking facilities around the area of the site and that the car park would not always be at full capacity.

Referring to paragraph 6.29, Councillor Polley sought clarification on the two way traffic movements and if it included weekends. She commented that double stack parking was expensive and the application may come back to review this. She also asked who would manage the parking enforcement. Julian Howes said that the traffic movements were based on peak morning and evening hours when traffic was worse as more people would leave or enter the site at the peak hours.

Councillor Polley pointed out that the west of the borough was constantly busy as it was close to the M25 and A13. She commented that, if the football pitches were to be used, it would generate a lot of traffic particularly on Sunday mornings and that car clubs did not always work with certain organisations. Julian Howes said that Sunday traffic movements were generally not worse than the traditional peak hour traffic on 8am – 9am and 5pm – 6pm on weekdays. This was due to people going to work or coming home from work and taking children to school in the mornings.

Councillor Polley asked what was considered to be a significant loss of light (in relation to Dove Court); where the electric gate was positioned; and if there was an emergency vehicle access road for the gated development. Julian Howes said that the gates were expected to be set back from the highway to allow enough room for vehicle waiting to get into the development. Chris Purvis added that more details on the gate would be secured through condition 15. Regarding the loss of light, he said that the proposed building closest to Dove Court was set back from the boundary between the site by eight to nine metres. This would not have a material impact on Dove Court that would warrant a refusal of the application. He stated that the daylight and sunlight assessment also supported this.

The Chair commented that the electric gates would need to be set further back into the site. He said that visitors trying to access the site would need a key fob or be allowed entry into the site so would be waiting for access at the entrance of the gate.

Councillor Piccolo pointed out that the football pitches were not part of the current site application and that the Applicant could decide whether to build on it or not. Referring to the car club, he noted that there would be five or seven vehicles and questioned where these cars would park. Julian Howes answered that the logistics of the car club had not been decided yet. Chris Purvis added that the Transport Manager had asked the Applicant to contribute towards a car club and that the Applicant was willing to work with the service to achieve this.

Councillor Watson asked how many of the 98 proposed car parking spaces was for disabled spaces. She queried if this would mean less parking spaces for the proposed units and what the procedure was for unused disabled spaces. She also asked if an additional 23 spaces would be added to meet the maximum 1.25 car parking spaces for the Council’s parking standards. Julian Howes said that the minimum required for disabled spaces would be allocated out of the proposed 98 car parking spaces. He said that the development met the minimum car parking standards in the Council’s parking standards. Chris Purvis added that, as part of the car parking management plan, if the spaces were not required for disabled purposes, these could be used for other purposes. The site plan indicated 12 disabled parking spaces.

Referring to the contributions listed in recommendation B, Councillor Akinbohun asked if these were enough to mitigate the impact of the development to the area. Chris Purvis answered that consultees through the consultation process had identified that these contributions were required to mitigate the impacts of the development for it to be considered acceptable.

Speaker Statements were heard from:

• Janet Littmoden, resident in objection to the application.
• Shane Ralph, ward councillor in objection to the application.
• Russell Barnes, agent in support of the application.

The Chair started the debate by saying that the development was a community benefit and would have improved facilities. However, he was concerned that there development did not have enough provide enough parking spaces and would result in parking issues which would bring in the instalment of double yellow lines and CPZs. He pointed out that the car club and double stack parking already indicated that there were not enough car parking spaces.

Councillor Byrne said that he been at the site on Saturday morning to look at the traffic issues and found that there was not much traffic during that time. He said that there were more traffic issues during the week as the Council had opened a youth offender’s centre in the area and had not provided parking for visitors and staff who were parking along Springhouse Road. He agreed with the Chair that more parking was needed on the site. He noted that the agent’s speaker statement mentioned that the application was community focused and felt that funds could be diverted into Corringham’s local community.

Councillor Fletcher agreed that there was not enough parking spaces. He pointed out that the Springhouse Club car park was not always full but that this would change if the development was built. He noted that the sports facilities would be improved which was welcome but the issue was the number of car parking spaces on the site for the proposed dwellings.

In regards to the car club, Councillor Piccolo said that this needed to be located on the site or next to the site as future residents on the development would not use this if it was located too far. He said that there were good transport links in Thurrock going into London which was good for work but not for going anywhere else. He pointed out that people would travel by car to visit friends and family. He said that the lack of parking was a major concern for him. He noted that the Applicant proposed more green spaces but pointed out that the site was next a large green space.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 8.23pm to enable the agenda to be completed.

The Chair proposed recommendation A of the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

FOR: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Abbie Akinbohun, Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson.

AGAINST: (1) Councillor Terry Piccolo.

ABSTAINED: (0)

Councillor Byrne proposed recommendation B of the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

FOR: (3) Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Gary Byrne and Lee Watson.

AGAINST: (5) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Abbie Akinbohun, Mike Fletcher, Terry Piccolo and Georgette Polley.

ABSTAINED: (0)

Jonathan Keen referred Members to the Constitution Chapter 5, Part 3 (c), para. 7.2.

The Chair considered proposing a recommendation of refusal on the basis of a lack of parking provision. He said that the development would have an adverse impact on the local road network and lead to the introduction of CPZs in a local economic area that did not currently have CPZs in place. He said that this decision was based on a previous application that had a similar lack of parking spaces proposed. Chris Purvis suggested that Members could defer the application to enable the Applicant to address the issue of the lack of parking spaces in the proposal.

The Chair queried whether there was an option to look further out of the development without encroaching into the green field and keeping the green spaces. He questioned what the potential increase of car parking spaces could be. He said that at least 20 – 30 spaces more would be better. Chris Purvis answered that there was a possibility of 6 to 8 spaces in an area of green space but this would be close to neighbouring residents in some areas of the site. He said that this would be explored and would be within the red line of the site.

The Chair proposed the deferral and Councillor Fletcher seconded.

FOR: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Abbie Akinbohun, Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson.

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAINED: (0)

The meeting adjourned at 8.36pm and recommenced at 8.43pm.