The chair referred to the addendum that was produced confirming that covers items 7 and 8 on the agenda.

The Senior Planning officer provided an overview of the application. Advising the proposal outlines planning permission with some matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved for the proposed development of up to 830 dwellings (Use Class C3) if the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed (scenario 1) OR up to 1,000 dwellings (Use Class C3). If the Lower Thames Crossing does not proceed (scenario 2), the plan proposes a new local road network including a vehicular / pedestrian railway crossing, a primary school, local centre and new areas of open space, including formal recreation.

The committee were advised the proposals include a new bridge over the railway, landscaped open space, and 12%- 27% affordable housing dependent on the scenario. Review of viability indicates that the affordable housing could be 23% for scenario 1 and 35% for scenario 2.

The application is currently subject to an appeal against non-determination and a public inquiry will be held on 1 October 2024. The recommendation to the planning committee is to refuse planning permission.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that following publication of the agenda for the Planning Committee, further consultation responses were received from residents, consultees, and the Applicant’s agent.

Two consultation responses were received, including one in objection for the following reasons: access to site, additional traffic as the three main roads into Linford appear to be unclassified lanes; environmental pollution; out of character; loss of amenity by building on the green belt; road bridge needs providing.

One response was given in support of the application from DP World summarised as follows: contributing to the residential needs of growing their workforce; the need for balanced growth in the Thurrock; the number of freights trains is likely to increase over the coming years so the need for the bridge for access to East Tilbury is recognised.

It was confirmed that on 5 July 2024 HSE sent an updated representation advising against granting planning permission on safety grounds. The HSE’s advice is noted as an informative on this refusal and as a matter that will need to be addressed on appeal.

In addition to this National Gas provided an updated consultation to advise that buildings or structure within the easement of the high-pressure gas pipelines will not be permitted and any building proximity distances must comply with the HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology.

Councillor Kelly requested legal advice, advising that he is employed by DP World and noticed they provided a letter of support in the addendum. The legal representative advised to keep an open mind and advised they could proceed.

·       A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from a resident.

·       A speaker statement was heard in opposition of the application from the ward councillor.

·       A speaker statement was heard in favour of the application behalf of the applicant.

Members sought clarification from the applicant’s speaker on whether the bridge will be built first, and the price of an affordable 4-bedroom house.  I’m not sure – it was a bit tough to pin him down, my understanding was that it would be part of the first phase but that the houses would be built first. Members were also advised that there will be variables, some properties will be for rental and others at discounted market rates. The value will be reflective of the type of property in the area. 70% will be social rented and 30% will be shared ownership, therefore prices will be dictated by the council.

The Co-optee sought clarity on the design and formation of what could potentially be a spine road advising it may become the main road by default. The Highways officer advised they discussed several options with the applicant including all traffic being diverted over the bridge.

Members questioned the importance of the details such as electric pylons, schools, pipeline that had to be specifically drawn up to prevent issues in the future. Officers confirmed there should be enough to make it clear what will be lawfully permitted.

Members questioned the soil quality and the green belt along with the agricultural land. Officers reassured the committee an assessment map was reviewed. The report states in paragraph 6.55 the site scores a ‘very good’ rating on Natural England’s Agricultural Land Classification map for the Eastern Region.

The chair questioned whether reasons for refusal could be reshaped as conditions and sought views from the officers on this matter. Officers advised they have included robust reasons for refusal and if there were any room for conditions, they would have included it in the report. Despite this concerns can shape conditions and if members were minded to approval officers would need to review what the appropriate conditions would be.

The Chair raised that the speaker for the applicant referred to factual inaccuracies and wanted to know officers’ thoughts on that comment. Officers confirmed this was only brought to their attention during the speaker statement and they’re unaware of alleged inaccuracies, however this will be taken up outside of the committee meeting.

Members questioned whether rules may potentially change before the appeal in October under the new administration, particularly as they are pushing for more housing. The Chief Planning officer confirmed that national policy can change, this will be taken into consideration at the time, however committee must decide based on the status of local and national policy.

Members questioned  public inquiry  process and whether they approve or refuse the application. The committee were advised that each side will make their case. Public can make representations and planning officers will provide evidence. Effectively the planning inspector will make the final decision and it won’t return to the planning committee.

During debate members raised concerns that the application is on greenbelt land with no special circumstances around this site, which is the most important issue. Concerns were raised around the expense of the public inquiry.

The Chair summarised stating that there is an over-arching need for housing, however questioned whether it was needed in that location. It was noted there are several infrastructure concerns. As well as concerns raised by national gas and HSE. The chair reconfirmed that the decision must be made based on the information we have now.

The chair read the following recommendation for approval. 

Recommendation: That members agree to the recommendation, that if it wasn’t for the appeal against non-determination that the application would have been to refuse planning permission. The proposal would have significant strategic implications for the Borough as the site would represent development in the Green Belt and would therefore be a departure from the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development [2015] and would normally be subject to referral to the Secretary of State. However, the applicant has appealed against non-determination of the planning application and this application is now subject to an appeal. The decision taken by the Planning Committee to this application will inform the Council’s case for the appeal.

This was proposed by Councillor Liddiard and seconded by councillor G Byrne. Councillors proceeded to vote.

For (8): Councillors Liddiard, G Byrne, Kelly, J Maney, P Arnold, Polston, Sisterston, Fletcher

Against (0): None

Abstained (1): Councillor Shinnick

Recommendation to refuse planning permission accepted.

The meeting paused for a break at 19.07pm Meeting commenced at 19.15pm