The application had been considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 27 July 2017.  The Committee had deferred determination of the application for details of access for construction traffic to be clarified.  The Chair therefore reminded Members that those Members who had not participated in the original debate could not participate at this meeting either.

Since determination of the application was deferred, the applicant had commissioned a ‘Construction Traffic Access Options’ report.  The Committee was reminded that the substantive issue for consideration remained the determination of the planning application for the residential development of the site and the recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to a S106 agreement and conditions, remained unchanged.

Councillor Ojetola was pleased that the applicant had acknowledged the concerns of the Committee.  He asked whether Meeson’s Lane (proposed option 4) was less busy than the existing roads to the south of the site (proposed option 3) and for clarification regarding the location of the link at the top of Meeson’s Lane.  The existing, unregistered land between Parker Road and the site also lay between 2 residential properties.  The applicant had provided information around expected vehicle movements, at the initial stage movements would be highest, on average 17 a day falling to only 1-2 a day during later phases.  Meeson’s Lane had not been assessed as part of the initial application and separate planning consent would be needed but it was quite wide with no frontage of houses on the section in question.  The implications would therefore be different for that route.

Councillor Piccolo queried whether it was intended for the planning permission for Meeson’s Lane and Parker Road to be a delegated decision or brought back before the Committee.  It was intended that the permission, on a temporary basis, to achieve development of the site should be straight forward and therefore would be a delegated decision.  The Council as a Planning Authority would have to consult with the relevant residents, the highways department and those responsible for parks and open spaces and assess any concerns raised.

The Chair questioned the loss of amenity during the construction period given the play area and green space proposed for access.  The site was fairly open and the swings were situated farther north therefore there would be no loss of equipment.

The Chair continued that the Committee would agree proposed Option 1 would be the preferable option, though it had been deemed unviable due to costs and negotiations with third parties.  It was his view that Gloriana was, in a sense, a community project but residents would be unhappy about the impact during construction.  He raised concern regarding the proposed access point in Option 4, as it lay between two residential properties and asked whether the Committee could indicate a preference for that option and retain the ability to stop it if it could not be done safely.  There were only 2 commercially viable options presented and he wanted to take the burden away from residents of the three existing roads south of the site, but needed to ensure safety for Meeson’s Lane.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Committee was not determining the application based upon the preferred route, as it would form a later application, however an informative could be used to guide the applicant.  Conditions would address issues around hours of construction, noise control, and dust.

Councillor Ojetola asked officers to verify that the temporary access route would cease to have access to the site after construction, and to confirm the expected duration of any parking restrictions.  The access route would be temporary for use by construction traffic only.  The land was unregistered and therefore could not be used otherwise.  The build was expected to take 2 years with highest vehicle movements within the initial phase.

The Chair asked for clarification regarding proposals for additional parking, given the loss of turning heads in Belmont, Castle and Rosebery Road.  The Senior Highways Engineer confirmed that the existing roads would remain as 2-way traffic.  The new estate would follow a 1-way route.  To mitigate the loss of parking there were proposals for parallel parking bays at the top of the three existing roads, these would be one way running from Belmont Road to Rosebery Road; residents of Rosebery Road would need to travel up Belmont or Castle road to access these.  The rear service route between Belmont Road and Parker Road would remain 2-way.  The Chair noted reference to parking management and asked what could be done to protect the existing residents.  Following an informal consultation a parking management scheme was in development for the area and condition 11 concerned parking management.

Councillor Piccolo stated that the application had been deferred due to concerns regarding access and impact upon local residents.  Of the two viable options he felt Option 4 seemed most resident friendly as it would cause very little inconvenience after the initial few months with no parking restrictions to residents.  He had always been of the view that the scheme was positive there had just been issues to address. 

The Vice-Chair noted that there were two possible options for access however they were not for determination by the Committee.  He would support the application.

Councillor Ojetola recalled the Committee had raised a number of concerns initially.  The reality was Thurrock would see a massive increase in houses on brown field sites and while he was sympathetic to the local residents he felt there was little that could be done given the demand for new houses.  The Committee would seek to reduce the impact on residents and he appreciated the work of officers and the applicant to address Members’ concerns.  It was his view that option 1 would be preferential given the lack of impact to residents but he understood that it has been assessed as unviable.  He therefore proposed option 4 and asked how this could be conveyed.  The Chair clarified that an informative would be added, advising the Committee’s preference for Option 4.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex representative felt Councillor Ojetola was correct.  He was concerned that option 1 had been disregarded due to “additional costs” and felt the options should be costed fully.  Although option 1 might prove more difficult and involve negotiations with third parties it should not be disregarded entirely as it would cause least disruption to residents.

It was proposed by the Vice-Chair and seconded by Councillor Piccolo that the application be approved subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement and planning conditions, as per the officers’ recommendation, including an informative regarding the preferred option for construction access.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Tunde Ojetola and Terry Piccolo.

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement and planning conditions, including an informative regarding the Committee’s preferred option for construction access.