Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Good evening everybody and welcome to the planning meeting. It is now 601 PM and I am now going to start the meeting. My name is Michael Fletcher. I will be the chair for this meeting and I welcome you all to this evening. I'd like to remind everyone present that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded for publication on the council's website. So item one on the agenda is apologies for absence. Carly, just a check, I have three apologies here. We've also received additional apologies from Councillor Tom Kelly. So I have Councillor Kelly, Councillor Byrne, and Councillor Manni on here. Yes, that's correct, yes. Okay. Nobody received any other apologies? Great. Thank you very much. The agenda item number two, minutes from the last meeting, I appreciate that some of us weren't here for the last meeting, but it has been published and I'm reliably informed that we are in a position to vote on whether it's an accurate record. So I would like to move that the minutes of the planning committee meeting from the 18th of April 2024 be approved as a correct record. Are there any comments on the accuracy of the minutes? Steve? No, I'm sorry, I'm just looking for something. Oh, right. Sorry about that. I'm new here. So. Second that, okay. Seconded by Councillor Lydiard. So all those in favour? Against? Okay, so that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay, agenda item number three, items of urgent business. I have not agreed to any urgent items of business for this evening. [ Inaudible ] Lovely. Agenda item four, I doubt we'll run through the rest of them as quickly as these, but it's a good start. Item four on the agenda is declarations of interest. So I would like to ask anybody if they have any interests they'd like to declare. Paul? Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Yeah, just really just a prudent kind of thing really. The applicant on the agenda item eight, this gentleman's been known to me for a number of years. I haven't had any contact with him for the last couple of years. So I just really just wanted to get out of the way so there's no conflict. I did use my own property on Globe Industrial State, and I have a couple of related issues, but I just want to get that out there. Thank you. And just to make clear, Councillor Arner has spoken to me about this, and I've said he does not need to recuse himself. He has not spoken about -- to the applicant about this matter, so he can proceed making a decision on this case. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lydiard? Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I'm a wall Councillor in Tilbury, of course, and I've been to Bumble's Yard and the Golden Chicken Civic Square on many occasions, but I haven't sort of predetermined, so I just wanted to let people know. Thank you, Councillor Lydiard. Anybody else? Great. Thank you very much. Item six on the agenda is planning appeals. Trevor Faulkner, may I ask you to present the appeal, please? Thank you. Get the right button. That would help, wouldn't it? Good evening, Chairman and members. This would be a quick update in terms of planning appeals. Since the last meeting, there's been seven appeals lodged with the council, of which one of those is for 10 Chestnut Avenue. That came before members on the 14th of March. That was no return, so it was refused, and that's now been lodged as an appeal. There's six other appeals as well, but none in terms of major applications at this time. In terms of the four appeal decisions we've received, the positive news they've all been dismissed as recommended. Two of those were with regard to green belt sites, so the inspector upheld the view that they were not very special circumstances and inappropriate development in the green belts. And the other two related to residential developments and extensions. In both cases, they were considered to be either overdevelopment or inappropriate design and form, so went with the officer recommendations for refusal. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Kevin. Okay, members, any questions for Kevin on the appeals? No, lovely. So, recommendation for this item is to note the report. I move that we note it. Okay, thank you very much. Item seven on the agenda. Public address to planning committee, and I assume I get to read this out. The planning committee may allow objectors and applicants or planning agents and owners of premises subject to enforcement action or their agents to address the committee. Okay, so I think we were aware of that, but let's just all be clear. Okay, I'm now going to move to agenda item eight, which is application 203, oblique 00311, oblique full. It's on pages 19 to 36 of your agendas. May I ask Jonathan Keen to present the report? Thank you, Chair. [ Inaudible ] Sorry, just bear with me, just trying to fix the-- [ Inaudible ] On you go, Jonathan. Hopefully, that will stay up on our screens. [ Inaudible ] Sorry about that, okay. [ Inaudible ] Carly, can you enlarge the screen? [ Inaudible ] Sorry about that, thank you. So the application before you seeks planning permission for the construction of an L-shaped building to provide 10 commercial units for B2, which is general industry, and B8, which is storage and distribution uses. The units would range in size from 119 to 261 square meters with ancillary offices at the mezzanine level varying from 49 square meters to 66 square meters. Thirty-six new car parking spaces would be created and it's anticipated that 30 full-time jobs and 10 part-time jobs would be created. Just as a brief sort of housekeeping matter, I took a call from one of the local ward members this afternoon, Councillor Gledhill. He advised that the-- he'd spoken to a number of residents about the application post the publishing of the committee report. And if you notice on the committee report, there were concerns from neighbors with regards to issues such as noise, highways, matters, and concerns about the development of the site. He advised that following the publication of the reports, the conditions on the report relating to noise and disturbance, hours of use, bin collection, bin storage, and conditions relating to the windows and the uses of the outdoor areas of the site meant the residents were happy with the application now and they didn't want to come along this evening, and equally, Councillor Gledhill decided he didn't want to come along this evening because he was happy with the conditions that had been put forward. So the application site is on the screen at the moment. There was a previous building on the site which I'm indicating with the cursor, the white building there, that caught fire and had to be demolished for safety reasons. So the application before you seeks effectively a new building in the location of the previously demolished building. The picture on the screen now is looking towards the entrance to the site so there's a shared access in the middle of the picture which serves the building to the right and with the palisade fencing at the back, that's the start of the application site. This image is looking east across the application site. So at the rear, you've got the steep cliffs which form the boundary of the site to the east with Overcliff Road. That is looking south within the site, so that's part of the existing slab that's still there from the previous building and the palisade fencing is the southern boundary of the site. So this plan shows the previous building on the site on the left. So you can see the dotted line shows that the building didn't extend the full depth of the site but was wide and the new proposed building is an L-shaped building which spreads along the southern side of the site and the eastern boundary of the site. So there we have the proposed ground floor plan so we've got 10 units within the main building, we've got car parking areas to the left, the entrance, the shared entrance to the site on the left and the entrance to a further site up north runs along the western boundary. Here we have the first floor plan so that shows mezzanine offices at first floor and we've got the roof plan which shows roof lights to light the first floor. And these are the elevations or some of the elevations of the proposed building, so you can see it's a modern industrial building with some roller shutter entrances and personnel doors on the front and to the rear elevation they've got small doors for fire escape on the back and there's a proposed bin and bike store details. So the application site lies in an area that's allocated for commercial purposes in the core strategy and therefore the principle of a small scale development of this type would be acceptable. The design of the proposal is a modern, as I said, modern building with gray cladding and modern features. The Towers Road area is a mix of ages and designs of building so the proposal represents a modern commercial unit and would be acceptable in design terms. If we look at the layout of the building now, it's been designed to have a live frontage to the front to the left or to the west and the north and it backs on to the cliff face so there would be no activity to the rear of the building where the nearest properties are on Overcliff Road. So the overall design and layout is considered to be acceptable. The proposed site layout shows 36 new car parking spaces and 10 car parking spaces retained along the access road. The highways team have indicated that level of parking would be sufficient for the number of units proposed but a condition is recommended to ensure that there is adequate turning space within the site. So that condition has been applied to the recommendation. One of the concerns raised by neighbors was the amenity impact of the use. It is an existing commercial area and there are other properties nearby. There are residential dwellings to the right-hand side of this image. You can see the gardens and the properties on Overcliff Road. They are some 25 meters from the site. But the amenity of these residents will be protected by conditions on this permission which include hours of construction and demolition, hours of use, preventing the use of outside areas to the rear of the building and limiting the outdoor areas to the west of the building so that no noise generating uses can take place from there. The proposed building therefore would have little noticeable impact on those residents, especially against the wider background of the estate. One final matter to note is ecology. The application was accompanied by a preliminary ecological assessment called a P which identified that the site was of limited value, but there would be value in trees on the eastern boundary and opportunities to improve the ecology could include native tree planting and bird and bat boxes being included on the building. A landscaping plan has been included which the ecology officer has found to be acceptable. And on your desks you will find an additional condition which we are recommending to ensure that the ecological impacts are mitigated and that bird and bat boxes are provided. So if I just read the condition to you, so the new condition is that the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the preliminary ecological appraisal report, reference S22816 forward slash PEA dated December 2022. And that will ensure ecological matters are taken into account when the building is developed. So in summary, the principle is acceptable, there are no concerns with highways design or amenity issues, and subject to conditions the application is recommended for approval. Thanks Jonathan. Right, I'm now going to open up to questions. So please let me know if you have any questions for Jonathan. Councillor Shinnock. Thank you, Chair. Could you tell me what the working hours would be of the storage units, you know, because it's quite a built-up area around there and you have traffic coming to and from near the housing. So condition 16 of the report limits the hours from 7.30 in the morning to 7 o'clock on weekdays, 8 o'clock to 1.30 on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or bank holidays. So those are fairly standard hours that we would include on commercial sites of this type. And certainly the hours for this application are more restrictive than the building that was there in the past. So residents will see a betterment by these conditions compared to what was there previously. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Arnold. Will there be any restrictions on the usage as such at this stage? Yeah, we have put a use condition as well. That is-- So that's condition 11. So that restricts the use to B2 purposes or B8 purposes. So that's B2 is general industry and B8 is storage and distribution. Because the units are relatively small, we wouldn't necessarily expect to see large numbers of large vehicles coming and going to each of the units. So partly, the sort of intensity of use will be restricted by the size of the units. And we have also restricted outdoor storage as well. So the uses will be contained within each of those premises. Thanks, Councillor. Any other questions from anybody else? Councillor Lea. Thanks, Jonathan. I see there's a number of existing trees between the building and the domestic properties. And you've got six new trees coming in as well. So that's pretty much going to shield the industrial-- well, it's not industrial, is it sort of light, not industry from the properties, yeah? Yeah, we're-- sorry, yes. We're satisfied that the built-- the trees existing will provide a level of screening. The-- There are other conditions on there which prevent any of the windows on the back of the building being opened so there won't be any noise breakout or impact from those. We've also put conditions on so that the rear doors on the building should only be used in an emergency. And there's also a condition to say there should be no storage or use of the land outside at the back of the building so the building will have a shielding effect as well from the noise to the west of the site as well. So, yeah, there shouldn't be an impact on neighbors. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. Jonathan, if I might ask you a couple of questions. Firstly, you mentioned one of the conditions mentions a travel plan, the desirability of a travel plan, I think it is-- God. 4.5, public health. My question is given that this will be eventually used by multiple different businesses, how do we expect the travel plan to-- who will have responsibility for putting the travel plan together and ensuring that it is followed? The only condition in terms of highways at the moment, there is a condition requiring a parking layout, highways loading and turning area details. The highways team themselves hadn't requested a travel plan per se. But if it's something members were-- wanted to include, we could put a travel plan on there. At present, we do have a travel plan coordinator who will review any travel plans when they come in and then we'll be able to sort of review them periodically if that's a condition members wanted to put on. And the responsibility for that travel plan would lie with whom? In the initial stages, the applicant would have to provide the travel plan. The travel plan would need to be kept on site so that occupiers of the site followed the travel plan and we would be able to monitor it by sort of reviewing that sort of periodically if needed. Thank you. And just one more question. You noted there that the public health officer had concerns and you did note that the application had met-- well, the application has been publicized in line with the relevant legislation. Personally, I don't think that necessarily answered the question. So, how have you addressed the PHO's concerns? So the-- we've notified adjoining neighbors, we've provided a public site notice as well, which is what the requirements of the planning legislation requires us to do. So we have fully notified in accordance with those requirements. I think the public health officer was looking for the applicant potentially to have spoken to residents, but that's not something in terms of the planning legislation that they're actually required to do. So, that would be over and above what would be needed. So, whilst it may be desirable for the public health team for them to do that, we couldn't have insisted that they do. Thanks, Jonathan. So, Steve, you have a question? [ Inaudible Remark ] Steve, I'm not sure your mic's on. [ Inaudible Remark ] That would be why. [ Inaudible Remark ] Perhaps you could use Paul's. Yeah, we share that one. Does that help? That's so much better. I didn't turn mine on then. So, my kind of question that that whole of the globe works is the volume of traffic that goes in one road and out of one road is, I would say, excessive anyway. So, by comparison with the building that stood there previously and what it's going to be replaced with and the number of employees expected, is that going to have an impact, i.e., a positive or a negative impact? Or you may not know that, but-- The-- Oh, if Julian may have some comments on that. I thought it might be Julian. The floor space, the floor space of the building compared to the other building was within, I think, 10 square meters, so the actual floor space itself was pretty much equivalent. I don't know if Julian has got anything he wants to add. Thank you, Chair. The only thing I would add is obviously that's the thing that we-- chip-based trip generations is on square footage within tricks generation and obviously minimal increase in floor area is minimal increase in potential trips from the site. So, overall, the impact was almost the same, practically. Thanks, Jonathan and Julian as well. I guess my overall question is, I understand the answers you've given me, but I just look at that site every time I go anywhere near it, and there's lorries parked up everywhere and it's a bit of a nightmare. So, depending on the industry that's there, and I know that's been sort of specified anyway, but with luck, you know how businesses grow, which is exactly what you want them to do. I just kind of see that as adding more of a problem, and that was what I was trying to see how much of-- how honestly we'd been able to assess that, and I appreciate you can't predict the future, so-- but thank you both anyway. Sorry, Jonathan, did you want to come back on that? Yeah, just a brief comment. It is quite a tricky site because it's grown up organically over time. It's been there for a long time. What we do is, where there are new applications, we obviously apply the relevant current parking standards, and we look at ways where that we can protect from on-street parking, that we can protect from the issue of lorries and HGVs. But some of the older units, where they don't have conditions, are not restricted in terms of use, then they can park and there's no control over those. But certainly where we can have that control, we certainly try and do that. Thank you. Councillor Cisterton. Yeah. On just reading through, the current car park that's there is used as a sort of overflow car park, is that right, from other units or other-- Yeah. I think at the moment, because there is no building on there, there is a site, if I flick back to the aerial photos for a second. So there is a site at the north, which is called Trunk Logistics. And I believe at the moment, they may be using some of the spaces informally, while there's nobody else on the site. But the red line site area, which I'll show you in a second when I get back to it. But the red line-- yeah, so the red line site area on the screen. So all this car parking, the applicant has signed a certificate which says that area is all under his control. So they will be able to use that space for their units. And if somebody else is parking on there, they could get them to-- it would be within their gift to stop them parking on that area. So they would-- the applicant would have control of all those spaces. Because they're not-- the concern would be the knock-on effect, wouldn't it, on if there was limited parking at the other units. And if that's spilling over already, then it could cause an issue there. Yeah. I think-- yeah, I'll take your point on that. I think this is-- this unit or these units are towards the far north of the GlobeWorks estate. So they're effectively the furthest point away from the main public highway. But I'll take your wider point about sort of excess parking. And as I said, where we can control it, we do. But some of these uses have grown up and increased sort of exponentially. So we can't always, in planning terms, control that parking on the highway, unfortunately. Thanks, Jonathan. Any more questions? So I now propose to move to debate. So who would like to cast the first stone? Who's-- I'm interested to know who's got some thoughts. Councillor Arnold. Thank you. I might as well kick it off first. I mean, I'm actually probably in favour of the scheme. I mean, obviously, hearing comments about the additional traffic, et cetera. I mean, for many years, it's been a kind of first come, first serve parking thing around there. You know, some people get there at a silly o'clock in the morning, they get the vehicles out and just take up the first available space. And I know that's always been a problem and it will never change. So, I mean, I think it will generate a lot more parking. But, you know, obviously, people that occupy the units, they just have to take that as they come. I know the introduction of the one-way system on the estate has improved matters there considerably, actually, at least people know they've got to go in one way and out the other. And that sort of takes that on, you know, that meeting of lorries and vehicles, vans and things, it gets rid of that problem. So that's helped. Yeah, in favour of the scheme. I think what was there before was not of great quality. I mean, it's never been the most picturesque part of the world down there anyway. But I think this scheme is obviously brand new, it's modern, small units, which are great, I think, because obviously there's a lot of companies out there that, you know, would like to get started. Small enterprises is perfect for them. And as Steve said, you know, we all like sort of businesses to grow, gain additional staff, et cetera. So it could be a very good stepping stone for many small businesses. And hopefully they would then move on to larger premises, employ more people, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm in favour of it, it's a good scheme. All brand new, lovely, thank you. Thanks, Councillor. Anybody else? Anybody got any particular concerns they'd like to express? Councillor Shinnock. My main concern is the traffic turning out the estate onto Rectory Road, because I quite often go down there and it's a nightmare, you know, with all the lorries coming out. That's my main concern. You know, you can't get down, you know, physically get down the road, you know, at times to go access down there. But that's my main concern, thank you. Councillor Lydiard. Thanks, Chair. I mean, I'm sort of quite pleased that there's potentially 30 full-time jobs and 10 part-time jobs. It replaces a building that was there before and burnt down, I believe. Yeah, I think there will be some parking issues and there will be some traffic issues. But if this was turned down, I'm afraid, and it went to appeal, we would definitely lose because it is commercial space and we ought to make the most of our brownfield sites. Thanks, Councillor. Anybody else with any comments? Okay, so two seconds, I will just consult with the gentleman on my right. [ Silence ] Thank you. So I'd like to now move on to our recommendation. The recommendation of the planning team is to approve this application with the extra condition, sorry, the extra condition that Jonathan has mentioned. Before moving to ask you to move or not, I think it's worth pointing out that obviously there were some concerns expressed by residents. It's good to hear that those concerns seem to have been addressed by the conditions. So that's certainly worth noting. It's also worth noting, as a couple of you mentioned, that there is a traffic issue now. And obviously it's up to you to decide whether you feel this would significantly worsen that traffic situation. But with all that in mind, I'd like to ask if anybody would be prepared to move the recommendation that we approve. Moved by Councillor Liddiard. Anybody to second that? Seconded by Councillor Sisterson. All those in favour? All those against? Anybody abstaining? We have one abstention. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to agenda item number nine. This is application 23, oblique 01150, oblique full, Bumble's Yard, St. Chadds Road, Tilbury. May I ask Lucy Mannion to present the report, please? Thank you, Chair. So this application is for full planning permission for demolition of existing structures and construction of a food store with associated vehicle access, car parking, landscaping, engineering, drainage works, the applicant is Lidl. First of all, there's a few updates that I need to cover. So there was also an objection on highways grounds from another retail supermarket. There was an additional public representation of support received after the report was published. In addition to the 192 representations of support, there are a number of additional representations received on a generic template. These were received in bulk submissions from residents in Tilbury and surrounding areas and they were all also in support of the application. Within the report, paragraph 6.1, it refers to the town and country planning consultation England direction 2024. This should refer to the 2021 legislation as the application was received prior to 26th of January, 2024. Also, the application does not need to be referred to the Secretary of State due to paragraph 5 as it does not exceed the required floor space. Policy CSTP 5 neighborhood renewal should have been included in the policy list in paragraph 5.3 of the report as this covers priority regeneration areas which include Tilbury. And finally, the recommendation within paragraph 8.1 of the report will have the requirement for section 106 for travel plan monitoring fee of 3,600 pounds included. This was not included in the report initially because it was understood that this 3,600 fee was going to be paid upfront and therefore there wouldn't have been a need for a legal agreement, but that has changed now. Thank you. Okay, so on to the actual application. This is site location plan. The site covers 1.2 hectares and is currently occupied by Bumble's Yard Livery Stables. Several buildings are located on the site. The existing buildings are mainly located in the western half of the site, so that's here. There's also a menage in the northern central part of the site and the site's boundary comprises some trees, hedges, and fences. The site is bounded by the A126, which is St. Chad's Road to the west, so here. Residential properties on Feenan Highway and Lawrence Gardens lie to the immediate south of the site with farmland to the north and east, which is separated by a flood bank. A traveler's site lies to the north along St. Chad's Road, and to the west is the site of the new Tilbury Football Ground, which is under construction. The site is within Greenbelt and in high-risk flood zone three. This is an aerial photograph where the site is fairly central, so it's here. This is the proposed site layout, so the plan shows the location of proposed development within the site. So the single-storey food store, which is here in blue, would have a gross external area of 2,269 square meters and located to the south of the site. The existing vehicle access to the site, which is here, would be improved, leading to a car park with 123 spaces, including six disabled, nine parent-child, and two electric charging bays, and there would be soft landscaping to the boundaries of the site. So these are the proposed elevations. This shows the north and the west elevations to the food store, which are the public-facing sides. The building would be seven meters high, reducing to 5.7, where it slopes to the south, so here. So these are the south and east elevations to the food store, which are the non-public-facing sides and don't have any fenestration. As part of the application, there's highways improvements, which have been required. So the scheme would provide the following. So a turning lane on St. Chad's Road, a mini roundabout at the junction of St. Chad's Road and Pheonan Highway, and two additional bus stops and shelters. And these would be secured via section 278 of the Highways Act, which is secured under this planning permission by condition. So now onto some photos of the site. So this is within the site car park, just by St. Chad's Road, facing northwest. Then within the site car park, facing north, this is in the site on the Menage, facing eastwards, so you can see the residential properties at St. Lawrence Cottages. These are in the background. So this is from further into the site, so it's Lawrence Gardens in the background. And this is from the Menage, facing northeast, out into the Greenbelt. This is within the site, facing north, so you can see the livery stables there. And this is from outside the site, so basically viewing the present access, which is going to be improved and widened, so viewing it from the junction of St. Chad's Road and Pheonan Highway. And this is viewing the access from the other side, so facing Pheonan's Highway. Okay, there's a couple of CGI images here, so to give a 3D impression of how the store would look. Okay, as I said before, the site is within Greenbelt and would not fall within one of the exceptions to inappropriate development as set out in the NPPF and local policies. Therefore, it would result in inappropriate development in the Greenbelt, which is by definition harmful to openness. The applicant has advanced circumstances that would amount to very special circumstances that overcome the presumption against this type of proposal. The five factors put forward towards VSCs are assessed from paragraph 6.2 onwards in the planning report. So there's genuine need for a discount food store in Tilbury, increase in local employment, encouraging sustainable transport, immediate investment into Tilbury, and improved visual appearance. The balancing exercise is summarised in paragraph 6.41 of the report. It's considered that significant weight should be attached to the genuine need for a discount food store in Tilbury. Immediate investment into Tilbury attracts some weight, and weights can also be attached to the increase in local employment and encouraging sustainable transport. Members need to be satisfied that the harm to the Greenbelt and any other harms, as identified elsewhere in the report, are outweighed by the factors put forward towards VSCs in a balancing exercise as required by the NPPF. On balance, officers conclude that the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt and any other harm. Therefore, a departure from Greenbelt policy is justified in this case. Okay, so to summarise, the two key considerations with this application, which is impact onto Greenbelt and retail development, which is outside the town centre. It's considered that the mix of factors towards very special circumstances could outweigh the harm to Greenbelt and any other harm. All other material considerations are acceptable, subject to conditions where identified. Recommendation is for approval, subject to referral to the planning casework unit as a major development in the Greenbelt conditions and a section 106 agreement to secure funding for travel plan monitoring purposes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Lucy. So I'd like to ask if there are any questions for -- oh, sorry, no, I'm not. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to read my script. And before we go to questions, I'd like to introduce our two speakers. Can I just check speakers that you have speakers that work? If you press the right-hand button and it goes red, then you're on. Fantastic. Okay. So our first speaker is Katie Russell-Smith, who is presenting a statement of support on behalf of the applicant. And the statement can be found on pages two to four of your speaker's notes booklet. Thank you, Katie. Thank you. Mr. Ferma, I'm the planning agent representing the applicant Lidl this evening. I want to touch briefly on the following key matters in relation to the application. So retail, the Greenbelt requirements, the flood risk and drainage points, highways, design, layout, and landscape and amenity. The site is considered out of center in planning policy terms. We're therefore required to address two retail tests. Whether the new food store will have an acceptable impact on Tilbury Town Center. And whether there are any sequentially preferable sites. In terms of need, ample unmet convenience expenditure in the local catchment has been identified, meaning there is capacity to support a new store and an opportunity to encourage more people to shop locally. Quantitative retail need is established. Qualitative retail need and demand is also being established by the popularity of the nearby discount food store in Grays. Which is trading at over double its turnover benchmark. The overwhelming public support of the benefits the development would bring evident through the public consultation household survey. The hundreds of letters of support for the application from neighbors and support shown today solidifies this local need. A proportionate assessment of retail impact has been independently reviewed. Concluded that the development will not result in a significant adverse impact on Tilbury Town Center. Secondly, the sequential search found no preferable sites available or suitable alternative sites exist. This conclusion has been accepted by your offices and by the council's independent third party retail consultant. The sequential test is met. To reflect the conclusions of the independent retail audit, there is no reason to refuse the application on retail grounds. In terms of green belt, the site is designated in the green belt. The site forms part of a wider 150 hectare parcel of land categorized by the council as fundamentally important to the key purposes of the green belt. For context, the application site represents less than 1% of that extensive parcel. A key purpose of the green belt is to maintain openness. The site already has development on it and this limits its openness. The proposed through-saw will not result in further sprawl of Tilbury nor coalescence with neighboring Chadwell St. Mary's. Key points on very special circumstances case for the development are that the retail benefits of the scheme have already been discussed. It's not just improving diversity of retail choice for residents but the combined benefits of addressing the lack of supply compounded by bringing a discount retailer that can reduce the average cost of weekly shop by up to 30% to a place facing relative deprivation during a cost of living crisis. Factors that can be considered very special may be rare or unique but it can also be the combination of commonplace factors such as this. Your officer agrees that retail needs should be afforded significant weight in considerations. The benefits of both direct and indirect job creation would help the unemployment levels and relative deprivation in Tilbury. Lidl's investment into the site will help the regeneration aims for Tilbury and will direct improvements, improve access to essential facilities. Your officer agrees the local economic benefits should be afforded weight and the residents of Tilbury are currently traveling to Gray's for their nearest discount supermarket. The proposal will enable Tilbury residents to shop locally and therefore encourage people to travel more sustainably. The officers agree this should be afforded weight. Your officer has concluded that the benefits of the proposal represent very special circumstances for development in the Greenbelt which clearly outweigh any harm arising from the development taking into account harm to the Greenbelt and any other harm. The site is in flood zone 3A and is as is the entire urban area of Tilbury. The proposed retail use is deemed less vulnerable development and so is appropriate. The proposal passes the sequential test and your officer, the LLFA and the environment agency conclude the plans are acceptable. In terms of highways, Lidl has worked with the authority to agree principles of improved vehicle access to the site, a new mini roundabout on St. Chad's Road and provision of two new bus stops and shelters which make the proposal acceptable on highways grounds. Your officer has confirmed the access, travel impacts and parking are acceptable. So turning to design, layout and landscape, the landscape and ecology advisor has no objections to the scheme. We consider that the proposed food store and associated landscape significantly improves the appearance of the site. Your officer concludes the design and layout of the scheme is acceptable. And finally, in terms of amenity, fencing provided around the plant area of the store will mitigate any noise impact on nearby residents. Noise from deliveries is confirmed to have no significant impact on nearby dwellings. Council officers are satisfied that the proposals in terms of residential amenity including noise, privacy and light pollution. We welcome the officer's recommendation for approval. Thank you, Katie. I did you a slight disservice. I should have mentioned that you had three minutes for that. You managed to get it in under five which is pretty impressive as it is. So thank you. Thank you very much. Now our next speaker is Craig Austin. Craig, I will remind you that you've got three minutes. So good luck. Thank you. My name is Craig Austin and I'm here tonight as the chair of the Tilbury Community Forum. The Tilbury Community Forum fully supports this application and I'm here to-- Sorry, Craig, do you want to pull that red thing slightly towards you? It'll just amplify your voice. The Tilbury Community Forum fully supports this application and I'm here to ask the committee to approve these proposals. The applicants and their representatives have visited and presented proposals to our forum on several occasions with Q&A sessions facilitated to listen to the residents and address concerns. It is refreshing to see an application with this level of resident engagement. As you know, part of our work as a forum is to liaise with residents in the community and as a group, we don't record project in Tilbury with this level of public support. That's evidenced in Lidl's consultation which is extremely wide ranging. There's hundreds of letters of support and I think 96% of those who responded was actually in favor of that-- of the proposal. One of the primary reasons our forum supports this application is the economic-- considerable economic benefits to our town. This investment that Lidl are proposing is going to create 40 new jobs in Tilbury and we already have local people expressing an interest in those jobs. Now, the applicants also has some of the most competitive starting salaries in the industry and for me personally doesn't offer zero hour contracts which is a big thing for me. The application is also going to deliver a much needed discount shopping option for Tilbury and not only Tilbury residents but those of neighboring towns and particularly people who don't drive. In my opinion, the level of public support this application has received highlights that need and the desperate need for varied food shopping options. Many residents are struggling with the cost of living and as a value for money retailer with a proven track record of working with their communities and we've seen that ourselves as a forum, Lidl's pricing model will be a great help to the residents. Food poverty in Thoreau is a growing issue and the amount of residents visiting food banks is increasing and there are unfortunately parents relying on school breakfast clubs to feed their children. The option of a discount food store is extremely welcomed. Bumblejard is a strong location for Tilbury and Chadwell and it will help more people without access to a vehicle to walk or take the bus to their regular shop. I've spoken to many residents who are excited at this opportunity. We currently have no discount food store in Tilbury with some residents traveling to Ockendon, some as far away as Canvey for the opportunity to go to their outlets but this is not obviously is not environmentally sustainable but it means that money is going out of the area which should be staying in Tilbury. This really for me isn't just a vote to approve a planning proposal, this is a vote in confidence in Tilbury town and it's going to secure a multi-million pound investment from an international entity. I do hope the committee can recognize the many reasons why local stakeholders and residents are in overwhelming support of this and on behalf of the Tilbury Community Forum I strongly urge you to back office the recommendations in favor of the application, thank you for your time. Thank you Craig, now I am going to throw it open for questions so Councillor Shinnick. Yeah, I've got a question, I do go down to quite often and when it does rain that rain balls area is flooded, you know there's lots of puddles, what is going to be done to address that problem? Sorry it's just been explained to me that I should have noted that we have questions for the moment, that will be questions to, in fact sorry that is questions to the planning officers, I'm afraid we don't get to ask you guys questions at this point. Certainly. We can only ask you points of clarification, it would be easier if he spoke than me really wouldn't it? Two seconds, I'll get the expert to talk. Okay, through you Chair, so there's an opportunity for members of the committee, if they've got any points of clarification for the speakers you can put them, if there aren't any we can go straight to officer questions but you can't come back to those speakers, okay. Thanks, hopefully that is clear and it's just a good job, we have somebody up here that knows what he's talking about, thank you. Yeah, thank you Councillor Shinnick. So the proposed design involves in terms of drainage, involves storage tanks underground via a network of pipes that drain to the outlet and then into the nearby drains on the marshes and the information submitted is calculated all of the drainage requirements of the site with the proposal obviously and the local lead flood authority happy with that information, subject to a condition but it's also part of the Tilbury drainage area, let me just find it, Tilbury flood storage area. So the environment agency has been closely involved at kind of every stage of this application to ensure that it's acceptable on drainage and flood risk grounds. Thank you, that was my main concern. Thanks Councillor, anybody else for questions, we'll go with Steve and then with Paul. Thanks Chair, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned whilst you were obviously discussing with the applicant but what's going to happen to the displaced people and businesses that are there currently, do we know? In terms of actual businesses and people living at the site, none of this is lawful so it's not a responsibility of the councils to you know, it probably sounds awful but I've searched through all the records on the site and obviously it was Wind's Cafe to the front and the livery yard to the rear, that is in planning terms what's approved on the site. Yeah, thanks Lucy and I understand that it probably doesn't come within the application because as you rightly say, if it's all illegal development then it's arguably relevant from a planning point of view but it does leave that question in my mind which says and what happens next and that was one of my concerns but thank you for clarifying that. Thanks Steve, Councillor Arnold. Thank you Chair, couple of questions actually and two of them might be directed straight at the little representative, if that's permissible Chair. The first one being really is are there going to be any charge points for electric vehicles in the car park and it's a basic question I know. Just to clarify Paul, it will be the office hall to answer that, thanks. Yeah, there is two actually proposed for the development as now but I know building regs will require that a lot more spaces are kind of wired up to be able to be changed easily in the future. Yeah, just two other questions really, the car parking proposed car parking is quite generous to me but I don't know how does that compare with a similar store of its size and the average car parking space is allotted to that store. So I was just wondering as a comparison how that works out, is it better, is it less? Okay, I'll probably hand it over to Julian here because I know a lot of work has been done on the car parking. Thank you Chair. I'll slightly answer your other question as well. As part of planning conditions from a highway's point of view they would need to include passive provision for future electric charging. So two at this stage but obviously the opportunity in the future to provide further. So that maybe just putting ducting in, not necessarily putting the electrics but the ability to put ducting in without having to dig up the car park again. In terms of the car parking I can't say that we asked to do a comparison with Lidl in South Auckland for instance but what they have done is a parking accumulation study based on the number of people that are likely to visit the store. And in that respect the parking is over sufficient to account for the potential number of parking people wanting to park to go to the store. Okay, thank you. And the other question is a bit sort of left field really but I think I might ask it again in the future should this come up because I do believe this is the first application of this nature that I've sat on anyway. I was just really curious to know what is quite specific, what Lidl's national policy is regarding getting the electric vehicles for HGVs? I know it's technology led, I don't know how that works. Is there a policy in place by Lidl to actually get their vehicles electric, fully electric? I'm obviously thinking of residents, et cetera, et cetera. So big question, difficult question maybe. I think it's a fair bet Paul that we probably can't answer that one via the planning team. May I direct that to you? So Katie is that one you can clarify for us? The gentleman behind me are probably the best people to answer that. It is a sustainable fleet that they're now putting in place. I don't know the exact answer to that. I'm sure Jason and Joe are sitting behind me who could give you a full answer but I can't unfortunately. No problem, thank you. I know it's an odd one but like I say it might come up more and more actually I think as we move on through even this one year. We can certainly answer that question outside of this forum if you're interested. Yeah, yeah, I would be, thank you, yeah. Thank you both. Councillor Liddiard next and then Councillor Systersen. Thanks Chair, if I may I've got a few questions here. It mentions solar panels on the roof. Do we specify how many? No, we haven't specified how many but whatever's shown on the plans will be the solar panels, so the roof plans. Okay, it's just the previous planning application that came to me. It was all, you know, it was this wonderful solar plan and nothing ever came of it really but that's always a good idea to know exactly how many square metres of solar. There is a condition to secure the, let me just find it, the energy measures. So condition 14, so all the solar panels and the other energy and sustainability measures which have been put forward which are required by planning policy, our local planning policies. So prior to the first use of the development they should be in place so we've got something to, if it doesn't happen then a condition to follow up. Just to correct, condition 21. Oh sorry, what did I say? Condition 21, apologies. Thanks. The mini roundabout, is it at the junction of the A126 Fenan Highway and the entrance to Lidl Car Park? No? Sorry Julian perhaps you can-- Thank you Chair, no. It's at the junction, there's going to be a separate right turn lane into the Lidl development. The mini roundabout will be at the junction of Fenan Highway and Chadwell Road. So that, if you're going north towards Chadwell, the mini roundabout first and the entrance to the site after that via a right turn lane. Okay, yeah I've got that one, thank you. During some of the discussions when we met the agents, they said they were quite happy for some of the mums going to school with kids at 9 o'clock or picking up at 3. If the mums could use the car park, which we thought was a pretty good idea because, you know, there's a lot of congestion in the gateway school. Is that still the case? It's not a discussion that I've had with Lidl, but it's dependent on their kind of local because all car parks have kind of different-- sometimes you have to spend a pound, don't you, in Morrison's here or there's new where you have to put your registration in and then you get on a keypad and then you can stay. So that isn't something that we could control by planning, but I would very much hope and think that they would honor this. I'm getting a nod from the agent there, which is really useful because if you go there at sort of quarter to nine in the morning or three o'clock in the afternoon, there's usually about a, you know, 50, 60 meter of queue going into the school from various directions and, you know, I think that would help and I think it would be much safer as well. My last question is something that's carrying on from Steve Taylor said, there were five homes there, four caravans and I think it's a three bed detached bungalow and that's got a family with three young children in. I just hope that, you know, there is a provision made for these people. We're losing a very handy garage, a cafe which turned into a burger van, which is probably not a great loss and we're losing a leisure facility. So, I think that has to be recognized in the overall. Thanks very much for your help, thank you. Thanks, Councillor-- oh, sorry. I wasn't sure. Do you want me to answer some of those points, Councillor Lidyard? More of a statement than anything else, yeah. Thank you. Councillor Systersen, you had a question. Yeah, there's quite a lot being covered already because the flooding was obviously an issue and I was concerned about if there's horses there as well, if there's any provision that you sort of dealt with that. So, moving on here, there's no home deliveries done at the moment by Little, are there? So, they have their own delivery vans. I have absolutely no idea. I can just Google it unless-- I think by way of clarification, Katie is shaking her head so I think we can take that as a no. No, because I was just going to say if that is looked at something in the future, again, it would be helpful if obviously if they were electric vehicles because I know that Tiscos have converted all theirs to electric so, you know. There's no plans at the moment. No, there's no home delivery. Okay. And also, talking about the EV chargers, I know in various places around the borough, the council have been installing EV chargers and it's-- sometimes it's met with some opposition because we're losing general parking spaces sometimes. So, I'm just thinking if there's going to be the facility for more EV chargers, could maybe more EV chargers be put in at this stage as looking at future demand as a thought, that's it. [ Pause ] Thank you, Chair. Within our parking standards, we have a set level at this stage which would be the expected level but obviously, we would expect little to be proactive in continuing to look at the amount of electric vehicle charging needing within the car park and provide that when the needs occur. [ Pause ] Okay. Any more questions? Right. I'd like to propose that we move into the debate stage. So, anybody care to start that off, Councillor-- Councillor Shinnock. Thank you. All I've got to say really on it, I think it's a great scheme and it's bringing faulty jobs to Tilbury. You know, the residents are all for it and I think is something we should go along with. It's about time Tilbury has some good stuff as well. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lydiard. Yeah, I mean, it's going to make a huge difference to the social economic situation in Tilbury. It could reduce shopping bills by sort of 20%, 25% and that's extremely welcome. I know part of the site is green belt but I believe there are very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the green belt. The site itself needs to be redeveloped in some way because it is a bit scruffy. I'm sad to see the homes disappearing but overall got to think about the whole of Tilbury, not just one site, and I'm very much in favour. Thank you. Councillor Arnold. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, very supportive of this scheme and it is very pleasing to hear actually local residents are absolutely 100% behind us. It's very pleasing and quiet and unusual actually. So, yeah, new jobs for the area, scruffy place out of the world but obviously missing homes is an issue. Yeah, all for it. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Steve. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. I guess my view of it, and it would come as no surprise to anybody, is that I will always object to anything that's going to go on the green belt. Having said that, given the amount of support he's got, and I can follow the logic of it, that would be about all I'm going to say about it. But I still have a problem with development on the green belt, and I also have a problem with the waiting and the fact that it's very subjective and it's down to an individual view. However, in this case, we just call it quits there, I think. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Steve. Before moving on, I'd just like to introduce into the debate, there's a couple of points that were made during the questions around one provision of electric or further electric charging. And secondly, the question that Steve raised about being able to use the car park at school drop off and collection times. I'm reliably informed these would not be appropriate as conditions. But I wanted to introduce into the debate, I want you to get your views on whether you feel that they would be valid as? Like we're calling them informatives? As informatives, whether you would like to add those to the existing approval. Yeah, I would welcome comment, that's definitely why I've asked. Sorry, over to you, Ash. Through you, Chair, so just to remind members, I'm sure you are aware, but with informatives, they're not enforceable. So they're really there for the applicant to consider, but they are a tool that the committee can insert if you say wish. Yeah, thanks, Ash. I think that's rather useful to bear in mind. So, any thoughts on that, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Councillor Shinnock. I mean, I think that'd be a good idea if we could get that point as a provision that the parents could use the car park in the future. So how important is that to the group? because obviously we're, in saying that we'd like to add these as an informative, we're making a recommendation back to the planet. So how important is that to you to put in? Councillor Arnold. I'm going to kind of sit on the fence, really, obviously with regards to school parking, yes, ideally, that would be fantastic. Whether Lidl would be open to that, even listen to the conversation, I do not know. Obviously, I would support that, but how workable that is, I really wouldn't have a clue. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Sisserson. Just to add on that, from Lidl's point of view, it may be advantageous to them if they have people parking there, because it's quite likely that the parents could pop in, all the school children at the end of the day could pop in and get their groceries. So it might be a win-win, I'd say. Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Lidiard. Yes, I was just thinking about how you could write the condition and- Councillor, it's not a condition, it's just an informative. Informative, sorry, informative. It's just an encouragement, sort of a proactive statement that we're encouraging the developer to think about this, and it may be a good idea to have in future. In that it would be good to ensure that the first half an hour of parking wasn't controlled or limited or having any sort of charge made against the driver. So we can't be as prescriptive of this fact, because it's not a condition. Like I said, it's just going to be a proactive statement. Sorry to work out the wording then. Thanks, Councillor. Any further comments or thoughts that you'd like to share? So I'd like to move to the recommendation, and the recommendation I would like to make. The recommendation obviously is for approval. I am going to ask for somebody to move on recommending for approval, bearing in mind the informatives that you have suggested. But delegating the responsibility for wording those to the planning team. Do I have somebody to move that? Councillor Shinnick? And somebody to second it? [INAUDIBLE] Councillor Paulston. All those in favor? Against? Okay, thank you very much. The recommendation. Sorry, any abstentions I thought we had? No, I didn't think we had. Okay, so I can confirm then that the recommendation is approved. Thank you very much, speakers. Thank you. Right, we will now move on to agenda item ten. This is the golden chicken and pizza. Golden chicken and pizza, okay. Ten Civic Square Tilbury. I'll just give it a couple of seconds while we change audiences. Okay, may I ask Nadia Horton to present the report? Good evening, Chair, thank you, and good evening members, and a nice welcome to all those new members on committee tonight. So hopefully you can all hear me, and you can see that I'm going to be presenting for Ten Civic Square. Here's a slide showing the overall location of the site, which is on the north side of the Civic Square with Manor Road to the west, and Arkwright Road to the east, and the application site specifically is located to the rear of the Parade of Shops. And this is the location plan of the site, further down as well, a close-up there showing the four containers in question, and the broader location plan. The main unit is the chicken shop on the Parade, as I've said, and the applicant has installed four containers to the rear, and reconfigured them internally to provide both storage and refrigerated storage for the existing use at the premises at number 10. Here are the proposed elevations detailing the external treatment for the containers. As the report goes into further detail, there is a relevant planning and enforcement history relating to the siting and use of the containers. The council received a complaint back in October 2021, and subsequently two planning applications have been submitted and refused. The most recent of which was appealed, and the inspector roundly dismissed the appeal on the 8th of February this year. The inspector's decision is more detailed in the report, but essentially the inspector has agreed with the council's decision in regard to the appearance, siting, and utilitarian design of the containers in that application, and also concluded there was a harm to the outlook of the surrounding neighbours, and it would be out of keeping with that neighbouring outlook that they would be reasonably required to expect. Given the recent timeframe in which this appeal decision was made, it's of high relevance to this current application. This current proposal seeks to improve the appearance of the containers by cladding them in a composite grey cladding with a composite tiling on a dual-pitch roof, as can be seen in this elevation here. For comparative purposes, I brought up the refused and dismissed elevation from the previous proposals, and as you can see, in comparison to the previous refusal, which sought the painting of the containers in a dark grey colour, and it also provided a dual-pitched timber and felted roof. There are real similarities between the two proposals, although it is acknowledged that the current proposal is a modest improvement. Here are some recent site images of the location. So this was taken with my -- I took the photo standing in front of the containers, looking back towards the property on the parade. And these are the containers and in situ at the moment. I took some interior images with the applicant's consent just to show that there was indeed storage and refrigerated storage within the containers. There's a couple of images either side there. And these two in particular show the refrigerated storage doorways within the containers. So this is stood in the application site looking to the east back towards Arkwright Road and the vehicle access way through the archway there. And the west looking back towards Manor Road and the neighbouring site there. The -- I should point out that the -- and the applicant also points these out, these two containers on a neighbouring unit that have been located -- well, located at the site. They have been on site looking at the aerial photographs, which I've reviewed for the last 10 years, I'd say. They've been on site, these two containers and the four on the application site largely for a similar period of time. We don't have a current enforcement complaint about these. We've not received one. But they do exist on site. And the inspector noted them in report as well in his -- in her -- apologies -- her decision notice in February. Some other external photographs. This is taken from Arkwright Road looking across at the dentist and the flank treatment there. And another one looking along Arkwright Road. And that this -- the centre of the darker grey image there shows very similar cladding to that proposed on the containers. It's only appropriate to show that context of the site. And this proposed floor layout, which shows the containers at present. So just to recap, the appearance and the siting and the impact of the containers and the proposal to clag them continue to be a concern for the council. It's considered the proposal would not overcome the concerns previously raised by the council, nor those of the planning inspectorate. And the application is, therefore, recommended for refusal and with follow-up enforcement if the containers aren't removed from the site. I'm happy to take any questions if anyone has any. Thank you. Thanks, Nadia. Before we go to any questions, we have -- now, just checking. We originally had -- we were originally going to have a statement from Councillor Maurice Cook. But I think we've agreed that that won't be happening now. I'm looking over the railing and -- you're not speaking now on this one, are you? No, I'm actually -- Yes. [Inaudible] Yeah. [Inaudible] Apologies that that was given to you. [Inaudible] Yeah. Point taken. Absolutely. Yes. We do have a statement of support from Stuart Oldroyd. Oh, sorry. My apologies. I'm reading the wrong bit. You can tell it's my first one of these, can't you? Right. Apologies, Mr. Patel. It's -- a statement of support has been received from Dr. Shejal Patel on behalf of Sujit Patel. The statement can be found on pages 6 to 9 of the speaker's booklet. And my apologies for the misdirection. If you press the button on the right, it should light up that area. Over to you. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Thanks. So, before I begin, I wanted to state that I'll be reading this statement on behalf of my husband, who has a reading disability and will be -- and I'll be reading it from his perspective. So, Dear Planning Committee, thank you for taking the time to listen to my statement and supporting the planning application of the -- statement supporting the planning application of these storage units. Before addressing your reasons for the refusal, I feel it is appropriate to explain the wider story behind the application. Being one of the first Indian families to move into Tilbury back in the 1980s, my family contributed to the local community through my father's news agent on Civic Square. Our family values have always been -- always centered around giving back to the community. My wife shares the same values, and together, we founded the Elite Dental Studio Dental Practice. We are proud to say that we created, fought, and secured an NHS dental contract for the Tilbury and Thurg community with the support of the former Labour MP, Andrew McKinley, in 2008. Together, we have provided NHS dental care to over 100,000 people and have made it a priority to teach young children in the local primary schools around oral -- about oral health through annual school visits to the dental practice. These visits also include annual dental checkups, something that many children were not receiving, and something that we highly -- we are highly commended for in our recent CQC inspection. As you may already know, we installed these units to provide refrigeration and storage for the fine dining -- for the first fine dining restaurant in Civic Square, another project of ours to improve and serve the community. Sadly, due to COVID, we are unable to continue -- we were unable to continue the restaurant, but these units served a greater purpose of storing PPE for the dental practice and the food for charities during the worst time in the pandemic. Now, they facilitate the only hot food vendor in -- on Civic Square. The reason I'm explaining all this is because we aim to use storage units to serve a greater purpose again. We plan to convert our current storage behind the dental practice into additional surgeries and have been approved to make these changes. This is with the aims of offering clinical training for dental professionals and additional patient-based treatments by specialists. This will increase the number of job opportunities in the area, number of NHS patients seen and hence benefit the community. To do this, we need the storage units to store our training equipment, our PPE, mobile dental units for school visits and clinical waste containers, et cetera. When reviewing your reasons for refusal, the stores were part of a previously approved plan for a larger stores made out of powder-coated material. Our current setup is smaller and serves the same purpose. It was noted that there were concerns around the effect they would have on the area. The storage units are not visible at all to the public domain, and there have been no objections from the residents or other stakeholders. Our closest neighbour at 36 Arkwright Road have not raised any concerns. The planning teams and inspectorate refusal seems based -- seems to be based on procedural policies without local insight. Contrary to their views, these containers are not out of character with the area, where similar structures are present and visible in many nearby properties. Located next to the stores are other storage containers and also a junkyard, which would pose more of a concern than our well-built storage unit, which is quite sustainable. I must note that removal of these units will be extremely costly and will impact our future plans to expand Elite Dental Studio, and will also remove the only hot food vendor in Civic Square. Every penny spent in removing these storage units is a penny that could be used to care and educate the young children and improve the wider Tharuk community. And in the last 24 hours, I have received an email from our NHS area team asking us to expand our school care services to wider areas. I seriously urge the planning committee to reconsider this refusal. This application in question was originally proposed to enhance the appearance of the storage units through a pitched roof and cladding. These stores are critical and removing them will massively negatively impact the Tharuk community. This seems very unjust and considering no complaints or concerns have been made about these stores, nor have they been raised by the community. I also think it's worth noting that in this borough, we have seen several other containers that are in clear public view. For example, there is one container at the end of Alcrac Road, one on Brennan Road, and there are also three containers in the car park at Pyramid Centre in Chadwell St. Mary's. Clearly from our plea that our storages are not in public view and that we want to enhance and view -- enhance their view by cladding and adding pitched roof is justifiable. And it does not make sense to remove and rebuild something to serve the same purpose. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Patel. Before I go on to questions for the planning team, I just want to check, are there any questions of any matters you wish Dr. Patel to clarify before we move on? Okay, thank you. So any questions for Nadia? Yes, for the planning officer, sorry. Yes, well, Councillor Liddiard, I should go first. Is it fair to say that the complaint that you mentioned was related to a noisy extraction fan four years ago? Through you, Chair, yes, it was. We -- the initial complaint related to the equivalent of air conditioning units that were placed at the rear of the premises. But were also due to the noise from the containers as well. And indeed, that's also picked up within the environmental health comments in the report. But you're right to say the initial complaint did refer to the noise of fans at the site, yeah. So this wasn't actually a member of the community, it was come from a Councillor. Through you, Chair, again, I don't have details as to who the complainant was and I wouldn't be able to declare it in open committee, even if I did recall, which is absolutely appropriate, but from my recollection, it was from the immediate area, and that's as much as I can really tell you, to be honest with you. How would you describe the area behind that shop? Chair, if I may, I'll scroll back to show the close up of the aerial images because I think they're quite useful. So this is a wider shot and historically and indeed traditionally, these would have been -- the area to the rear of the parade would have been the gardens of the properties and that's more clearly shown there. There hasn't actually been a significant amount of change to this area in the last 10 years. I look back through the aerial images that the Council has on its mapping system and it's broadly the same as you see there with exception to the containers being cited in more recent years. And I don't just -- I have to say I don't just mean the four within the application, I do mean those two on the neighboring site, but the appearance of the rear of the site is very much and has been very much along those lines in the last, I'd say, six to eight years. And planning permission was given four years ago for proper brick built structure, approximately the same size as the four containers. Thank you, Chair, through you. In 2017, a planning application was granted for a structure at the rear of the site. That has expired, that was not implemented and indeed the last two applications that have been submitted have sought to regularize the unlawful siting of the containers because no permanent brick built or indeed permanent structure or outbuilding has been erected there. There was a store building there many years ago, but that's long since been replaced by the siting of these containers on a pad. I seem to remember the reason for dismissal by the Inspector was that he didn't like the idea of a flat felted roof or a black painted sides. Am I correct or am I wrong? Through you again, Chair, the Inspector considered and I do have a copy of the decision here and I have given the most relevant extracts completely quoted within the report, but the Inspector commented that they considered the main issues, the impact upon character and appearance and stated that the shipping containers are cited close to the rear garden of a residential property and the units would be clearly visible to neighboring residential occupiers in both Arkwright and Manor Roads and occupies the residential properties above the Civic Square Parade. Although, and I'm happy to read again from this decision because I don't want anyone to think I'm misquoting it at all, but the Inspector said with respect to the appearance, although it's proposed to paint and roof the shipping containers of the previous application, which I've referred to as being dual pitch timber and felted and painted the containers, they are by design shipping containers and would retain such an appearance. And whilst located behind a row of commercial premises, the site is situated immediately adjacent to a residential area. Shipping containers are not a feature associated with residential areas and are visually out of keeping for this reason. Their size, design and utilitarian form causes visual harm to the character and appearance of the locality. This harm is clearly visible in the outlook of existing neighboring residential occupiers. From my Chair, can I carry on? May I, you have, we have Councillor Arnold waiting in the queue as well. If you've got, that'll be fine, thank you. Councillor Arnold? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just kind of coming onto what Councillor Lilliard has touched on really. My question was going to be the space, because I was curious actually about that open space at the back because it wasn't exactly clear, is where the containers are sited now, is that actually part of the legal titled curtilage of that building? Is there two buildings, is there like a separate upstairs flat and a downstairs shop that do different titles? Does that back garden title relate to the upstairs or the downstairs? Through you, Chair, with specific reference to this planning application, everything that you can see that is redlined falls within the ownership of the applicant and which includes the rear of the site and the premises. There's been no reason for the authority to question whether the applicant owns the floors above at all. It specifically relates to the ground floor and the rear of the premises given its storage, that the application refers to storage for the commercial use of the property. And yes, certainly one more question. Thank you. Yeah, kind of something that kind of went into my mind straight away really, obviously these containers are being used for retail storage purposes. Is that a requirement that there would need to be licensing, et cetera, it would need to meet sort of food storage standards, et cetera, et cetera, for the retail usage at the front shop? Do the storage containers currently hold food storage licenses, et cetera, et cetera? I mean, I think you know what I mean. Or are they actually operating as storage units in contravention of all food storage laws? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I can only comment with respect to the material planning considerations of the containers and their storage and based upon what the applicant has advised. It's my understanding and based on the application that the containers are used and reconfigured to allow for storage for the commercial premises at number 10 Civic Square. And that includes refrigerated storage as well associated with the chicken shop. There is no detail or feedback from the environmental health officer on page 78 in paragraphs 44 and 45 with respect to licensing or food licensing. They refer to concerns regarding noise and which you can see within the report, but nothing specific regarding licensing. So I can't comment any further on that, I'm afraid. I would think that's quite a valid thing to ask, actually. That they are clearly separate buildings, you know, one that you cannot be confused. And I would assume that one, if one has current licensing, the other one must have it as well. And I'd be curious to know if it's got anything. Thanks, Councillor. Steve, would you like to go next and then we'll come back to Councillor Lydiard? We're doing a good double act here. Thank you, Chair. And I'm almost playing devil's advocate here, Nadia. But, you know, there's always on the back of any planning application the statement that says about proactive, the informative that you put on, which is about being proactive about applications, which applies whether they're approved or not. That's informative is there. Is there something that could be acceptable in terms of has the dialogue taken place which says, right, forget the containers because they ain't going to work. But is there an alternative that perhaps the council might be able to encourage the applicant to use? Sorry, thanks, Nadia. If I may, Chair, yes, there has been dialogue over the last few years between the council and the applicants regarding the appearance of the containers. I should point out these are not buildings, they are sited and it's the use of that land for the siting of containers for storage that is the concern. But the applicant has clearly endeavored to try to improve the appearance of those containers over the years and by virtue of the repeated applications, the appeal decision and now there is a modest improvement in the proposal by virtue of the cladding of it and those discussions between the applicant and the planning department have continued right up until recently. Thanks, Nadia. I kind of hoped that was going to be the case, but I thought it was a reasonable question to ask. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Councillor Lydiard? Thanks, Chair. Nadia, would you say that the refrigeration unit in there was necessary to the running of the business, the chicken shop? I would, through you, Chair, I wouldn't have any knowledge as to whether that would be essential or not. That would be for the applicant to determine based upon their business needs. But I do note that in the speaker statement they refer to actually the use of those containers being proposed now for the storage of dental equipment. If we look at that aerial, you see the large flat roof element to the right, to the rear of the dental practice there, so on the corner. So immediately east of the application site you can see the flat roof structure there that abuts Arkwright Road. So Planning Commission was granted, as Dr. Patel referred to, for the conversion of existing dental stores to other dental surgeries or consultation rooms. But what I've heard this evening is that actually those containers would be likely used or put to use for reasons associated with displacing storage from the dental practice. That hasn't formed any part of the application at all until this point. So it's only fair to point that out. So I can only assume then that refrigerated storage isn't vital if that's not necessarily still to be the aim, ultimately. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Councillor. Nadia, if I might just add a question of my own, and this may sound like nitpicking, but please bear with me, is the problem that these look like storage containers or is the problem that they are storage containers? So in other words, if they looked like something different, would they be acceptable? Or is it a case of they're storage containers, you know, if it walks like a pig and runs like a pig, it's a pig? Thank you, Chair. I think it's clear they are storage containers, and to my mind it's one of the same thing. Storage containers are often used in lieu of a brick built form at a site. And whilst the intention of the applicant is to absolutely clad them so that it would not appear as a container, it would be very difficult to imagine these looking anything other than containers with a shallow pitch, dual pitch roof on the side. Notwithstanding the fact that the grey cladding would look better than painted grey sides of a container, so there is some effort to disguise it, but they're not buildings, no, and they're not intended to be permanent built form. Right. So if I understand, so it's not so much just the appearance, it's a question of turning a temporary structure into a permanent built form. Is that what you're saying? It's the intention of the applicant is to retain these on site for storage for a permanent use, absolutely. And that's evident in the intention to clad and roof them rather than replace with a permanent structure, yeah. Councillor Sisson. So just to confirm, if it would, previously there was planning permission for a more traditional storage building, and that presumably, if that came back again, that would be seen as acceptable. Through your chair, there wouldn't be any in principle objection to an outbuilding at the rear of the premises, and in fact, that's noted by the inspector in her comments when she refers to other similar outbuildings at the rear. And as you can see in this more recent aerial, you can see there are several outbuildings including those at the dentist and neighbouring premises as well. So, you know, the council would absolutely encourage a permanent storage building there, even one of a similar size actually, but it's just not, or footprint, because it comes down to the detailed design and the fact that these are particularly utilitarian in form, and that's quite hard to disguise. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Nadia. Are there any more questions, or can we move into debate? Okay, thank you. So, I'd be interested to hear Councillor's views. You've heard quite extensively what the problem is seen to be, both in terms of appearance and also in terms of these being temporary structures being put to a permanent use. So, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the proposal. Who'd like to speak first? Councillor Arnold. Thank you. Yes, I'm in support of the officer's recommendation. I think obviously a huge back history here, local community, et cetera. I do get all that. But we need to come back to the fact that these are storage containers. I mean, the fact that they were put here and no one picked up on it in the first place is the biggest belief. They are what they are, and they're not going to change. And putting a roof on them isn't going to change it. I mean, I could put one of those in my back garden and put a roof on it and then go for planning permission, and then Bob's your uncle. You know, I might have a very useful space that's legal. I don't get this concept. You see, the planning laws either allow for this or they don't. My immediate kind of concern is actually for the storage of cold meats, et cetera. And I would seriously -- and I might even pick this up after we leave this chamber. I think that is a concern, and it needs to be addressed. I am in support of the recommendation to refuse. A line needs to be drawn. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Lydiard. Thanks, Chair. As you probably appreciate, I'm in Tilbury a significant amount of my time, and I have visited the area probably 70 or 80 times. The area is extremely rundown. Historically, there were buildings behind the shops. Most of them have fallen down. And there's now a hot pot of containers and sort of temporary buildings there. And it's the place where people keep their bins and their cars occasionally. As far as I'm aware, there's been no complaints at all about the storage containers. And I believe the applicants have even given a piece of their land to the neighbours in Arkwright Road. So it's sort of quite a friendly little area that no one sort of complains very much. I think that the refrigeration unit inside the containers was installed in combination with the council's external body that arranged to improve energy consumption. So it's quite a big refrigeration unit. I do believe it's being used by the chicken shop. And I think that's really quite important to think about. Since these containers were put in, and I believe they were pretty much driven in, new buildings have gone up, which makes it pretty difficult to get them out, other than by possibly craning them over the three-storey building. I think it would have a massive impact on the chicken shop itself, because if they didn't have any refrigeration, they would have to find alternative means. Whether it would close the chicken shop down temporarily, I couldn't honestly say. But it would be a severe inconvenience to the business. I do agree with the inspector. I think the flat roof felted was definitely wrong, and painted corrugated sides on the containers would not have improved the look of it at all, to be perfectly honest. And I've sort of been wavering on this point for several months, and I'm of the view that if the planning officers, or building control officers, or whoever, could put in certain conditions to make the containers look acceptable. And there are ways of improving the look of places. You know, you can put all sorts of cladding that the applicants have actually put on the side of their property. At the end, the dentist, it looks really, really very smart. So I think there are ways of making it acceptable, and it is my view that if it could be done, then we should go against the officer's recommendation. But of course, the conditions would have to be written, and put in the decisions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Any other thoughts? Councillor Sisseton. I'm just, I think I'm agreeing with what Councillor Lidgeard was saying. But I think the cladding, you can have cladding that's attractive. You know, a lot of buildings, porter cabins and things like that at schools are often cladded in materials that aren't, you know, that are aesthetically acceptable, I would say. And so long as it was done properly, it seems an awful lot of expense and trouble to go to remove those containers, and then to replace them with something acceptable that actually might not look all that different in the end. So, yeah, that's my thoughts. Thank you, Councillor. So if there are no further comments, and obviously we need to go on and look at whether we are minded to agree with or disagree with the recommendation. If I might give you my thoughts in terms of what I think we're looking at. If you look at the recommendation for refusal, if you look at what is being said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Nadia. We are talking about the appearance of these units, and we are talking about the impact of their appearance of their siting on the neighbourhood. And this is the reason I asked the question whether it's a case of it's because of how they look or is it because of what they are. Now, if I understand rightly what we are saying is it's because of how they look and how that clashes with the immediate neighbourhood. If I may, Chair, I appreciate your debating, but just to clarify, as in paragraph 6.26, it is their negative visual impact, and that visual impact is considered harmful to the outlook of residential amenity, so it's the way they look in a nutshell. There haven't been complaints about the storage itself. Thank you, Nadia. I think that is very useful. So in deciding your -- in making your decision for or against, I think it is worth bearing in mind that the reasons for refusal here, the objection to these sites is not necessarily because they are storage units, it's because of the fact they look like storage units and in so doing are out of keeping with the environment. As Steve has mentioned, an alternative to supporting the refusal may be to consider the imposition of conditions which would ensure that they do not look as out of place with their environment. That is obviously for you to decide. But with -- two seconds, I just want to make sure I'm -- okay, I'm going to carry on while that conversation is happening and I'm sure they'll let me know if there's something I should be bearing in mind. So with that in mind, I'd like to put the recommendation to you as it's written here, which is a recommendation to refuse. I'd like to know if there are -- if any of you are ready to propose that. Councillor Shinnock, do we have a seconder? This is to -- yes, to endorse the refusal proposed by the Planning Office. So proposed by Councillor Shinnock, seconded by Councillor Arnold. Those in favour? Councillor Shinnock, are you actually in favour of the refusal? Okay, let's be very clear. Those in favour of refusing this application? Okay, we have Councillor Shinnock, Councillor Paulston, Councillor Arnold. Those against? And any abstentions? I don't think we've got any abstentions. No. In that case, and let me just check with Ashley, I think we would need to move on to what alternative recommendation we might make. So yes, it's been pointed out that I'm in the wonderful position of having a casting vote. So as we are three and three, my casting vote means that we do not approve the refusal. Having said that, we do now need to, I think, agree on an -- excuse me -- an alternative recommendation. Chairman, a motion needs to be moved forward if you are proposing an alternative. Yes. And also saying exactly what that is, please. Yes, that's I think where I was getting towards. So do we have an alternative recommendation? If we're not going with what the Planning Officer has proposed, what is our alternative recommendation? Councillor Ledyard. As I sort of said earlier, I thought that the planners could agree with the applicant a suitable roof with proper tiles and proper cladding on the sides, and that could be specified -- the work could be specified, and I think it would have an acceptable look. Thank you, Councillor. I'm sorry. I was mentally absent for part of that. Let me see if I understand. Our recommendation is to approve subject to conditions, which we would need to delegate to the Planning Officer to draw up. Is that -- am I correct in that? Yes. Before I put that to the committee, Nadia, would you like to comment on that? Thank you, Chair. Just so I'm clear, because the committee needs to give a reason for that new motion, but what I'm hearing, Chair, from the committee and from the Vice Chair is that by imposing specifically and carefully worded and agreed conditions, it could be possible to result in the containers being suitably externally clad and finished in materials and roofing that is agreed and imposed and implemented at the site within a specific time frame that would then ultimately result in a development that would not be visually harmful. That's what I'm hearing. I want to understand if that's absolutely clear before we go on to have any discussions about conditions, because the reason for a new motion being put forward still is a little bit elusive to me at the moment. That's -- I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, though. Councillor Liddiard, do you agree with the interpretation? Your description was absolutely spot on, yeah. Thanks, Nadia. If it helps, I think we're all agreed that the way they currently look is not appropriate. I think where we differ from the recommendation is we think there may be an alternative way to deal with that, an alternative way to address that. So the alternative recommendation that has been put by Councillor Liddiard is to approve but subject to strong conditions, which we would delegate to the Planning Officer to draw up. May I have a proposal for that? Hang on. Sorry, Chair. May I just -- yes, sorry. If you don't mind, may I just clarify something else, as well? Feel free. Thank you, Vice-Chair, for also clarifying that point regarding the reason. I have drawn up some suggested draft conditions, and I'm happy to share those with you, Chair. But just so I'm clear, in terms of those conditions -- and it's particularly relevant to what's been discussed at committee tonight and given the Speaker's statement, as well -- understandably, a condition can be drawn up regarding the detailed materials and finishing of the exterior of the containers, and that can be, you know, agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair if that's what you'd require. That's absolutely not a problem at all. But one of the conditions I thought that might be relevant and appropriate and necessary for the actual storage use is that we have a storage use condition included. My initial thoughts were that that storage use would be related directly to the business at 10 Civic Square, which is the application site. However, hearing what the Speaker's statement referred to, I'm a little bit concerned about how we'd word that, given that may not actually be the intended ultimate use, and, of course, the dentist falls outside of that red-lined application site. So that -- the use condition, I still think, is necessary, but it may need a little bit of consideration, which we can do with your agreement, Chair. And there was also another condition regarding noise that may be necessary that was recommended by the Environmental Health Officer in their response, should the refrigerated units remain at the site. But with respect to the application and those detailed conditions, I'm happy to share those with the Chair, and obviously, you know, ultimately be agreed with yourself. I just wanted to highlight those additional issues before any vote is taken so that they're aware, everyone in the committee is aware of that, and I'm happy to take any questions on those, if anyone has any, if needed. Thanks for that, Nadia. Councillor Liddiard? I will bring it back round for questions. Thanks, Chair. I have read the applicant's statements slightly differently, in that those storage units were used by the dentists, mainly during COVID, for PPE and for supplies for other uses around the dentistry area. But at the present moment, it's mainly being used for the refrigeration unit, and also there are some chairs and cups and stuff like that for an outside catering service, which could relate to the chicken shop as well. And I did see today that an application had been put in for the dentist shop, which agreed an extension out the back for use for the dentist, so I don't think the storage units would be used by the dentist, but I mean, they may be able to confirm that. If I may, Chair, I referred to this earlier in my presentation, so just for the benefit of the committee, the dentistry, as the majority will know, is the end unit in the parade. If I go back to the aerial, a planning application for the conversion, and hopefully you can see here of this building at the rear of the dentist, which currently has a use for dental stores at the dentist practice, a planning commission has been granted to convert that outbuilding to further dental surgery consultation rooms, but how I understood what the applicant said in their statement is that the intention would be to use the container storage, which currently, as you can see, the interior was part storage, part refrigerated storage, for the some of the displaced dental storage at the back of the dental practice, which wouldn't be there any longer, as a result of the intention of the applicant to convert, to create dental store, dental consultation rooms, so I think there may be some difficulty in specifying the use of those containers for storage relating to a dental practice, because that falls outside of the red line, notwithstanding the ownership of the site, there may be some discussion I could have with legal about potential grampian conditions, but it may well be that given the scale of the use, a simple storage use only condition could be appropriate, but I'm sure we can work something out, but I wanted to clarify that point regarding the dental storage. Thanks, Nadia. It sounds like if we are going to review and look at conditions, that we need to explore that question of being as specific as we can around use, so I think that's one we would take off site, take off line. Absolutely, Chair, and I think, and the reason, and I'm not trying to labour the point, the reason I'm trying to explain this further to the whole committee is that I want to be in a position whereby the right condition is imposed that is actually right in terms of the need for the use condition, but also isn't then going to be in conflict with what the applicant intends to do, so that there's no need to then have any follow-ups. Totally understood. Thanks, Nadia. Steve. Thanks, Chair. I'm sorry. I think the impression I get is that everybody is trying to find a solution here, and I think that's very laudable, but I think we have to be careful how far down the road we try to create the solution, and I might suggest that perhaps the applicant should be seeking some help and guidance from either a planning expert or an architect or possibly a bit of both that Nadia could comfortably work with and find a resolution that makes sense. I think at the moment we're not experts in this, and we're trying to come up with a solution about something we don't know enough about. So perhaps maybe rather than just give the refusal, which just shows on a record and doesn't help matters a great deal, if we could put a period of time for a revised application or whatever to come forward. I'm not sure how that bit works, but does that make a bit of sense to anybody? I'd like to bring - is it Ashley or Martha coming in? So the committee have the application in front of them to determine, and ultimately that's what we need to consider. Ultimately if the applicants want to come back with something different, that would be another application, but it is for this committee to make a decision on what's in front of you now. Okay, thanks Ashley, I understand that, but I think that decision was made. So when that previous vote was made, which said to go against the officer's recommendation, I'm just trying to find a way of manoeuvring through this without us going down there with a bag of nails and bolting it together ourselves. So what Nadia has articulated is some potential conditions for the committee members to consider. My view on those, I would support Nadia's recommendations there and some of those conditions. So if committee were minded to approve contrary to officer recommendation, I would then recommend to committee that you do delegate that authority to prepare those conditions as Nadia has articulated. So the committee, once it's debated, can take a vote on the alternative motion put forward. And obviously we'll have to wait and see where the committee go with that, but I would strongly urge that you do attach those conditions to any approval. Thanks Ashley. So what I would suggest then is having gone against the original recommendation, I think what we are suggesting as an alternative is a recommendation to approve subject to conditions and to delegate to the planning officer to draw up a set of conditions which the vice chair and myself and Nadia will review. So I think that's the recommendation that we're putting in front of you. So if I could have somebody to propose that recommendation, Councillor Liddiard, do we have a seconder? Councillor Systersen? Those in favour? So Councillor Paulston, Councillor Systersen, myself, those against? Sorry, Councillor Liddiard, did I not count you? Right, yes. My apologies for not having eyes in the back of my head, I didn't quite see which way you was voting. So we have four in favour and Councillor Arnold, Councillor Shinnock against. Therefore I will record that we have recommended and have passed that recommendation to approve subject to conditions which we will delegate to the planning officer to draw up and which Councillor Liddiard and myself will review. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We have one more item. If you could give me a couple of seconds, I just want to quickly consult with Ashley. Councillor Shinnock? Can I have a comfort break? Yes, please do. Yes, I should really be aware that I've kept you sitting in the same place for a long time. Can I suggest we have five minutes to get a quick comfort break? So I'm adjourning the meeting for five minutes. Do bear with me, I'm new here. Point one, to allow the meeting to continue beyond the two and a half hour time limit. I don't anticipate that it will continue much beyond, but I just want to give us the leeway that we're actually able to give this last item proper consideration without looking at the clock. So all those in agreement? Anybody against? I saw that. It's been noted. Thank you very much. I believe we should still be finished before nine. That's what I'm aiming for. Thank you. Right. So our last item of the evening is agenda item 11, land to the rear of 36 to 46 Groverlands Way, adjacent to Bankfoot. What I'll do first is to ask Nadia to present the report, then I will ask our speakers to present their opinions. Okay, Nadia, if you'd like to present the report. Thank you, Chair. So this application's been called in by members to consider matters relating to traffic, noise, and the siting of the apartments in relation to the surrounding area. The site is in the centre of Grey, so you can see with the larger blue dot there, just to give you an idea of where it is in relation to the town centre and Badgers Dene, the closer aerial image here shows the site, and you can see it outlined in red there. The site is located in the centre of Grey's to the immediate west of the one-way system. As can be seen here, it's bordered by residential properties on Groverlands Way to the immediate west, Travis Perkins to the immediate east, Eastern Garage to the south, and other residential development further to the north. This application is different to the more regular full or outline planning applications in that it purely seeks permission in principle under the town and country planning permission in principle order 2017. This legislation allows for two stages of application submission, the submission of a permission in principle or PIP stage, which establishes whether a site is suitable purely in principle, and which focuses solely on the land use designation, and the technical details stage, which allows for consideration of detailed matters, including impacts relating to highway matters, neighbours, noise and so on. An image of the site there, the extent of the application site, and an indication of the block plan, which shows the apartment block to the southern portion of the site and the access to the north, and a more detailed image of the indicative proposed site layout. I might make my screen ever so slightly smaller so it can all be seen, but I don't want anyone to not be able to see, so I'm hoping that's okay. The application seeks permission in principle for the erection of four one-bed apartments shown in this indicative layout. As you can see here, you've got a pyramidal roof on an indicated block to the southern portion of the site, the vehicle access at the northern end of the site, and parking to the north, and general landscape setting. There are some indicated elevations of the proposed block, as you can see there's an indicated two-storey block at the site, and some indicated floor plans that aren't particularly untypical with regards to one-bedroom units. As I say, the roof plan as indicated. The applicant has provided a CGI image of what the proposal may look like in future, subject to the two-stage approval as I've described. The top left image there is the CGI, and the other images in the screen in front of you show the immediately surrounding flatted development in that part of Grays. Some other site images here, so this is looking southwards with the application site immediately in front of you, and in the distance there's Groverlands Way Properties. Another one of the northern part of the site showing where the access would likely be or broadly located, as indicated. An image of the rear access way at Groverlands Way. In this image, the application site is on the left-hand side of the image, and Groverlands Way Properties are on the right. Another image of the actual site itself, one directly looking across the site towards Groverlands Way in the west, and looking northwards and showing the entrance to Bankfoot there. Another image of the site with Trevor's Perkins in the distance and some flight shipping. With respect to the site, I'll just come up here to show the indicated site area here. The adopted core strategy identifies the site as being without notation or where residential development could likely occur, and this is common amongst many of the landscaped or grass verges in and around the wider Badgers Dean Estate. As a consequence, there would not be any immediate or in principle land use objection to the application at this stage. However, this does not mean that the council would necessarily be agreeable to any technical detail stage application. It is recognized that the location of the site on the one-way system within the town center may well be challenging from a highway access perspective. The siting of the proposal is in close proximity to other commercial uses, and the nearby residential development may also be of concern. I was trying to find one of the wider sites. That's probably the better one, really, generally. But overall, just to reiterate to members, the application is recommended for approval tonight. That is the permission in principle, but it's important to highlight that by granting permission in principle at this first initial stage does not grant planning permission for the applicant to carry out the development at all. That could only be carried out if and when a technical detail stage application was submitted and ultimately approved. The application is recommended to members for approval tonight at this PIP stage, but I'm happy to take any questions if anyone has any. Thank you. Thank you, Nadia. Before we go back to Nadia for questions, we will take statements from the speakers. So our first speaker is Stuart Oldroyd. Stuart, if you press the right button on that thing, the end lights up and you're good to go. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Stuart Oldroyd and I speak for the applicants. Sorry, Stuart. I should have told you you've got three minutes. That's fine. Thank you. As your officers have pointed out, this is a PIP planning in principle application, which is strictly limited to deciding if the principle of developing the land for the proposed use is acceptable. Unlike other forms of planning application, the decision you're asked to make this evening does not, therefore, consider details such as design access or some of the comments made by third parties at this stage, legitimate though they are, and I recognize that, because they go beyond just principle. They will be considered at the technical approval stage, which will follow in the future, as you've just heard. This type of planning decision is very helpful to the applicant and the council in establishing whether it's worth going on to address those legitimate details, having first established if the site is suitable for the development that is proposed in principle. It's possible that some of the matters raised in the officer's report and by consultees may not be capable of satisfaction, but that will emerge later in the technical details applications that follow. In order to address those details as applicants, I can then engage experts such as ecologists and transport engineers to the satisfaction of your officers and this committee following the determination of the PIP application before you today. I note that this application has been called in for your consideration by ward members for matters relating to traffic, noise, pollution, and positioning of the apartments. Please be reassured that all of those issues lie beyond the scope of today's PIP decision, but would be fully addressed at the technical details stage. Although we are not required to accompany a PIP application with any plans, we felt it would be helpful for your officers to have the indicative plans that you've been shown today, simply to demonstrate that the site could accommodate the type of development proposed. I accept that the comments which have been made will give rise to changes to those indicative drawings at the technical details stage. For instance, those drawings show no windows to the west and we will, for instance, replace the lost trees. Because we own other land in the vicinity of the site beyond the tightly drawn red line of this application, we're confident that we can address the points raised by your officer's report, including a better access than the one shown on the indicative drawings and enhancements that will satisfy BNG and ecology comments too. We're also happy to accept all of the conditions suggested by your environmental health officers and the informative about the gas main. In short, we're confident that we can address the matters raised in the officer's report once the PIP consent's been granted, reassured that your officers have found at this stage that location, land use, amount of development and planning policy are all acceptable, which is why your officers have recommended that PIP consent be granted today. If at the technical details stage, it later transpires that officers can't be satisfied that we can overcome the problems to their satisfaction, those details will come back to your officers and back to this committee and they're not for your decision today. We therefore respectfully request that in principle planning permission is granted in line with your officer's recommendation. And just as a footnote, I've agreed to meet with the ward member and planning officers as well before we submit the technical details applications so that those items can be thrashed out well in advance and to try and reach consensus if we can do with your officers and with the ward member before the technical details stage is reached. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Oldroyd. Councillor Morris-Cook will now provide a statement over to you. I think it's fair to say that a number of residents have contacted myself with regards to this, hence why I've called it in. And I think it's sad when it started probably a couple of years ago when the entrance to Badgerstein used to have a beautiful number of trees that were all along the side that were sadly taken away, which really just gives an insight into how this is going to progress. I do understand that this is a PIP and I do understand that what I'm about to say is not really to be taken into consideration at this moment in time, but I think it's fair to say that it's good to have it on the record. So I do agree with the transport request when they put in to say that they are concerned about the entrance to and from this proposed development, along with the fact that you wouldn't be able to have a vehicle, say one of our refuse vehicles, actually turn and be able to exit. So anything, bins, et cetera, anything that was going to be delivered would need to be side loaded off at the entrance. I have another concern that we are trying to over develop an area and maximise the number of properties there, really at sacrificing parking spaces. And whilst it says that it is close to public transport links, that doesn't stop somebody else having one or two cars, there's no electric points. I didn't really see any visitors parking and there is absolutely, in that area, no opportunity for parking. Of course the people in Groverlands are very concerned about potentially being overlooked and whilst I understand that there are no windows, et cetera, to be going in there, we aren't really at detailed plans so we can't see that yet. And again, I think it's important that that's logged. I understand that there will be replacement trees but it doesn't take away trees that were possibly there for 50, 60 years prior to actually being taken down. I know that this is only in principle and I fully appreciate that but I think it's important, as I said at the beginning, that I log my concerns, my residents' concerns, about another application and another development squeezing in to already, if you look around that area, there is its high density flats that are there. You've got them to the entrance of Badgers Dean on the right, you've got them behind by Morrisons, so there's already a high density of flats there and we are really losing a lot of green open spaces, which I think really takes away from the whole atmosphere of the area. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Before we go back to the Planning Officer, would any of the committee members like to get anything clarified by either Speaker? Councillor Lydiard? A question to Councillor Maurice Cook. You mentioned that the dust carts would have to stay at the end, I know we both live in cul-de-sacs and my dust cart does a sort of a turn at the end of my cul-de-sac and then reverses in. Is that possible or not? It says very clearly in the paperwork that there is no access, there's no turning circle for a vehicle to be able to turn. They would have to drive in and completely reverse out, which they're saying it would not be possible. It is actually in the paperwork. It says that bins, et cetera, would need to be collected at the entrance. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor, for clarifying that. Okay, we'll move on to questions to the Planning Officer. Who would like to start? Councillor Shinnick for a change. Thank you, Chair. My concern is the Highways Officer has raised specific concerns regarding the proximity of the junction. You know, it's very busy there, isn't it? Is this the part as you turn out onto the main road into, i.e. left Gray's right to go to Purphley area, is that the junction? If I may, Chair, unless Highway Officers wanted to come in with anything more specific, but just to clarify the point, yes, it is on the one-way system. So, as you would drive around, say, for argument's sake, if you're coming up from London Road and from where Aldi is and so on, from the southwest, you would come up the one-way system and the application site would be on your left here. And at Bankfoot, it's two-way there, thank you, Highway Officer, but yes. But it's a vital part of the circulatory route within the town centre. Yeah, I can make the plan out now. So, this is Travis Perkins, opposite the site, and you've got the flats to the immediate north, and the Morrisons petrol filling station. Thanks, Councillor, sorry for clarification, Nadia, and my apologies if I should have got this from before, but can you point out on that map where the actual access to this site would be? Thank you, Chair, it's at the northern end of the site, so almost right by the pointiest part of the site, the most northern part, apologies, pointy, ridiculous. If you come down to the proposed site layout plan, you can see the access at the very most northern part of the site, they're very close to the access to Bankfoot there. So, it's a kind of spur off a spur? Yeah, exactly. Thanks. But I should reiterate, Chair, that the layout we've received is indicative, and none of these details are up for consideration or determination at this PIP stage, unfortunately, for members. Absolutely. Thanks for clarifying. Councillor Arnold? Can I just draw that out a little bit further, and obviously, we will totally appreciate that there are, it would be awaiting more detailed drawings, but has there been a discussion with anybody, highways or whatever, is there feasibly another entrance to that site? Chair, if I may, I've been involved in no discussions about this site. I'm not aware of a pre-application discussion about the site. Highways have been consulted, as would be expected, that's been completely reported in the committee reports, and I certainly have no other involvement and no other discussion that I'm aware of. If I may ask a question, Nadia, in your opinion, do you think that such a discussion would be necessary or would be of fundamental use to the application? Chair, at this PIP stage, there wouldn't be a need for a discussion, that would all be reserved for a technical detail stage application, and as I've highlighted and as the report highlights, there are concerns regarding highway access and highway safety amongst others, so that would all be at a much later stage, but it's not required for this very early stage. Okay, thank you, or to put it another way, whatever decision is made today, those concerns would still remain to be addressed. Yes, Chair. Councillor Sypsterson. I just want to, I don't know if you can answer, but it says there was previously trees there that were removed fairly recently. Now, to me, presumably they had in mind that there may be an application. Can we say, have we got any idea why the trees were removed, was there a reason for that? If I may, Chair, if I can get the presentation to do what I'm asking it, I did note that when the application, not long after the application came in, the site was cleared. It was quite overgrown, to be fair, but it had been cleared. It is in private ownership, it is owned by the applicant, and there are no protected or preserved trees on the site, there weren't before anyway. It's not a site of any ecological designation at all, and there would be no reason why the applicant, as you can see, you can see the grass was cut, and it's, you know, when it was relatively long, you can see in that image there, there'd be no reason from planning or landscape or ecology perspective why we would have any concerns about breaches of planning or controls over protected trees because there were none on the site. I should add, Chair, paragraph 4.10 on page 92 gives further detail from the Landscape and Ecology Advisor who reflects that generally. And the paragraph immediately following it and before it. Thank you, Nadia. Councillor Sissons again. Yeah, so just to confirm, so the biodiversity net gain, that would be taken from a time before the vegetation was cleared. Yes, Chair, just to be clear through you, the biodiversity net gain wouldn't be required at the PIP stage. It would be required at the technical detail stage, and as such, a careful calculation would need to be made as to what was there at that time prior to this and with respect to trees and any required mitigation as a result. Thanks, Nadia. Any further questions? Yeah, on page 92, 4.14, there's a section there that says there's severe concerns regarding the proposals by highways at the junction, and this could be reason for refusal. Through you, Chair, yes, it does, and in fact, I'd underlined that same sentence you've just quoted, Councillor Kucinich just quoted, because I did wonder if that would come up. Yes, it does. There are severe highway concerns. That's acknowledged in the report. Again, that would be something that would be considered at a technical detail stage application and wouldn't form part of the considerations of a permission in principle first initial stage. I'd just like to bring Ashley in. Okay. Thank you. Through you, Chair, so in coming to a decision, members, I'd just like to draw your attention to paragraph 6.8, so I think Nadia did mention this in her presentation. The Council have made a decision in adopting the core strategy in the principle of this location, and what the members of the committee are being asked to do is make a decision in principle, say permission in principle. So it's just to remind members what you've been asked to sort of determine here. So there are helpful comments from experts, but in reality, they're really to be dealt with later. I think they're a precursor for what might come forward. And ultimately, at this stage, all you are doing is making this permission in principle decision, and in doing that, you do need to consider that the Council has already adopted the core strategy. So do take that into account. I think my colleague, Martha, wishes to come in as well. Ashley actually covered exactly what I was going to say, and just to remind members that as much as I've heard all their questions, which are indeed relevant, but that's at the technical stage, and I draw your attention to paragraph 6.6 of the offices that says that it would be difficult to demonstrate the application site is not suitable in principle. So it's just to remind members that there is a firm sort of recommendation for approval because it is a permission in principle, and the members can indicate the contrary at the moment, but not any of the technical reasons, which will be at the later stage. Thank you both. Any further questions? Councillor Cissna. Just in previous applications, has the granting of PIP, has that affected subsequent approval or refusal of any applications, does it affect future decisions? Through you, Chair, the Council has had no more, not even a handful of PIP applications in the past, they have, as far as I can recall, all been approved at the PIP stage, no detailed technical details stage applications have yet come forward, and they've all identified very similar concerns broadly as to what's raised in the committee report tonight. On some of those other sites, there have been other concerns regarding ecological matters specific to those sites, but they've been granted at the PIP stage, but no technical details applications have come forward and certainly haven't been approved, and they're not under consideration, and this is the first at this site. There is nothing, there is no relevant planning history at all at this particular site, which is the most relevant thing of all. Can I also add to that idea, if I may, to members, just to be clear that this is a permission principle, like I said, I know we've all stressed it, and if granted, it doesn't mean that it will certainly go ahead, because it will be quite a rigorous approach that will be needed to be done at the technical stage to actually make sure that it can actually be built out accordingly, so there's probably a reason why many have not come forward as yet, because they can't work up according to those issues and restrictions, and there's a lot of work that needs to be done with architect, with planning officers, and the like. So it will not be the end of the matter for you to consider. Thank you, Martha. Any further questions? Okay. I would like to move on to debate. So interested to hear your thoughts. Obviously, as has been emphasized and reemphasized, we are at this stage only effectively deciding whether in principle this is an area that can be developed. A lot of the questions that we may have and do have can be considered at a later stage. And correct me if I'm wrong, Ashley, or Nadia, what you seem to be saying in 6.6 and 6.8 is that in effect, to a degree, the decision on appropriateness has already been taken; is that correct? Through you, Chairman, if the chief planning officer doesn't object, absolutely, we have an adopted core strategy, and there are no land use objections in terms of the proposal with the use of this site, irrespective of indicative layouts and drawings and other technical matters. In principle, there are no land use objections, and we have an adopted plan that identifies that land as being suitable for these purposes. So with that in mind, interested to hear your thoughts. Councillor Arnold. I'll kick it off again. I'll sit and wait for other hands to go up, here we go. Obviously, been very interested to hear Nadia's, Ashley's, and legal's views, but I'm actually really probably sort of fairly 100% in agreement with what Councillor Morris Cook has actually said. There's always a first time. Yeah, I'm not going to vote in favour of this. I understand the technicalities behind it, I understand exactly where we are, but I'm not in favour of actually giving this PIP. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lidiot. Yeah, I guess I'm a bit of a rules man, really, and if the rules state that we're only deciding this on the land use basis, then I think we've got to agree with the officers. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Paulson. If I may, essentially, what we're deciding is not whether the CGI that's been shown to us is for, essentially, it's just whether the land itself could have a development on it. And I think everything that's been shown to us in terms of designs and layouts, none of it really matters. It's a fundamental question of can that land be used to be built on in the future. And I think that's what needs to be the focus, not the specific aspects of where the road is or what design there may be. Thanks, Councillor. Anybody else? Okay, so if there are no further comments, then I think we should proceed on to reviewing the recommendation. As I've already mentioned, and as has been mentioned, we are -- there are a lot of concerns that we will have the opportunity to address later in the process should this come back as a detailed plan. I suppose the question you need to decide is, fundamentally, are you in agreement that this is a piece of land that should be built on? So do I have a proposer to support the planner's application? Councillor Liddiard seconded. Councillor Paulston, those in agreement? Those against? Unfortunately, it's the casting vote again. That means we will be approving the recommendation in principle. I do want to put it on record, though, that I would expect to see all and every one of these concerns addressed if this application comes back. And in particular, I would like the -- I'll put this to the committee. I think it's been mentioned by Mr. Oldroyd that he wants to speak to the Councillor and review residents' concerns. I think that should be a condition of our agreement, of our approval. May I put that -- I'm sorry, not reasonable, apparently. Can it be an informative -- am I allowed that one? Great. Fantastic. Chair, may I -- Public statement, it's apparently absolutely fine, but I do think that's important as a next step. Chair, if I might, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I would also -- it could all come could also suggest that as the PIP application had been called in, it would be perfectly right and proper for any technical detail stage application to be brought to committee automatically irrespective of any call in request. So you know, that would be my expectation. So if the technical details app came in, I would automatically make it a committee determination. So I would like to reassure the committee and ward Councillor of that. Thanks, Nadia. So our decision tonight in terms of the in principle application is that we are agreeing with the Planning Officer's recommendation, the permission in principle is approved. Thank you very much. Now, I think that is our business for this evening completed, so thank you, everybody. I now declare this meeting closed at 9 minutes to 9. [BLANK_AUDIO]