The application seeks retrospective, temporary permission for the use of land for open storage and storage and swapping of articulated HGVs cab units and trailers.

A new improved access onto Stifford Road is proposed and landscaping on land outside the Major Developed Site (MDS) also forms part of the proposals.

Council officers are recommending that the application be refused.

The application will be heard on Thursday May 9th at the council chamber in New Road, Grays

First up was the application by the Outdoor Market Group (OMG) led by Robert Wong.

Mr Wong had made a number of amendments to his previously unsuccessful application. He had reduced the number of stalls from 24 to 16. The market was also going to run on a one-year trial basis for three days a week. Mr Wong also outlined the parking and other logistical plans in relation the market.

Speaking on behalf of the Corringham Traders and Residents, William Tilby told the committee that contrary to reports, Corringham Town Centre was doing well, with “only 3% of shops lying empty”.

Cllr Phil Smith spoke in support of the application but first made reference to the amount of “ill-feeling” created by the application.

Cllr Smith said: “We have seen a number of shops close down over the last year. Thomas Cook, Blockbusters, Alfords to name just a few.

“The OMG have taken on board a number of comments and resolved the parking and toilet issues.”

Councillors asked Mr Wong a number of questions on the application.

Cllr Charlie Curtis asked if Mr Wong would be willing to work with the “rival” application. Mr Wong said he would.
Cllr Curtis also had a swipe at the local traders saying. “You have let us down a bit with your surprise application. A rose in any other name..”

Cllr Barry Palmer said: “Corringham Town Centre seems to be a real success. Parking is at a premium already.”

The application was approved.

The committee moved on to the application for a monthly market by the Corringham Residents and Traders Association. Their proposal would see a market operating on the 1st and 3rd Thursday and Saturday of every month.

William Tilby spoke in support of the application and firstly corrected the committee, telling them it was a monthly event. He said:” In the spirit of the Corringham Fete and community forum. We have 74 members of the association.”

Cllr Martin Healy saw the positive side of both applications. He said: “There seems to be a real entrepreneurial spirit in the Corringham area that has to be commended.”

The applicqtion was approved.

Original permission had been given by the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (DC) in 2010. There had been a great deal of anger and protest against the development.

Much of the debate on Thursday night (March 14th) centred on contamination in the area.

Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Michael Smith told the committee that the contaminated areas was “capped”.

Mr Smith said: “A person would need a JCB digger to get at the contaminated land.

Speaking against the application, community leader, rev Alan Field also focussed on the contamination issue. Rev Field was also concerned at a number of inconsistencies, drawing a comparison with this application to a rejected application in North Stifford.

The application was voted through unanimously.

YT spoke to rev Alan Field up in Aveley to assess what the community will do next.

The key issue regarding the application near to the Aveley by-pass appears to be what lies beneath the ground.

The chair of Aveley Community Forum, Rev Alan Field and a number of community leaders went to the council offices to meet with planning officers.

It is an issue we discussed with Rev Field on a number of occasions.

Here, we ask him to re-iterate what he believes is under the land and why he feels so strongly about it.

The council has been leading efforts to secure the comprehensive redevelopment of the area around the rail station.

The aim is to boost the existing community and at the same time ease the effects of recent development patterns.

Proposals for the 58-hectare brownfield site include up to 3,000 new homes; nearly 40,000 square metres of offices, workshops and shops; a new primary school and a health centre; a supermarket; a combined heat-and-power station; and an upgraded railway station.

The council’s portfolio holder for regeneration, Cllr Andy Smith – speaking after Thursday’s decision – said: “The council owns just over half the site having received more than 70 acres from the development corporation.

“It is estimated that around £35 million more needs to come in and Thurrock has committed £11.6 million to support this.”

He added: “This shows our commitment to create something special at Purfleet; something that will be a boon to all existing residents and something which will attract new business, new commerce and new people to the area.

“Although this seems like a lot of money, we estimate that, when complete, this scheme will bring in around £500 million private funding to the area – and that has to be good for everyone.

“This sort of process is never totally smooth, but we will get there and then everyone will see the difference.”

Cllr Martin Healy, who chaired Thursday’s meeting, added: “This proposal has been talked about for several years and it was great for members to have the chance to discuss and consider all the pros and cons involved.

“This was an outline application, effectively agreeing to the policy without looking at the specific details of design and so on – that will come later. I can assure you we will be seeking high-quality housing and developments to support our aspirations for growth in Thurrock.”

Assuming the application is not called in by the Secretary of State, further compulsory purchase orders could start in summer with a view to construction starting in summer 2014 and the first units being available a year later.

At last week’s meeting of the authority’s planning committee, a majority of councillors voted against of their own rules and planning officers’ advice to given permission to a family man to build a swimming pool in his back garden.

The only problem with the plan is that it is a new building in a designated green belt area and after the councillors voted, planning chief Andy Millard stepped in to defer the matter – while the Council’s legal advisor said he had “grave concerns.”

The application came from local businessman Steve Wilson, who wants to build the swimming pool for his family’s use in the grounds of a derelict farm that he has painstakingly and expensively restored.

His work in bringing the buildings at Little Mollands Farm, South Ockendon, has won praise from English Heritage and local planning officers and won Mr Wilson an overwhelming vote of sympathy in the Council Chamber last week.

Some were swayed to vote in favour of the scheme for a pool and gymnasium, in the end coming up with an argument they accepted was spurious in a bid to get round clear planning rules.

Mr Wilson’s home on Mollands Lane dates from the early nineteeth century and the farm house that has been restored is Grade II listed.

He told the meeting that when he had bought the site it was dilapidated but he had made it a labour of love to restore the building, spending many thousands on aesthetic additions to the site such as roofing the building with thousands of very expensive titles to match how it would have looked originally.

He added: “Everyone was delighted with what I did and the planning inspector said if everyone paid such attention to detail with their projects, he would be out of a job.”

Several councillors then queued up to led their support to Mr Wilson, with Cllr Martin Healy quizzing planning officer Catherine Blow and asking: “I’m confused, you say it’s Metropolitan Green bet but it’s someone’s garden?

“Pass,” came the succinct reply.

Cllr Healy then added: “Five months ago the coalition government urged people to develop their homes, employ local builders and create business and wealth. This could be a prime example here. I believe it’s a shallow excuse to call it green belt.”

That was an argument that really didn’t cut it with Tory Cllr Phil Anderson, who said: “The recent changes relating to Green belt are about reuse of buildings, there is more flexibility for the use of old buildings.

“Some of the mood music may have changed but that doesn’t apply to this building. Green Belt is Green belt. We have always been very clear. There need to be special circumstances that outweigh harm in the Green Belt.”

Veteran Cllr Charlie Curtis weighed in with an emotional plea for Mr Wilson to be granted permission for the pool. “When he bought it this place was a tip. Now it’s one of the nicest places in the area.

“I can’t give you any planning reasons but surely we should support this. He is not asking to build homes or make money, just build a swimming pool for his family.

“Mr Wilson is passionate about his home. He loves it. So what do we do – we punish him!”

Cllr Shane Hebb saw Cllr Curtis’s argument, but added: “We are blurring emotion with planning regulations. We have to judge this on material matters. To do otherwise would send out a catastrophic message.”

Cllr Barry Palmer backed Cllr Curtis, paying tribute to “people who restore building in the Green Belt.” He added:

“This man has gone to great length to restore this building. I think we should be looking sympathetically and allow the pool to be built as a way of saying thanks for restoring the property.

“We have lost too many buildings in the past by being philistine.”

Cllr Anderson came back into the debate to say: “Restoring buildings is absolutely to be commended but the precedent really scares me, the precedent for people with less scruples.”.

Cllr Barry Johnson made the point that “If he had put this into the plans he submitted for the original application we would be in a different position,” while Cllr Richard Speight spoke of his concerns, echoing Cllr Anderson by saying: “It sets a really dangerous precedent.”

Councillors sought advice from legal expert Philip Cunliffe-Jones who said: “To allow a new building in Green Belt requires very special circumstances and to allow this would be very grave in my view.”

Despite that warning, when it came to a vote, Cllrs Curtis, Palmer, Healy and committee chairman Terry Hipsey voted to overturn the officer recommendation for refusal and then, under council procedures, produced a motion citing economic regeneration, which Cllr Healy had earlier conceded was meant as a humorous proposition, as the reason for giving approval.

That was carried by another 4-3 margin, with two abstentions, prompting Mr Millard to intervene saying he was duty bound to intervene and the matter would be brought to the next planning meeting for further consideration.

Planning officers recommended councillors approve a bid by Cory to carry on with lorry movements to and from the site for another four years – a prospect that sparked horror among some councillors who demanded to known why residents should have to continue to suffer the ‘blight’ of the site.

Planning councillor Barry Palmer, whose East Tilbury ward includes the site, couldn’t vote because he has spoken against the site so often his vote is adjudged to be ‘pre-determined – but he still spoke up to condemn the plan.
“I object most strongly,” he said. “This latest plan is frustrating and devastating for the residents who were looking for an end.”

Cory say they have not been able to complete their restoration work on the site and to meet the criteria of having 80 lorry movements to and from a the site a day, they will have to extend the deadline for completion – which ran out in October – to June 218, with lorry movements ceasing in December 2016.

The company’s representative John Bolden told the meeting the company had done everything it could to complete the work but it had not been possible because of market conditions that restricted the supply of materials to the site.

“We do want to complete as soon as possible, the sooner we are off the site the better,” he said.
Councillors quizzed Mr Bolden with Barry Johnson saying: “This is all very strange. If he says it’s a difficult market, how can he set a date for completion? It’s a mockery. Why put this in front of us?”

Cllr Charlie Curtis said a similar waste tip in his ward in South Ockendon had been ‘capped’ as part of a restoration process in very quick time. “If one company can do it, why can’t another?” he asked.

Cllr Terry Hipsey said: “For many years now residents in Walton Hall Lane and Butts Road have been blighted by eight-wheeled giant tippers. It absolutely saddens me and it is totally unacceptable.”

Councillors asked if Cory could be forced to upgrade Walton Hall Road, the access to the tip, but were told the most they might be able to force the company to pay was £30,000 – a figure described as “derisory” by Cllr Phil Anderson.

Cllr Shane Hebb warned councillors that they had to “come to a conclusion at some point” but the councillors decided not to make a decision there and then, instead deferring the matter and electing for a site visit.

Councillors conceded they didn’t particularly like the application by the Hills Building Group and Mersea Homes for the site on the Stanhope Industrial park in Stanford-le-Hope but they had little alternative but to pass it.

Their concern was summed up by a councillor who said: “We are between a rocks and a hard place.”

A decision on the application had been delayed for a site visit, which did result in councillors insisting on a new planning condition, to ensure the new site was screened off from view of the new Mucking country park – but they admitted that would be of little consolation to residents on Wharf Road who had campaigned against approval.

The industrial park was formerly home to the Fisons fertiliser plant, which meant planning permissions are still in force allowing a high volume of industrial traffic to the site, which also houses the base for Squibb Demolition, against whom residents have been objecting for several years because of the size and frequency of lorry traffic.

History and existing uses mean residents in a residential area that has expanded considerably feel they are being let in an intolerable position.

That was acknowledged by councillor Phil Anderson who said: “This application will undoubtedly raise the level of HGV movement on Wharf Road. People will be looking at this committee to see what we will be doing about it. But it is deemed impossible for use to refuse planning permission for lorries to use this site.”

He questioned whether the site’s usage should remain purely for industry and that the planning conditions ought to reflect a change in the area, concluding by saying: “Is purely industrial use right for this site in 2012?”

The frustration of members was encapsulated by Cllr Barry Palmer, a veteran of many years of planning battles against HGV movements in East Tilbury, who said: “At the end of the day we are between a rock and a hard place. If Fisons were still there there would be more intensive industrial traffic than we have got now.

“Residents will feel we are allowing more lorry movements but I feel we have no alternative but to support this application.”

And councillors then did just that, supporting their officers recommendation for approval.

The application for the mast came from Vodaphone, who wanted to site a 12.5m telecoms pole and associated equipment cabinet on land to the rear of Drake Court, Merlin Close, Chafford Hundred.

Local ward councillor Garry Hague, argued it would be a blight on the local landscape.

Cllr Hague was initially denied the right to speak because chair, cllr Hipsey said the proper process had not been followed for him to do so, but cllr Hague twice interjected at the start of consideration of the matter and in the end, after officers were forced to acknowledge that another ward councillor,. Simon Wootton, had given them written notice of cllr Hague’s intention to speak, he was allowed to make his point.

Cllr Hague added: “As ward members we have a duty as members to represent our residents’ concerns and they are very concerned because of its size. It is a dominant and incongruous feature in its setting that will dominate the site and most of Chafford Hundred East will see it sticking out above trees. Because of its high position it will be overbearing to the street scene and local environment – which doesn’t even mention the health concerns of residents.”

However, Cllr Hague’s argument failed to win over most of the planning committee. Two, Cllrs Barry Johnson and Barry Palmer, voted against it and Cllr Phil Anderson abstained, but six others backed the application.

PROPOSALS to build a new apartment building on the site of the old leisure centre in Tilbury were discussed in the Planning Committee meeting last night.

Following discussions with local community members, the new proposal included plans for the ground floor of the new building to be set aside for council and community use including some sports and leisure facilities.

A resident representative stated that the height of the building was of concern and felt that the proposals did not take account of the fine example of early town planning that Tilbury represented. The residents have been without a leisure centre for years and the plans did not satisfy resident’s needs, in their opinion.

Mr Stevens, agent for the applicant, stated that the new building kept to the covenant on the site for sport and leisure use with the new proposal and that the project would help regenerate the area. Resident’s concerns over the new building over-looking their properties and the Sure Start centre were taken into account with the new proposals with a stepped approach and landscaped screening.

The committee members were divided on the plans with some praising the developer’s willingness to alter their proposals based on community feedback and in designing an iconic building whilst others found that the height of the building was an issue.

The application was refused, despite the positive aspects, on the grounds of the height of the proposed building by a majority vote.

Polly Billington, Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, stated that “it was important tonight…that some people recognised that wanting an iconic building doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to have a tall one but any building on that site needs to respect the Civic Square and the fact that it is an important historic place.”

“Overall, the lesson that the council needs to come away from this, and particularly the Planning Committee, they need to start listening more to the community about the kind of place they want Tilbury to be.”

Community leader, Terry Piccolo spoke at the meeting to express a number of concerns over the applications.

He reserves his final criticism for cllr Terry Hipsey who gained a lot of support from local shopkeepers in the local elections in May.

Mr Piccolo said:

“There are a number of concerns I have regarding last night’s meeting, I think first of all I was very perturbed by the amount of time the committee were allowed to question the applicant. Rule 11 of Thurrock Council’s Rules for the Conduct of Question Time at Planning Committee Meetings states “A period of 3 minutes shall be reserved to enable questions to be put by Members of the Committee to the speaker”

Last night the Committee questioned the applicant’s representative, who is well versed in how to turn questions to their advantage for well in excess of 20 minutes. To my mind this gave the applicant additional time to influence the Planning Committee Members, thus removing the equilibrium that the three minute rule is designed to maintain.

I will be writing to Thurrock Council’s Democratic Services to ask them to look into whether this breach of Rules could affect last night’s decision.

With regard to the granting of permission I am extremely disappointed and feel the officer’s recommendation to approve had more to do with hitting targets than regenerating Stanford le Hope town centre. This so called supermarket is 33% smaller than Morrisons at Corringham which most people would class as small anyway, the argument that a supermarket of this size will stop Stanford residents traveling further afield for their weekly/monthly shop does not hold water, at best it may attract some customers’ that already use Morrisons at Corringham although being smaller I doubt it, but it will not attract those shoppers that already travel out to the larger supermarkets at Tilbury, Grays, Pitsea.

The only customers it is likely to attract are those that use the existing Tesco and Co-op in the town centre which could well result in one of these pulling out leaving a large old fashioned shop empty with very little likelihood of a new tenant being found quickly, and this new supermarket was meant to regenerate the town centre.

When the demolition and build work starts Stanford le Hope town centre shops may as well shut up shop for the six months or so as there will be nowhere for shoppers to park as the car park will be closed, and whilst it is all very noble trying to encourage people not to use their cars we all know that in the real world this will not happen, and once they are in the habit of shopping elsewhere this could well continue even when the new convenience store opens.

I do not see how the new decked car park that will provide 12 less spaces than the existing car park will be able to cope with the demand of the existing shops in the town centre along with this new convenience store if it is as successful as the developers anticipate; well perhaps I can, if people can’t park easily and possibly have to pay for parking if they can they just won’t come they will use Corringham instead which has more than double the car parking.

To my mind the approval of this development has sealed the fate of Stanford le Hope to being a run of the mill, uninteresting, uniform town centre and nothing like the image we were sold by the Development Corporation in The East Thurrock Masterplan where open space and uniqueness were to create the vibrancy to regenerate the town centre. The same officers who worked for the Development Corporation that sold this innovative idea to residents now work for Thurrock Council and seemed to have disregarded their own vision in recommending approval of this application. Doesn’t bode well for some of the other idealistic plans put forward by the DC that supposedly are to be taken up by Thurrock Council.

In approving this development it virtually prevents any other major improvements with in Stanford le Hope as they all depended on the use of the existing King St Car Park to drive the redevelopment, this application has now isolated an area of land which sits behind King St Shops and the existing Car Park where a number of large 2 ½ storey disused out buildings are situated. There will be no cost effective way to regenerate this pocket of land as reasonable access for plant and machinery will have been blocked, thus these buildings will full into further disrepair and become an eyesore and a potential fire hazard as fire tenders will no longer be able to access the site due to the decked car park.

Perhaps it is worth noting that during the recent elections Cllr Hipsey the Chair of the Planning Committee effectively canvassed the votes of the local shopkeepers in Stanford le Hope with many displaying their support, I wonder how they feel now knowing that he voted in favour of this development.

The proposal for King Street was tabled at a meeting of the Thurrock Council planning committee.

Speaking on behalf of his client, Mr Danny Simmonds described how the retail outlet and 22 residential “units” wold enhance the area.

Mr Simmonds made reference to growth in the area including the DP World development.

Chair of the committee, cllr Terry Hipsey agreed. He said: “This shopping area is dying on its knees and we must act to help.

“We have possible housing developments in Butts Lane, Victoria Road and East Tilbury. We need to provide for the incoming residents.”

But local Stanford councillor, Shane Hebb was not convinced and voted against the development as it was not “iconic”.

East Tilbury councillor also expressed a number of concerns including the loss of view to St Margarets church as well as the possible threat to the Tescos and the Co-Op in the area.

The application was approved.

The proposals include the demolition of the existing Debenhams store and the existing bus station. The plans also include the redevelopment of the transport infrastructure in the area.

The proposals are detailed in a hundred page document that itemises every consideration from protection of habitat to landfill arrangements.

In a passionate speech, general manager of Lakeside, Paul Lancaster accentuated that economic boost the plans would have for Thurrock in particular.

Mr Lancaster said; “These plans will invest £180 million into Lakeside. There are over 1,000 construction jobs involved as well as over a thousand job opportunities in retail and leisure.

“These plans also take into account the modal shift away from the car

“Over the last few weeks, we have consulted with shoppers and have been overwhelmed with the massive support for the redevelopment.

“Thurrock residents, voters and shoppers all want to see the expansion and development of Lakeside in the same way that they can see the expansion of Captial Shopping Centres all over the country.”

Thurrock councillors were impressed with Mr Lancaster’s speech and the overall plans.

Cllr Martin Healy said: “Our voters would never forgive us if we did not back Lakeside’s plans.”

Cllr Tunde Ojetola asked several questions regarding the road changes especially those in Chafford Hundred whilst fellow Tory, Shane Hebb said that the plans: “Ticked all the right boxes.”

The proposal was passed unanimously.

Developers had proposed the development of 24 flats on the site on Brennan Road, near to the civic square.

However, local councillors and residents were concerned that this was on the site of a community centre.

Cllr Lynn Worrall said:” At present there is a community centre there. It had been a thriving centre. The plans do have provision for a gym but we have no guarantee that this will not be for private use.”

The committee voted unanimously to side with the officers proposal to reject the proposal.

Cllr Tunde Ojetola (Cons) said: “There appears to have been little or no discussion with the community. I would advise that you get out there and discuss matters.”

Cllr Shane Hebb (Cons) concurred stating: “The cornerstone of the Localism Act was that developers should engage with the community.”

Whilst councillor Richard Speight (Lab) criticised that whole proposal, calling it piecemeal.

Looking to the future, Tory leader, cllr Phil Anderson summed up what many thought about the potential of the area.

He said: “Every time, I drive near the Civic Square I think of what an iconic area it is and how we must develop their to match aspiration and drive regeneration.”