OUTSPOKEN Thurrock Conservative leader, cllr Phil Anderson has given his backing to Chafford councillor, Steven Veryard after he sided with Labour over the enforcement notice on the Titan lorry park in West Thurrock.
Cllr Anderson has questioned cllr Hispey’s fitness to chair the planning committee after the planning inspectorate allowed the lorry park in Oliver Road, West Thurrock to continue operating until 2015.
When it came to the vote: Tory councillors Anderson and Redsell voted against the motion whilst Labour councillors Rice, Liddiard, Healy and Hipsey voted for. They were joined by the East Tilbury Independent Barry Palmer and Chafford Hundred and North Stifford councillor Steven Veryard.
Cllr Anderson said: “Cllr Veryard clearly wanted to see enforcement happen, and by this point in the meeting 28 days was the only option left before us.
“One of the things I value about planning is that the committee almost never divides along party lines and you rarely know in advance who will agree with you on a given issue!
“However, it is clear that the proposal for 28 days was instigated by Cllr Hipsey and very strongly advocated by him. As the chair, he was also in a position to be briefed by officers in advance on the consequences of his proposed course of action and how it was likely to play out.
He chose to ignore this advice and gave a strong steer to the committee that this was the right thing to do in the interests of local residents.
With the inspector now concluding that the 28 day decision was in fact “contrary to the interests of local residents”, I’m clear that it Cllr Hipsey’s judgement which is primarily in question here.
Some political insiders believe that cllr Veryard’s days as a councillor may be numbered. His seat is up for re-election next year and it is anticipated that he may step aside leaving Ockendon councillor and deputy leader, Amanda Arnold an opportunity to jump into that seat and avoid the fate of Barry Johnson back in May.
If this is proven correct that certain councillors are responsible for taking hampers that were donated to the Mayor’s charity then such conduct on their part must be condemned as shameful and cannot be tolerated. If it is true and correct that hampers donated by well intentioned individuals such as Councillors Worrall and Liddiard have been misappropriated then such actions amount to theft and the councillors responsible should immediately and unequivocally resign. You certainly cannot have councillors who all hold a position of trust to the public and residents of Thurrock, stealing from the Mayor’s charity.“
eagleeye
Well said and done Councillor Hipsey. At least the people of Thurrock can look to this one brave man for standing up for the residents of West Thurrock. At least he had the “political balls” to at long last do something to take control and force ICG to regularise their unauthorised and illegal Titan lorry park operations on the site of the old Power Station in West Thurrock unlike as it appears the former Conservative administration were prepared to do and during whose tenure of power from 2004 until 2010 this unauthorised operation and use of the site was allowed to take root and flourish.
I listened to the recent radio interviews of Councillor Phil Anderson and Councillor Terry Hipsey and think it would have been a much more useful exercise for there to have been a debate between these two councillors. BBC Radio Essex you missed a great opportunity! I am glad Terry Hipsey had the strength of conviction to have identified the “Buncefield like risk” which is obviously posed by the existence of an unauthorised lorry park in close proximity to a tier one (i.e. highest danger) Control of Major and Hazardous (COMAH) substances site. I had not thought of that aspect and hope the Planning Inspector was aware of this factor when making his decision? It appears that Thurrock Council may have allowed the owners of this site Industrial Chemicals Group to get away with opening and operating an unauthorised lorry park whilst at the same time using the adjacent and neighbouring sites presumably also within their ownership to continue their usual activities of producing chemicals. It beggars belief that ICG may have been allowed to operate a lorry park with some three hundred lorries parked, containing diesel and other inflammatory substances so close to such hazardous chemical production and within the minimum exclusion zone within which there should be no development let alone a lorry park. Please, Lord God, help the local residents and children if there were ever to be a major incident in the area concerning this site. Well done Mr Hipsey for your foresight and care for the residents of West Thurrock in trying to do something about it. It would be disgraceful if others at Thurrock Council, outside of those members of the planning committee that voted in favour of enforcement action, both officers and members have failed to recognise these obvious dangers posed to the residents of West Thurrock and surrounding areas. If any of them have ignored this danger to thousands of innocent residents then shame on them.
As for Councillor Anderson I think that the listeners of BBC Radio Essex should have been given all of the facts regarding the matter of where all the lorry traffic would have gone had the planning inspectorate upheld a 28 day notice concerning this site. The fact that some 75% of the HGV traffic at the Titan Lorry Park is contractually booked HGV traffic and that but for this contractual arrangement would not need to be parked there anyway was not explained. Why? Therefore if the Planning Inspector had chose to uphold the 28 day enforcement notice the companies to who these lorries and trailers belong would have simply been required to find somewhere else to park their vehicles when not in use, instead of at this unauthorised site. It is therefore not true that these 300 or so lorries catered for by this site and potentially to be displaced would have been parked up at the side of the street in residential areas! Yet more scare tactics? One major operator at the unauthorised site distributes all over the UK and therefore it is believed would have had the resources to relocate their contractually parked HGV traffic elsewhere. The point that appears to have been missed even perhaps by Thurrock Council themselves is that this site has in my belief always added to the problem of HGV traffic coming into the Thurrock area and never provided a solution to the real predicament in this area posed by ever increasing levels of HGV traffic coming into the borough and that is to cater for transiting (travelling into and through the borough) HGV traffic. It is such transiting HGV traffic that is the cause of the real problem namely lorry drivers choosing to park in lay-bys or residential areas, that it is believed the Titan lorry park was never designed to cater for or tackle. The unauthorised Titan lorry park has only ever provided 25% of its spaces to help combat the real problem for the borough of transiting traffic. It is such transiting HGV traffic that has to stop in Thurrock to make deliveries, for legal requirement reasons or out of preference given the borough’s close proximity to the south coast ports and to London and other areas within the east of London Thames Gateway area, thereby providing a logical and convenient stop off point, that needs to be catered for and not the traffic brought into the area and generated by ICG’s commercial and contractual enterprises. A large proportion of the HGV traffic parked at ICG’s unauthorised logistical site, does not necessarily have to be parked on their site in West Thurrock anyway and could be accommodated by a logistical site that the owners of which have bothered to apply for planning permission.
The 25% transiting traffic could park at the Moto Services site situated between junctions 30 and 31 of the M25. One of the lorry drivers interviewed in Radio Essex’s breakfast show yesterday morning the 23rd August 2011 wrongly claimed that the Moto site only allows lorries to park for two to three hours, when in actual fact it is open 24/7. No doubt Moto just like ICG charge for lorries to park on their site but the difference is that Moto bothered to apply for planning permission to accommodate some 80 plus HGVs parking on their site unlike ICG and probably unlike ICG were required to pay s106 developer contributions and comply with other controls that it is believed have to be abided by other commercial enterprises that want to operate in the borough. Therefore the Moto site would have been able to cater for best part if not all of the 25% of transiting HGV traffic displaced by the closing down of ICG Ltd’s unauthorised site. Why didn’t Cllr Anderson mention such facts? Yet more scare tactics? Something Cllr Anderson is fond of accusing Labour members of at Thurrock Council!
Why does Councillor Anderson not give a full account as to why under the former Tory administration at Thurrock Council, it appears that this company seems to have been encouraged by certain members and a former Mayor of his Tory group to open and operate this unauthorised site without requiring the owners of that company to make a planning application to gain permission? Furthermore why they may not have had to pay s106 developer’s contributions and other control fees like any other commercial enterprise in Thurrock? Why as it is believed, this company may have avoided the need to pay several millions of pounds of business rates because it was an unauthorised use on that site and more importantly why as appears to be the case, were they allowed by the local authority (at the material time, 2006-2010 governed by his Tory group) to operate as an unauthorised site? What is so special about this company? Why, why, why Councillor Anderson? Does the fact that ICG were recently Thurrock Conservative Association’s Landlord or the fact that they have made donations to the local conservative party in Thurrock explain any of this? In addition is it correct that the portakabin rented by Thurrock Conservative Association did not have planning permission? Please confirm whether or not it is correct that ICG ltd may have a further unauthorised lorry park at their Titan pit site off Hogg Lane in Grays, the same site and location of the Thurrock Conservative Associations’ portakabin office? If so, why didn’t senior members of the Thurrock Conservative Association who were also fair to say senior Councillors in the former Tory administration at Thurrock Council between 2004 and 2010, bring this to the attention of the appropriate Officers at Thurrock Council? Furthermore why as it appears, have ICG been allowed to get away for some 4 years with opening and operating an unauthorised lorry park, both as is believed in West Thurrock and Grays, whilst irresponsibly in terms of, for example, insurance risk cover, vehicle operating licence requirements etc, contracting with other companies to park vehicles on their unauthorised site when they know that they do not have planning permission and that might contravene and invalidate insurance and vehicle operator requirements? Why didn’t the Local Authority insist that ICG submit a planning application to the Development Corporation and comply with the other requirements applicable to any planning application such as s106 contributions for starters? If every other commercial enterprise in the area has to comply with these requirements, why not ICG? It is understood that the local authority are notified weekly by VOSA of vehicle operator licences issued to companies wishing to park their HGV vehicles on ICG’s unauthorised site and therefore why did not someone at Thurrock Council surely paid to do so, take action to notify whoever necessary that vehicle operator licences had been issued to whatever company to park their vehicles on an unauthorised site? Why was this not attended to? Fundamental questions that it is believed remain unanswered by Councillor Anderson, the Leader before him, other Tory members, perhaps also several Officers both senior and junior in Thurrock Council’s planning and building development control department, the Monitoring Officer and perhaps in some part the current CEO of Thurrock Council and the current Leader of Thurrock Council and senior members of his administration including the honourable Cllr Hipsey. Are there answers out there and forthcoming any time soon?
As for Redsell and other Tories being allowed to vote on the question of enforcement and ICG, I believe it is correct no Tory member of the planning committee should have had a say or vote given what is believed to be Redsell’s thirty year relationship with the owners of ICG and what is believed to be their Thurrock Conservative Associations familial relationship with ICG Ltd. If Redsell has known the owners of 30 years then she certainly should have declared an interest given she was unable to make a judgement in the interests of the public without being influenced or prejudiced by any friendship or association with the owners of ICG and as regards other Tory members because of the landlord and tenant relationship & donations believed to have existed between ICG and TCA.
Thurrock Council should continue doing the job of serving the residents and businesses of Thurrock generally and specifically by addressing the ever growing transiting HGV traffic coming to and through the borough by finding and opening as soon as possible at long last a lorry park that ticks all the boxes with the new Government policy of locating such HGV parking sites as near as possible to the major trunk roads instead of slap bang in the middle of an industrial estate, having to drive past a regionally significant out of town shopping centre known as Lakeside and more importantly near to heavily populated residential areas and further aggravating for these residents the already high levels of air pollution and high accident rates. Please don’t get me wrong. I recognise and realise that HGV traffic is the necessary transport lifeblood of needed commercial expansion and development in Thurrock, a key area for change and development, both regionally and nationally. However, Thurrock Council, are now more than ever charged with the responsibility of enabling such economic expansion in a sustainable way, that provides in advance for the necessary infrastructure like lorry parks to support such growing levels of lorry traffic that arise from economic expansion and that will almost certainly explode when the port is opened, whilst balancing such economic expansion with the need to ensure residents of the borough can continue to have a life in Thurrock free from the current blight of HGV’s parking at the sides of the road, lay-bys etc, because there is no lorry park (other than Moto) in Thurrock open exclusively for on demand HGV traffic at any one time needing and wanting to park responsibly. Then perhaps all of the residents of Thurrock, not just those who live in West Thurrock, can finally have some rest from this ever constant and increasing nuisance in their lives.
Is it not strange that previous blogs have been removed from these stories? I sincerely hope that certain individuals have not been threatening “Your Thurrock” to remove the blog, in the mistaken belief that they will be forgotten about and can be buried and hushed up? If my hunch is correct then the individuals responsible for such intolerable behavior, that has no place in any democracy, please rest assured that I for my part will not rest until I get a full explanation for what I believe is the wrongful and intolerable actions and behavior of certain individuals in Thurrock. These individuals know who they are? If you are responsible for threatening behavior then you do know that it is the nature of things that you will eventually be exposed. Incidentally I am still awaiting answers to the questions I posed in my previous blogs to these stories and which blogs have been removed. Whoever was asked these questions in Thurrock and you all know who you are, what are you frightened of in giving answers? Why can’t you answer the questions posed or are the answers too embarrassing and compromising for you to concede or too difficult for you to answer? Is anything being covered up or hidden? Please now answer because this is not going away and you are just delaying the inevitable meltdown that is coming your way, only to make it worse when it happens and the balloon finally goes up. Better still please prove me wrong and demonstrate nothing untoward is going on in Thurrock concerning the matters of concern in these recent stories in “Your Thurrock” for which blog has been removed. Nothing would please me better than to receive good sound explanations to allay not only my concerns but also those of the many other readers of “Your Thurrock” and other commentators and observers in the community of Thurrock.”
eagleeye