Thursday, June 13, 2024

Council seek ideas on the future of lorry parks in the borough

Thurrock Council is “undertaking a call for sites for HGV parking” and preparing an updated HGV parking study.

This means the council is on the lookout for as many possible potential lorry park sites across the borough so a thorough consideration of the merits of each site.

The Call for Sites process allows all interested parties to put forward proposals that will help Thurrock meet its needs for HGV parking and rest-up facilities in years to come.

Cllr Andy Smith, Thurrock’s portfolio holder for regeneration, said: “The council can now move the whole HGV parking issue forward. We want as many ideas as possible so we can look at all the advantages and disadvantages of each one and come to a reasoned and sensible outcome.

“Everyone knows and accepts that somewhere for lorry drivers to park up and rest safely is needed. The question is where.”

Any sites previously submitted to the council for HGV parking have been kept and will be considered. However, if there have been any changes to those sites the Council needs to know.

Anybody interesting in putting forward proposals should download a response form from the council’s website ( and get it to the council by 5pm on Friday, 23 September.

In addition the council is running two workshops to help site owners and developers with their submissions. The first — on the Methodology of the New HGV Parking Study – will be held on the morning of either 15 or 16 September 2011. The second — on the Methodology and Findings of the New HGV Parking Study – will be on a date to be confirmed.


  1. One place to put the Lorry Parks would be around the Docks Approach Area and down around Tilbury Power station. However the people of Tilbury / Thurrock Park and Little Thurrock would be left with blighted lives and given the new planning rules it is unlikely 106 MONIES would be available to compensate. Alternatively Lorry Parks around the new Docks to the East Of the Borough. However majority of Stanford / Corringham people are not happy with this idea either – so where do we put them?

  2. “Extremely well put VINCE63. I too believe that the residents for whom you are raising cautionary notes are unlikely to have the impact of HGV lorries parking at a lorry park planned for the Tilbury Dock area lessened or improved because of the unbelievable policy on the part of Thurrock Council of not asking the Planning Inspector for s106 contributions concerning the unauthorised Titan Lorry Park! What an unbelievably ill sighted move was that????? It has I believe, only served to set a dangerous precedent for the future that any developer who may have already put forward proposals to develop a lorry park and any developer that comes forward in response to the request in this article, should rightly expect not to have to pay any developer s106 contributions, to pay for such things as additional land bunding/banking outside of the boundary of the proposed site of any lorry park to further lessen noise impact, or to improve the roads and as best as possible in all ways, to lessen the impact of a lorry park. Whilst it is necessary to site lorry parks around both Tilbury and the future super port at shell haven in the East of the Borough, because of the amount of HGV traffic that will inevitably be entering and generated by the ports, and that that will be unfortunate for the residents for whom you are so admirably speaking up. Nevertheless, this ill thought out decision of not requiring any s106 developer contributions from the unauthorised Titan Lorry Park, that was the subject of a Planning Inspectorate public enquiry may, it can be argued, have set a dangerous precedent to all future developers of Lorry Parks in the area!!!!!!! Additionally how fair will it be perceived by all other developers within the Borough that the Titan Lorry Park, it is believed, was allowed to operate for some three and half years either without applying or without being required by the local planning authority to apply for planning permission, consequently not having to pay for planning application fees, building regulation fees, s106 developer contributions and possibly non-domestic rates to the tune of what probably could amount to several millions of pounds? In the absence of any good explanation to prove whether or not my fears and suspicions are well or ill-founded, such fears and suspicions fill me with anger especially in these times of the austerity measures being imposed upon us by the national government. If I am correct in saying that these monies should have been paid and were not, then surely it would have lessened the impact of the current cuts to the Council’s spending budgets? Then again why don’t we see any of the MPs and others involved in assisting them taking pay cuts anytime soon to help lessen the impact to public spending cuts nationally? Any how we live in a community where the competing aims of everyone have to be weighed and balanced to ensure that not only the aspirations and interests of residents are upheld so that Thurrock is a good and positive environment for them and their families to want to live in, but also so that commercial interests are encouraged to develop the area to provide job opportunities and make the economy of Thurrock thrive and prosper to ensure the future and survival of the Borough in which I am proud to say I live. Finally VINCE63, as ever, keep up the good work, because Thurrock is a better place for you. As for Rocket 1, hardly a very sensible proposal?”

  3. sorry to go off topic ref rocket1 reply he should try and park overnight in a layby i had the misfortune to park my lorry on the main dock road out only place i know to park and the round tip to the m25 was out of the question. re tatian truck stop its a rip off £20 a pop


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


More articles