Last week, at a meeting of Thurrock Council’s planning committee, an enforcement notice was recommended in relation to a motorbike training school, pallet storage, tyre storage and a lorry park at the site of the old West Thurrock power station in Oliver Road.
The site has been at the centre of a long running dispute over planning permission and a number of other issues.
Chadwell councillor Gerard Rice expressed his frustration at the whole situation.
Cllr Rice said: “If an individual had done these things on their own property, their feet wouldn’t touch the floor. It seems that this lot have got away with blue murder.”
Cllr Rice spoke after Mrs Denise Donovan spoke to the committee and expressed her concerns regarding a number of other buildings on the site including a Sodium Sulphate building and a Soap Ring building.
Conservative leader, cllr Phil Anderson also expressed his concerns.
He said: “There is an impression in this process that the company in question (ICG Ltd) are going to get away with it.”
“It is sending out the wrong message that you can win these planning battles in a court of law.”
The committee voted unanimously to support the enforcement.
every time the wind is from the south there is an awful smell carried over south stifford ,west thurrock and chafford hundred.
Are councilor Rice and Anderson the only ones who realize something is wrong? With Thurrock council and this company are the other councilors just nodding dogs. What ever happened to democracy and Hot press Casey? It’s a disturbing day for the residents of Thurrock. Hardly any members spoke up about the officers constantly declining to respond to Mrs. Donavon’s questions, With reference to planning officers informing members it was permitted development and it appears they changed their minds it wasn’t permitted development “officers are their to offer advice not make policy” it sounds like a punch and Judy show with puppets running the planning department but who is pulling the puppet strings? Very high up!! Well done Cllr Rice and Cllr Anderson for fighting for the residents of Thurrock
Mike seems to me the only thing missing form the meeting was an evening suit and a baton
As this meeting was run by somebody sitting outside of the committee, and it showed very much
Like the copping actions with the hands on the desk in front of him when a member of the public was
Trying to talk, fairness is dead in Thurrock and it shows and was noted
As the person who spoke at the meeting and after having some time to reflect on this – I would make the following observations
•Before I even spoke – a response from one councillor asked about representations by the Deputy Chair– stated that he had received paperwork from me and he had been told by Legal Services what he could and could not say/ask. What is Legal Services continual involvement in this site about? What is their interest? What is their agenda?
•At the August planning meeting- one of the reasons given for deferring the enforcement was because representatives from the Motor Bike Training Facility, the second lorry park , the pallet storage company and the tyre storage company all wanted to put their case. Where were they? Not one representative from one company. The enforcement report only recommended four year’s notice. It could have been overturned, yet not one solitary person attended to put their case forward and even though ICG’s agent Mr Brian Pooley (ex Thurrock employee) was present, he made no representation. I can only say they must have been very certain of the outcome………………………..
•Prior to the meeting and as per Thurrock’s Constitution, I submitted written details of that I wished to discuss, which included two Caustic Storage Tanks 21 metres in diameter and 22 metres high (66 feet). I am then told I cannot talk about them. Why? Why did Thurrock try so hard to shut me down? Well, they failed and I add the point that the subject is also noticeably absent from Your Thurrock’s reporting of the event. No planning permission- and certainly not established as permitted development. Legislation states that the maximum height for plant /machinery is 15 metres unless said plant replaced previous structures of the same size and height, utilising the existing foundations . The August enforcement report stated that there was photographic evidence to state that structures pre-existed. Untrue. The next thing they state is that the planning department have photographic evidence of foundations?! Since when is a photo of a foundation evidence of the height of anything? Added to the fact that Thurrock planning has aerial photographic evidence to show exactly the opposite- that no previous structures existed. All this after thirteen months of investigating. Anyone want to place any bets as to when these will be enforced on?
•Last but not least – this was a meeting of the planning committee to discuss an enforcement matter. Quite strange then for Cllr Anderson to ask a question of a planner about the situation of ICG’s business rates. Mr Nicholson was able to answer that it was with the Specialist Rating Unit. Lucky for him then that I wrote to Thurrock and informed them that this was the case or Mr Anderson would have gone unanswered. Coincidence that eh.
Unless someone can magic up somewhere for the lorries to park instantly (anyone remember truckworld? A big lorry park that shut down filling our roads up with lorries parking) the 4 year order seems to be a good compromise giving a chance for somewhere else to be put on place for lorries to park ect.
Love them or hate them lorries are an essential part of our lives bringing the goods to our shops and factories ect and they do need places to park up so the drivers can have rest and sleep ect.
I agree that lorries do need somewhere to park and that they provide a vital service. My argument is that ICG seem to be able to get away with what no other company in the borough can. How this lorry park was sold to residents and councillors was that it stopped lorries parking on the roadside and roundabouts- a 50,000 square metre lorry park that actually only provides 70 spaces for lorries roaming the borough looking for parking- all the others 380 spaces are pre-booked. All known to planning and all without having to pay planning application fees, all the associated reports, like flood risk assessments, ecological reports – all the other things that legal companies do…….Thurrock’s vision for this site was as a flagship location- with clear criteria to be met. What they got was massive buildings constructed without planning, built on land that had no planning, other unauthorised businesses on site without planning and no business rates paid on any of it, saving ICG millions. Plus it’s all built without Building Control- that’s building safety regulations. Buildings of 1500 square metres….and tanks 66 feet high. Because it is a chemical site- it is supposed to be closely monitored in the event of a major hazard. So two questions- Thurrock actually produced a safety map to show that in the event of a warehouse fire on site, the estimated distance the smoke would travel would totally encompass the lorry park, begging the question …how would sleeping lorry drivers and their lorries be evacuated? The second question is how all this unauthorised activity takes place when you have regular visits by Thurrock’s environmental health officers, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency? Strange don’t you think as when all this started in September 2010 one of the reasons a domestic enforcement was agreed on a loft conversion and dormer extension was because a ridge tile was 50mm (UNDER TWO INCHES) too high. Seems planning legislation is as flexible as a bit of elastic in Thurrock and I wonder if other business get the same amount of leeway this one does. Businesses please reply………..