A MAJORITY of members of Thurrock Council's planning committee stood their ground and have rejected plans for seven flats and two retail outlets on a site in Little Thurrock.

The plan was originally scheduled to be decided by officers, but ward councillor Rob Gledhill had it 'called in' to go before the committee.

Members had previously opposed the scheme for the redevelopment of 1 – 3 Broadway, involving the demolition of the existing building which contains the Coles furnishings store, and the erection of a three-storey mixed development to provide one retail space, one retail/commercial space and seven flats.

Oficers had recommended approval for the project at a first meeting but though councillors were minded to refuse, they called it back for a second meeting and presentation of more information.

They staunchly defenced their view at last night's (Tuesday, 12 August) meeting but failed to win a majority of councillors over and the plan was thrown out.

How the site might have looked.

Members were particularly concerned about the lack of parking for residents in the flats, questioning the officers' view it is a 'no parking development'.

Cllr Roy Jones said: "How does that work? Potentially we could have seven or more people with cars on this scheme, who have nowhere able to park."

The planning officer presenting the case said: "We can't control what's in the lease agreement, it's impossible to control on planning terms."

Committee chair Cllr Mike Fletcher clarified that the seven cars from the property could be added to the existing permit zone on William Street, and was told that is acceptable.

However he queried the distance people would have to walk, particularly when carrying shopping or other items. He said: "To do a weekly shop, people will jump in their car. That can be expected."

Highways officer Julian Hawes said: "It's a comfortable walk."

Cllr Russell Cherry said: "I know the location very well, I regularly drive it and work it. I am very fearful of the commercial outlet parking. People use the takeaways, there are too many takeaways, too many parking infringements and too much opportunity for an accident to happen.

"We would be very remiss to allow this development."

Cllr Tom Kelly said: "Looking at scheme, this looks like the limits are being tested at every corner.

"It's incredibly cramped, the idea in theory that the area is of high accessibility in terms of public transport is not something I agree with. There are opinions in the report that are subjective.

"I have concerns over parking."

Cllr Aaron Green concurred, saying: "I agree. The highways issues around parking very much concern me. We have no way of controlling it. It's a very dangerous junction as it is. I'm leaning to vote against.

Cllr Jacqui Maney was also concerned and said: "There is a chronic parking shortage, that concerns me a great deal."

Cllr Roy Jones continued to list his objections, saying it was over development: "Too much on a dangerous bend."

He added: "I'm also concerned by the limited amenity space for the residents."

Cllr Cath Sisterson was less critical, saying: "I've got some concerns about the parking, but people moving in there would know the situation and if they have cares they probably wouldn't choose to live there.

"But my concern that this is not car friendly, or pedestrian policy."

Summing up, Cllr Flecther said: "Our issue is not so much if we like, it, which we don't, but are we being reasonable? I still think this is uncomfortable and we are moving toward tenement building but the fact that we are not comfortable with it may mean that it's not unreasonable.

"I will be voting for this application but I am on the edge.

"We are taking our rules and procedures as far as we can stretch. This far and no further for me."

Approval was proposed by Cllr Steve Liddiard and seconded by Cllr Sisterson but the scheme was rejected.