THE Planning Inspectorate has backed a decision by Thurrock planning councillors to reject the demolition of a former Grays shop and built seven flats in its place.

CS Property Estates Ltd wants to demolish kitchen and bathroom showroom, R G Cole at 1 – 3 Broadway and build a three storey development with one new commercial space.

The proposal, which was recommended for approval by officers, was initially rejected by councillors at a meeting in June last year.

After objections were read out by ward councillor Rob Gledhill, who had called the application to the committee's attention, councillors expressed concern about a lack of parking and increased congestion on the surrounding roads.

However, after debate and a vote to reject which was lost on chairman Cllr Mike Fletcher's casting vote, they reconsidered and said they were minded to refuse but would make a site visit to corroborate their fears.

Having done that they next discussed the proposal and rejected the application by CS Property Estates Ltd when they met in August.

Cllr Tom Kelly said: "I think the whole scheme looks like the limits are being tested at every corner – the room size, the amenity size. It's incredibly cramped, but within the parameters of the NPPF, so we'd be limited to reject on those grounds. 

"I've still got concerns over parking. Introducing a controlled parking zone would need consultation with residents, and all in all, I still think parking is an issue."

advertisement

The former R.G. Cole shop.

The company appealed, but their reasons were not accepted by the inspectorate.

The inspector considered the main issues related to parking/deliveries and amenity.

He noted that the legal agreement to contribution to amendments to the residents parking zones was not signed and that in its absence the limited on-street parking available and the parking demand arising from the development could become an on-going and long-lasting problem, though the inspector found that there was a lack of substantive evidence to support the council's concerns over deliveries.

The inspector considered that the amount of internal accommodation would not compensate for the lack of outside space and that because the larger units could be occupied by families, the lack of amenity space for these units to be a detractor of the scheme.

A report says: "In consequence the scheme as submitted was unlikely to provide satisfactory living conditions for all future occupants. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed."