DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee Report Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT Reference: Site: 14/00912/OUT Land Adjacent To Thatched Cottage Baker Street Orsett Essex Ward: Proposal: Chadwell St Mary Outline application for 14 dwellings with garages (all matters reserved) Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 1116-03 Elevations 1st July 2014 1116-LP Location Plan 1st July 2014 1116-01 Planning Layout 1st July 2014 1116-02 Roof Plans 1st July 2014 The application is also accompanied by: - Design and Access Statement Applicant: Validated: Mr Tony Cole 12 August 2014 Date of expiry: 11 November 2014 Recommendation: To Refuse 1.0 SUMMARY: At the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 October 2014 Members considered a report on the above proposal. The report recommended that planning permission be refused for reasons based upon: - Development constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt; harmful by (i) reason of definition and (ii) actual harm to openness; - Absence of completed legal agreement to secure financial contributions to mitigate pressure of development on local infrastructure; - Identified harm to amenity of future occupiers resulting from road noise; - Highways concerns 1.1 A copy of the report presented to the October 2014 meeting is attached. During debate Members requested a site visit which was held on 5th November 2014. The application was further reconsidered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 13th November 2014. Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT 1.2 After debate, the Committee indicated their support for the application on the basis that they considered the site to be previously developed land, that the history of the site supported development, on the basis of housing need and other similar applications being permitted in close proximity. 1.3 However, the Head of Planning and Growth stated that the reasons were tentative on planning grounds. In instances where the Committee’s reasoning is deemed to be tentative, the constitution requires: “that the application should be deferred to enable the Planning Officer to draft a further report, outlining the implications of making a decision contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation” before a formal decision can be made. 2.0 ASSESSMENT 2.1 As required by the Constitution, an outline of the implications of making a decision contrary to the Officer recommendations is provided below. The recommended reasons for refusal are set out in italics below and the implications are considered subsequently. 2.2 REASON 1: PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND HARM TO GREEN BELT The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined within the Thurrock Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2011). Policy PMD6 applies and states that permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings, or for the change of use of land or the re-use of buildings unless it meets the requirements and objectives of National Government Guidance. The NPPF (at paragraph 89) sets out the forms of development, which may be acceptable in the Green Belt. The proposed development of the site for residential purposes does not fall within any of the appropriate uses for new buildings set out by the NPPF and Policy PMD6. Consequently, the proposals represent “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt and are a departure from development plan policy. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF sets out a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt and states that such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 87 also states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. i) The information put forward by the applicant has been considered. However, these matters, neither individually nor taken together, are considered to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to allow a departure from policy being made in this instance. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and guidance in the NPPF in principle. ii) Notwithstanding the in-principle harm identified above, by reason of the mass, bulk and serious incursion into the open land, the proposals are also harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt at this point, contrary to Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy and criteria within the NPPF. Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT 2.3 During debate, Members drew attention to other sites in proximity to the application site that had been developed for residential purposes. The following table includes those sites as a comparison with the application site. Site Previous Previous New Very Special Circumstances Use Floorspace Floorspace Thatched No lawful use 0 1120 sq.m. To be determined Cottage other than (internal for (APPLICATION agriculture dwellings) SITE) 246sq.m. garages Former Baker Operating Approx. 1973sq.m. Loss of unsightly and Street Garage centre for 600sq.m plus unneighbourly uses; (08/01106/OUT) vehicle external improvement to the character recovery activities and and appearance of the area, storage no further intensification Nevilles Farm Lawfully 1672sq.m. 1672sq.m. Removal of lawful non- (97/00277/FUL) operated as conforming Green Belt use for industrial (industrial) purposes (since demolished) 246 Heath Hostel N/A – N/A – N/A - Change of use Road Change of Change of (10/00630/FUL) use (to 3 use residential units) The Hotel N/A – N/A – N/A – Change of use Whitecroft, Change of Change of Stanford Road use (to care use of (94/00503/FUL) home) premises [N.B. The planning reference in brackets are the most relevant to the consideration of the current application] 2.4 The table above illustrates that there are no direct comparisons or precedents set in relation to the developments quoted. Either the sites in question contained existing buildings and non-conforming Green Belt uses or the developments involved changes of use of existing buildings. This application does not involve a change of use, the site does not contain any substantial buildings and it has no lawful use other than agriculture. 2.19 The applicant has not forwarded any additional information since the application was most recently considered. Officers have reconsidered the case put forward but remain of the opinion that it falls some considerable way short of constituting the very special circumstances that are required to allow a departure to be made from national and local planning policy to permit the construction of 14 dwellings on this site. 2.20 The stringency of that test has recently been reiterated in Case Law (Cherkley Campaign Limited) v Mole Valley DC [2013]). That case states that Local Planning Authorities must ask three separate sequential questions when applying Green Belt Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT policy: 1. Is “inappropriate development” proposed? 2. Do “very special circumstances” exist? 3. Do such circumstances “clearly outweigh” the potential harm caused by the inappropriateness of the development and any other harm? 2.21 Local Planning Authorities are also required to give “substantial weight” to any harm which might be caused to the Green Belt by the “inappropriate development”. It is only if a local planning authority has conscientiously considered each of these three questions and answered each “yes” and given substantial weight to any harm caused, can it be said properly to have applied Green Belt policy as laid down in the NPPF. 2.22 In relation this application the proposal is, by definition, inappropriate development. The matters put forward by the applicant (in summary - part of the land being covered by the remains of the old A13, antisocial behaviour, potential traveller incursions and other similar sites nearby) are not considered either individually or collectively to constitute very special circumstances. In fact, they fall someway short of that stringent test. As a result, these cannot clearly outweigh the harm arising. Accordingly the application fails the relevant Green Belt tests and should be refused. 2.24 REASON 2: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (S.106 AGREEMENT) Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy indicates that where needs would arise as a result of development; the Council will seek to secure planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other relevant guidance. The Policy states that the Council will seem to ensure that development proposals contribute to the delivery of strategic infrastructure to enable the cumulative impact of development to be managed and to meet the reasonable cost of new infrastructure made necessary by the proposal. The applicant has failed to include a legal agreement with the submitted application. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy PMD16 of the Core Strategy. 2.25 In relation to the required legal agreement, as of 30th December 2014, the Council’s legal officer advises that no completed planning obligation has been received by the Council as the draft has not been executed by the mortgagee. Therefore, there is no s.106 in place at this time. REASON 3: AMENITY IMPACTS TO POTENTIAL OCCUPIERS (ROAD NOISE) 2.26 Policy PMD1 of the Core Strategy (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity) indicates that developments will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area; the amenity of neighbouring occupants, or the amenity of future occupiers of the site. Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy (Design and Layout) requires that all design proposals should respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings. Policy CSTP22 of the Core Strategy (Thurrock Design) indicates that development proposals must be founded on a thorough understanding of, and positive response Planning Committee 8th January 2015 Application Reference: 14/00912/OUT to, the local context.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Template Letter
    Civic Office, New Road, Grays Essex, RM17 6SL Chief Executives Office Date: 12 September 2017 Email: [email protected] Dear Re: Freedom of Information request number 7005 Thank you for your recent communication which is being managed in line with the Freedom of Information Act under the above reference number. The details of your request are outlined below together with the council’s response. Your request 1) How many residential tower blocks are there in your council area? How many people live in these tower blocks Thurrock Council have fifteen purpose built high rise blocks of flats within the Borough, the fifteen blocks contain 981 flats. Please see below data for tenancies, please note the actual number of occupants living in the blocks is subject to variation from the figures below. Data taken from registered number of tenants on each tenancy agreement. No. of No. of High Rise Block Tenancies Tenants Block 1-56 Consec, Bevan House Cf01, Laird Avenue, Little Thurrock, 51 58 Essex, RM16 2NS Block 1-56 Consec, Keir Hardie House Cf01, Milford Road, Little Thurrock, 50 58 Grays, Essex, RM16 2QP Block 1-56 Consec, Morrison House Cf01, Jesmond Road, Little Thurrock, 50 57 Grays, Essex, RM16 2NR Block 1-58 Consec, Arthur Toft House Cf01, New Road, Grays, Essex, 50 64 RM17 6PR Block 1-58 Consec, Butler House Cf01, Argent Street, Grays, Essex, RM17 51 65 6LS Block 1-58 Consec, Davall House Cf01, Argent Street, Grays, Essex, RM17 47 57 6LP Block 1-58 Consec, George Crooks House Cf01, New Road, Grays, Essex, 48 56 RM17 6PS
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Draft Version June 2006)
    (Internal Draft Version June 2006) THURROCK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (LDF) SITE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS AND POLICIES “ISSUES AND OPTIONS” DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT [DPD] INFORMAL CONSULTATION DRAFT CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. STRATEGIC & POLICY CONTEXT 4 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOROUGH 6 4. KEY PRINCIPLES 7 5. RELATIONSHIP WITH CORE STRATEGY VISION, 7 OBJECTIVES & ISSUES 6. SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 8 7. MONITORING & IMPLEMENTATION 19 8. NEXT STEPS 19 APPENDICES 20 GLOSSARY OF TERMS REFERENCE LIST INTERNAL DRAFT VERSION JUNE 2006 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 We would like to get your views on future development and planning of Thurrock to 2021. A new system of “Spatial Planning” has been introduced that goes beyond traditional land-use planning and seeks to integrate the various uses of land with the various activities that people use land for. The new spatial plans must involve wider community consultation and involvement and be based on principles of sustainable development. 1.2 The main over-arching document within the LDF portfolio is the Core Strategy. This sets out the vision, objectives and strategy for the development of the whole area of the borough. The Site Specific Allocations and Policies is very important as it underpins the delivery of the Core Strategy. It enables the public to be consulted on the various specific site proposals that will guide development in accordance with the Core Strategy. 1.3 Many policies in the plans will be implemented through the day-to-day control of development through consideration of planning applications. This document also looks at the range of such Development Control policies that might be needed.
    [Show full text]
  • 475 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route
    475 bus time schedule & line map 475 Stanford Le Hope - Tilbury - Grays - Orsett - View In Website Mode Brentwood The 475 bus line (Stanford Le Hope - Tilbury - Grays - Orsett - Brentwood) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Brentwood: 7:04 AM (2) Stanford Le Hope: 3:30 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 475 bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 475 bus arriving. Direction: Brentwood 475 bus Time Schedule 49 stops Brentwood Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 7:04 AM Rookery Corner, Stanford Le Hope Tuesday 7:04 AM Buckingham Hill Road, Stanford Le Hope Wednesday 7:04 AM Sandown Road, Orsett Thursday 7:04 AM Sandown Close, England Friday 7:04 AM Grosvenor Road, Orsett Saturday Not Operational Orsett Cock Ph, Orsett Brentwood Road, Chadwell St Mary Felicia Way, Chadwell St Mary 475 bus Info St Teresa Walk, England Direction: Brentwood Stops: 49 Gateway Academy, Chadwell St Mary Trip Duration: 71 min Line Summary: Rookery Corner, Stanford Le Hope, Handel Crescent, Tilbury Buckingham Hill Road, Stanford Le Hope, Sandown Road, Orsett, Grosvenor Road, Orsett, Orsett Cock Ph, Orsett, Brentwood Road, Chadwell St Mary, Raphael Avenue, Tilbury Felicia Way, Chadwell St Mary, Gateway Academy, Chadwell St Mary, Handel Crescent, Tilbury, Raphael Christchurch Road, Tilbury Avenue, Tilbury, Christchurch Road, Tilbury, Calcutta Christchurch Road, Tilbury Road, Tilbury, Toronto Road, Tilbury, Railway Station, Tilbury, Russell Road, Tilbury, The Willows, Grays, Calcutta Road,
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Ward Profile: Chadwell St Mary
    Chadwell St. Mary Ward (E05002231) Published by Thurrock Public Health 2017/18 Population Pyramid Chadwell St Mary Ward has a greater percentage of adults aged 70-90+yrs compared to Thurrock. Conversely there is a smaller proportion of 25-44yr olds. Source: ONS Mid-Year Estimates 2017 Chadwell St. Mary Ward (E05002231) Published by Thurrock Public Health 2017/18 Ethnicity Groups (%) Deprivation Chadwell St. Mary is ranked White/White 90% 4th out of the 20 Thurrock British/White Other wards Black/African/Caribbean/ 1 = Most Deprived 7% 20 = Least Deprived Black British Unemployment Deprivation Asian/Asian British 1% Poverty Social Mixed/Multiple 2% Ethnic Groups Other Ethnic Group 0% Deprivation is strongly associated with poor physical and mental health 0 20 40 60 80 Source: DCLG (Department of Percentage (%) Communities and Local Government) Employment Chadwell St. Employment Status Thurrock (%) Mary Ward (%) Employee: Full-time 36.0 42.3 Employee: Part-time 15.1 14.5 Being in employment Self-employed 7.3 9.0 has been shown to be Unemployed 6.6 5.2 highly protective to one's health. Retired 15.3 12.2 Conversely evidence Looking after home or family 6.0 5.1 shows that being unemployed is linked to Long-term sick or disabled 5.1 3.4 poor physical and mental health Student (inc. full-time students) 3.5 3.5 outcomes. (Source for all data in this profile is Census 2011 unless otherwise stated) Chadwell St. Mary Ward (E05002231) Published by Thurrock Public Health 2017/18 Primary Schools (No Secondary Schools within this Ward) Chadwell St.
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of Eastern National Grays Area Services to London Transport
    TRANSFER OF EASTERN NATIONAL GRAYS AREA SERVICES TO LONDON TRANSPORT 1933-1951 By Alan Osborne THE EASTERN NATIONAL ENTHUSIASTS GROUP TRANSFER OF EASTERN NATIONAL GRAYS AREA SERVICES TO LONOON TRANSPORT 1933 • 1951 By Alan Osborne The Eastern National Enthusiasts Group 1980 INTRODUCTION This book replaces our fo:rmer Publication E.P.14 and is in essence a complete history of bus services in the Grays area from the early days until 1952. Some notes on the 1979 exchange have also been included to finish the story. This is the first major production by the Eastern National Enthusiasts Group following the re-organisation and expansion of the committee institu.ted in 1979. The present author then assumed his new role as Cba.irma.n & Founder, with a lesser administrative workload, which allowed more time to be devoted to historical research for publications such as the present study. Area route maps have been included, but since the central areas of Grays and Tilbury appear ver:y small, enlarged street plans (as at 1951/2) of the two towns, with the streets, timing points and terminals referred to in the tex.t all located, are appended. on page 39. Many friends and colleagues have offered assistance and I am especially grateful to Frank Simpson, Nick Agnew, John Smith, Bob Palmer and Martin Weyell for helpful discussions and loan of material. Much information was also gleaned from material in the Omnibus Society library through the kind auspices of Brian Walter. Special tribute must also be made to Bob Beaumont of F.astern National for providing.
    [Show full text]
  • West Thurrock and South Stifford Ward
    19 Chapter 19: West Thurrock and South Stifford ward This chapter summarises the activities in West Thurrock and South Stifford ward relating to the project’s construction and its operational phase (when the new road is open). It also explains the measures intended to reduce the project’s impacts on local communities. For more information about the assessments in this chapter and other information available during this consultation, see chapter 1, which also includes a map showing all the wards described in this document. West Thurrock and South Stifford ward does not include any elements of the project’s construction or operation. It has been included in our Ward impact summaries because it would experience impacts due to changes in traffic flows at the Dartford Crossing that are a result of the implementation of the Lower Thames Crossing. We predict a reduction in traffic flow at the Dartford Crossing of 21% in 2029, the project’s opening year, which would have an impact on journey times, noise and air quality in this ward. The reduction in traffic at the Dartford Crossing is one of the key objectives of the project. Within this document, we sometimes advise where additional information can be found in other consultation documents, including the Construction update, Operations update, You said, we did, Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC), Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), Outline Traffic Management Plan for Construction (OTMPfC) and Design principles. To find out more about these documents, see chapter 1. References to these documents provide an indication as to how our proposals to reduce the project’s impacts will be secured within our application for development consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Thames Crossing Route Consultation 2016
    Appendix A Lower Thames Crossing Route Consultation 2016 www.lower-thames-crossing.co.uk Contents Introduction 3 Section one The need for a new crossing 5 Section two Previous studies 9 Section three Developing the proposals 11 Section four Appraisal of the shortlist 15 Section five The proposed scheme and what this means for you 23 Section six Have your say 27 2 Introduction Highways England is consulting on proposals for a new road crossing vehicles a year and with traffi c volumes forecast to increase, the of the River Thames connecting Kent and Essex. A new crossing is freefl ow improvements will only relieve congestion in the short term and needed to reduce congestion at the existing Dartford crossing and major improvements are needed to provide a long-lasting solution. unlock economic growth, supporting the development of new homes and jobs in the region. In addition to reducing delays for drivers, a new crossing could transform the region by providing a vital new connection across the There are important choices to be made and your views on our Thames. It would stimulate economic growth by unlocking access to proposals will inform the decision later this year on the route and housing and job opportunities, and deliver benefi ts for generations to crossing location. come. This would not only benefi t the region but the whole of the UK, providing better journeys, enabling growth and building for the future. Please take the time to read this booklet and the supporting material, attend an event and provide us with your comments using A new crossing our questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Meeting, Lower Thames Crossing
    Public Meeting – Lower Thames Crossing 2nd April 2014 Lower Thames Crossing Options Following the previous consultation of routes A to C, route B was dropped from consideration by the Department of Transport. Further consideration on route A and C is being carried out. Thurrock has continued to investigate the environmental impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Today we share our work on 3D modelling of the costed route 2nd April 2014 Lower Thames Crossing Consultation Option C A dual carriageway with a local junctions onto A13 at A1089 Dock Approach Road and the A128 at Orsett Cock Roundabout. The report states that a Motorway connection between the M25 and M2 would be logical. However this would be a wider road and local access would be unlikely 2nd April 2014 Lower Thames Crossing - Option C Costed Proposal Option C Illustrations of route designed for costing 11 9 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3D Model Aerial Views Panoramic Views Close up view 2nd April 2014 Option C Aerial View 1 – Northwards from above a possible new River Thames bridge crossing Chadwell St Mary West Tilbury Tilbury Low Street C2C Railway Line Tilbury Marshes 2nd April 2014 Option C Aerial View 2 – Northwards of C2C Railway Line from above Parsonage Common ING CUTT West Tilbury Fort Road Co oper S haw Rd West Tilbury Marshes EM B AN KM E NT 2nd April 2014 Option C Aerial View 3 – Northwards of Cooper Shaw Road towards Gun Hill Gun Hill The Great Common Field Rectory Road CUT West Tilbury TING ad Ro rd Fo E West Tilbury Marshes MBA NKM ENT 2nd April 2014 Option C Panoramic
    [Show full text]
  • Firstname Lastname
    Mike Forster Development Director iSec Event sponsors A Unique Opportunity… Drive Times • TEP to London 50 mins • TEP to M25 16 mins • TEP to A13 8 mins Seamlessly accessible by rail, road, river, air and sea, TEP offers truly multi-modal connectivity to the rest of the UK and the world beyond. Transportation options don’t come much more advantageous. Location/Connectivity • Multi modal logistics development to serve London with direct access to:- • Rail hub – connectivity to UK and European network • River Thames • M25 and motorway network • London Gateway Port • Air • Last mile delivery to two thirds of London within 1 hour • London's specific population and structure allows for a port centric last mile value-add model to create a unique opportunity. Supersize Scale • Potential for 450,000 m² of space comprising: - • Food hub • Energy hub • Sustainable Industries hub • Amenity hub A Unique Opportunity… Clustering Opportunity • TEP has the ability to create a specialist cluster which is much needed for a rapidly growing 21st century London and would : - • reduce costs • reduce wasted miles • reduce waste reduction • reduce carbon footprint • provide “added value” services • Clustering users will help to overcome the restrictions that London will impose on deliveries Lyn Carpenter Chief Executive Thurrock Council Event sponsors THURROCK THE place open for business An ambitious and collaborative community which is proud of its heritage and excited by its diverse opportunities and future. PEOPLE PLACE PROSPERITY PEOPLE 24,500 5,000 jobs
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Fabulous Features Download
    ‘Fifty Fabulous Features’ Statements of Significance for Fifty Features of Historic Designed Landscapes within the Land of the Fanns 1 Table of Contents Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 4 Maps: .................................................................................................................................................... 14 FEATURE NAME (ID: 18): OLD HALL POND .................................................................................... 19 FEATURE NAME (ID: 24): GARDEN WALLS AND GATEWAYOF LITTLE BELHUS HOUSE ..................... 24 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BELHUS PARK TUDOR AND JACOBEAN GARDENS WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIVIDUAL FEATURES THAT FOLLOW ...................................................................................... 28 FEATURE NAME (ID: 31): BELHUS PARK – REMAINS OF TUDOR/JACOBEAN GARDEN CANALS ....... 31 FEATURE NAME (ID: 33): REMAINS OF A CIRCULAR TUDOR/STUART GARDEN FEATURE, BELHUS PARK .................................................................................................................................................. 36 FEATURE NAME (ID: 30): BELHUS PARK - REMAINS OF MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY WALL OF WALLED GARDEN .............................................................................................................................. 41 FEATURE NAME (ID: 27): BELHUS PARK - LONG POND .................................................................... 47 FEATURE
    [Show full text]
  • Timetable Book
    374 Grays - Chadwell - Stanford le Hope - Corringham - Fobbing - Basildon Ensign Bus The information on this timetable is expected to be valid until at least 22nd June 2011. Where we know of variations, before or after this date, then we show these at the top of each affected column in the table. Direction of stops: where shown (eg: W-bound) this is the compass direction towards which the bus is pointing when it stops. Mo-Fr without public holidays Grays, Bus Station (Bay 5) 0720 0820 20 1620 1720 Socketts Heath, The Oak (E-bound) 0725 0825 25 1625 1725 Grays, Thurrock College (E-bound) 0727 0827 then 27 1627 1727 Chadwell St Mary, River View Cross Keys (E-bound) 0730 0830 at 30 1630 1730 East Tilbury, Ship Public House (N-bound) 0745 0845 these 45 1645 1745 East Tilbury, Coronation Avenue (W-bound) 0750 0850 mins 50 until 1650 1750 Linford, Post Office (N-bound) 0756 0856 past 56 1656 1756 Stanford le Hope, Railway Station (E-bound) 0806 0906 each 06 1706 1806 Corringham, Town Centre (E-bound) 0810 0910 hour 10 1710 1810 Fobbing, Church (N-bound) 0816 0916 16 1716 1816 Basildon, Hospital (o/s) 0823 0923 23 1723 1823 Basildon Town Centre, Bus Station (Stop G) 0828 0928 28 1728 1828 Saturday Grays, Bus Station (Bay 5) 0820 1020 1220 1420 1620 Socketts Heath, The Oak (E-bound) 0825 1025 1225 1425 1625 Grays, Thurrock College (E-bound) 0827 1027 1227 1427 1627 Chadwell St Mary, River View Cross Keys (E-bound) 0830 1030 1230 1430 1630 East Tilbury, Ship Public House (N-bound) 0845 1045 1245 1445 1645 East Tilbury, Coronation Avenue (W-bound)
    [Show full text]
  • Communications and Engagement Strategy 2017-18
    Communications and Engagement Strategy 2017-18 Background Following previous communications and engagement strategies, this strategy seeks to build on useful learning to date whilst breaking away from existing conventions. It includes new approaches to communications and engagement that seek to be more meaningful, tangible, impact driven, outcomes orientated and evidence based. This strategy isn’t about broadcasting for the sake of it; it is about beginning to underpin and support everything that we do. It will help start to deliver our strategic and corporate objectives whilst building continuous and meaningful engagement with our public, patients and carers to influence the shaping of services to improve the health of people in Thurrock. Engagement doesn’t mean engaging everyone which we know isn’t possible. But there are common threads that exist which support a cross sectoral approach to better reach significant core stakeholders that can help us create new networks of communicators and engage better. These include seldom heard groups, enabling them to have a voice and increase opportunities for it to be heard and to be influential in improving the quality we seek to provide. 1 Communications and Engagement Strategy 2017/18/Version 1.2, edited July 2017 CCG Strategic / Corporate Objectives 17/18 The CCG Strategic / Corporate Objectives 17/18 are envisaged as the foundation of new communications priorities and engagement principles. They also reflect what have been shifting priorities and emerging national and regional policy environments, including the Five Year Forward View (5YFR), Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) under For Thurrock in Thurrock and the Essex Success Regime (ESR) and our Operational Plan.
    [Show full text]