RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION RESPONSE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25th January 2007 Reference: Site: 06/01143/TTG Bata Shoe Factory Princess Margaret Road East Tilbury REM Proposal: Date New Industrial / warehouse development (B1/B2/B8) as a continuation Received: of existing employment zoning, submission of reserved matters 16.11.2006 99/00704/OUT allowed by appeal APP/M1595/A/00/1039393 and Ward: varied by 03/01142/COND East Tilbury Plan Number Local Planning Authority Received (Coalhouse) TIP/PL/100, 101, 102, 103 AND 16.11.2006 104 Applicant: Thames Industrial Park DESCRIPTION This application is to be determined by the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation. The purpose of this report is to provide the Council’s consultation response about the application. The application is presented as one for the approval of reserved matters pertaining to an outline planning permission granted in 2000 following an appeal to the Secretary of State. The outline permission was itself modified by a 2003 permission which extended the deadline for the submission of reserved matters from three to six years. Relevant History 99/00704/OUT - Outline planning permission was refused for new industrial/ warehousing as a continuation of existing employment zoning. A subsequent appeal (PINS ref APP/M1595/A/00/1039393) was allowed subject to conditions, a unilateral undertaking and in accordance with specified plans 1300-4, 1300-4-1 and 1300-4-200. The application included siting and access, with other matters reserved. The drawings approved by the Inspector were substitutions for those considered by the Council. Elevational details were included though not approved as they were for information only. The Inspector also noted that the elevational details represented ‘the intended form and architectural quality of the development’ and he stated that the Council in addressing the reserved matters ‘could ensure that the detailed design of the new buildings was of an appropriately high standard’. The Inspector acknowledged the role of the strong grid pattern of the factory estate with its green spaces and well defined circulation routes in terms of the character of the estate He noted that the linear pattern and layout of development was emphasised by low clipped hedges. He identified the need for landscaping to maintain the formality of the setting of the buildings on the estate. In relation to the matter of landscaping the Inspector had some detailed comments. He described the landscaping information before him (not part of the approved plans) as ‘no more RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION RESPONSE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25th January 2007 06/01143/TTGREM continued..... than illustrative’ and an acceptable basis for a scheme of landscaping. He concluded that the scheme was capable of being landscaped in a sympathetic manner to the landscape characteristics of the Bata estate, its wider setting and the Green Belt. Particularly relevant conditions are those which relate to the commencement of development (No 2), the submission of reserved matters in a single application (No 3) and the constituent parts of the landscaping scheme (No 4). The Inspector accepted a unilateral undertaking in relation to highway safety improvement works, for carrying out works to the listed Building 13, for offsite landscaping works and for a management plan for the maintenance and upkeep of the off-site landscaping. The Inspector did not accept that the monetary provisions should be index linked. 03/01142/COND- planning permission was sought for the variation of condition No 2 which required the submission of reserved matters within a period of three years from the appeal decision (in other words before 8 October 2003). An extension of the time period was granted on 18 November 2003 for the submission of reserved matters before 18 November 2006. All other conditions attached to the appeal decision continued to apply. Consultations Neighbours – notified by letter and site notices posted. No comments received at time of writing; however Members are reminded to view the letters book for any replies that may have been received subsequently. Health and Safety Executive – no comments as outline planning permission has been granted. No response has been received from Strategic Environment - Listed Buildings, Strategic Planning and Transportation, Anglian water, Transco, Network Rail, ECC Archaeology, Environmental Health and Strategic Environment- Trees and Landscape. APPRAISAL Policy The adopted Thurrock Borough Local Plan (1997) formed part of the Development Plan when the principle of development was accepted by the appeal Inspector. The following policies are relevant to the consideration of the reserved matters:- LN2 Landscape Improvement Areas GB1 The Green Belt In Thurrock GB2 Design Considerations in the Green Belt RIV8 Coastal Protection RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION RESPONSE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25th January 2007 06/01143/TTGREM continued..... BE1 Design of New Development BE6 Boundary Treatments, Detail It appears to officers that prior to the consideration of the case, the validity of the application must be considered. The application was submitted on 16 November 2006. On the face of it the application was submitted prior to the date upon which the consent was due to lapse, on 17 November 2006. However, it is necessary to go beyond the date upon which the approval would lapse and also consider the information which should have been submitted with the application. Condition No 3 attached to the approval required that the approval of reserved matters for the design and external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping should be submitted together. Condition No 4 required planting plans, schedules (showing positions of trees, shrubs, hedges, and grassed areas together with species, sizes, number and densities), details of hard landscaping and a written specification of ground preparation and planting operations. In addition, an implementation programme for both on and off-site planting and a maintenance programme were required. In essence none of the required information was submitted over and above the information that was before the Inspector in 2000. He then considered the information before him to be illustrative and there is no reason to consider that the same information is anything more than illustrative now. The applicant’s attention has been drawn to the lack of information and further information has been provided to the TTGDC more than a month after submission. This information has not been provided to TBC. It is the view of Council officers that the application was invalid by virtue of its incompleteness at the time of submission. The information necessary to make the application complete (as defined in part by the Inspector in granting outline planning permission) was not provided within the time frame of the outline approval (which would have lapsed at the end of 17 November 2006) and therefore the reserved matters application is irrelevant in the absence of a valid outline approval. In terms of the design and external appearance of the buildings, details of the materials have been provided. These indicate a building clad with an aluminium roof with roof lights, with steelwork painted grey, areas of wall clad with various finishes in white and blue and set atop a plinth of blue bricks. All of the information (except for the colour of the steelwork) was shown on the illustrative drawing No 1300-4-200 considered by the Inspector. Elevations have been provided for the two large units of 40,000 square feet (3700 square metres) but not for the smaller 20,000 square foot unit (1850 square metres). Similarly the Inspector was not provided with all the elevations. RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION RESPONSE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25th January 2007 06/01143/TTGREM continued..... In terms of landscaping the submitted drawings show the position of trees and their species. In terms of the information required by the Inspector they are deficient and in terms of the illustrative scheme the only additional information is the proposed tree species. It is notable that the plans exhibit some inconsistencies. The shape and form of the site indicated on the location plan does not match the site form indicated on the layout plan and the landscaping plan. In addition, the submitted plans do not appear to reflect the shape and form of the site considered at outline stage. It is important to realise that such inconsistencies can lead to implementation and enforcement problems as it can be unclear whether parts of the site lie within or outside the red edge. In this case for instance on some drawings an access road and parking area are indicated as within the site while on another plan they lie outside the red edge. It should be noted also that the matter of ownership is unclear. The application forms state that Thames Industrial Park is the sole owners of the site. Investigation of Land Registry information has indicated otherwise. It should be noted also that in relation to the Unilateral Undertaking there may be practical difficulties in securing the road safety improvements, the upgrading of the listed building or the off-site planting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation be advised that the application should be considered incomplete and invalid for the reasons outlined above in terms of the information submitted with the application and the certification of ownership. Should the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation consider that the application