Planning Committee: 9 May 2013 Application Reference: 12

Planning Committee: 9th May 2013 Application Reference: 12/00862/OUT

Reference:

12/00862/OUT

Ward: Aveley and

Uplands

Site: Land adjacent to Ponds Farm, Purfleet Road, Aveley.

Proposal: Outline planning application for the redevelopment of

the site for employment use totalling 38,686sq.m. (416,416 sq.ft)

with means of access and quantum of development to be

approved. All other matters to be reserved.

Plan Number(s):

Reference Name Received

TP (00) 01 Planning Application Boundary 12th September 2012

6952/01 Tree Location Plan 12th September 2012

TP O (00) 01 Rev. B Parameter Plan 12th September 2012

TP O (00) 02 Illustrative Site Layout Plan Option 1 12th September 2012



The application is also accompanied by:

Planning Statement;

Design and Access Statement;

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA);

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy;

Transport Assessment;

Travel Plan;

Draft Planning Obligations;

Sustainability Statement;

Energy and Water Statement;

Statement of Community Consultation;

Arboricultural Statement;

Utilities and Foul Sewerage Statement.

Applicant:

Cogent Land LLP

Validated: 18th September 2012

Date of expiry: 8th January 2013

Case Officer: Matthew Gallagher

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Summary

1.1 This is an application seeking outline planning permission for the

redevelopment of a currently open site, totalling 8.04 hectares in area, with

employment generating uses totalling 38,686 m2 floorspace. The application is

submitted in outline, with the means of access and the amount of development

for consideration at this stage. All other matters (appearance, landscaping,

layout and scale) are reserved for future approval. The application is

accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and a number of

supporting documents.


1.2 The application seeks permission to ‘fix’ the points of access onto the

surrounding highways network. A left-in turn only access into the site is

proposed from the southbound carriageway of the A1306 London Road. This

point of access would be located approximately 90m from the Wennington

Interchange of the A1306 with the A13 and broadly opposite the existing

junction of the A1306 with Juliette Way. The primary access for the site would

be from a proposed new signal-controlled junction onto London Road, located

approximately 125m to the north of the existing London Road / New Tank Hill

Road (A1090) junction. In effect, the western-end of Purfleet Road would be

diverted to meet London Road at the new junction with physical measures to

reinforce a potential prohibition of driving order installed along the ‘old’

alignment of Purfleet Road. Illustrative plans submitted with the planning

application give an indication of access roads within the site and suggest a

main link road joining the two points of access.

1.3 The application also seeks consent for the quantum of development and

proposes a maximum of 38,686m2 of floorspace for employment uses. The

application form states that 34,817m2 (90% of the total floorspace) would

comprise storage and distribution uses within Use Class B8. The remaining

3,869m2 (10% of the total floorspace) would comprise office use within Use

Class B1(a). The Planning statement accompanying the application suggests

that the office component of the proposals would comprise internal office

floorspace ancillary to the warehousing floorspace.

1.4 As required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management

Procedure) (England) Order 2010, as layout and scale are reserved matters

the application provides indications of the location of buildings, their

dimensions and details of routes and open spaces within the site. A

‘Parameter Plan’ seeks to fix the building zone in the central northern part of

the site adjacent to the A13, where new building(s) would be located. The

maximum and minimum dimensions for building lengths and widths would be:

Minimum Building Length: 134m

Maximum Building Length: 272m

Minimum Building Width: 66m

Maximum Building Width: 128m

1.5 Minimum and maximum building heights within the building zone would are

proposed to be 14m and 18m respectively. This building zone is adjoined to

the west, south and east by a logistics area containing service yards and

vehicle parking. The western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site are

adjoined by landscape zones containing surface water drainage features,

noise and visual screens.

1.6 The planning application is accompanied by illustrative plans which show three

potential options for the future layout of the site. These layouts are intended to


reflect the potential requirements of future commercial occupiers and it is

emphasised that the layouts are indicative only. The final layout of the

development would be established though the approval of reserved matters

based upon the broad parameters described above. The site is currently

being marketed by commercial agents and therefore the final layout of the site

would be partly driven by the operational requirements of a future occupier(s).

However, the main elements of the three illustrative layouts are summarised in

the table below.

Option 1 – One Building

Floorspace Building Length Building Width Car Parking

Spaces

Loading Docks

38,686m2 272m 128m 258 32

Option 2 – Two Buildings

i – 23,222m2 205m 102m 221 30

ii – 9,827m2 133m 66m 15

Option 3 – Two Buildings

i – 19,859m2 181m 99m 198 30

ii – 9,827m2 133m 66m 30

1.7 Although the application is submitted in outline form, the accompanying

Design and Access Statement details illustrative options for landscaping of the

site and the appearance of buildings. Three ‘landscape zones’ are identified,

adjacent to the Purfleet Road, London Road and Wennington interchange

boundaries of the site. Landscaping to the Purfleet Road frontage is intended

to be a visual screen and acoustic mitigation for residential properties in

Purfleet Road. With regard to appearance, the Design and Access Statement

identifies the London Road and Wennington interchange interfaces as

principal elevations.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site is a triangular-shaped plot of land totalling 8.04 hectares in

size. The site is located on the north-western side of Purfleet Road, with the

A13 trunk road and the A1306 London Road forming the other boundaries of

the site. The A13, which forms the northern boundary of the site, is within a

cutting and, therefore, is below ground levels on the site. The site has a

frontage to Purfleet Road of some 160m and a frontage to London Road of

approximately 360m.

2.2 The site is not currently used and comprises rough, open grassland with small

shrubs, isolated trees and other vegetation forming the boundaries of the site.

A drainage ditch is located within the site adjacent to the majority of the

London Road frontage. Levels across the site are generally flat, albeit with a

gentle fall from the A13 boundary towards the Purfleet Road / London Road


junction. That part of the site located closest to the A13 and the Wennington

interchange lies in a low flood risk area. However, parts of the site closest to

London Road and Purfleet Road are located within flood zones 2 and 3

(medium and high probability). In the immediate post-war period, the northern

part of the site was used as a sand and ballast pit. During the 1960’s this part

of the site was infilled with household refuse, inert waste and non-hazardous

commercial waste. Infilling ceased at the end of the 1960’s.

2.3 To the south-east of the site, on the opposite side of Purfleet Road, are mainly

residential properties comprising semi-detached bungalows and two-storey

family housing. At the junction of London Road and Purfleet Road, and

immediately adjacent to the site, is the Tunnel Garage site which originally

operated as a petrol filling station and is now used for the storage and repair of

commercial vehicles. To the south-west of the site on London Road is the

Purfleet Industrial Park which includes a range of large warehouse buildings,

small business and light industrial uses and open storage uses. The A13

trunk road lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site and the off-slip

from the trunk road joins the A1306 London Road at a roundabout junction

(Wennington Interchange) immediately to the north-west of the site.

2.4 In the wider area surrounding the application site, the former London Fire

Brigade sports ground and clubhouse is located to the south-east to the rear of

the dwellings along Purfleet Road. On the northern side of the A13 to the west

of Purfleet Road is open land. To the south of the Purfleet Industrial Park is

the RSPB nature reserve and visitor centre at Aveley Marshes.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

Ref. Description Decision

08/00858/TTGOUT Outline planning application for the

redevelopment of the site for

employment use (Classes B1 (a) /

B1(c) / B2 / B8 / Sui Generis car

showroom) totalling 38,686 square

metres (floorspace) with means of

access and quantum of development

to be approved. All other matters to

be reserved

Approved

subject to S 106

71/00906/FUL

(part of site)

Security lorry park and storage of

vehicles

Refused

57/00429/FUL

(part of site)

Use of land for residential purposes Refused

57/00003/FUL

(part of site)

Tipping of refuse Approved

48/00059/FUL Extension of mineral working and Approved


(part of site) new access

3.1 Members will note from the planning history set out in the above table that

parts of the site have a history of mineral extraction and subsequent infilling

with refuse. Historic Ordnance Survey mapping dating from the late 1930’s

first shows the northern part of site, now adjacent to the Wennington

interchange used as a sand and ballast pit. Mapping from the early 1960’s

shows a disused sand and gravel pit extending across a substantial part of the

north-west of the site. Records from the Environment Agency reveal that after

the extraction of minerals from part of the site, the void was infilled with

commercial and household waste. This landfill site is referred to as the Sandy

Lane site and was operated by the former Greater London Council.

3.2 In 2008 an outline planning application was submitted to the former Thurrock

Development Corporation proposing the development of the site with a mix of

employment generating uses (ref. 08/00858/TTGOUT). Following referral of

the application to the Secretary of State and the completion of a S.106 legal

agreement, conditional planning permission was granted in June 2011. No

reserved matters applications have been submitted pursuant to this outline

permission and this permission is unimplemented.

3.3 The extant planning permission approves a total floorspace of development

identical to the current proposal. However, the parameters set by the consent

permit a more diverse range of uses (Classes B1, B2, B8 and Sui-Generis)

with specified proportions of each use class. For example, the existing

consent specifies a large proportion of Class B1 and B8 floorspace (58%) and

a more modest proportion of Class B8 uses (36%). The current application

seeks permission for a predominantly Class B8 development (90%) with

ancillary office floorspace (10%).

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

Statutory Consultees

4.1 Environment Agency: (response dated 8th October 2012)

“We have inspected the application, as submitted, and have no objection to

the application provided the following conditions related to flood risk,

contaminated land and pollution control are appended to any approval

granted.

Flood Risk

The site is shown by our flood zone map to fall partially within Flood Zone 1,

Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3, the low, medium and high Flood Zones

respectively. The application proposes the use of the site for employment

which is considered to be a ‘less vulnerable’ use by the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance document. The application is therefore

required to pass the sequential Test and be supported by a Flood Risk


Assessment (FRA). As the site is greater than 1 hectare in size, the FRA

should also demonstrate how surface water will be managed.

No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that you have applied and

passed the Sequential Test. This should be addressed before you consider

the grant of planning permission.

A FRA has however been submitted, prepared by WSP, referenced

50600022-120427-Issue 1 and dated May 2012. We are satisfied that this

complies with the NPPF and therefore raise no objections to outline planning

permission being granted if the following planning condition is included as set

out below:

Condition

No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until

such time as a scheme for the management of surface water has been

submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority

including the following:

confirmation that flows can be accommodated within the receiving

sewer system;

details of the volume of storage required for the 1 in 100 year storm,

inclusive of climate change;

utilisation of sustainable drainage techniques for the storage of surface

water flows;

confirmation of who will be responsible for the maintenance of the

scheme.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in

accordance with any timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the

scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing,

by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of / disposal of

surface water from the site. Although we are satisfied at this stage that the

proposed development could be allowed in principle, the applicant will need to

provide further information to ensure that the proposed development can go

ahead without posing an unacceptable flood risk to the site and surrounding

area.

Contaminated Land

Part of the site overlies a historic landfill so there is a high risk that the water

environment may be contaminated from this previous use. A Geotechnical

and Environmental Assessment prepared by WSP, referenced 12220063-

002/rev1 and dated March 2008 has therefore been submitted to consider this


risk further.

The assessment does not however include the Chalk aquifer as a potential

receptor. East of London the Thames Sands are likely to be in hydraulic

continuity with the Chalk, therefore this needs to be considered as part of the

conceptual model in the risk assessment.

The chemical sampling also seems limited, for example Ammonium or any

pharmaceuticals have not been included although anecdotal evidence

suggests they may be present. Other typical contaminants expected from a

landfill would also be pesticides, like Mecoprop. We recommend considering

list 1 screening as set out in appendix 6 of the document LFTGN 01

'Hydrogeological Risk Assessments for Landfills'. All these parameters will

need to be considered for sampling. Furthermore the frequency of the

chemical sampling seems limited. A number of trial pit locations that have

been described as having a hydrocarbon smell have not been sampled for

these.

It also appears odd that that the sampling frequency has been increased in the

non-landfill area close to the boundary with Purfleet Road, rather than near the

garage or in the landfill area. We would expect more groundwater sampling to

further establish the groundwater flow regime.

Based on the information submitted it appears that the contamination on site is

impacting groundwater, in particular from hydrocarbons. Once more data has

been collected along the lines suggested above the risk to the water

environment needs to be re-assessed.

We are however satisfied that there are generic remedial options available to

deal with the risks to the water environment posed by contamination at this

site. We therefore have no objection on contaminated land grounds subject to

the following conditions being appended to any approval granted to ensure

further details are submitted to ensure that risks are appropriately addressed

prior to development commencing:

Condition

Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning

permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in

writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a

scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall

each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1. a preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

- all previous uses

- potential contaminants associated with those uses

- a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and


receptors

- potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. a site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a

detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected,

including those off site.

3. the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and,

based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving

full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to

be undertaken.

4. a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in

order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and

identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant

linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local

Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:

To protect the water environment.

Condition

No occupation <of any part of the permitted development / of each phase of

development> shall take place until a verification report demonstrating

completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the

effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing,

by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling

and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to

demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also

include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-

term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for

contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term

monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:


Condition

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be

present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in

writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the

developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local

Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing

how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.


Reason:


Condition

No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than

with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be

given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is

no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.

Reason:


The site is located over an historic landfill. Therefore infiltrative drainage is

unlikely to be suitable for this site.

Condition

Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be

permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning

Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been

demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:


Pollution Control

The pollution of ground water and/or surface water is an offence under the

Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010. Therefore,

we recommend that the following condition is appended to any approval

granted:

Condition

Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the provision

and implementation of pollution control shall be submitted to, and agreed in

writing with, the Local Authority. The works/scheme shall be constructed and

completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification at such time(s)

as may be specified in the approved scheme.

Reason:

To ensure a satisfactory method of pollution control.

Supplementary Information

The applicant should consider the following, as a minimum, when producing

their scheme.


1) Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and

hard standings susceptible to oil contamination shall be passed through

an oil separator designed and constructed to have a capacity and

details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not

pass through the interceptor. All washdown and disinfectant waters

shall be discharged to the foul sewer. Any detergents entering oil

separators may render them ineffective.

2) All cleaning and washing operations should be carried out in designated

areas isolated from the surface water system and draining to the foul

sewer (with the approval of the sewerage undertaker). The area should

be clearly marked and a kerb surround is recommended.

3) Vehicles' loading or unloading bays and storage areas involving

chemicals, refuse or other polluting matter shall not be connected to the

surface water drainage system.

4) No foul sewage or trade effluent, including cooling water containing

chemical additives, or vehicle washing water, including steam-cleaning

effluent, shall be discharged to the surface water drainage system.

5) Only clean, uncontaminated surface water should be discharged to any

soakaway, watercourse or surface water sewer.

6) Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals

shall be provided with adequate, durable secondary containment to

prevent the escape of pollutants. The bunded area shall be designed,

constructed and maintained in order that it can contain a capacity not

less than 110% of the total volume of all tanks or drums contained

therein. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses should be

bunded. Any tank overflow pipe outlets shall be directed into the bund.

Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected

from accidental damage. There shall be no gravity or automatic

discharge arrangement for bund contents. Contaminated bund

contents shall not be discharged to any watercourse, land or soakaway.

The installation must, where relevant, comply with the Control of

Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 and the Control of

Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991 and

as amended 1997.

7) All drums and small containers used for oil and other chemicals shall be

stored in bunded areas that do not drain to any watercourse, surface

water sewer or soakaway.

8) Facilities should be provided to ensure that waste oil is stored and

disposed of in a manner that will not lead to pollution. Site occupiers

intending to purchase or install pollutant secondary containment

(bunding) should ensure that the materials are not vulnerable to

premature structural failure in the event of a fire in the vicinity.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to our future and will have far-


reaching effects on our economy and society. We need to improve our

resilience and adaptation to the effects, particularly with regards to already

stretched environmental resources and infrastructure such as water supply

and treatment, water quality, flood risk, coastal erosion, waste disposal

facilities and aquatic biodiversity.

New development, if not carefully planned, can exacerbate these pressures.

Opportunities should therefore be taken in the planning system, no matter the

scale of the development, to contribute to tackling the problem. This is

supported by the NPPF as well as Policy CSTP25 of your Development

Management Policies DPD.

We therefore recommend you append suitable planning conditions to any

approval granted to ensure the development is carried out in as sustainable

manner as possible. The following information should form the basis of the

applicant’s considerations.

Water Efficiency

Over the next 20 years, demand for water is set to increase substantially yet

there is likely to be less water available due to a drier climate and tighter

controls on abstraction. To address this we are keen to see developments

coming forward as water efficient and climate change resilient as possible.

Simple water efficient systems and fittings should be considered by the

applicant, such as dual-flush toilets; water butts; water-saving taps and

showers; and appliances with the highest water efficiency rating as a

minimum. Wherever possible greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting

schemes should be considered to produce the highest water efficiency ratings.

Any submitted scheme should include detailed information (capacities,

consumption rates, etc) on proposed water saving measures. Applicants are

advised to refer to the following for further guidance:

http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/beinggreen/118946.as

px, http://www.water-efficient-buildings.org.uk/ and

http://www.savewatersavemoney.co.uk/.

Save water, Save energy

Energy and water efficiency are inherently linked. Excluding space heating,

approximately 24% of domestic energy consumption in the UK goes to heating

water (DTI 2002). With the current high and rising energy prices, taking

measures to use more efficient fixtures and fittings (such as showers, baths

and hot water taps) will result in major cost savings for the user in both energy

and water bills. Further information is available at: www.water-efficient-

buildings.co.uk

Development should also seek to reduce the demand for energy by

http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/beinggreen/118946.aspx

http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/beinggreen/118946.aspx

http://www.water-efficient-buildings.org.uk/

http://www.savewatersavemoney.co.uk/

http://www.water-efficient-buildings.co.uk/

http://www.water-efficient-buildings.co.uk/


incorporating, for example, passive systems which take advantage of natural

light, air movement and thermal mass. To meet the remaining energy demand

the use of renewable sources should be explored and implemented where

possible.

Waste

The government and construction industry have a target to halve waste to

landfill by 2012. The management of waste should therefore be considered as

early as possible during the design phase to ensure that minimal volumes of

waste arise during the construction of the development and the demolition at

the end of its life. This can include measures such as preventing the over-

ordering of materials, reducing damage to materials before use by careful

handling and segregating waste on site into separate skips. The developer

should consider how they will incorporate recycled/recovered materials into

the building programme, including the use of secondary and recycled

aggregates, and re-use of any on-site demolition waste.

The design of the development can also influence the ability of residents to

recycle their waste and we would suggest that designs incorporate facilities to

aid in this, especially in multiple-occupancy buildings. We would also suggest

that consideration is given to the provision for recycling within public areas.

We recommend the following websites which provide ideas and further

information:http://www.wrap.org.uk and http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/towards-

zero-waste.html

4.2 Highways Agency: (response dated 3rd October 2012)

“This proposal changes the land use split. At the scoping stage, the Highways

Agency requested the use of 85th percentile trip rates, but these have not

been used.

Additionally we have concerns about the validity of distribution and traffic flow

data used. We would require these to be validated and a rerun of the model of

the A13 Wennington Interchange to confirm that previously agreed mitigation

is appropriate.

Please find attached a Direction under Article 25 of the Town and Country

Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 which shall be

maintained until 13th November 2012.”

(The Direction states that planning permission is not to be granted for a

specified period until 13th November 2012).

4.3 Highways Agency: (response dated 17th October 2012)

“The Highways Agency (HA), on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport,

is responsible for managing and operating a safe and efficient Strategic Road

Network (SRN) (i.e. the Trunk Road and Motorway network) in England. In the

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/towards-zero-waste.html

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/towards-zero-waste.html


case of this application the HA is concerned with the potential impact to the

A13 and the M25, particularly the A13 / A1306 junction, and M25 Junctions 30

& 31, which form part of the Trunk Road Network in this area.

The following comments are based on a review of Transport Assessment (TA)

and Travel Plan (TP) and the relevant sections of the Environmental statement

(ES) which have been prepared in support of this outline planning application.

In this response, ‘2008 application’ refers to the application

08/00858/TTGOUT that was granted permission in 2011; whilst ‘2012

application’ refers to the current proposal which is under review.

1.0 Transport Assessment

Baseline Traffic Flows

1.1 It is acknowledged that the traffic surveys collected in 2007 are no

longer representative of current traffic levels. New traffic counts have

been collected in February 2012 (6th February to the 12th February).

For the purpose of this review the HA has additionally reviewed the

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and hourly flow data for the

trunk road network at DfT count sites on the A13 and A1306 between

2008 and 2011.

1.2 It is noted that the traffic flow information provided in the TA and

accompanying appendices generally demonstrate a reduction in

traffic levels across the study area between 2007 and 2011 / 2012.

This is true for both the AM and PM peaks as well as across the

entire day. The only exception is A1306 London Road where traffic

flows have remained generally stable. We have undertaken an

independent review of the AADTs collected between 2008 and 2011

at DfT count sites located on the A13 and the A1306. In general the

comparison appears to concur with Motion’s conclusion with our

findings presented in table 1.1 below

Road 2008 2009 2010 2011

London Road (A1306) 20,459 19,057 18,817 20,566

New Tank Road 9,635 9,157 9,057 9,217

A13 east of the A1306 75,435 73,861 74,704 72,600

A13 west of the A1306 64,852 64,155 64,572 63,448

New Road (A1306) 14,457 14,302 11,170 11,399

Table 1.1 – AADT data at DfT count sites 2008-2001

1.3 Table 6.2 compares 2007 and 2012 Manual Classified Counts (MCC)

to demonstrate traffic growth between 2007 and 2012, which shows

traffic flows at the A13 / A1306 have dropped between 2007 and

2012. this is consistent with the ATC flow comparison. However, the


2012 MCC data have not been included, the HA requests that they

are submitted to confirm whether the trends shown in the table are

correct.

Traffic Growth

1.4 It is noted that new traffic growth factors for the opening year of 2013

and horizon year of 2022 have been calculated from TEMPRO 6.2.

The HA has checked these growth factors and considers them to be

acceptable.

Committed Development

1.5 Other committed developments included in the traffic impact

assessment are considered to be acceptable.

Consented vs Revised Land Uses

1.6 The 2008 application consisted of 38,686 square metres of mixed

use B1, B2 and B8 floorspace and a car showroom. Following

planning consent in 2011 the site was identified in the Core Strategy

as a secondary industrial and commercial area (policy CSTP6) and

was also excluded from green belt policy (policy CSSP4).

1.7 The site area of the new 2012 application remains unchanged at

38,686 square metres, but with B8 land use only and is said to have

less vehicle trips overall (see table 1.2 below). Further comments

regarding the proposed trip generation, modal split and trip

distribution are provided in the corresponding section below.

AM Peak PM Peak

Consented Revised Consented Revised

Arrivals 203 52 46 44

Departures 98 32 150 57

Table 1.2 – Comparison of consented and revised development trips

at Ponds Farm

1.8 The Trip Attraction and Distribution and Highway Impact Assessment

sections of the TA are focused on comparing the associated traffic

assumptions and impacts between the 2008 and 2012 applications.

The 2008 application included highways measures at the A13 /

A1306 Wennington Interchange, to mitigate predicted development

impacts. Although the 2012 application suggests a smaller traffic

impact, the fact that capacity improvements are no longer included

as part of the application must be taken into consideration when

evaluating this planning application and the associated impacts.

1.9 It is noted that the 2012 application has not adopted the agreed B8

trip rates included in the previous 2008 application. Updated trip


rates generated from the TRICs (2012a) database for B8

(commercial warehouse) land use have been used to form the basis

of the trip generation assessment for the new site proposals.

Considering the proposed in quantum of B8 land use compared to

the previous application the B8 sites selected for the 2008 trip rates

analysis are no longer considered to be comparable. Subject to

addressing our comments regarding trip generation below, the HA

concurs to adopting new trip rates in the 2012 TA.

Assessment Periods

1.10 A review of ATC count data suggests that the proposed assessment

hours (0730-0830 AM and 1645-1745 PM) to be acceptable. The

assessment years (2013 and 2022) used for the traffic impact

assessment are also considered to be acceptable.

Trip Generation

1.11 The HA has reviewed the trip rates included in table 5.3 of the TA

and carried out our own analysis using the TRICs database. Initially

the HA used the search parameters included in paragraph 5.4 of the

TA, but this resulted in only two suitable sites. Subsequently the HA

has adjusted the floor area range search parameter to include all

sites between 10,000 and 80,000 square metres. This resulted in the

identification of 11 suitable sites. The trip rates generated using

these sites are more robust than the trip rates included in the TA.

The HA therefore requests that the search parameters used by

Motion to select sites used in the TRICs analyses are adjusted to

include all sites between 10,000 and 80,000 square metres. The trip

rates and the associated TRICs site survey reports should then be

submitted for review.

1.12 During discussions regarding the 2008 application, the HA requested

that traffic impact and modelling assessments were carried out using

85th percentile trip rates for two major reasons. Firstly, to ensure that

a robust, worst case scenario was considered given the site’s poor

accessibility to public transport. Secondly this is to safeguard a fair

and consistent approach to this, and all other applications in the

surrounding area that the HA has reviewed. The latter is needed so

that, should highway mitigations be deemed necessary, including any

potential impacts at M25 J30/31, the proportion of financial

contribution is allocated fairly. For these reasons, 85th percentile

trip rates must be applied to this application and presented to

the HA for review.

1.13 In addition, paragraph b5.10 of the TA claims 35% of the vehicle trips

will be attributed to HGV activity. In the absence of any further

justification the HA is unable to confirm whether the consider this


percentage as reasonable. Further information justifying this

assumption must be supplied to HA for review.

Modal Split

1.14 During the 2008 application, the HA was concerned that the modal

split statistics, generated from 2001 workplace statistics for Thurrock,

may not be reflective of travel behaviour on site. Without

improvements to the public transport accessibility of the site it is

unlikely that 3.1% of employees would access the site via train. The

nearest station, Purfleet, is located in excess of 2km from the site.

However, considering the proposed improvements to the number 11

bus service, or the provision of a shuttle service between the

development site and Purfleet station outlined within the Travel Plan,

which will help to improve connections between the site and Purfleet

station, the HA considers the modal split assumptions to be

acceptable.

Trip Distribution and Assignment

1.15 It is noted that development traffic flows described in the traffic flow

diagrams presented in figures 5.5 and 5.6 have been distributed in

accordance with the traffic flow distributions described in figures 5.3

and 5.4. Although these will be subject to further review, upon

receipt of revised figures from Motion regarding our requests in

paragraphs 1.13 and 1.14 above.

1.16 Furthermore, the single biggest issue that remained unresolved in

the 2008 application was Motion’s trip distribution and the validity of

the gravity model, and the HA has further comments with regards to

both the HGV and non-HGV distributions.

HGV distributions

1.17 New to the 2012 application is a separate assumption for HGV trip

distributions, presented in figure 5.4. Whilst the HA is supportive of

this approach no explanation is provided as to how these

percentages have been derived, which currently appears overly-

simplistic. For example, Motion suggests that HGV’s are evenly

distributed across the three exits at the Wennington Interchange, this

appears questionable. Motion must provide further evidence as to

the basis behind he HGV trip distributions presented in the TA.

Non-HGV distributions

1.18 The non-HGV trip distributions presented in figure 5.3 appears to be

the same as those used in the 2008 application, which is based on

Motion’s bespoke gravity model. It should be noted that the

employee trip distribution profiles, which were based on an un-

validated gravity model were never approved by the HA during the


2008 application. Table 1.3 is extracted from our response in 2008,

which compared Motion’s percentages using the gravity model, and

HA’s percentages, based on workplace statistics for existing

residence locations of employees in the Aveley and Uplands ward.

Main Route to Site Motion’s Percentage HA’s percentage

A1306 (W) 35% 7%

A13 (W) 8% 5%

A13 (E) * 9% 28%

M25 (N) 2% 3%

M25 (S) 9% 2%

*At A13 / A1306 roundabout – includes traffic from M25 (N)

Table 1.3 Estimated Distribution of Traffic of the Proposed Development

1.19 The HA strongly recommends that Motion assign employee car traffic

in accordance with the HA’s trip distribution profile for employee trips

described above. In addition the network study area should be

extended to include traffic impacts at the M25 junctions 30 and 31.

This is also to ensure consistency with other planning applications in

the surrounding area, and that any potential capacity or safety

impacts are not overlooked.

Development Traffic

1.20 The traffic impact tables (table 6.4 – 6.11) imply that the 2012 Ponds

Farm outline planning application will have a smaller impact to traffic

flows than development traffic associated with the 2008 planning

application. The HA cannot confirm this, or otherwise, when the

amendments requested above have been submitted for review.

1.21 Given the need to have a clear evidence base, and to maintain

consistency with requirements made on other planning applications

in the surrounding area, HA would like Motion to undertake

operational modelling of the A13 / A1306 Wennington Interchange

using the new 2012 MCCs and 85th percentile trip rates, to determine

the impact of the proposed development proposals. The HA

suggests that the following scenarios (table 1.4) are undertaken:

Base Future baseline (background

growth + committed

developmentsA)

With

development

2012 AM & PM √

2013 AM & PM √ √

2022 AM & PM √ √ A – With development means 85th percentile development traffic distributed


using HA traffic distributions

Table 1.4 – Scenarios Requiring ARCADY Modelling

1.22 For robustness all future year scenarios should assume that the

Purfleet Centre Travel Plan is not operational, i.e. without the

reduction in trips assumed in tables 6.11 to 6.13 of the TA.

1.23 In addition, Motion is also expected to present the absolute changes

in traffic volume, movement-by-movement, at M25 junctions 30 and

31 for both AM and PM peaks during 2013 and 2022, to enable the

HA to determine what further measures, if any, are required to limit

the impact at these locations. Trip distribution must again be based

on 85th percentile trip rates using HA’s trip distribution.

Road Safety Study

1.24 It is noted that an accident assessment has been undertaken for the

surrounding study area. The accident assessment reviews all

Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) which have occurred over the past 5

years (60 months). In anticipation that there is likely to be an

increase in HGV traffic at M25 junctions 30 and 31, the accident

assessment should also include these junctions.

1.25 A summary of the fatal and severe accidents occurring within the

study area is included in table 3.4 of the TA. We have undertaken a

full review of the accident reports included in appendix B, and have

noted that table 3.4 excludes four accidents that have been classed

as either severe or fatal within the accident reports. In total, 5

serious accidents and 3 fatal accidents have occurred within the

study area since 2007. A review of the accident maps included in the

appendix confirms that all fatal accidents occurred on the A13 or the

A13 off-slips at the Wennington Interchange. One of which involved

a goods vehicle of 3.5-7.5 tonnes. Over a 5-year period this appears

to be a significant number of fatal accidents.

1.26 With regard to fatal and severe accidents, the TA states that ‘In all

cases, the identified possible causation factors indicate that the

accidents were the result of driver error’. The accident reports state

that a number of accidents occurred when drivers lost control and

collided with another vehicle. A wider review of all accident reports

indicates that accidents tended to occur in wet conditions. This

suggests that carriageway surfacing within the vicinity of the site may

lack the required level of skid resistance. This was raised as an

issue during discussions over the previous planning application in

2008. The HA is therefore supportive of proposals to introduce skid

resistant surfacing on approaches to the new signalised access

junction to the site. However, it is noted that the 2012 application


does not include proposals to enhance the skid resistance of

surfaces on all approaches to the A13 / A1306 Wennington

Interchange. Considering the number of accidents involving vehicles

in excess of 3.5 tonnes and the likely increase in HGV’s from the

development site, the development proposals could exacerbate

existing safety issues on the A13 and the Wennington Interchange.

1.27 In an effort to mitigate any potential impact to safety as a result of the

development proposals, the HA requests that the developer commits

to delivering the above as part of this 2012 application.

Parking Arrangements

1.28 It is noted that the proposed parking provision is generally in line with

Essex County Council parking standards, however the standards

state that for a B8 type development, accessible spaces should make

up 5%of the total car parking provision. Current site plans confirm

accessible parking to total 11 bays. Based on a total provision of 258

car parking spaces, and a provision of 5% for accessible parking, the

total number of accessible parking bays should be 13. This should

be confirmed within the planning application proposals.

2.0 Travel Plan

2.1 It is noted that the Travel Plan (TP) has adopted the same general

format as the approved 2008 TP. Subject to the revised

development trip generation and distribution not altering the overall

development traffic impact, the HA is supportive of the TP and is

satisfied that an appropriate action plan is in place to ensure the

success of the TP. The targets set in the TP must be realistic and

measurable, whilst at the same time covering a sufficiently wide

spectrum so that all staff travel patterns are captured. In addition to

measuring the percentage of employees driving to work, the HA

suggests that the TP should include other targets such as the

percentage of staff cycling to work and travelling by public transport.

2.2 It is critical that sufficient funding is in place to ensue the continual

delivery of the Plan. The HA is satisfied that the Plan includes

contingency measures which would be considered in the event that

targets are not met. The TP should also identify how penalties will

be enforced in the event that the development fails to meet the

agreed targets. The TP and associated measures should be

conditioned as part of the planning approval for the site.

3.0 Environmental Statement

3.1 The HA has also reviewed relevant chapters of the Environmental


Statement (ES) to determine the traffic impact due to construction.

Construction

3.2 The ES suggests that construction site personnel could be in the

range of 250 arrivals and 250 departures on a typical day. However

paragraph 7.5.2 also states that it has not been possible to estimate

the number of vehicles associated with construction works on a day-

to-day basis because of uncertainties surrounding the programme. It

is noted that these figures are consistent with those referenced in the

environmental statement for the previous planning application.

Although shift patterns of staff may not be available at this time, it is

conceivable that the majority of them will arrive and depart around

the start and end of construction hours, which is between 07:30 and

17:00. The potential traffic impact during the PM peak must

therefore be considered. Given the site’s relatively poor access to

public transport a significant proportion of construction workers may

arrive by car, this could cause severe congestion on the A13 and

M25. Mitigation targeted towards reducing the impact of construction

traffic, including worker trips on the A13 and M25 should be included

in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

3.3 The ES states that Construction Transport Plan will be put in place

as part of the CEMP to control the number of construction vehicle

movements. It is important that this includes measures to limit the

number of single person vehicle movements to and from site. Other

measures that could help reduce the potential highway impacts may

include limiting the number of parking bays available on-site, car

sharing and the provision of shuttle bus services to and from Purfleet

and / or other local railway stations.

3.4 It is stated in paragraph 7.5.2 that ‘volume of construction traffic will

be insignificant and is considered likely to result in a negligible effect

on traffic capacity and highway safety issues’. As soon as additional

information becomes available it should be submitted to the HA for

review so that the potential impacts on the A13 and the M25 can be

reviewed. The developer and the contractor should also ensure that,

as far as reasonably practicable, construction traffic movements are

limited to outside the network peak hours so that traffic delays are

minimised.

4.0 Summary

4.1 Table 4.1 summarises the list of requests made by HA:

Paragraph Item

1.3 MCC data to be submitted for HA to review


1.12 TRICs analysis adjustment to include further comparable sites

1.13 85th percentile trip rates must be adopted

1.14 Provide justification on how the 35% HGV development trips

have been derived

1.18 Provide justification regarding HGV trip distributions

1.19 Adopt HA’s trip distribution percentages

1.20 Assessment extended to M25 J30 and 31

1.22-1.23 Undertake ARCADY modelling as detailed within these

paragraphs

1.24 Provide, movement-by-movement, absolute changes to traffic

volumes at M25 J30 and 31

1.25 Accident study to extend to M25 J30 and 31

1.28 Reinstate proposal to provide skid-resistant surfacing on

approaches to Wennington Interchange

3.2 CEMP to mitigate impact of construction traffic, including worker

trips, on the A13 and M25

In conclusion, the HA requires further information before we can support this

application moving forward.”

4.4 Highways Agency: (response dated 7th November 2012)

“The Highways Agency requires further information before we can support this

application moving forward, and to date the information has not been received.

Please find attached a Direction under Article 25 of the Town and Country

Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 which shall be

maintained until 19th December 2012.”

(The Direction states that planning permission is not to be granted for a

specified period until 19th December 2012).

4.5 Highways Agency: (response dated 10th December 2012)

“The Highways Agency (HA) provided their comments for Technical Note

2012-01 to the developers’ consultants Motion Transport Planning in our letter

dated 27 November 2012. These secondary comments follow the HA’s initial

response to the Transport Assessment (TA), Travel Plan (TP) and the relevant

sections of the Environmental Statement (ES) dated 17 October 2012.

The HA’s response on Technical Note 2012-01 raised a number of issues

requesting Motion to provide additional information. Motion responded with

Technical Note 2012-02, dated 29 November 2012 (referred to hereafter as

‘TN2012-02’), which the HA has reviewed and our observations are outlined in

this letter.


As per our previous response, ‘2008 application’ refers to the application

08/00858/TTGOUT that was granted permission in 2011; whilst ‘2012

application’ refers to the current proposals under review.

Our previous response identified seven outstanding items (below) requiring

further attention. For ease of reference, this letter is structured to follow the

same sequence.

Section Item Status after this review

1 Provide justification on how 35%

HGV development trips have been

derived

Further information needed

2 Provide justification regarding HGV

trip distribution

Closed

3 Adopt HA’s trip distribution

percentages

Closed

3 Assessment extended to M25 J30

and 31


3 Undertake ARCADY modelling as

detailed within these paragraphs

Closed

3 Provide, movement-by-movement,

absolute changes to traffic volumes

at M25 J30 and 31


4 Accident study to extend to M25 J30

and 31


1 HGV Development Trips

1.1 The TRICS database has been interrogated by Motion to identify and

justify suitable HGV development trip percentages using 85th

percentile trip rates. Paragraph 3.2 and Table 3.1 in TN2012-02

seek to explicitly present this information. Based on the information

presented, trip rate percentages have been calculated by the HA and

are shown in the table below.

Peak Travel Period HGV % Trip Rates

Arrivals Departures

Weekday Morning (07.30 to

08.30)

39.8 52.0

Weekday Evening (16.45 to

17.45)

39.0 35.4

Daily (07.00 to 19.00) 41.3 38.6

1.2 The percentages shown in the table indicate that only the HGV

departure trips during the weekday PM peak period will have a


percentage rate of approximately 35%, whilst the HGV percentage

rate during the AM peak is as high as 52%. Based on the figures

shown in the table above PB request that for robustness a HGV

development trip percentage of 40% is used.

2 HGV Trip Distributions

2.1 Motion has assumed that the majority of HGV traffic exiting the site

will distribute north (75%) rather than south (25%) during the PM

peak period, whilst traffic will leave in equal distributions during the

AM peak (50% north, 50% south). This assumption is not based

wholly on any definitive empirical evidence but on Motion’s belief that

the A13’s location north of the site will encourage more traffic to

travel in this direction in order to access central London or the M25.

2.2 Some evidence has been provided by Motion to justify the 75/25

north/south HGV percentage split using the Purfleet Centre 2011

HGV baseline flows at the nearby A1306/A1090 New Tank Hill Road

signalised junction. This junction can currently be used by HGVs to

access the Purfleet Industrial Area. The 2011 HGV baseline flows

show a 50/50 north/south split in the AM peak, whilst the PM peak

shows a 75/25 north/south split.

2.3 The HA accept that the HGV distribution percentages, whilst not

based on empirical data, have a methodology that appears to be

suitable given the use classes that are known to operate out of the

Purfleet Industrial Area. For robustness however, the HA

recommend that the 75/25 north/south split for HGV movements at

the proposed site entrance is applied to all time periods throughout

the day i.e. both AM and PM peaks.

2.4 Motion has also used the turning percentages from the Purfleet

Centre 2011 baseline flows to derive turning movements for HGV

development traffic at the Wennington Interchange. The HA are

satisfied with this approach.

3 Overall Trip Distribution

3.1 The HA can confirm that Motion have rectified the errors in the flow

diagrams Figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5 to 5.8 and accordingly adopted the

HA’s distribution percentages and the 85th percentile trip rates as

requested.

3.2 Following receipt of the updated flow diagrams 5.1(B), 5.2(B), 5.7(B)

and 5.8(B), comparisons between the 85th percentile trip rates for the

consented site and the current proposal indicates an overall


reduction in the impact of development traffic on the local road

network. Due to this decrease in development flows, the HA are

satisfied that ARCADY modelling is not required in this circumstance

to assess traffic impacts at Wennington Junction.

3.3 However, Motion has not provided a turn-by-turn assessment of

development traffic accessing M25 J30 which would allow the HA to

have a direct comparison between the 2008 and 2012 applications.

The HA request that this information is still provided in order to fully

complete the development impact assessment for this site and make

it consistent with previous and current applications in the local area

with regard to M2 traffic impact assessments.

4 Road Safety Audit

4.1 Accident data for the M25 junction 31 has been provided by Motion

for a five year period, up until 29 March 2011. However, this

information has yet to be presented in a clear map format highlighting

the locations of the accidents on the network. The HA requires this

information so that accident trends can be assessed, in this case

identifying factors which may be causing HGV accidents at the

junction along with remedial solutions.

4.2 Accident data has also not yet been provided for M25 Junction 30 as

it is currently being sought by Motion from Connect Plus (M25

Maintenance Consortium). The HA again requires this data to come

to a reasoned outcome on accident causations at the junction.

Most of the outstanding issues previously identified have now been addressed

by Motion and only a few items remain. Upon receipt and validation of the

missing information the HA will be satisfied to approve and progress this

application further.”

4.6 Highways Agency: (response dated 17th January 2013)

“With reference to my letter of 17 December 2012 regarding the above

planning application, the Highways Agency has no objection subject to the

attached obligations being included with the S106. Please find attached a

form TR110 to this effect.

Planning obligations relating to the highway issues and the A13 trunk road:

1. No occupation shall be brought into beneficial use or occupation until

such time a detailed Vehicle Monitoring Scheme has been submitted to

and approved by the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development

Corporation in consultation with the Highways Agency and Thurrock

Council.


2. By no later than first beneficial occupation, the developer to implement

and thereafter to maintain and, as the case may be, to fund the Vehicle

Monitoring Scheme at no expense to the Thurrock Thames Gateway

Development Corporation (should be the Council) in consultation with

the Highways Agency and Thurrock Council until such time (if it occurs

at all) as one year shall have elapsed from the date on which the last of

the Steps set out in Schedule 2 has been completed.

3. If during any agreed Monitoring Period the average number of inbound

and outward bound motorised vehicles during the peak periods

identified in Column 1 of Table A shall exceed the number specified in

columns 2 and 3 of Table A then the Applicant will without

unreasonable delay take or procure to be taken (or as the case be

funded) the measures identified as remedial actions in schedule 2, so

that the measures required by Step 1 in Schedule 2 shall be

implemented after the first Monitoring Period in which any such excess

has occurred, those required by Step 2 shall be implemented after the

second Monitoring Period in which any such excess has occurred,

those required by Step 3 shall be implemented after the third Monitoring

Period in which any such excess has occurred, those required by Step

4 shall be implemented after the fourth Monitoring Period in which any

such excess has occurred. For the avoidance of doubt and within

reason, the earliest possible date at which the measures required by

Step 4 shall be required to be implemented is 12 months after Full

Beneficial Occupation.

4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 above, the average number of inbound

and outbound vehicles during the peak periods identified in column 1 of

Table A shall be taken to have exceeded the number specified in

columns 2 and 3 of Table A if the number in column 2 and has been

exceeded by the aforesaid average number in relation to any one or

more working days of the week, such that, for example, and for the

avoidance of doubt: if, for 50% occupation in Table A and the average

number of outward bound vehicles between 0730 and 0830 on the

Mondays during a Monitoring Period exceeds 45 then the appropriate

Step of the remedial measures specified in Schedule 2 must be

implemented.

Schedule 1

Table A

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Peak Periods Inbound Vehicles Per Hour Outbound Vehicles Per Hour

Monday to Friday 50% Occupation 50% Occupation

0730-0830 60 45


1645-1745 15 75

75% Occupation 75% Occupation

0730-0830 90 70

1645-1745 20 115

Full Occupation Full Occupation

0730-0830 120 95

1645-1745 25 150

Schedule 2

Remedial actions to be taken if monitored numbers of vehicles exceed the allowable

figures

Step Action

Corrective Step One Formal notification to the Development Corporation of

failure to stay within the limits referred to in Table A on the

basis of the monitoring undertaken; set in hand a review of

the travel patterns of individual occupiers of the

Development and controls upon them being able to keep

within the vehicle limits.

Corrective Step Two Meting with the Travel Plan Co-ordinator (referred to in the

Travel Plan Framework) with the Development Corporation,

Thurrock Council and the Highways Agency to identify

which excess vehicle movements are occurring and to

discuss action which can be taken to reduce numbers of

vehicles entering and leaving the site.

Corrective Step Three Meetings with the Travel Plan Co-ordinator the

Development, the Development Corporation, Thurrock

Council and the Highways Agency, agree voluntary

measures to seek to resolve the excess vehicle movements

entering and leaving the site.

Corrective Step Four Signalisation (with limited green time for outbound traffic) of

the site access road to control flows entering and leaving

the Development in accordance with details first approved

by Thurrock Council to restrict vehicle movements from and

out onto the public highway to the limits set out in the Table

A without any expense to the Development Corporation,

Thurrock Council and the Highways Agency PROVIDED

that this Step (i) shall be taken in consultation with the

Thurrock Council as highways authority and (ii) may take

the form of funding the Thurrock Council to implement the

requisite signalisation (including reasonable monitoring and

commissioning).

4.7 Natural England: (response dated 8th October 2012)

“No objection -with conditions


This application is in close proximity to the Inner Thames Marshes Site of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this

proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse

effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict

accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore

advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in

determining this application. Should the details of the application change,

Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult

Natural England.

Conditions

A suitably worded condition should be attached to any permission granted,

which seeks to achieve the production of a Construction Environmental

Management Plan, which should seek to mitigate the adverse effects of dust

contamination in particular (amongst other environmental impacts).

This condition is required to ensure that the development, as submitted, will

not impact upon the features of special interest for which Inner Thames

Marshes SSSI is notified.

If your authority is minded to grant consent for this application without the

conditions recommended above, we refer you to Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act (as amended), specifically the duty placed upon your

authority, requiring that your Authority:

provide notice to Natural England of the permission, and of its terms,

the notice to include a statement of how (if at all) your authority has

taken account of Natural England’s advice; and

shall not grant a permission which would allow the operations to start

before the end of a period of 21 days beginning with the date of that

notice.

The application is also in close proximity to Purfleet Road, Aveley Site of

Special Scientific Interest. However, given the nature and scale of this

proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse

effect on this site as a result of this proposal being carried out in strict

accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore

advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in

determining this application. Should the details of the application change,

Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult

Natural England.

Other Advice

We would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess and consider the

other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when


determining this application:

local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)

local ;landscape character

local or national biodiversity priority habitats or species.

Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the

above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this

planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from

the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local

wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation

document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully

understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A

more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and

Countryside.

If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the

possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on

the site, the authority should request survey information from the applicant

before determining the application. The Government has provided advice on

BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.

Natural England Standing Advice for Protected Species is available on our

website to help local planning authorities better understand the impact of

development on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an

issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of

survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with

Natural England.

Biodiversity Enhancements

This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the

design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting

opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority

should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from

the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in

accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw

your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘every public authority must, in

exercising its functions, have regard, as far as is consistent with the proper

exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section

40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in

relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a

population or habitat.”

4.8 Highways Development Control:

“Summary


The principle of employment use on this site has been previously agreed and

there are no objections in principle. There are some minor layout issues that

need addressing and recent LDF policy slightly changes the consideration of

the proposals. The use of IEA guidelines to assess whether the traffic / safety

impact is material is not agreed, as these tend to be more suited to

comparative scheme appraisal. However the level of traffic impact is not so

high as to warrant any short term local road network mitigation, aside from the

previously agreed Purfleet Road realignment. Enhancements to public bus

services are required and some funding is required in order to enable the

Council to relocates the Elfes access. It is recommended that a Section 106

agreement is made to deal with these issues. There are few local issues

concerning walking and cycling infrastructure that need addressing. Can you

please ensure that the Highways Agency are consulted concerning the impact

on the trunk road and their longer term proposals for junction 30/31.

Policy

PMD8 Parking standards. All 3 options show car parking levels that comply

with the Council’s draft parking standards. A condition will be required

concerning the level of car parking, disabled driver car parking, powered two-

wheeler parking and cycle parking.

PMD9 Road Network Hierarchy. The issue of a presumption against access

onto a principal distributor road has been previously considered and agreed on

the basis that it resolves a pre-existing safety problem at the junction of

Purfleet Road. I has been agreed that the former alignment of Purfleet Road

will be closed to through traffic, a planning condition will be required

concerning the traffic regulation order.

PMD11 Freight Movement. This indicates that a sustainable freight

distribution plan should be submitted which considers opportunities for rail,

port, pipeline or conveyor. In this location there are no common user rail

sidings or opportunities for direct synergy with ports such as at London

Gateway or Tilbury. Therefore this assessment will not be required.

This policy does require a number of other provisions for developments in

excess of 30,000 sq.m. This includes submission of a vehicle booking system,

HGV driver facilities and overnight parking of HGV’s. These issues can be

dealt with by planning condition.

National Planning Policy Framework. This removes PPG13 and refers to a

presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is very poorly

served by public transport. The no. 11 service passes the site and is

scheduled for every 90 minutes on a weekday, the no. 44 travels along Tank

Hill Road every 30 minutes. The enhancement of bus services would cost-

effectively limit the traffic impact of the development and it is recommended

this is implemented to increase travel choice for employees. The previous


Transport Assessment suggested that the applicant would either seek to

increase the frequency of the no. 11 service or to allow the no. 44 service to

divert closer to the site, or the applicant would fund a shuttle bus service

between the site and Purfleet railway station. This was not agreed at the time

and it was recommended that there is at least a half-hour service to Purfleet,

Aveley and South Ockendon. The S.106 Agreement subsequently provided

for a contribution and it is recommended this is included in this consent, along

with the flexibility to target the funding to any provision that increases bus

access in the vicinity of the site.

Site Access and Layout

The proposed realignment of Purfleet Road has been amended. The new

A1306 junction is now further west on the A1306. This improves the junction

spacing to the Elfes access, however it is still a substandard arrangement to

have a ‘keep clear’ access in the queuing area for the traffic signals.

Accordingly it is probably reasonable to change the existing S.106

commitment to relocate the Elfes access from a direct obligation on the

developer to a financial contribution to the Council to facilitate the Elfes

junction relocation.

Can you ask the applicant to amend the plan to show a forward visibility sight

line in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges along the

realigned Purfleet Road on the approach to the new traffic signals.

The proposed left-in access on the A1306 appears to be confined for the use

of cars only. This does not realise the full potential of this ingress in removing

HGV movements from the traffic signal junction of the A1306 and providing for

an access strategy with a more economic use of land. It is assumed this

approach is to segregate HGV traffic, however it is recommended that the

arrangement is reviewed to see if HGV’s could use this left-in. A condition will

be required for appropriate signing and flow direction control plates at this

access to prevent vehicles leaving in the wrong direction.

The previously consented arrangement proposed a new bellmouth on the

realigned section of Purfleet Road to provide access to the existing garage

‘island’ site, the new arrangement shows a crossover which is not acceptable.

Can you ask the applicant to amend the plans to show a similar bellmouth

arrangement to that which was previously consented, along with the requisite

emerging visibility sight lines.

Can you ask the applicant to amend the traffic signal arrangement to show a

pedestrian refuge in the middle of the carriageway of the side road, to improve

pedestrian and cycle movements along the A1306. Can you ask the applicant

to show a cycleway along their frontage with Purfleet Road.

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan


The TA refers to the use of IEA criteria as a planning screening process in

considering the potential environmental effects of traffic. This approach is not

agreed as the EIA criteria do not adequately reflect relative impacts on

sensitive streets and is more suited to comparative scheme appraisal. That

said the environmental impact has been previously agreed and HGV’s will be

precluded from travelling to and from the north along Purfleet Road.

Para. 7.4.3 and 7.5.16 refer to cycling infrastructure. Please note that there

are a number of breaks in the A1306 cycle infrastructure and it also switches

from the north to the south. It would be desirable to address this as part of

any planning gain infrastructure.

Again para. 7.3.12 and 7.5.34 seem to be suggesting that the IEA criteria can

be used to measure the effects on transportation and access and that not

exceeding IEA thresholds concerning environmental impact means that the

development proposal will not lead to unacceptable increases in driver delay

and reduce current road safety levels. This approach is not agreed, that said

the percentage traffic impacts are relatively low and do not require any short

term mitigation along the A1306 or at its junction with the A13. The approach

at junction 30/31 will have to be agreed with the Highways Agency, but clearly

the accumulative impact of traffic from this site and other development sites in

south Essex and east London should be taken into account when fairly

apportioning costs of these infrastructure improvements.”

Non-Statutory Consultees

4.9 Anglian Water:

No reply received.

4.10 Essex County Council (Archaeology):

No reply received.

4.11 Essex Field Club:

No reply received.

4.12 Essex & Suffolk Water:

No reply received.

4.13 Landscape & Ecology Consultant:

“The site retains some sense of its original open landscape character,

however the surrounding development and the A13 cutting have fragmented it,

significantly impacting on its value. I would agree with the landscape

character assessment that the site lacks a clear sense of place as it is largely

disconnected from the surrounding areas. The site currently contains no

features of landscape significance.


I agree with the arboricultural assessment that the few trees on the site are of

poor quality and do not warrant retention.

The site has been subject to periodic cultivation that served to prevent the

development of features of landscape or ecological value.

No detail has been provided for any landscape scheme other than to provide

trees and shrubs to screen any development from the houses on Purfleet

Road in particular.

The building options included in this application would result in significantly

larger units than those proposed for the previous scheme. Their visual impact

however could be more effectively mitigated due to them being set further

back from the boundaries. Despite the scale of the proposed development the

space shown to be available for landscape around the boundaries however is

constrained in some sections, particularly along the south-eastern boundary

adjacent to Purfleet Road. Should outline permission be granted I would wish

to see the boundary landscape buffers extended.

The landscape and visual impact assessment states that the proposed bund

and tree planting on the boundary closest to Purfleet Road should be in

advance of the start of the main development in order to minimise the visual

impacts to these residents. If this scheme is to progress I would wish to have

a condition requiring this.

No detail has been provided yet as to the layout and gradients for the bund.

Ideally this should be set back from the road and graded to prevent it

becoming a dominating feature and to help ensure that any planting on it is

more likely to survive drought conditions.

The Ecological Assessment highlights the need for measures to minimise dust

contamination of the SSSI and Local Wildlife site. It is important for these

measures to be secured as part of a condition requiring the production of a

Construction Environmental Management Plan.

The mitigation measures outlined are focused on preventing specific damage

to protected species and sites. While these are important it is considered that

the site provides an opportunity to achieve positive gains for biodiversity by

including suitable habitat features within the landscape scheme such as

flower-rich grassland, areas of bare ground and inert material such as PFA

that will benefit a range of invertebrates in particular. Consideration should

also be given to the potential for use of green or brown roofs on some

buildings. Similarly the SuDS including new water bodies should be managed

to maximise their ecological value. There should be an objective to use

predominantly native tree and shrub species within the wider landscape

scheme.”


4.14 London Borough of Havering:

“Please have regard to the comments from our highways officers, which are as

follows:

Trip Attraction

There would appear to be a significant amount of scoping work carried out by

the applicant with the local highway authority (Thurrock Council) and the

Highways Agency. It would appear from the Highways Agency response that

not all their requirements have been met. In reviewing the impact on

Havering’s network it is clear from the information submitted that there is a

significant reduction in vehicular traffic flows on the A1306 between 2007 and

2012. The car based trip attraction of the development is higher than we

would normally expect for a development in Havering, but given its location in

Thurrock, we assume this to be correct.

We are content that the extra car borne trips would have negligible impact on

highways managed b the LB Havering although we retain an interest in the

performance of the double roundabout junction of the A1306 / A13 and the

removal of the Highway Agency objection to the proposals.”

4.15 National Grid:

No reply received.

4.16 Thurrock Council (Environmental Health):

Air Quality

“I have reviewed the air quality assessment for the proposed development for

mixed commercial use. The proposed site is located along the London Road

Arterial Road, just to the north of Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) 13.

The modelled results using ADMS-Roads indicated that some of the receptors

(namely receptors 5 & 6) modelled will be above the Air Quality Objectives for

both the Annual Mean nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the hourly mean objective

for NO2 and that the daily mean objective for particulate matter (PM10) will be

breached at receptor 5. The assessment concludes that the overall impact

from the development for air quality will be slight adverse to negligible for NO2

and negligible for PM10. They propose as mitigation to introduce a Travel Plan

including bus links and highway improvements which will help to reduce the

effect of the proposed development on local air quality.

Although the impact from the development does not pose a major impact on

air quality, it is in an area where air quality is very poor and is clearly in breach

of the air quality objectives for NO2 and PM10 and any further increases from

any development in this area would not be desirable. I would advise that if this

development were to go ahead, then they would need to make sure that these

mitigation measures are imposed in order to minimise any further increase in


concentrations. It would be appropriate to require the proposed measures to

be implemented by the developer by condition.

Construction Phase

Section 4.5.14 of the environmental statement refers to the production of a

construction environmental management plan (CEMP), which is to be finalised

prior to the commencement of construction activities (section 4.5.14). 4.5.16

provides for the agreement of the contents of the CEMP with the relevant

authorities prior to the commencement of construction activities. 4.5.17

summarises the measures to be adopted:

a commitment to ‘Considerate Contractors’ scheme 1;

choice of methodologies to minimise generation of noise, vibration and

dust, for example the use of cutting rather than breaking in order to

reduce the transfer of vibration;

use of hoardings for as long as practicable to provide acoustic

screening;

requirement for engines to be switched off on-site when not in use, use

of quieter plant, regular plant maintenance, screening of plant (if

appropriate);

spraying of areas with water supplied as and when conditions dictate;

effective wheel / body washing facilities to be provided and used as

necessary;

a road sweeper will be readily available whenever the need for road

cleaning arises;

vehicles carrying waste material off-site to be sheeted;

under no circumstances will fires be allowed on the Assessment Site;

and

the safety method statement will outline the control measures

necessary to minimise the risks to an acceptable level, and all statutory

notices will be placed with the Health and Safety Executive.

The proposed measures provide the background for the mitigation measures

that will be required if permission is granted. I would expect the finalised plan

to have regard to those mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 8 (Noise)

section 8.5.49

‘Prior to the commencement of the construction works the contractor should

prepare a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) in

consultation with Thurrock Council. The CEMP should include noise

amelioration measures and/or noise limits and restrictions to hours of

operation.’

And Chapter 9 (Air Quality) section 9.5.13 mitigation

vehicles carrying loose aggregate and workings should be sheeted at


all times;

dampening of exposed surfaces and haulage routes;

implementation of design controls for construction equipment and

vehicles and use of appropriately designed vehicles for materials

handling (e.g. minimising drop heights and matching bucket sizes to

lorries);

regular inspection and, if necessary, cleaning of local highways and site

boundaries to check for dust deposits (and removal if necessary);

minimise surface areas of stockpiles (subject to health and safety and

visual constraints regarding slope gradients and visual intrusion) to

reduce area of surfaces exposed to wind pick-up;

use of dust-suppressed tools for all operations;

ensuring that all construction plant and equipment is maintained in good

working order and not left running when not in use;

restrict on-site movements to well within site and not near the perimeter,

as far as possible; and

no unauthorised burning of any material anywhere on site.

‘The applicant proposes the hours of construction as follows (Section 4.5.2):

TC will stipulate the hours of work prior to the commencement of the works. It

is anticipated that these will be 07.30 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 07.30 to

13.00 on Saturdays. All work outside these hours will be subject to prior

agreement, and/or reasonable notice, by TC, who may impose certain

restrictions. Night-time construction working and working on public and bank

holidays will be restricted to exceptional circumstances.’

I am not happy with this proposal as it stands. The hours of work as proposed

for normal working is reasonable for general construction work, but reference

is made to piles in section 4.5.1, depending on the method of piling proposed

will affect the hours of operation. If impact driven piling is the preferred

method then I would expect the hours of piling activity to be restricted further.

This would not be the case if a quieter method of piling were to be employed.

I therefore recommend that the method of piling and the hours of piling should

be submitted and agreed prior to piling works commencing. No working

outside of the proposed normal working hours should be carried out without

consultation and approval. In this case the applicant may wish to enter into a

Section 61 prior consent for work on construction sites (Control of Pollution Act

1974) with the local authority to formalise the procedure for working outside of

normal hours.

I am happy with the proposed method for managing complaints during the

construction phase (section 4.5.20 and 4.5.21):

‘4.5.20 Any complaints will be logged on site and, where necessary, reported

to the relevant individual within TC (and vice versa) as soon as practicable.


4.5.21 The CEMP will specify the roles and responsibilities of the designated

site liaison officer and TC in respect of breaches and complaints from the

public. The required action will be different in each specific case, depending

on the operation, equipment or location or applying additional controls.’

Subject to the submission and implementation of an agreed CEMP I am

satisfied that mitigation measures can be taken to minimise the impact of the

construction on sensitive receptors.

Contaminated Land

The site will be suitable for the end use as commercial / industrial usage if the

recommendations of chapter 12 of the EIA Volume 1 are undertaken.

The Environment Agency should be consulted on this application.

Noise

Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration within Volume 1 of the Environmental

Statement dealt with construction and operational noise. Construction noise is

considered above. The principal operational noise impact from the

development for residential receptors in Purfleet Road is from HGVs and cars

manoeuvring in the logistics service area.

The noise consultant has used generic noise levels derived from several years

of monitoring data at other logistics sites and the values used for the

assessment appear to be reasonable. A worst-case set of assumptions are

made for the calculations.

The assessment shows that, without mitigation in the form of boundary

treatment, the night time period LAmax is in excess of the WHO guidelines for

sleep disturbance. During the day, the received levels are comparable with

the WHO guidelines.

In order to reduce the noise impact to acceptable levels during the night time

period a noise barrier is proposed. In paragraph 8.5.24 two barriers are

described that will give at least 10dB of attenuation. With either of these

barriers in place and assuming 10dB attenuation, the resulting LAmax level at

the nearest receptor is reduced to 54dB LAmax, 6dB below the WHO guideline.

The attenuation provided by each of the barriers is calculated from the site

geometry in Appendix 8.4 with the 4.5 metre acoustic fence giving 10dB

attenuation and the bund with acoustic fence, total height 8.9 metres, 15dB.

Naturally the latter option would be preferred for its increased performance

and visual appearance.

Noise from car parking is considered and is shown not to be an issue.


Noise from mechanical services plans will need to be controlled by design to

ensure that plant noise at the nearest receptor is not more than 5dB above the

background level as determined by the BS4142:1997 methodology. Since the

lowest background level will occur during the night.

Given the busy nature of surrounding roads, the noise generated by

development traffic is negligible. I therefore agree with the report and the

summary at paragraph 8.6.

A condition should be included for the developer to submit a scheme of noise

mitigation, detailing the barrier to be employed, for the LPA to approve prior to

the development commencing.

A condition should be included so that fixed mechanical plant should be

designed and installed so that the specific noise from the plant noise at the

nearest noise sensitive receptor is not more than 5dB LAeq,5min above the

lowest night time background noise level.”

4.17 Thurrock Council (Travel Plan Co-ordinator):

“This development will need to have a travel plan presented at application

stage which should include provision for showers and locker facilities for staff

cycling and walking to the site. There should also be consideration given to

providing car share spaces adjacent to the main entrance along with the

disabled car parking spaces.”

4.18 Representations:

This application has been publicised via a press notice, the display of site

notices and consultation letters sent to 81 surrounding addresses.

4.19 Three letters of objection have been received, two of which raise the following

concerns:

loss of Green Belt land;

increased traffic congestion;

impact on wildlife;

no need for the development;

increased pressure on infrastructure.

The third letter objects to the application on the following grounds:

the desk study for invertebrates in the EIA is inadequate;

invertebrate survey data for the site is inadequate.

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)


The NPPF was published on the 27th March 2012. The NPPF largely carries

forward many planning policies and protections, albeit in a significantly more

streamlined form and makes adjustments to some specific policies. The policy

documents listed at Annex 3 of the Framework (including many existing

Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG’s) and Planning Policy Statements

(PPS’s) are cancelled.

5.2 Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests

in s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material

consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing

and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should

apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.3 Annex 1 makes clear that Development Plan policies should not be considered

out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to publication of the

Framework. It also sets out how decision-takers should proceed, taking

account of the date of adoption of the relevant policy and the consistency of

the policy with the Framework. For 12 months from the day of publication,

decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies in

development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict

with the Framework (Annex A paragraph 4 for further advice). In other cases

and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant

policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the

Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework,

the greater the weight that may be given).

5.4 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the

consideration of the current proposals.

5.5 Building a strong, competitive economy:

The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does

everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Therefore

significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth

through the planning system.

5.6 Promoting sustainable transport:

All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be

supported by a Transport statement of Transport assessment. Decisions

should take account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up

depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for

major transport infrastructure;


safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost

effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds

where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement

are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of

sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Development should be

located and designed where practical to:

accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to

high quality public transport facilities,

create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic

and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where

appropriate establishing home zones;

consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

5.7 Requiring good design:

The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built

environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is

indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making

places better for people.

Local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they

could help deliver high quality outcomes. However, design policies should

avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding

the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and

access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local

area more generally. Although visual appearance and the architecture of

individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and

inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning

policies and decisions should address the connections between people and

places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and

historic environment.

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take

the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area

and the way it functions. However, local planning authorities should not refuse

planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of

sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing

townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the

concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause


material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the

proposal’s economic, social or environmental benefits).

5.8 Promoting healthy communities:

The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction

and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Planning policies and decisions

should aim to achieve places which promote:

opportunities for meeting between members of the community who

might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including

through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and

active street frontages which bring together those who work, live and

play in the vicinity;

safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the

fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion;

and

safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible

pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the

active and continual use of public areas.

5.9 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect

new development to:

comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for

decentralised energy supplied unless it can be demonstrated by the

applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its

design, that this is not feasible or viable; and

take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and

landscaping to minimise energy consumption.

Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by

directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where

development is necessary making it safe without increasing flood risk

elsewhere. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities

should ensure flood risk is not in creased elsewhere and only consider

development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-

specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required

the Exception test, it can be demonstrated that:

within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of

lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer and

different location; and

development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe

access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk


can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and gives

priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

5.10 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim

to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

if significant harm from a development cannot be avoided, adequately

mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning

permission should be refused;

opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments

should be encouraged;

decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant

adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new

development;

mitigate and reduce to a minimum the adverse impacts on health and

quality of life arising from noise from new development, including

through the use of conditions.

5.11 Regional Planning Policy

On 3rd January 2012 an Order formally revoking the Regional Strategy for the

East of England came into force. The effect of this Order is to revoke the East

of England Plan and all directions preserving policies contained in structure

plans in the corresponding area.

Local Planning Policy

5.12 Thurrock Local Development Framework:

Thurrock Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management

of Development Plan Document” on 21st December 2011.

5.13 The key diagram within the Core Strategy identifies the application site as a

‘Green Belt Release for Employment Use’. Furthermore, the indicative

proposals map produced as an appendix to the Core Strategy identifies the

site as a ‘Green Belt Release for Existing Permission for Employment Use’.

The Proposals Map accompanying the Core Strategy identifies the application

site as a Secondary Industrial and Commercial Area.

5.14 Policy CSSP2 (Sustainable Employment Growth) sets an indicative total of

2,800 new jobs for Purfleet to the year 2026.

5.15 Policy CSSP4 (Sustainable Green Belt) refers to a number of Green Belt

alterations to the Green Belt (including Ponds Farm), including the exclusion of

land from the Green Belt at the application site as permission has been

granted for employment uses.


5.16 Policy CSTP6 (Strategic Employment Provision) states that within the Key

Strategic Employment Hubs the Council will seek to maintain high and stable

levels of economic and employment growth. Land within primary and

secondary industrial and commercial areas will be reserved for employment

generating uses within Classes B1, B2, B8 and sui-generis uses.

5.17 The following policies for the management of development are also relevant to

the consideration of this application:

5.18 PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity) – development will not

be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on amenity;

5.19 PMD2 (Design and Layout) – design proposals should respond to the

sensitivity of the site and its surroundings and proposals should consider the

urban design issues of character, continuity, public realm etc;

5.20 PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) – sets targets for compliance with BREEAM

and Code for Sustainable Homes targets;

5.21 PMD13 (Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation) –

sets current and future targets for generation.

5.22 Between November 2012 and January 2013 the Council consulted on a

Focused Review to the Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of

Development DPD to ensure consistency between this document and the

NPPF. The Focused Review updates a number of policies listed above, but

does fundamentally alter the objectives or intentions of those policies.

5.23 Public consultation for the LDF Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD

Issues and Options was conducted between April and June 2012. Comments

and responses are currently being considered. The site is identified within this

document as ‘Land for Primary Industrial and Commercial Employment’ (ref.

E2u).

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Members will note from the planning history that permission was granted in

June 2011 for employment generating development (ref. 08/00858/TTGOUT).

This permission is unimplemented and is extant. The issues to be considered

in this case therefore include an assessment of the material differences

between the approved scheme and the current proposals. The impact of the

proposals upon the surrounding highway network, especially with regard to the

A13 and A1306 (London Road) are also important considerations. The effect

on local residential amenity, archaeology, air quality, ecology, ground

conditions and flood risk are all indentified within the Environmental Statement

(ES) and are material planning considerations in the determination of this


planning application. Design and sustainability issues are also issues for

consideration in this case and are issues concerning S.106 planning

obligations. All of these issues were considered during the determination of

application reference 08/00858/TTGOUT and the issues raised are discussed

below.

6.2 Planning permission for commercial development on this former Green Belt

site was granted in June 2011 (ref. 08/00858/TTGOUT). The permission

grants outline consent for:

“Outline planning application for the redevelopment of the site for employment

use (Classes B1(a) / B1(c) / B2 / B8 / Sui Generis car showroom) totalling

38,686 square metres (floorspace) with means of access and quantum of

development to be approved. All other matters to be reserved.”

6.3 Conditions attached to this planning permission restrict the maximum

floorspace which can be constructed and for individual use classes within this

total. Therefore, if all of the permitted development were to be constructed,

the following mix of uses would be achieved:

Use Class Floorspace % of Total Floorspace

B1 (Business) 5,029m2 13%

B2 (General Industry) 17,409m2 45%

B8 (Storage & Distribution) 13,927m2 36%

Sui-generis (car showroom) 2,321m2 6%

Totals 38,686m2 100%

6.4 Although the current application does not seek to increase the total quantum

of development on the site (38,686m2), it does seek permission for a different

mix of uses. Permission is now sought for a predominantly Class B8

development, comprising 90% of the total floorspace, with ancillary offices

accounting for remaining 10% of floorspace.

6.5 With reference to employment generation, based on an Employment Densities

Guide produced by English Partnerships in 2001, it was estimated that the

approved scheme has the potential to generate 900 full-time equivalent (FTE)

jobs when complete. Since the consideration of the earlier application, an

updated employment densities guide was produced by the Homes and

Communities Agency in 2010. Based on this more up to date guide, it is

estimated to up to 750 FTE jobs could be created by the development. The

applicant suggests that up to 819 jobs could be created by the completed

development. However, this is considered to be an optimistic forecast given

the trend for reduced employment densities in the warehousing sector due to

technological advances.


6.6 Despite the differences in modelling employment generation from the

development, it is clear that the current scheme would result in a reduction in

potential employment compared with the approved mix of uses. The

magnitude of this reduction can be estimated at approximately 150 FTE jobs

(from 900 to 750). Although the reduction is employment generation is

regrettable, it is still clear that the completed development will generate a

significant number of new jobs. The proposals will therefore contribute

towards new employment targets set out within adopted Core Strategy

policies. Furthermore, despite the contraction in the range of uses proposed,

the Class B8 warehousing with ancillary Class B1(a) offices are compliant with

the range of uses promoted by Core Strategy Policy CSTP6 (Strategic

Employment Provision

6.7 The proposed variation to the mix of employment uses also raises implications

for the layout and massing of the development. Planning conditions attached

to the existing planning permission restrict the arrangement of building uses

across the site and also limit the height of buildings. The effect of these

conditions is to position the tallest buildings (up to 18m in height) closest to the

A13 and therefore away from the London Road and Purfleet Road frontages.

The maximum building height currently proposed is no taller than the approved

scheme, although the proposed reduction in the mix of uses would reduce the

potential variations in building height across the site. The implications of the

current proposals on design and amenity implications are considered later in

this report.

6.8 Highways Issues

The planning application has been submitted in outline form though the matter

of access is submitted for consideration at this stage.

6.9 The application proposes two points of access to serve the site. Firstly, a left-

in only access is proposed from the southbound London Road, located

approximately 200m south of the Wennington interchange. The second point

of access is a proposed signal controlled junction where a re-aligned Purfleet

Road would join London Road. Currently, Purfleet Road meets London Road

at a ‘T’ junction where there are restricted left-in only movements from London

Road to Purfleet Road and left-out only movements from Purfleet Road to

London Road. This left-in / left-out arrangement has only been introduced in

recent years. Previously unrestricted movements were available at this

junction and the Council had identified the junction as a priority for

improvement

6.10 The proposed new signal controlled junction involves the re-alignment of

Purfleet Road to a position some 125m north of the existing junction. The

main site access road would emerge onto the re-aligned section of Purfleet

Road. A new access for the Tunnel Garage site would also be provided from

the re-aligned road. The ‘old’ alignment of Purfleet Road would be subject to


either a future prohibition of driving order to stop-up the road to through traffic

or a combination of traffic calming and width restrictions to deter through

traffic.

6.11 London / Purfleet Road junction considerations

The proposals for re-aligning Purfleet Road and creating a new signal

controlled junction to London Road originally emerged as a result of pre-

application discussion with the local highways authority prior to the submission

of application reference 08/00858/TTGOUT. After submission of this planning

application, the highways authority welcomed the principle of consolidating a

realigned access of Purfleet Road onto London Road.

6.12 In September 2008, the position of the new junction was moved some 15m to

the north along London Road in order to achieve greater separation from an

existing access on the western side of London Road. In a response dated

January 2009 the highways authority expressed concern regarding potential

conflict from the new junction and the existing access on the western side of

London Road mentioned above. Currently, a commercial business has a

vehicular crossover providing access to the A1306. The ‘stop line’ for vehicles

on the northbound A1306 would be positioned close to this access and the

application proposes ‘keep clear’ markings to protect vehicles using the

access. The highways authority has suggested that the access be moved

further to the south in order to increase the separating distance to the new

junction. In response to this concern, the applicant commissioned a peak-time

survey of the access which confirms a very low frequency of use, with limited

right turn movements. It should be appreciated that the access onto London

Road is an existing access which allows uncontrolled movements. The

proposed positioning of the new junction close to the access would have the

effect of reducing vehicle speeds, thereby improving road safety.

6.13 In view of the low usage of the access, any further benefits resulting from its

re-positioning are considered to be marginal. Re-positioning of the access

would also require third party consent and a re-configuration of parking

arrangements within the third party site. This is a further impediment to the

highways authority suggestion. Nevertheless, the re-positioning of the access

would be the most preferable solution and it is suggested that a planning

obligation could be used to facilitate relocation of the access.

6.14 The highways authority also previously requested the inclusion of pedestrian

crossing facilities across the re-aligned Purfleet Road and are have now been

incorporated into the application drawings. Further analysis of the relationship

between the proposed junction and the existing London Road / New Tank Hill

Road (A1090) signal controlled junction, located 370m to the south, was also

provided in response to an earlier request of the highways authority.

Modelling of the impact on junction capacity and queue length has been

undertaken, which included an assessment of the effect of the pedestrian


crossing cycle. The analysis concluded that the proposed signals can be

synchronised with the existing New Tank Hill Road signals and that the two

junctions would operate satisfactorily in terms of capacity and queue length.

6.15 Allied to the proposed re-alignment of Purfleet Road, is an intention to

introduce a prohibition of driving order in order to close the ‘old’ alignment to

through traffic. Indicative drawings were prepared to accompany application

08/00858/TTGOUT showing a 105m long section of the Purfleet Road altered

to form two cul-de-sacs. The eastern cul-de-sac of the ‘old’ alignment would

serve seven residential properties between nos. 235 and 247 Purfleet Road.

A vehicle turning area, bin collection areas and the accommodation of existing

private drawings are indicated on the drawing. The western cul-de-sac would

retain access from London Road to serve The Rosina Café and the adjacent

MOT garage. The eastern and western accesses would be physically

separated to stop through traffic.

6.16 In order to carry out the necessary works to prohibit through traffic, the

Council, exercising its powers as the local highway authority, would need to

introduce a Traffic Regulation Order. Such an Order would be subject to

consultation and advertisement phase before the Order could be confirmed.

This process relies on the actions of the local highway authority and it is

possible that the authority may decide not to make an Order. In this situation,

robust road calming measures along the ‘old’ alignment would be required to

deter through traffic movements. Grampian planning conditions would be

required to cover both of these scenarios.

6.17 Public Transport Accessibility

In considering application reference 08/00858/TTGOUT, the local highways

authority expressed concern that the site was poorly served by public transport

and that the development should enhance travel choices for employees.

6.18 It is still the case that the site is poorly served by public transport links.

Purfleet railway station is located 2km walking from the site and is therefore

considered to be beyond a reasonable walking distance. A bus stop on the

no.11 bus route is located on the Purfleet Road frontage of the site. However,

this bus service, linking Purfleet-Aveley-Ockendon-Orsett-Basildon, is of a low

frequency with only 1 bus per 90 minutes on Mondays-Fridays. The no.44 bus

route, linking Lakeside-Purfleet-Grays, provides a 30 minute service.

However, the nearest bus stops served by this route are 1km walking distance

from the site boundary.

6.19 The consultation response from the Highways Officer notes that enhanced bus

services would limit the traffic impact of the development and increase travel

choices available to potential employees. The S.106 agreement attached to

the extant planning permission makes provision for a total payment of

£240,000 (indexed) to be used to increase the frequency of buses between


the site and Purfleet railway station. The Highway Officer suggests that a

similar financial contribution is included within any future S.106 agreement. A

draft agreement submitted to accompany this application includes reference to

a bus services financial contribution.

6.20 As the site is located adjacent to the Strategic Road Network (A13 trunk road),

the Highways Agency have been consulted. Whilst detailed technical

discussion between the Agency and the applicant, a number of Article 25

‘holding directions’ were issued by the Agency preventing the grant of planning

permission. However, in January 2013 the Agency advised that they no

longer objected to the application, subject to a number of obligations to be

incorporated into a S.106 legal agreement. The Agency’s suggested

obligations are intended to introduce a number of remedial actions, referred to

as corrective steps, in the event that specified inbound and outbound vehicle

movements are exceeded in the weekday morning and evening peak hours.

The S.106 agreement for the extant planning permission includes reference to

a similar package of remedial measures.

6.21 Access and Layout

Means of access for the site is a detail for consideration at this stage. The left-

in only access from London Road, close to the Wennington interchange, is

considered to be acceptable in highways terms as it will not significantly

interfere with the free flow of traffic on the A1306. Appropriate signage and

road markings within the site will be required to ensure that drivers do not

attempt to exit the site at this point.

6.22 Within the site a main internal road is notated on the Parameter Plan, aligned

north-west to south-east, providing a link between the London Road and

Purfleet Road accesses. The three illustrative site layout options

accompanying the application indicate an arrangement of parking areas,

service yards and turning areas accessed from the main internal road. The

required visibility splays at the junction of the main access road and the re-

aligned Purfleet Road would be provided.

6.23 With reference to vehicle parking and turning areas, the submitted plans show

areas for parking and servicing on an illustrative basis. Nevertheless, the

three illustrative plans show car parking levels which comply with the Council’s

draft standards. However, the final details of parking spaces and vehicle

turning areas will emerge through future reserved matters applications. The

TA suggests that parking spaces will be provided in accordance with adopted

standards and will include provision for disabled users. Areas for cycle

parking are also indicated on the submitted drawings.

6.24 Amenity Issues

Residential properties are located to the south-east of the site on the opposite

side of Purfleet Road. The impact of the proposals with reference to noise and


vibration, lighting, sunlight / daylight and outlook are therefore considerations

in this case.

6.25 Noise and Vibration - Construction

The effects of noise during both the construction and operational phases of the

development require consideration. The ES includes a 2012 update of a 2007

baseline survey of noise levels using two monitoring locations along Purfleet

Road, opposite the dwellings. The proximity to the A13 is a major factor in

noise generation and is the reason why both ambient and peak noise levels for

the two monitoring locations exceed World Health Organisation guidelines

during the day and night. During construction the ES predicts a short-term,

“moderate negative” effect on residential occupiers as a result of construction

noise. However, mitigation measures, to be included within a Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would reduce the magnitude of

effects to “minor negative”. The consultation response from the Council’s

Environmental Health Officer (EHO) notes the requirement for measures within

the CEMP to be agreed prior to the construction of development. General

construction activities can be limited by condition to reasonable hours in order

to protect neighbouring amenity. However, as piling activities may be

undertaken as part of the construction process, the EHO has recommended

that the proposed method of piling is submitted and agreed prior to the

commencement of construction. If driven piles are proposed it may be

necessary to limit the times of piling beyond the general construction hours.

The EHO does not foresee any significant issues regarding vibration except

with the possibility of some minor effect during piling, dependent on the

method of piling used. However, the effects are not likely to be significant.

6.26 Noise and Vibration – Operation

The main generators of noise during the operation of the development are

likely to be service yard activity, car parking and noise from mechanical plant

and equipment. The submitted Parameter Plan proposes the positioning of a

‘Logistics Area’ for use as a service yard and parking to the south, east and

west of the ‘Building Zone’ which accommodate the new building(s). This

Logistics Area would be positioned between 37m and 70m from the front walls

of dwellings in Purfleet Road and would be screened from these neighbours

by a ‘Landscape Zone’, which would include noise and visual screens.

6.27 The response from the Council’s EHO notes that the principal operational

noise impact from the development on receptors in Purfleet Road is from the

manoeuvring of vehicles in the parking and servicing areas. The noise

assessment within the ES assumes a worst-case scenario and the values

used are considered by the EHO to be reasonable. The ES predicts that,

without mitigation, maximum night-time noise levels will be in excess of WHO

guidelines for sleep disturbance. During daytime hours, predicted noise levels

at residential receptors are modelled as comparable with WHO guidelines.


6.28 In order to mitigate predicted night-time noise levels. the ES proposes acoustic

screening at the south-eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to Purfleet Road.

This screening would comprise a landscaped mound, acoustic boundary

fencing or a combination of both. An illustrative site section drawing

accompanying the application suggests that the landscaped mound could be

constructed to a maximum height of 4.4m above the service yard level, with a

4.5m high acoustic fence on top of the mound. The Council’s EHO confirms

that an acoustic fence, on its own, would provide 10 dB attenuation and the

combined mound and fence 15 dB attenuation. Both measures would mitigate

maximum noise levels to a point within WHO guidelines, although the EHO

expresses a preference for the mound and fence combination which will

provide the superior acoustic performance. It is suggested that a planning

condition is used to require details of the mound and/or fence.

6.29 The ES also considers the effect of noise from plant within the future

development, comprising air conditioning units, condensers, fans boilers and

generators. The ES recommends that that noise levels from future items of

plant should not exceed existing background noise levels by more than 5 dB,

when measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptors in Purfleet Road. The

Council’s EHO confirms that a condition should be attached to any grant of

planning permission requiring that fixed mechanical plant should be designed

and installed so that noise from plant at the nearest receptor is not more than

5 dB LAeq,5min above the lowest night time background noise level.

6.30 Therefore, subject to conditions, there are no objections to the proposals with

reference to the impact from noise and vibration.

6.31 Lighting

The ES includes a day and night-time baseline lighting survey undertaken in

February 2012 which establishes the existing ambient lighting conditions on

and immediately adjacent to the site. The application site itself does not

contain any sources of light although the adjacent A13 and Purfleet industrial

Park are well-lit with street lighting columns and floodlighting. Assessed

against the ‘Environmental Zones’ defined by the Institution of Lighting

Professionals, the site itself is categorised as of low district brightness, whilst

areas immediately surrounding the site are described as of medium district

brightness.

6.32 During the construction phase it is likely that temporary lighting on the site will

be required to illuminate the construction compound and parking areas. In

order to reduce the impact of this temporary lighting, details of the type of light

source, its location and direction can be included within the CEMP. The

effects of light spill, glare and sky glow upon receptors, including residential

properties in Purfleet Road can be controlled in this way. An outline lighting

specification has been prepared for the operation of the development. The

specification assumes the use of low light pollution lanterns which will achieve


a low district brightness area classification. Whilst the change in the lighting

characteristics of the site, from a relatively dark site to an area of low

brightness, will impact upon receptors, the magnitude of change is assessed

as being minor.

6.33 Sunlight / Daylight

The nearest dwellings to the site are located along Purfleet Road to the south-

east of the site and comprise a mix of bungalows, chalet-bungalows and two-

storey houses closer to London Road.

6.34 With reference to sunlight and shadowing, the fronts of these dwellings face in

a north-westerly direction and, therefore, only receive direct sunlight during

late afternoon and evening hours when the sun is in the west during the

summer months. Based upon the submitted Parameter Plan, the nearest part

of any new building would be located a minimum of 70m from the front wall of

no. 231 Purfleet Road, increasing to a distance of 120m from no. 191 Purfleet

Road. Compared with the existing outline approval, the current proposal

would position new building(s) a greater distance from dwellings in Purfleet

Road. In view of the above factors loss of direct sunlight and overshadowing

from the development would not cause any material harm to residential

amenity.

6.35 The recognised test for assessing the impact of development on the daylight

received by neighbouring properties is the Building Research Establishment

(BRE) guidance for site layout planning. This test involves applying a 25o line

from the centre of the lowest affected window. As applied to the proposed

building zone on the site, and taking into account the maximum building

height, the BRE test is comfortably passed. Consequently, adequate

daylighting would be maintained to the nearest residential dwellings.

6.36 Impact on Outlook

The planning system does not exist to protect private views and this is not a

material planning consideration. However, the impact of the massing and bulk

of the development on visual amenity is a relevant consideration.

6.37 The principal differences between the current proposals and the approved

scheme relate to the building uses, their height and their position in relation to

Purfleet Road. The extant scheme could result in the positioning of small

footprint, Class B1 units up to 8m high close to the Purfleet Road frontage. In

contrast, the current proposals could result in large footprint, Class B8

building(s) up to 18m in height, but positioned at a greater distance from the

neighbouring dwellings. An element of the space between Purfleet Road and

the B8 building(s) will be occupied with parking areas and service yards.

However, as noted above, the proposals now include the provision of a

landscaped mound and/or acoustic fencing adjacent to the Purfleet Road

frontage. An indicative site section drawing incorporating the acoustic

mitigation measures suggests that the line of sight from neighbouring


dwellings would be screened such that new building(s) would not be visible to

occupiers in Purfleet Road. Consequently, it is considered that the impact on

residential outlook is acceptable.

6.38 Archaeology

Previous intrusive archaeological investigation works identified evidence of

post-medieval / modern land division and isolated medieval features within the

eastern part of the site, that is, the part of the site unaffected by earlier

quarrying and landfill activities. No other archaeological remains were

uncovered by the trial trenching.

6.39 Essex County Council recommended that, in addition to an archaeological

watching brief, some areas of the site will require open area excavation prior

to the commencement of any development. A standard planning condition can

be employed to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological

investigation.

6.40 Air Quality

Under the heading of air quality, the ES assesses the effects of the proposed

development with regard to particulate matter (PM10), or dust and nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) from road traffic emissions associated with the construction

phase and the operation of the development.

6.41 The baseline air quality conditions for this area indicate a location where air

quality is influenced by emissions from transport using the busy A13, A1306

and Purfleet Road. The Council has designated an Air Quality Management

Area (AQMA) along part of London Road, a short distance to the south of the

application site. This Area has been designated due to air quality

exceedences for NO2 from HGV traffic.

6.42 During the construction of the development, the ES predicts that

concentrations of PM10 would be elevated, but would be limited to the

immediate vicinity of the site. In addition, the impact of dust from construction

activities would occur on a temporary basis and the ES assesses the

magnitude of the effect as of minor negative to negligible significance. By way

of mitigation, the applicant suggests that the CEMP should include measures

to control and suppress dust.

6.43 The operational impacts of the development on local air quality are also

modelled within the ES. The current baseline for air quality predicts that the

Air Quality Standard for annual mean NO2 concentrations will not be met for 7

of the 8 modelled locations surrounding the site. In a modelled opening year

for the development (2013), the highest annual mean concentrations of NO2

are predicted in Purfleet Road, where concentrations are 70.12 micrograms/m3

without the development and 70.51 micrograms/m3 with the proposed


development. The development is therefore modelled as resulting in small to

imperceptible increases in annual average NO2 concentrations at surrounding

receptors. Modelling for annual mean concentrations of PM10 show that both

baseline and with development scenarios would meet the air quality standard.

The impacts are therefore considered to be of negligible importance.

6.44 The consultation response from the Council’s EHO notes that, although the

impact from the development does not pose a major impact on air quality, the

site is located in an area where air quality is very poor and is in breach of air

quality objectives. Further increases in emissions from any development in

this area would ‘not be desirable’. Therefore, mitigation measures are

required to ensure that any further increases in emissions are minimised.

Mitigation proposals promoted by the application include Travel Plan

measures, enhanced local bus services and improvements to highways

infrastructure. Collectively, these measures will assist in managing traffic

generated by the development and thereby influence emissions and air

quality.

6.45 Ecology

The application site has been subject to an ecological survey, the results of

which are incorporated into the ES. The application site does not contain any

statutory ecological designations. However, a geological Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located some 50m to the east of the site at Purfleet

Road, on the opposite side of the A13. In addition, the extensive Inner

Thames Marshes SSSI is approximately 500m to the south of the site. As the

Purfleet Road SSSI is designated due to its geological interest, the ES does

not consider further the potential impact of development on this site. The

Inner Thames Marshes SSSI is a minimum of 500m from the application site

and the ES concludes that there would be no direct impacts as a result of the

development.

6.46 The ES includes a habitat survey of the application site which updated

previous habitat surveys and confirms that the site has a low ecological value.

Large parts of the site comprise bare or re-colonised ground, ruderal

vegetation associated with waste ground, and rough grassland. A small

number of native trees and dry ditches make up the reminder of habitats on

the site. These habitats support plant species which are both common and

widespread locally and the loss of these habitats is considered to be of minor

or negligible significance given their low ecological value.

6.47 The site has also been assessed for the presence of protected species.

Common lizards were previously found, within areas of rough grassland on the

southern part of the site. A trapping and relocation exercise was undertaken

during 2007. No other protected species have been found on the site. Natural

England does not object to the proposals. However, it suggests that the

impacts of the construction phase are mitigated through a CEMP and that

biodiversity enhancements, such as landscaping and the provision of bat and


bird boxes, are incorporated into the design.

6.48 One of the letters of objection to the application refers to the subject of

invertebrate interest. In detail, this objection makes the following points:

the pre-application EIA Scoping Statement identified sources of

information from bodies which do not exist;

at the EIA Scoping stage, the applicant undertook a datasearch of

protected and notable species. However, the results of this

datasearch are not are not submitted with the ES and the desk study

is therefore not fit for purpose;

there is a lack of invertebrate survey effort for the site and

accordingly there is insufficient information on which to base a

decision.

6.49 In response to these objections, the applicant’s ecological consultant makes

the following points:

a number of bodies were contacted when preparing the EIA,

including EECOS and the Essex Field Club who hold the relevant

records;

ecological data from a number of bodies was collected by the

applicant, including invertebrate records provided by the Essex Field

Club;

ecological data provided to the applicant’s consultant was subject to

copyright restrictions and therefore could not be reproduced within

the ES;

the desk survey for invertebrates retrieved a large number of records.

However, no records of rare, notable or scarce species within or

immediately adjacent to the site were returned;

the applicant therefore considers that the desk study accompanying

the ES is comprehensive and fit for purpose.

6.50 In considering the matter of potential invertebrate interest, it should be noted

that this site is not identified as a site with elevated potential within the “All in a

Buzz – Planning for Invertebrate Biodiversity” document produced by Buglife

and English Nature (now Natural England). Furthermore, in their consultation

response to this application, Natural England raises no objections, subject to

planning conditions.

6.51 Ground Conditions and Contamination

The northern part of the site was excavated for sand and gravel after World

War II until the 1960’s. After the cessation of extraction, the pit was filled with

household refuse, inert waste and non-hazardous industrial and commercial

waste. Landfilling ceased by the mid 1960’s but details of the capping of the


site are not available. For the purposes of assessment, the ES divides the site

into non-landfill and landfill areas. The general geological sequence

underlying the site comprises reworked topsoil (up to 0.5m thick), underlain by

landfilled material (up to 8.2m thick) which is in turn underlain by the natural

geology of sand, gravel and clay deposits.

6.52 Site investigation reveals that there is no significant soil contamination across

the site, including both landfilled and non-landfilled areas with respect to the

proposed end-use of the site for commercial purposes. Investigations of

groundwater samples from the area of historic landfill reveal slightly elevated

levels of contaminants. However, given the commercial end-use of the site

the ES considers that no significant risk is generated.

6.53 The consultation response from the Environment Agency considers the impact

of contamination and its effect on the water environment. Although the

Agency makes a number of detailed points regarding the analysis within the

ES, they conclude that there are generic remedial options to deal with risks to

the water environment. These remedial options can be secured by planning

conditions.

6.54 The Council’s contaminated land officer has commented on the content of the

ES and confirmed that there are no objections, subject to the implementation

of the mitigation measures outlined in the ES. These measures can be

secured by planning condition.

6.55 Flood Risk

As noted in paragraph 2.2 above, the application site is located within all three

flood risk zones (low, medium and high risk). National planning policy

contained within the NPPF is, therefore, a material planning consideration.

6.56 The consultation response received from the Environment Agency confirms

that the proposals are required to pass the ‘Sequential Test’ and that the

application should be accompanied by a Flood Risk assessment (FRA). A

Sequential Test has been applied using the standing advice for local planning

authorities provided by the Agency. The FRA has been considered by the

Agency who considers that the document is NPPF compliant. Consequently,

there are no objections to the application, on the grounds of flood risk, subject

to a condition for the management of surface water.

6.57 Design Issues

Good design is important for all types of development in all locations and is a

key factor in delivering sustainable development. High quality design is a

requirement of the NPPF.

6.58 The application has been submitted in outline form and seeks to establish the

principle of the use, the quantum of development and means of access at this


stage. The matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are

reserved for future approval. Therefore, the issue of ensuring that a high

quality design is delivered through future submissions is an important planning

consideration.

6.59 Current planning regulations require, as a minimum, that an outline

submission should contain information regarding the uses proposed for a

development, the amount of development proposed for each use, an indicative

layout, upper and lower limits for height, width and length of each building and

indicative access points. The information to be provided within a Design and

Access Statement complements the requirements for an outline application

and also requires design concepts and principles relating to landscaping and

appearance. Nevertheless, there is a tension between the limited matters

which can be fixed at the outline planning stage, the indications of potential

site layout, building parameters, appearance and landscaping.

6.60 The application is accompanied by a Parameter Plan which seeks to delineate

the zones across the site where building(s), servicing / parking and

landscaping will be located. This plan also defines building elevations facing

towards the A13, London Road and the Wennington interchange. Three

distinct landscaped areas are proposed comprising:

Purfleet Road Landscape Zone – described as an extension to the

existing planting within the A13 cutting and comprising a bund and

planting to form a visual and acoustic screen between existing

dwellings and new building(s) on the site. This zone would also

incorporate sustainable drainage features.

London Road Landscape Zone – to include tree and shrub planting in

order to provide a landscape buffer to London Road. This zone will

include a swale.

Gateway Landscape Zone – located adjacent to the A13 / A1306

junction. This zone will complement the elevation of building(s) to

address the A13 / A1306 ‘gateway’ into the site.

6.61 The Design and Access Statement also provides illustrative options for the

main building elevation(s). Those elevations which would face onto London

Road and the A13 / A1306 junction are described as principal elevations,

designed to provide legible routes to the main building(s) entrances. The

appearance of the development is a reserved matter and accordingly no firm

details are provided regarding building elevations or finishing materials.

6.62 If Members resolve to grant planning permission, planning conditions can be

used to fix a number of development parameters, which would inform future

reserved matters submissions. For example, the maximum floorspace, mix of

uses and maximum building heights can be controlled by condition. It is also

recommended that a planning condition be used to require the submission of a


Masterplan / design code to accompany the first reserved matters application,

which develops design principles within the DAS. This method would ensure a

greater degree of certainty about the final delivery of design quality.

6.63 Sustainability

The planning application is accompanied by a Sustainability Statement and an

Energy & Water Statement which set out a commitment to sustainable design

and construction measures. There are a number of Adopted Core Strategy

policies which address the issues of environmental sustainability and which

are relevant to this application. These policies comprise:

CSTP22 (Thurrock Design);

CSTP25 (Addressing Climate Change);

CSTP26 (Renewable or Low Carbon Energy Generation);

CSTP29 (Waste Strategy);

PMD2 (Design and Layout);

PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings); and

PMD13 (Decentralised, renewable and Low Carbon Energy

Generation).

6.64 In particular, PMD12 requires that major proposals for non-residential

development must achieve minimum BREEAM standards of ‘Very Good’ up to

2016, ‘Excellent’ from 2016 and ‘Outstanding’ from 2019. In response to the

requirements of this Policy, the Sustainability Statement includes a BREEAM

Predictive Assessment which anticipates that the scheme will achieve a rating

of at least ‘Very Good’. This matter can be addressed by a planning condition.

However, as it is not known when the scheme will be implemented, it is

recommended that any condition reflects the escalation in BREEAM standards

over time.

6.65 Policy PMD13 requires that major non-residential developments should

achieve 10% of their predicted energy demands from decentralised,

renewable or low-carbon sources. This requirement increases to 15% from

2015 and 20% from 2020. The application proposes the use of an air source

heat pump to address space heating and potentially hot water demand to

achieve PMD13 targets. As above, a condition can be used to secure this

renewable energy technology, thought the condition will need to be flexible

enough to respond to the changes in policy targets.

6.66 Planning Obligations

The applicant has submitted a draft S.106 agreement in support of the

planning application. The draft contains the following obligations upon the

owner / developer of the site:

Travel Plan – submission for approval, implementation and review of


a Travel Plan. Payment of the Council’s Travel Plan review fees;

Vehicle Monitoring Scheme – submission for approval,

implementation and maintenance of a Vehicle Monitoring Scheme.

Carrying out of relevant corrective highways measures;

Highway Works – completion of a Section 278 Highways Agreement

for a range of works to Purfleet Road and London Road prior to

implementation of the development. Completion of the highways

works prior to occupation of the development;

Relocation of the private commercial access onto London Road –

use of reasonable endeavours to secure relocation of this access;

Bus Services Contribution – financial contribution of £120,000

(indexed) three months prior to occupation and a further contribution

of £120,000 (indexed) on occupation of 50% of the floorspace.

6.67 These obligations are based on the items within the existing S.106 agreement

which was negotiated after submission of the original outline planning

application in 2008. Since the date of this agreement, the Council has

adopted, on an interim basis, the former Development Corporation’s Planning

Obligations Strategy (POS). The POS refers to a discounted standard charge

of £50 per m2 for commercial development, including the warehousing

development currently proposed. On the basis of a maximum floorspace of

38,686m2, the POS would require a maximum financial contribution of

£1,934,300.

6.68 After submission of this planning application, the applicant was referred to the

content of the POS and asked to justify their approach to planning obligations,

as set out above, by submitting an ‘open-book’ development appraisal. The

POS allows for an applicant to submit such an appraisal if they consider that

the development proposals will not be viable, taking account of the discounted

standard charge and any exceptional development costs.

6.69 A ‘Toolkit Viability Assessment’ has been submitted by the applicant. The

main conclusions of this Assessment are summarised below:

the applicant’s main contribution relates to the provision of additional

bus services (£240,000), although a budget of £450,000 has been

set to allow for monitoring;

the applicant is also committed to finance highway works;

the site has a number of abnormal factors which affect development

costs and viability, comprising –

o compliance with Building Regulations and BREEAM;

o on-site surface water attenuation and SUDS;

o costs related to new highways, reinforcement of utility supply

network and utility diversions;

o low ground bearing capacity resulting in the need for piling;


o need for methane venting;

o handling of contaminated spoil from excavations;

the POS is only being used on an interim basis, pending adoption of

the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL);

the preliminary draft charging schedule for CIL would impose a lesser

charge than the current POS;

it is unreasonable for a developer to pay the higher POS charge in an

interim period pending the adoption of CIL.

6.70 The applicant’s viability assessment ( which has been submitted in confidence

as it contains commercially sensitive information) provides the necessary

development cost estimates, market value appraisals and economic models

for the applicant’s viability appraisal to be tested. An independent surveyor

has been commissioned to provide an independent assessment of the Toolkit

Viability Assessment. This commission includes requirements to:

i. appraise of Viability Assessment including the appropriateness of the

model(s) used, the robustness of the information within the model

and the reasonableness of the assumptions made (including the

book and threshold values used);

ii. provide an analysis of the information submitted and an appraisal of

the scheme’s viability and its ability to achieve the planning

objectives sought.

6.71 At the time of writing, the independent appraisal of the applicant’s viability

assessment is awaited. Members will be updated verbally of the conclusions

of the appraisal. However, as the applicant is keen for the proposal to be

determined as soon as possible, the application is brought before Members at

the early opportunity.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

7.1 This application seeks outline planning permission for employment generating

development on a site allocated for such purposes in the LDF. There is an

extant and unimplemented outline planning permission for mixed employment

uses at the site, but the current proposal seeks a different mix of employment

uses to those permitted. The principle of the land use is supported and,

subject to S.106 obligations and planning conditions, there are no highways

objections. Subject to planning conditions to mitigate impact, it is considered

that the development will have acceptable impact on residential and ecological

receptors and conditions can be employed to mange flood risk, ground

conditions, design and sustainability.

7.2 The ES considers the impact of the development on a range of receptors and

concludes that any impact would be within acceptable limits. Having taken


into account representations received from others, the Council considers that

the proposed development is acceptable, subject to a legal agreement and

compliance with a number of planning conditions that are imposed upon the

permission.

7.3 The applicant has made a S.106 offer similar to the commitments and

obligations contained with the agreement for the extant planning permission.

As the Council has adopted the POS on an interim basis, the applicant has

been asked to provide an ‘open book’ viability assessment. An assessment

has been provided and is currently subject to independent appraisal. In these

circumstances, it is recommended that Members resolve to grant planning

permission subject to the conditions below, subject to the final S.106 heads of

terms being negotiated between the applicant and the Head of Major Projects,

in light of the results of the independent viability appraisal. The items for

inclusion within the S.106 will, as a minimum, include the matters described at

paragraph 6.66 above.

7.4 Policy CSSP 4 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy has the effect of excluding

this site from the green belt as there is a previous planning permission.

However the exact status of the site in advance of the LDF Site Specific DPD

is not absolutely certain therefore, subject to the Committee’s resolution to

approve the application it is recommended that before any planning

permission is granted the application be first referred to the secretary of state

under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England)

Direction Order 2009.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

A. That authority for the negotiation of the detailed content and obligations of

a S.106 legal agreement be delegated to the Head of Major Projects,

following the receipt of an independent appraisal of the applicant’s ‘Toolkit

Viability Assessment’, but to include as a minimum the items described at

paragraph 6.66. above.

B. Subject to the application first being referred to the Secretary of State

under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)

(England) Direction 2009 and there being no “call in” and to the completion

of a S.106 legal agreement that planning permission be APPROVED

subject to the following conditions:

1. Application for the approval of details of the appearance, landscaping,

layout and scale of development (the reserved matters) must be made to

the Local Planning Authority within three years from the date of this

permission and the development shall not be carried out except in

accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning


Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced not later than the

expiration of two years from the date of the final approval of the last of the

reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004.

3. The development shall not exceed a maximum gross floorspace of

38,686m2.

Reason: To ensure that the scheme implemented is in accordance with

the principles established by this permission.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the

total of floorspace within each Use Class shall not exceed the following

parameters:

Use Class Percentage of Total Floorspace

B1(a) 10%

B8 90%


principles established by this permission.

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

maximum building heights across the site shall accord with the content of

the Parameter Plan (drawing no. TP O (00) 01 rev. B).


the principles established by this permission and in order to protect the

appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the

surrounding area.

6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the

arrangement of the developable building zone, logistics area and

landscape zones within the site shall accord with the content of the

Parameter Plan (drawing no. TP O (00) 01 rev. B).


the principles established by this permission and In order to protect the

amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

7. No development shall take place until details of existing and finished site

levels and finished external surface levels have been submitted to, and

approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be

implemented in accordance with the agreed details.


Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding occupiers and to

ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

8. No development shall take place until a comprehensive programme for the

undertaking of the off-site highway works necessary to close Purfleet Road

to through traffic (as indicated on drawing number 51014-05 Rev. D and

Rev. E), including the processing of any Traffic Regulation Order, has

been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning

Authority, and the highway works undertaken and completed in

accordance with the approved programme, or any variation to that

programme that may be approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority, before the first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. In the event that the Local Highway Authority do not make a Traffic

Regulation Order under the terms of condition number 8 above, no

development shall take place until a scheme of traffic calming measures

and width restrictions to deter through traffic on Purfleet Road (as

indicated on drawing number 51014-09) has been submitted to, and

approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the measures

undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved details, or any

variation to those details that may be approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority, before the first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

10. Prior to the commencement of development details of wheel washing

facilities, which shall include a barrier to stop all vehicles before they enter

the highway, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local

Planning Authority. Such facilities shall be installed in accordance with the

agreed details and operated throughout the construction of the

development.

Reason: In order to prevent materials from the site being deposited on

the adjoining public highway in the interests of highway safety and the

amenity of the surrounding area.

11. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing

by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to

throughout the construction period and shall provide detailed information

under the headings of:

site information;

construction information;

environmental management;

monitoring; and


legal requirements

as detailed in Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 1 Text

and Figures).

Reason: In order to minimise the impacts arising from the construction of

the development.

12. No construction work in connection with the development shall take place

on the site at any time on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other

day except between the following times:

Monday to Friday 0730-1700 hours

Saturday 0800-1300 hours

Unless such work –

(a) is associated with an emergency; or

(b) is carried out with the prior written approval of the Local Planning

Authority; or

(c) does not cause existing ambient noise levels to be exceeded.

Reason: In the interest of protecting residential amenity.

13. No development or groundworks of any kind shall take place until the

applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of

archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation

which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local

Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that investigation and recording of any archaeological

remains takes place prior to the commencement of development.

14. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the

management of surface water shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall

include the following:

confirmation that flows can be accommodated within the receiving

sewer system;

details of the volume of storage required for the 1 in 100 year storm

inclusive of climate change;

utilisation of sustainable drainage techniques for the storage of

surface water flows;

confirmation of who shall be responsible for the maintenance of the

scheme.

The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently


maintained in accordance with any timing / phasing arrangements

embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may

subsequently be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and

disposal of surface water from the site.

15. Prior to the commencement of development, or such other date or stage in

development as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated

with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to, and approved in

writing by, the Local Planning Authority:

a. a preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

all previous uses;

potential contaminants;

a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and

receptors;

potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the

site.

b. a site investigation scheme, based on (a), to provide information for

a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be

affected, including those off-site.

c. the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (b)

and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy

giving full details of the remediation measures required and how

they are to be undertaken.

d. a verification plan providing details of the data that will collected in

order to demonstrate that the works set out in (c) are complete and

identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant

linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the

Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect the water environment.

16. No occupation or beneficial use of any part of the development shall take

place until a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set

out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the

remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and

monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to

demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also


include any plan (a long term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer

term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for

contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long term

monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.


17. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to

be present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until

the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from, the

Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the remediation strategy

detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.


18. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other

than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority,

which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been

demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled

waters.


19. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not

be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local

Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it

has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to

groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details.


20. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision

and implementation of pollution control shall be submitted to, and

approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The works / scheme

shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans

/ specifications as may be specified in the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory method of pollution control.

21. There shall be no external storage of goods, machinery, plant or materials

on the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning

Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed

development is satisfactorily integrated within its immediate surroundings.

22. No manufacturing, fabrication or other industrial process shall take place

outside of the buildings on the site.




23. All fixed plant and machinery within the development should be designed

and installed such that the rating level of the fixed plant and machinery

shall not exceed the background level by more than 5dB using

BS4142:1991 at the nearest noise sensitive receptor.

Reason: In the interest of protecting residential amenity.

24. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to, and

approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority details of the

locations, heights, designs, materials and types of all boundary treatments

to be erected on site. The boundary treatments shall be completed in

strict accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of

any of the buildings.


development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings.

25. Prior to the commencement of development details of any external

lighting, including details of the spread and intensity of light together with

the size, scale and design of any light fittings and supports, shall be

submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter, external lighting shall only be provided in accordance with the

agreed details or in accordance with any variation agreed in writing by the

Local Planning Authority.



26. The development hereby permitted shall be built to a minimum standard of

‘very good’ under the Building Research Establishment Environmental

Assessment Method (BREEAM). Within 3 months of the first use of any of

the building(s) a copy of the Post Construction Completion Certificate for

the building(s) verifying that the ‘very good’ BREEAM rating has been

achieved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an

environmentally sensitive way.

27. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the number,

location and design of secure cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to,

and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved

facilities shall be installed prior to the first occupation of any of the

buildings and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To reduce reliance on the use of private cars and promote

cycling in the interests of sustainability.

28. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used

in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been

submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.


The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the

development is satisfactorily integrated with its surroundings.

29. Prior to the commencement of development, details of measures to secure

at least 10% of the energy needs of the development from decentralised

and renewable or low carbon energy generation technologies on-site

should be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning

Authority. The approved measures shall be installed and operational on

the first occupation of the building(s) and shall be retained thereafter,

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the interests of

sustainable development as required by Policy ENG1 of the East of

England Plan.

30. Prior to the commencement of development details of measures to

enhance the ecological interest of the site, including a study of the

feasibility of incorporating green / brown roofs and / or walls into the

buildings, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local

Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to

the first occupation of any of the development.

Reason: In the interest of securing the sustainable development of the

site.

31. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for noise mitigation

on site, including details for the landscaped buffer adjacent to Purfleet

Road, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed and retained on site

prior to the first occupation or beneficial use of the development, unless

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of adjacent residential

occupiers.

Informatives

1. The applicant is reminded that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (Section 1) it is an offence to take, damage or destroy the nest of

any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built. Planning consent for

a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under

this Act. Trees and scrub are likely to contain nesting birds between 1st

March and 31st July. Any trees and scrub present on the application site

should be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates

unless survey has shown it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not

present. Bothe the RSPB booklet “Wild Birds and the Law” and guidance

notes relating to local planning and wildlife law produces by Natural


England are useful.

2. Anglian Water has assets close to, or crossing the site or there are

assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout

should take this into account and accommodate those assets within

either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is

not practicable then the applicant will need to ask for the assets to be

diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Or in the

case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners

of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should

normally be completed before development can commence.

3. An application to discharge trade effluent must be made to Anglian Water

and must have been obtained before any discharge of trade effluent can

be made to the public sewer.

4. Anglian Water recommends that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car

parking / washing / repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of

such facilities could result in pollution of the local watercourse and may

constitute an offence.

5. The development site is within the 15m cordon sanitaire of a pumping

station. Whilst Anglian Water takes all reasonably practicable steps to

prevent any nuisance arising from the station, it is recommended that

development which is potentially sensitive to odour is located away from

the pumping station.

6. The Local Planning Authority has considered and assessed the content of

the Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted with the application as

well as consultation responses received from statutory bodies on

particular technical matters. Consideration has also been given to the

statutory planning policy framework and the views expressed by third

parties. The Development Corporation considers that subject to the

further information and mitigation measures identified in the EA being

carried out, the conditions of the permission being complied with and the

terms of the Planning Obligation met, the proposed development is

acceptable.

Documents:

Applications can be viewed online: http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/

Documents also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New

Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.

http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/



Application Reference: 12/00862/OUT

Address: Land adjacent to Ponds Farm, Purfleet Road, Aveley (c) Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Thurrock Council LA 10002547