Councillor Johnson introduced the report and stated that Site 20 from Appendix B had been removed. He stated that the report detailed a list of sites, which would help the Council to meet its target of 500 new council homes, and clarified that all sites met the 3R’s policy of release, retain or reuse. He added that some sites fell within his own ward, but all sites would be going to further consultation and investigation, and this report did not grant planning application. Councillor Johnson stated that this policy was open and transparent, with the process being previously agreed by Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. He mentioned that if the report were agreed it would give consent for investigatory works, and not planning applications. Councillor Johnson clarified that any sites identified would meet the previously agreed criteria, and would go to a full consultation with residents and Ward Councillors, and objections to specific sites could be made at that stage. He clarified that no site identified within the report was closer to development than any other, and some might be further away from development, as could be dismissed once investigatory work and consultation had been completed. Councillor Johnson stated that Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee had discussed the report last night, and debated every individual site. He stated that the purpose of the report was not to discuss the merits or drawbacks of each potential site, but to agree the recommendations that they should go forward for further investigation. He summarised and stated that the report was trying to be open and transparent so residents and Councillors could see the next stages.

The Leader stated that due to the general election and purdah, this report had had to go to Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night, rather than at their previous meetings, but felt it would have been good to see the outcomes from their discussion. Councillor Coxshall added that the policy of the 3R’s had been agreed when the Conservatives had first taken power, as it was important to shine a light on the reasons for decisions, particularly regarding land. He mentioned that as there would be a full consultation for each site, the outcomes of these could present new ideas that may not have been previously considered. He stated that it was important for members of the public and other Councillors to see how decisions were being made.

Councillor Little stated that she had a non-pecuniary interest as one of the proposed sites was in her ward, and echoed the Leaders comments that it would have been good to see the minutes from Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Little then proposed that Site 19 be removed from the report, as she felt it did not meet the 3Rs criteria, or the Cabinet agreed process, as the suggested site contained private houses that were not owned by the Council. She felt that the proposed Site 19 did not aid regeneration of the area and would disrupt children’s education. The Leader clarified that the report did not focus on specific sites, but only allowed the next stage of investigatory work of proposed sites to go ahead. Councillor Little added that Highways England were also considering Site 19, as those residents living the area would potentially need to be compensated if the LTC route went ahead. She felt that this meant Site 19 was not viable, and did not want to waste officer’s time if Highways England would need the site for LTC construction in a few years’ time. Councillor Little therefore asked Cabinet to support the removal of Site 19 from the report. The Leader commented that he understood Councillor Little’s concern as a Ward Councillor, as many Cabinet Members also felt concern regarding some sites within their wards. He highlighted the purpose of the report was to take the sites forward for further consultation, and the report did not provide planning agreement for any of the sites.

Councillor Huelin echoed comments that it would have been nice to know what Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee had discussed, and felt that the Chair of the Committee should have attended to outline those points. She felt that if the report was agreed, then consultation would be very important, and residents would need to be contacted individually. She felt that an advert in the newspaper or notice on a lamppost would not be sufficient for a consultation of this nature. The Leader agreed with Councillor Huelin’s comment that good consultation would be necessary, and clarified that no sites would be moved forward without robust consultation with residents and Ward Councillors.

Councillor Jefferies declared a non-pecuniary interest as some of the sites were within his ward, and he had been contacted by local residents to make a representation on their behalf. He stated that the Council had a job to put forward sites for potential development and regeneration, and felt pleased to see that full consultations would be conducted for every site. He echoed comments that he felt disappointed that the Chair of Housing Overview and Scrutiny had not attended the meeting. Councillor Watkins echoed comments that transparency regarding these sites was needed, and stated that sites could be reused if good ideas came forward from consultation. He stated that the Council had a housing quota and a Council Housing Policy that had to be met, to ensure that residents had access to high-quality housing.
Councillor Maney echoed comments that he also felt disappointed that the Chair of Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not attended the meeting, and he felt that she should have attended to play her part in the governance process. He stated that also felt some sites listed in the report should not be used for housing development, particularly those relating to current community sites. He felt that some sites should be included in the list, but disagreed with the inclusion of others.

Councillor Hebb asked if the recommendations could be deferred until Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee comments had been received. He stated that ensuring good quality housing was one of the long-term ambitions for Thurrock Council, but felt that there needed to be public discussion. He described how he wanted the process to be open and transparent for residents, as the Council wanted to avoid issues such as those that had occurred with King Street Car Park. He stated that Cabinet Members had to balance two priorities, one being their Ward and potential development sites that they disagreed with, and the other being their civic duty priority to ensure that Thurrock Council fulfilled their housing needs.

The Leader stated that Councillor Redsell was a member of the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and was present at Cabinet. The Leader confirmed with the Monitoring Officer that she had the right to speak at the meeting. The Monitoring Officer clarified that Councillor Redsell could speak in her capacity as Member of the Committee.

Councillor Redsell stated that she was speaking personally, and not on behalf of the Chair or Committee. She described how an estimated 60 people had attended the meeting, and she felt the meeting became very political due to the contentious item. She felt that the Chair should have informed residents beforehand that the report proposed sites for consultation, rather than confirmed development, as officers had had to answer many questions that could have been avoided. She added that the Chair had decided to go through every site individually; and had voiced her concern at this as if any Councillor were to go onto Planning Committee at a later date, then their view would be conflicted if they were to give an opinion about any of the sites at this stage. Councillor Little welcomed Councillor Redsell’s comments and stated that as the Chair of Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not attended and the minutes were not available, the item should be deferred.

Councillor Johnson stated that he had received a note that the report had been formally endorsed by the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, but the Chair had asked for it to be included in the minutes that she did not agree with all proposed sites.

The Leader thanked Councillor Redsell for her comments and attendance, and asked resident Mr. Alex Andonie to present his views. Mr. Andonie stated that he had attended the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and felt that many residents were distressed about some sites outlined in the report. He highlighted that eight projects were located in South Ockendon, including one five-storey development on a green space, located directly opposite a number of houses. Mr. Andonie added that consultation had already occurred regarding sites in Callan Grove and Culver Fields, with over 200 responses being collected, and asked if those responses would be included in the upcoming consultations. The Leader stated that those consultations pre-dated this process, and all new proposed sites would have new, full consultations.

The Leader then asked resident Ms. Patricia Campbell to make her representation. Ms. Campbell stated that some of the proposed developments were not in keeping with the surrounding areas, particularly one potential development which outlined three blocks of flats in an area of predominantly council housing, and felt this would be an eyesore for local residents. Ms. Campbell felt that green space in the borough was precious, particularly for local children who often played on green spaces and needed areas to run around. She stated that central government had mandated the protection of green spaces a few years ago, and did not want to see these precious areas being lost to development. Ms. Campbell felt that some of these potential sites were small, and more space would need to be found in a few years to manage a growing population. The Leader thanked both Mr. Andonie and Ms. Campbell for their representations, and highlighted that any HRA sites were ring-fenced for local residents who had lived in the borough for at least five years.

Councillor Johnson thanked the residents for speaking and stated that the proposed sites on the list would re-enter consultation, but no planning decisions had yet been made. He urged residents to go through the consultation process again, as it was important for residents to make their voices heard. Councillor Coxshall also urged residents to get involved with the upcoming Local Plan process, as this would determine what Thurrock would look like for the next 40 years. He felt that Thurrock did not want any urban sprawl, and wanted to protect green spaces, which could only be achieved through the Local Plan. He stated that the site development consultation would be open and transparent and all responses would be read and analysed.

Councillor Hebb mentioned that half of all Cabinet Members had links to South Ockendon and knew the area well. He asked the Corporate Director Adults, Housing & Health/Interim Director Children’s Services what form the consultation would take, and if residents who could not access the internet would still be able to have their say. The Corporate Director Adults, Housing & Health/Interim Director Children’s Services replied that all sites would go through a full consultation process. Councillor Johnson added that the paper that had been agreed by Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet in January had outlined the criteria for consultation.

The Leader again thanked the residents and Councillor Redsell for their involvement in the discussion, and urged residents to get involved with the consultations. Councillor Mayes echoed comments that the Chair of Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee should have attended to provide comments, and asked if sites could still be refused if the recommendations were agreed. The Leader replied that when the process began, a consultation period would start, and if clear reasons for refusal became apparent then sites could be rejected and other sites could be chosen. He stated that this process had been supported by Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet in January 2020, and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee had endorsed the recommendations in the this report, although the Chair had not supported all sites. The Leader commented that Cabinet should balance their priorities as Ward Councillors and their civic leadership role, but that all parties agreed with the need for more council housing across the borough. He stated that there were problems associated with developments on some of the proposed sites, but stated that some sites had been proposed for redevelopment as early as 2013 and 2015.

Councillor Jefferies left 8.03pm.

Councillor Coxshall agreed that he felt disappointed that the Chair had not attended the Cabinet meeting or given a formal response. The Leader again thanked the residents for their representations and Councillor Redsell for her thoughts and held a vote on the recommendations. Councillor Little stated that she would not endorse the recommendations as she felt Site 19 was not in-line with the 3R’s policy. A vote was moved, the outcome of which was:

In agreement with recommendations: 8 (Councillors Gledhill, Hebb, Coxshall, Huelin, Johnson, Maney, Mayes and Watkins)

Against recommendations: 1 (Councillor Little)

Therefore the recommendations were agreed, 8:1.

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

1. Approved the list of housing development site options to be taken forward for further detailed work, involving engagement with stakeholders and communities.

Reason for decision: as outlined in the report
This decision is subject to call-in