HGV parking and open storage at Former Vosa Site, Purfleet-on-Thames

Previous uses and enforcement

The site was formerly a lawful HGV testing centre, later stored construction materials and vehicles, and has been used for HGV trailer parking since December 2020.

“The application site was formerly used as a VOSA MOT testing centre and used in later years as a Heavy Vehicle Test Station. This is the current lawful use of the site. The aerial photos from 1999 up until 2017 show that a large building occupied the centre of the site with strips of grassed landscaping to the north and east of the building and to the east of the site close to the vehicle entrance.”

“Throughout the majority of 2020, the site was used for the storage of vehicles and then from December 2020 to present it has been occupied by Amazon for the parking of HGV trailers.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Several consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while Public Health and Urban Design objected and residents raised noise, traffic, lighting and amenity concerns.

“No objections, subject to conditions for detailed appropriate strategies for foul and surface water drainage, pollution prevention and low impact lighting.”

“No objections, subject to conditions for Dust Management Plan, a watching brief is maintained during any groundworks for gross contamination (can be included in the CEMP), development shall be carried out in accordance with Noise Impact Assessment and hours of construction.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and the applicant spoke, answering questions about nearby homes, the site’s use, lighting, enforcement, welfare facilities and noise management.

What members debated

Members discussed residential proximity, HGV noise, unauthorised activity, enforcement, site visits, birdlife, planning conditions and the consequences of refusal.

“Members sought clarification regarding the planning enforcement history of the site. In response, the Director of Planning, Generation and Growth advised that the Committee was required to determine the planning application before it and that the enforcement history should be considered only insofar as it was relevant to the planning merits of the proposal.”

“Members also sought clarification regarding the next steps should planning permission be granted. Officers explained the various stages that would be required to discharge and implement the proposed planning conditions. Members were further advised that, should the application be refused, consideration would need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action, supported by legal advice where necessary.”

Minutes

How the committee voted

Members rejected the officer recommendation six votes to two, then approved refusal by seven votes to one.

“Recommendation That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 16 of this report.”

“Alternative Recommendation Refuse on the following grounds;”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission was refused because stated NPPF requirements were not met and noise, air, lighting and operating hours would harm immediate residential amenity.

“A) Council’s assessment against NPPF paragraphs 135 f) and 191 have not been met…”

“B) Concerns regarding residential amenity impacts based upon noise, air, lighting impacts and hours of operation which are excessive for the immediate residential amenity.”

Minutes