Apologies were received from Cllr Morrissey and Cllr Mrs Murphy.  Cllr Mrs Coe substituted for Cllr Mrs Murphy.

Minutes to follow.

The minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee held on 8 March 2017 were approved and signed as a true record. 

Cllr McCheyne MOVED and Cllr Mrs Rowlands SECONDED and Members agreed that Agenda Item 6 – Response to Highways England A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme Consultation – be taken as the next item of business.

Report to follow.

Highways England had consulted on options for widening the A12 between Junction 19 (Boreham interchange north of Chelmsford) and Junction 25 (Marks Tey interchange with A120).  Proposals related to widening a number of lanes and possibly building new sections of road.  Views had been sought on four potential options. 

In response to the consultation, a holding response had been made on behalf of the Council and was provided with the report for approval (attached as Appendix A).  Although the proposals related to the consultation did not directly impact on Brentwood, it was one part of several major national infrastructure projects to invest in the A12.  There were wider implications for the Borough when considering outcomes from these proposals plus other future A12 projects.  It was important that the Council expressed a view about the wider strategic importance of the A12 investment projects to expand capacity and relieve congestion.

Cllr McCheyne MOVED and Cllr Mynott SECONDED the recommendation in the report and following a debate a vote was taken by a show of hands.

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Mrs Coe, Faragher, Hubbard, Keeble, McCheyne, Mrs Middlehurst, Mynott, Newberry, Mrs Rowlands and Sanders (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY

To approve the response to the Highways England A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme consultation as set out in Appendix A of the report. 

Reason for recommendations

Brentwood Borough Council’s proposed response to the consultation was set out in Appendix A of the report.  The response asked Highways England to consider the wider infrastructure implications that any potions would have on the entire A12 Corridor and surrounding areas as a whole. 

The Council had a specific interest in the stretch of A12 south of Chelmsford, which flowed through the Brentwood borough before it reached the M25 junction 28 (Brook Street).  As the Council was at an important stage in the plan-making process, which included meeting challenging development and infrastructure needs, it was important that congestion was reduced between the A12 and M25 in order to facilitate economic growth in Essex.   

Brentwood Borough Council was not directly impacted by the proposals north of Chelmsford and so no preference was expressed with regard to the four options.  However, the response had set out support for the need to create additional capacity along this section of the A12, and asked that Highways England did so whilst also considering the need to improve capacity and junction safety on the rest of the A12.  It was critical that development proposals were mindful of the need for future works south of Chelmsford as well as proposals at M25 junction 28.   

Description 1) Change of use, conversion and extension of existing building to provide 13 residential apartments; demolition of secure wing, other structures and buildings; construction of 8 detached family dwellings, parking and garaging; attenuation pond and hard and soft landscape works

Description 2) Conversion and extension of existing building to provide 13 residential apartments; demolition of secure wing, other structures and buildings.

Mr Fryett, on behalf of Great Warley Conservation Society,  was present and addressed the committee. He advised that whilst the Society supported the proposed development scheme, their concern was for the effect the additional traffic would have on those using the already hazardous Dark Lane including drivers, pedestrians and horse riders and requested an improved traffic scheme be considered.

Mr Barrett, a resident of Dark Lane, was present and addressed the committee.  He  supported the proposed development but also expressed grave concern about current traffic issues in Dark Lane which would be exacerbated by additional traffic emanating from the development. 

Mr Firth, the Agent, was also present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

The Planning Officer explained that it was recommended that the opinion of an independent assessor be accepted in that the nature of this scheme made it unviable for a contribution towards Affordable Housing to be made but instead an adjustment to some of the sizes of the housing units is proposed. 

Councillor Hubbard expressed her concern and desire that any right-hand turns for vehicle exiting the site be discouraged.  Secondly, her heritage desires and hope that the terracotta wall plaques and outer garden wall will be retained along with a Plessy commemoration or plaque.  Thirdly, she hoped that the conditions will provide for the adequacy of the drainage culverts. 

After a full discussion, a motion was MOVED by Cllr McCheyne and SECONDED by Cllr Mrs Rowlands to APPROVE applications 16/00999/FUL and 16/01000/LBC, a separate vote to be taken on each application.

A vote was taken by a show of hands on application 16/00999/FUL.

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Mrs Coe, Faragher, Hubbard, Keeble, McCheyne, Mrs Middlehurst, Mynott, Newberry, Mrs Rowlands and Sanders (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that application16/00999/FUL is APPROVED subject to the conditions set out below also the planning officer agreeing an additional condition with the Chair,  Vice Chair for the design of the access/junction from the site to Dark Lane to be submitted. 

N.B. The latter was subsequently agreed and is listed below as condition 20. 

N.B. The conditions were renumbered to correct a drafting error in the report.   

A separate vote was taken by a show of hands on application 16/01000/LBC.

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Mrs Coe, Faragher, Hubbard, Keeble, McCheyne, Mrs Middlehurst, Mynott, Newberry, Mrs Rowlands and Sanders (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that application 16/01000/LBC is APPROVED subject to the conditions set out below.

Conditions for 16/00999/FUL Planning Permission:

1.    TIM01 Standard Time – Full

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.    DRA01A Development is accordance with drawings

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved drawing(s) listed above the specifications. 

Reason:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 340.

Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 2 No. x 4 bedroom semi-detached dwellings.

Mr Austin was present and addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Mr Cumberland, the Agent, was also present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

After a full discussion, a motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Mrs Hubbard  to REFUSE the application under planning policy CP1 (1) and (2).

A vote was taken by a show of hands.

FOR: Cllrs  Mrs Hubbard, Mynott and Newberry (3)

AGAINST:     Cllrs Bridge, Keeble, McCheyne, Mrs Middlehurst, Ms Rowlands and Ms Sanders (6)

ABSTAIN:     Cllrs Mrs Coe and Faragher (2)

The MOTION was LOST.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Bridge and SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne  to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken by a show of hands.

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Keeble, McCheyne, Mrs Middlehurst, Ms Rowlands and Ms Sanders (6)

AGAINST: Cllrs  Mrs Hubbard, Mynott and Newberry (3)

ABSTAIN:     Cllrs Mrs Coe and Faragher (2)

RESOLVED that the application is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:  

1.    TIM01 Standard Time – Full

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and compulsory Act 2004.

2.    DRA01A        Development in accordance with drawings

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved drawing(s) listed above and specifications. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is as permitted by the local planning authority and for the avoidance of doubt. 

3.    BOU05           Boundary treatment – (to be retained as shown on drawings)

A fence or wall of a height of not less than 1.8m shall be permanently retained and maintained in the position indicated on the approved drawings. 

Reason:  To safeguard the living conditions of adjacent occupiers. 

4.    MAT01           Samples (details acceptable)   

No development shall take place above ground level until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building  hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

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

Reason:  In Order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. 

5.    U15728

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be extended or enlarged in any way without the prior grant of specific planning permission by the local planning authority. 

Reason:  to safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. 

6.    No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.  The Statement shall provide for:

i.              The parking of vehicles of site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 341.

Construction of building for the storage of hay and straw products in connection with the adjacent retail use

Cllr McCheyne declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this application under the Council’s Code of Conduct  and left the Chamber, taking no part in the discussion or vote on the item.

Cllr Ms Rowlands chaired the remainder of the meeting.

Miss Jennings was present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

Cllr Parker, Ward Member, addressed the committee in support of the application.

After a full discussion, a motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Faragher to REFUSE the application. 

A vote was taken by a show of hands.

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Mrs Coe, Faragher, Hubbard, Keeble, Mrs Middlehurst, Mynott, Newberry, Mrs Rowlands and Sanders (10)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the application is REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would materially detract from openness and would represent an encroachment of development into the countryside.  It would therefore conflict with Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Policies GB1, GB2 and GB19 and the objectives of the Framework as regards development in the Green Belt. 

2.     Other matters that may weigh in favour of the proposal have been considered but collectively they do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt or the other harms identified.  Therefore very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.  

(Cllr Mrs Coe declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of shopping at Crown Corner and the applicant living within her Ward).

There were no items of urgent business.

________________________

The meeting ended at 9.15pm.