Mr Bryan, the Applicant was present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr McCheyne and SECONDED by Cllr Ms Sanders to refuse the application.

A vote was taken by a show of hands.

FOR:   Cllrs Mrs Middlehurst, Mrs Murphy, Ms Sanders, Faragher, Bridge, Mynott, Keeble, Ms Rowlands and McCheyne (9)

AGAINST:     (0)

ABSTAIN:      Cllrs Mrs Hubbard and Newberry (2)

RESOLVED that the application by REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposed access road by way of its siting, design and detail is not sympathetic within its location and would detract from the character and appearance of the area and its landscaped setting contrary to Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Policies CP1 (i) and C14 (v).  Furthermore, it would be harmful to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building and the primary entrance of the Grade II* Listed Park and Garden.  Although that harm would be less that substantial there would be no public benefit outweighing the harm, in conflict with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy C16 of the Local Plan.

2.         It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in the loss of the woodland habitat for which the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is noted; the application as submitted without specific detailing would result in detrimental harm to the existing trees, ecology and habitat that form part of the SSSI woodland. There would be no exception that would clearly outweigh both the impacts that the proposal it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest that would justify the grant of planning permission. This would be in conflict with Local Plan policies C6, C9, CP1 (viii) and with paragraph 118 of the NPPF.  

(Ms Sharp, Planning Solicitor gave advice to Cllr Hubbard following the observations made by Cllr Hubbard on page 51/52 of the report.  She advised that the Councillor should consider whether she had come to any pre-determination or was biased in respect of the consideration of this matter.  She advised that the Councillor should consider whether she would be best to address the Committee in her capacity as Ward Councillor and then leave the room and not partake in the item any further.  Additionally the Councillor should consider whether she retained an “open mind” about the decision.  The Councillor responded and said that she had not formed a pre-determined view and did retain an open mind.  The Councillor went on to address the Committee and partake in the debate and decision.)