There were no apologies for absence – all members of the committee were present.

In relation to Minute 348 – South Essex Golf and Country Club, Brentwood Road, Herongate, Essex CM13 3LW, Application No 17/01528/FUL – the Planning Officer advised that incorrect information had been included in the original report and reflected in the minute in the eighth paragraph where it was stated “ the use is lawful through the passage of time”.  In fact the building referred to had been granted planning permission on appeal in 1990.

Cllr Mynott had moved that the application be refused at the 24.4.18 meeting and confirmed that he was clear on his reasons for refusal and remained content with them as minuted.

Members RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY to APPROVE the minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee meeting held on 24.4.18 as a true record SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT ABOVE.

It was RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY to APPROVE the minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 25 April 2018.

APPLICATION NO: 18/00099/FUL

Proposed redevelopment of Heron Court care home.  Proposed demolition of the 20th century wings and southerly day room.  New extension on three floors to be created, forming a secure courtyard enclosure.  Existing ground level to be reduced. Increase in bedroom numbers from 33 to 65 bedrooms.

            Ms Steadman was present and addressed the committee in objection to the application.

            Mr Branton, the agent, was also present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

            Cllr Kingsford, Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council,  was present and expressed the concerns of the Parish Council in relation to the proposed increase in size of Heron Court care home, insufficient parking spaces proposed and potential problems caused by more vehicles using the access road from the A128.

            Cllr Mrs Tierney, Ward member, advised that whilst she supported the concept, she had concerns over the proposed increase in scale of the care home and the lack of parking.

            Cllr Mynott MOVED and Cllr Chilvers SECONDED that the application be REFUSED as he considered the scale of the proposal was unacceptable since it tripled the current footprint, the proposal would not enhance the host building and would not preserve the character of the conservation area in which it was situated.

            A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

            FOR:  Cllrs Chilvers, Haigh, Keeble, Morrissey, Mynott, Mrs Pound,  Reed and Mrs Slade,(8)

            AGAINST:  Cllrs McCheyne, Nolan, Sanders  and Trump (4)

            abstain:  (0)

The Motion was CARRIED to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

The proposal extension, due to its size would amount to an excessive scale in relation to the size of the original building. As such it would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would have materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the original building, to the detriment of the open and rural character of the locality. The proposal therefore conflicted with Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Policies GB1 and, GB2 and the provisions of the Framework as regards development in the Green Belt.

Other matters that might weigh in favour of the proposal had been considered but collectively they did 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 did not exist.

The proposed development, by reason of its size and design would result in a building that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Polices CP1 and C14 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework.

 (All matters reserved)  APPLICATION NO: 18/00270/OUT

Outline permission was sought for the construction of a new dwelling on the site with all matters reserved. The application was seeking to determine whether the principle of constructing a dwelling on the site was acceptable.

Mr Lunnon, the applicant, was present and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Laws was present and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Cllr Chilvers expressed concern that representations received after the officer’s report had been published had not been provided to Committee members in hard copy.  Other Members agreed that these papers may have influenced their decision regarding the application and in light of this the Chair DEFERRED the item to be considered at the next Planning and Licensing Committee meeting.

APPLICATION NO: 18/00450/FUL

The proposal was for the demolition of the existing conservatory and extension and the construction of a two-storey side/rear extension.

Mr Peterkin, the applicant, was present and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Cllr Keeble, Ward and Committee Member had referred the application and spoke in support of it. 

Cllr Lockhart, Blackmore Parish Council, advised that the Parish Council had no objection to the proposed extension and commended the design.

Members acknowledged the good design of the proposed extension but were concerned that approving it would set a precedent for future applications.

Following a debate Cllr Trump MOVED and Cllr Mynott SECONDED that the application be REFUSED due to the proposed significant increase to the volume of the building which would extend the footprint of the building excessively.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Chilvers, Haigh, Mynott, Reed and Trump (5)

            AGAINST:  Cllrs McCheyne, Nolan, Sanders  Mrs Slade (4)

            abstain:  Cllrs Morrissey and Mrs Pound (2)

            Cllr Keeble did not vote as he had referred the application and therefore fettered his vote.

The Motion was CARRIED to REFUSE the application for the following reason:

The extension proposed, due to its excessive footprint and resultant increase in mass and bulk, would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and would be visible from public vantage points within the Green Belt to the detriment of its openness contrary to the NPPF and Policy GB1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.

There were no items of urgent business.

_____________________________

The meeting ended at 8.45pm