Live broadcast to start at 7pm and available for repeat viewing.   

Apologies had been received from Cllr Fryd.

The Minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee held on 29th June 2021 were approved as a true record subject to the following changes:

Cllrs Barber, Heard, and Gelderbloem to be added as attendees.

Note spelling of Cllr Dr Barrett.

Cllr Mynott requested that on page 28 of the Minutes in relation to the deferral of the application where they read “Following discussion and with regard to the need for clarification of the highways position and additional site visits for Members” an additional paragraph is added clarifying the position for deferral to read:

“The highway’s position was opposed to the application and recommended refusal.  Cllr Mynott commented that Brentwood’s precedent is, if Highways are recommending refusal, that the committee tends to refuse.  Also, the Chair advised the committee that he had received a telephone call earlier in the day from Essex County Councillors saying there was a highways issue, however, this was not from the Essex Highways department”.

Cllr Cloke wished to change the second paragraph on page 29 of the Minutes which read:

“Members also considered necessary a requirement in s.106 Agreement to deal with a clawback of monies to be used for affordable housing in the Borough to meet policy based on the developer providing viability documents for assessment and the site being more viable than that previously suggested.”

To read:

“Members also considered necessary a requirement in s.106 Agreement to deal with a clawback of monies to be used for affordable housing in the Borough based on the developer providing evidence of actual decontamination/remediation costs and the site thereby being shown to be more viable than previously suggested.”

The Minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee which took place on the 14^th July were approved as a true record.

The Minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee which took place on 28^th June will be resolved at the next Planning and Licensing Committee.

The application had been referred to Planning and Licensing Committee as

the applicant and owner of the building/land is Brentwood Borough Council.

Advertisement consent was being sought for the following:

1 x Co-op Fascia sign with halo illuminated logo and non-illuminated lettering,

2 x Co-op non-illuminated fascia signs,

1 x Post Office non-illuminated projecting sign,

1 x Post Office non-illuminated Service Menu Board and

2 x Co-op logo externally illuminated (trough light) projecting signs.

Mr Daryl Cook presented the report. 

A statement from Mr Edge on behalf of the applicant was read by the Chair in support of the application.

Following discussion a motion to APPROVE the application was moved by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Tanner.

A vote was taken by a show of hands and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cloke, Cuthbert, Gelderbloem, Heard, Laplain, Mynott, Tanner and Wiles (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The application was APPROVED subject to conditions as outlined in the report.

The application had been referred to Planning and Licensing Committee as

the applicant and owner of the building/land is Brentwood Borough Council.

Planning permission was sought for installation of plant to rear yard area and 2.5mhigh close boarded timber fence enclosure at 2-8A Harewood Road, Pilgrims Hatch, Brentwood. The plant consists of external x4 Air Conditioning units (AC) and refrigeration plant.

Mr Daryl Cook presented the report. 

Following discussion a motion to APPROVE the application was moved by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Tanner.

A vote was taken by a show of hands and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cloke, Cuthbert, Gelderbloem, Heard, Laplain, Mynott, Tanner and Wiles (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The application was APPROVED subject to conditions as outlined in the report.

This application had been referred by Cllr McLaren for the following reason:

‘The size of the applicant's development is modest and will have no impact from a greenbelt / openness perspective.

The officer is using the existing detached garage as a reference point for measuring impact, which I believe is inappropriate.

The applicant has already removed a significant, unsightly (and impractical) side extension. The impact of the proposed small first floor addition in my view causes far less harm to the neighbourhood / street scene than the harm that was caused by the extension that has been removed.’

In the referral agreement email reference was also made to development on a

nearby site (estimated at 100m away) which is commented on as ‘three storey

houses that can't be far from being twice as high and far more out of character than this.’

This application proposes the demolition of existing single storey side and rear additions and the construction of a two storey side extension, two front dormers, enlargement of an existing rear dormer, repositioning of front door to include addition of porch at front, alterations to fenestration and add safety rails to rear terrace at No. 121 Coxtie Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch.

Mr Max Gibson presented the report.

The applicant, Mr Giddens, was present at the meeting and spoke in support of the application.

Cllr McLaren, Ward Councillor, was also present and spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mynott expressed concerns regarding the fact that this was a disproportionate addition to the property and he could see no special circumstances for building upon green belt.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott to REFUSE the application and SECONDED by Cllr Laplain.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Laplain and Mynott (3)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Cloke, Gelderbloem, Heard, Tanner and Wiles (7)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Dr Barrett (1)

The motion to REFUSE the application was LOST.

Following further debate a motion was MOVED by Cllr Cloke and SECONDED by Cllr Bridge to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Cloke, Gelderbloem, Heard, Tanner and Wiles (7)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Laplain and Mynott (3)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Dr Barrett (1)

The application was APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1
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
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
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor McLaren for the following reason:

“I understand that the proposal has been judged on a purely metric basis against prior applications, however, in the context of the building and neighbourhood the proposal is modest and does not negatively impact the surroundings. I am given to understand that the resident could demolish his property and rebuild on the scale that is being refused by this application, which in my view nonsensical. In my opinion members should be given the opportunity to use their discretion as to the reasonableness of the proposed refusal.”

This application related to a single storey rear extension.

Ms Brooke Pride presented the report.

The Applicant, Mr Gary Gordon, was present at the meeting and spoke in support of the application. Ward Councillor, Cllr McLaren also addressed the committee supporting the application.

Following debate, a motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Laplain to REFUSE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cloke, Cuthbert, Gelderbloem, Heard, Laplain and Mynott (9)

AGAINST:  Cllr Tanner (1)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Wiles (1)

The motion to REFUSE the application was RESOLVED.

This application was reported to committee as it relates to development of land owned by Brentwood Borough Council.

This application relates to the installation of a 49.9MW battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure. Access to the site would be achieved direct from Wash Road, via the existing access to the substation site, it would then run along the northern boundary with the main body of the site to the rear (east) of the substation. The overall site area is 2.18 hectares, with the area proposed for the two battery compounds and the substation compounds being 4900 sqm (0.49 hectares) plus a temporary construction compound of 1880sqm. The northern battery compound and the substation

compounds would be separated by the line of existing overhead lines from the southern battery compound by a gap of 13 m widening at the west end.

The site currently forms part of the Hutton Country Park which covers an area of 36 hectares. Of this approximately 11 hectares is to the north of the railway line, with the remainder to the south. The site to the north of the application site is open land, with the River Wid and Hunts Farm beyond, to the east by open land, to the south is the Shenfield to Billericay railway line section, to the west by Shenfield Electrical Substation with Wash Road beyond. There are no formal public rights of way on the application site shown on the definitive highway map, though currently the site is open allowing people to roam.

The development proposes:

• 28 steel containers, each approximately 12.2m long, 2.44m wide, and 3.3m in height (including foundations) from ground level; dark green in colour

• The containers would be arranged in two lines of 14 units, each group contained by 2.1 m high fencing

• A steel transformer would be located between each container (28 in total), 2.59m in height from ground level, and as such do not exceed the height of the containers;

• Three Power Conversion System (PCS) cabinets would be sited next to each container (1.3m long, 1.5 wide, 2.6m tall on foundations);

• it is proposed to erect a 3m high acoustic fence immediately to the north of each of the two rows of containers

• Two 'customer substations' measuring 6m in length, 2m in width and 2.8m in height from ground level;

• A 132kV substation compound with ancillary Distribution Network Operator (DNO) substation structure approx. 3.95 high coloured green.

• The site area of the 132kV substation compound is approx 725sqm and adjacent to that would be DNO structure. The DNO Substation control room building would be

13m in length, 5m in width and 3.95m in height.The apparatus at the 132kV

substation would be enclosed by palisade fencing between 1.8m and 2.4m in height, with the apparatus measuring between 3.43 and 5.54m.

• At the east end would be a1275sqm attenuation pond

A security system using infra red sensors on 1200mm posts would be within the permitter fencing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

This report advised Planning and Licensing Committee of decisions that have

been received in respect of planning appeals. Updates are provided to the

committee regularly. This report provides a summary of the main issues and

comments made by inspectors, which can be useful when making decisions on current and future planning applications. This is taken since February 2021, following the most recent update given to committee in February 2021 (Item 683, Planning and Licensing Committee, Planning Appeals Update November 2020 - January 2021).

Members requested that the planning fees awarded against the Council could be reported to this Committee.

Members noted the report.

There were no items of urgent business.

                                                            The meeting concluded at 21.25