No apologies were received for this meeting.

The Minutes of the Planning and Licensing meeting held on 19 January 2016 were agreed as a true record, subject to clarification being  made by Cllr Morrissey’s that her non pecuniary interest she declares at the beginning of every Planning and Licensing Committee Meeting is for the duration of the  meeting,  not just for one particular item. 

This was noted by the Clerk.

The Minutes for the Licensing Sub Committee’s for 24^th September 2015, 16^th  November 2015, 8^th December 2015 and 20^th January 2016 were all agreed as a true record.

Mrs Daly was present and spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Barker, a representative of the Food Bank was also present and spoke in support of the application.

Mr Gaughan, was also present and spoke as a support of the application

Mr Hardie, the agent, was also present and spoke in support of the application. Cllr Trump MOVED and Cllr Morrissey SECONDED that the application be refused.

For:          Cllrs Barrell, Pound, Reed, Tee, Cloke, Mynott, Carter, Morrissey,

                Newberry, Trump and McCheyne  (11)

Against:   (0) 

Abstain:   (0)

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

R1       U12115         

The existing Breakthru Church is a valued community facility. The significant loss of off-street parking spaces and reduction in the extent of the curtilage of the building proposed could threaten the continued beneficial use of the church and, if the Breakthru Church vacate the site, could reduce the viability for continued or re-use of the building as a community facility, contrary to the aims of Policy LT11 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan and the NPPF (paragraph 70).

R2       U12130         

The proposed development would, as a result of the size, height, scale, massing and design of the building proposed, be an incongruous element in the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the NPPF (section 7) and Policies CP1 (criteria i and iii) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.

R3       U12131         

The development proposed, as a result of the height, position, design and bulk of the building proposed, would harm the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by reason of loss of privacy (1 Primrose Hill and 65-71 Crown Street) and loss of outlook and dominance (65-71 Crown Street), contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 17) and Policy CP1 (criterion ii) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.

 (Under 5.2 of the Constitution, Cllr Wiles was unable to participate in the vote as he referred this item to the Committee).

(Cllr Morrissey declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of her working for a local Estate Agent)

Concerns from Members of the committee were expressed on the large oak tree situated within the development site.

Councillor Mynott MOVED and Councillor Carter SECONDED for refusal of the application.

For:                 Cllrs Reed, Mynott, Carter, Morrissey, Newberry, Trump (6)

Against:         Cllrs Barrell, Pound, Wiles (3)

Abstain:         Cllr McCheyne (1)

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED based the following:

1.            Members had concerns about the removal of a well established tree

2.            The proposal would be inappropriate development that would materially detract from the openness of the Green Belt and represent an encroachment of development into the countryside.  It would therefore conflict with Brentwood replacement Local Plan 2005 Policies GB1 and GB2 and the objectives of the Framework as regards development in the Green Belt.

3.            The proposed housing would be in an unsuitable location and would unacceptability detract from the character and appearance of valued countryside.  It would conflict with Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005  Policy CP1 and with the underlying objective of the Framework as regards sustainable development and the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.

4.         The development would facilitate the removal of a large oak tree, identified as T7 within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, which has ecological benefits and is one in which contributes positively to the visual amenity of the area. The proposed landscaping works would not retain a tree which enhances the landscape and its removal would not protect the landscape features of the site. Although not protected by a preservation order, the council's Arboriculutralist has indicated the tree is worthy of preservation. The proposal is considered to conflict with Policy C5 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005.

(Cllr Morrissey declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of her working for a local Estate Agent).

(Councillor Cloke declared a non pecuniary interest under the Councils Code of Conduct by virtue of the agent being personally known to him.  He therefore didn’t take part in the debate or voting on this item).

(Under 5.2 of the Constitution, Cllr Tee was unable to participate in the vote as he referred this item to the Committee).

In March 2015, the Planning and Development Committee approved a recommendation to review the Council’s Planning and Building Control non statutory fees and charges annually.  The current  fees and charges have been benchmarked against the rates charges in a number of other Boroughs to gauge how Brentwood’s rates compare with similar services elsewhere.  The evidence indicated that Brentwood was currently charging  less for the discretionary planning services it provides than nearby authorities.

Officers had reviewed the schedule of fees and proposed to increase the non statutory planning fees and charges to a more appropriate level which reflected the cost to the Council of providing the service.  With regard to Building Control, however, it was considered that the current rates reflected the market level and so no charges were proposed to these rates.

The report recommended that as well as increasing the charges for some non statutory services currently offered at a cost, a new charge will be introduced for residential pre- application advice.  This service is currently free to homeowners.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr McCheyne and SECONDED by Cllr Trump  to approval the recommendation set out in the report.

It was RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that:

1.            The Council’s non statutory Planning Fees and charges be amended to the rates outlined in table two of the report with effect from 1 April 2016.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Council agreed to review its non statutory planning fees and charges annually.  The proposed review of the non statutory planning fees and charges outlined in Section 4 of this report will better position Brentwood’s Planning and Building Control services to fund the increasing needs for high quality, cost effective services.  

It is important to acknowledge that any increased fee income resulting from the proposed increase in fees and charges is justified on the basis that the planning and building control services need to be delivered to a high standard.  Such a high quality service requires appropriate funding to deliver the services that the higher fee paying developers will expect.  The Council must provide value for money for the services it charges.  The purpose of the fees is to meet the costs of providing these non statutory services. It is therefore proposed that all planning and building control non statutory fee income is ring-fenced to the Planning Service area in order to comply with the legislation, justify the charges and reassure developers that the service they are paying for will be delivered effectively.

It is difficult to be precise as to how much additional income the proposed new rates would generate as this very much depends upon the development industry’s willingness to buy the services offered.  However, as the Council currently provides a free service for over 300 residential applications the introduction of a £200 fee for meetings could generate a significant additional income.  However, the introduction of a charge could put some householders off from using the service so the number of requests for residential pre- application advice could well reduce and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 358.

The Lower Thames Consultation recently released, requests that all responses to the 4 route option consultation were to be received by 24th March 2016.

This meant that the Council  have to respond rapidly and that it is unlikely that a set Council  meeting to consider the response can be held before the submission date.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Trump and SECONDED by Cllr Cloke to accepted the recommendation.

An additional recommendation was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Morrissey.  This was agreed by the Vice-Chair.

2.         That the response be made available to members at the next Policy, Finance and Resource Committee with agreement of the Chair, Cllr Mrs McKinlay.

It was RESOLVED that:

1.         That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Paid Service and  Section 151 Officer to issue the response of Brentwood Borough Council to the Lower Thames Crossing Consultation, provided that consultation takes place with the Leaders of all political groups (or in their absence, their appointed deputies), ward members and chair of the planning committee. Such consultation shall include meetings with the said Leaders.

2.         The response be made available to members at the next Policy, Finance and Resource Committee with agreement of the Chair, Cllr Mrs McKinlay.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Brentwood Borough Council response rapidly to the Lower Thames 4 route consultation by 24^th March 2016.

(Cllr Morrissey declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of her working for a local Estate Agent).

 (Cllr Carter declared a pecuniary interest as he owned a property and is also a co-ordinator for Thames Gateway.  Cllr McCheyne also declared a pecuniary interest in this item as he farms land that may be affected.  Both Councillors didn’t took part in the debate or vote, Cllr Trump stood in a Chair for the duration of this item).