Apologies were received from Cllrs Chilvers, Keeble, Kerslake and Tierney.  Cllrs Laplain, G Barratt, Nolan and Bridge were substituting respectively.

Members RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee meeting held on Thursday 30^th January 2020 be approved as a true record.

This application was reported to committee at the discretion of the Development Management Team Leader as it related to a development of scale which was likely to be of interest to the committee.

The application was deferred by the Planning and Licensing Committee at its meeting on 18 December 2019. The original report was reproduced in its entirety in the agenda and an update was provided at the end in an ‘Addendum’.

This was an outline planning application addressing the principle of development with all other matters reserved – i.e. details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - at this stage. It comprised the demolition of all buildings; construction of new buildings providing 35,000 sqm of class B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 (i.e. research and development, light industrial, general industrial and storage and distribution respectively) floor space and 250 sqm of class A3 (restaurants and cafés) floor space, together with associated vehicle parking, loading, cycle parking and infrastructure.

As an outline application with all matter reserved, specific details of the form of development would be provided at the reserved matters stage if outline planning permission was granted. Nevertheless, an indicative layout plan, parameter plan showing building heights and a plan showing indicative points of access accompanied the application. The former shows 13 new buildings, retention of one existing building. The latter drawing showed all access (at 3 points) being from the Tilbury Road. The current T junction of the A128 and Tilbury Road would be replaced by a roundabout within the existing limits of the highway funded by the developer.

Mr Ovenden, Associate Consultant Planner, presented the application. 

The application was recommended for refusal by officers.

Mrs June Palmer was present at the meeting and addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Cllr Foan, Parish Councillor for West Horndon, addressed the committee in objection of the application.

Mr Andrew Tabachnik, the agent for the application, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Following a full discussion Cllr Mynott  MOVED and Cllr Haigh SECONDED a motion to REFUSE the application.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs G Barrett, Morrissey, Fryd, Haigh, Laplain and Mynott (6)

AGAINST: Cllrs Bridge, Jakobsson, McCheyne, Nolan, Miss Sanders and Tanner (6)

ABSTAIN:  0

The Chair exercised her casting vote and the motion for REFUSAL was LOST.

Following a full discussion Cllr Miss Sanders MOVED and Cllr McCheyne SECONDED that the application be APPROVED.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Jakobsson, McCheyne, Nolan, Miss Sanders and Tanner (6)

AGAINST:  Cllrs G Barrett, Morrissey, Fryd, Haigh, Laplain and Mynott (6)

ABSTAIN:  0

The Chair exercised her casting vote and the motion for APPROVAL was CARRIED.

Members considered there were very special circumstances:

·                The significant economic benefits and sustainability benefits and the absence of an alternative site outweighed the harm identified in the Green Belt

·                This development was cited in the emerging Local Development Plan.

As explained at the meeting, due to the nature of the application,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 406.

The application had been referred to the Committee at the request of Cllr Hirst for the following reasons:

Excessive bulk and poor design resulting in detriment to the character of the area and to the amenity of residents in contravention of CP1; previous over-development of the same site had been withdrawn on advice. This application was not sufficiently different. It was hard to see how the existing chalet bungalow could be replaced by two houses without detriment to the neighbourhood and to residents.

This application related to the demolition of the existing chalet bungalow and the erection of a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings and creation of a new access from the highway.

Ms Pride, Planning Officer, presented the report and the application had been recommended for approval by officers.

Mr Jonathan Inman addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Mr Tom Wiffen, the agent, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Cllr Hirst, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection of the application.

Cllr Reed, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection of the application.

Following a full discussion Cllr Sanders  MOVED and Cllr Bridge SECONDED a motion to REFUSE the application.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows: 

FOR:  Cllrs G Barrett, Bridge, Jakobsson, McCheyne, Morrissey, Nolan,

Miss Sanders and Tanner (8)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  Cllrs Fryd, Haigh, Laplain and Mynott (4)

Members RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to the bulk, mass, height of the building and its proximity to the boundaries, the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and a cramped form of development.  This would be out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development harmful to the visual amenity of the area, in conflict with Local Plan Policy CP1 (i) and (iii).

The application was referred to committee at the request of Cllr Poppy.

The application related to the construction of a new detached two storey dwelling with vehicular access and parking on land on the southern side of Frog Street, between dwellings named ‘Walden’ and ‘1 Laburnum Cottages’.

The site was 13m wide at the building line - though wider at the front and mostly narrower to the rear - which was wider than Braemar and Walden, though narrower than 1 and 2 Laburnum Cottages. The proposed dwelling would be 8.4 m wide, 7.4 deep and 8.46 tall. It would therefore be approximately half a metre taller than Braemar/Walden and the same height as 1 and 2 Laburnum Cottages though the latter had full hipped roofs. The parking would be to the left of the plot adjacent to Walden and the gardens would be to the front and rear.

This application was recommended by officers for refusal.

Mr Ovenden, Associate Consultant Planner, presented the application. 

Mr Chris Loon, Agent for the application, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Cllr North, Parish Councillor for Kelvedon Hatch, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Ward Members, Cllr Poppy and Cllr Parker, also addressed the committee supporting the application.

Following further discussion Cllr McCheyne MOVED and Cllr Tanner SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the application.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barrett, Bridge, Fryd, Haigh, Jakobsson, Laplain, McCheyne, Mynott, Nolan, Miss Sanders and Tanner (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Morrissey (1)

Members RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to:

Standard time for commencement, to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings, removal of permitted development extensions and the 6 highways conditions as requested by the highways authority.

The application was reported to the Planning and Licensing Committee as it had been submitted by the Council and related to Council owned land.

The application related to alterations to the design of a pair of semi-detached dwellings permitted in July 2017. The proposal subject to the current application differed from the 2017 scheme as follows:

·              Removal of two under croft parking spaces (one to each dwelling) to become part of the ground floor accommodation of each property

      Use of roof space to provide ‘home office’ accommodation at second floor level

       Provision of four rooflights to the front and three rooflights to rear elevation

       Gap between proposed building and existing dwelling to east reduced from 1170mm to 1102mm

       Gap between proposed building and existing office to west increased from 1175mm to 1270mm to avoid encroaching on a private right of way

Mr Ovenden, Associate Consultant Planner, presented the application. 

The application was recommended for approval by officers subject to certain conditions as outlined in the report.

Cllr Morrissey, Ward Councillor, enquired as to whether additional residents’ parking space could be created by moving a post.  Officers advised this was a matter for South Essex Parking Partnership (SEPP) but Cllr Barrett advised that SEPP would not issue residents’ permits for new build properties.

Following a full discussion a motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Barrett to REFUSE the application for alterations to the design.

A recorded vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barrett, Bridge, Fryd, Haigh, Jakobsson, Laplain, McCheyne,  Morrissey, Mynott, Miss Sanders and Tanner (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Nolan (1)

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

The proposal is unacceptable as it would result in a development that would not make satisfactory car parking arrangements contrary to Policy CP1.

The report sought approval to delegate powers to officers when determining

applications for permitted development prior notifications that related to

telecommunications development proposals. It was good practice to determine applications in a timely manner. The report aimed to reduce risk by making it less likely that these applications would be determined out of time.

Mr Ovenden, Associate Consultant Planner, presented the report. 

Whilst acknowledging the importance of these applications being decided within the given time frame, Members expressed concern that Ward Members would not be given an opportunity to comment, also it was questioned whether by approving the recommendation in the report they were in line with the Council’s Constitution. 

Following a full discussion the Chair agreed to Cllr Barrett’s proposed amendments to the recommendation:

R1. To approve in principle that the Development Management Team Leader is delegated powers to determine prior notification applications for telecommunication proposals, with further consideration for the technical process.

R2.  That this is forwarded to the next meeting of the Constitutional Working Group or Audit and Scrutiny Committee as appropriate for progression.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Sanders and SECONDED by Cllr Morrissey to approve the recommendations in the report as amended,  a vote was taken by a show of hands and it was RESOLVED:

1.         To approve in principle that the Development Management Team Leader is delegated powers to determine prior notification applications for telecommunication proposals, with further consideration for the technical process.

2.         That this is forwarded to the next meeting of the Constitutional Working Group or Audit and Scrutiny Committee as appropriate for progression.

(Cllr Laplain declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of working for British Telecom).

Reasons for Recommendation

The reason for recommending the delegation of powers to officers when

determining telecommunications development proposals is to make it less likely that these applications will go out of time without a decision being made.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. Brentwood Borough Council had submitted the Local Development Plan and the Examination-in-Public was underway.

A key part of the Local Development Plan strategy for growth was to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village. A draft Framework Masterplan Document had been prepared and presented to the Dunton Hills Garden Village Project Delivery Board and was appended to the report as Appendix A.

The masterplan provided a high-level framework for the site. In order to provide more detail, the Council was preparing a Detailed Design Supplementary Planning Document.  Both documents would form part of the policy framework for Dunton Hills Garden Village and had involved engagement with stakeholders throughout.

Members thanked officers for their work.

Following a full discussion Cllr Miss Sanders proposed and Members agreed to note the update provided in the report.

Reasons for Recommendation

Delivery of Dunton Hills Garden Village has to date involved two key

workstreams; site allocation and planning application. The Council has submitted the Local Plan for Examination in Public with allocation of the garden village a key part of the proposed strategy to meet growth needs consistent with local borough character. CEG has been preparing to submit an outline planning application in support of the proposed allocation. Preparation of the Framework Masterplan Document is a key part of ensuring that any future application is consistent with Local Plan policy and prepared in collaboration with the Council and other stakeholders. Presentation of the masterplan to the Dunton Hills Garden Village Project Delivery Board was a project milestone, which has been brought as information to Planning and Licensing Committee. Next steps are provided as information in order that Members can track progress.

There were no items of urgent business.

                                                                        The meeting concluded at 21:40