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

Apologies had been received from Cllr Tanner and Cllr Jakobsson was substituting.

The Minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee held on 18^th March 2021 were agreed as a true record.

The Minutes of the Licensing Sub-committee held on 11^th May 2021 were agreed as a true record.

The Minutes of the Licensing Sub-committee held on 20^th May 2021 were agreed as a true record.

The Minutes of the Licensing Sub-committee held on 4^th June 2021 were agreed as a true record.

This application had been scheduled as a Committee item because the application had been submitted by the Brentwood Borough Council’s Housing Team and concerns Council owned land.

Overall the proposal would redevelop and refurbish Courage Court to provide 22 flats, provide 16 new built houses; and 22 new built flats to form a mix of 62, 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom, zero carbon (in-use) dwellings, along with associated amenity space, communal parking and allotments plus parking provision.

Ms Tessa Outram was present at the meeting and summarised the report.   Following publication of the report Ms Outram notified the Committee that Condition 14 was to be deleted as it was not policy requirement. As well as an additional condition for a phasing plan to allow for a phased development, in the interests of moving existing residents to new accommodation.  Minor amendments also required to wording of the prior to occupation conditions to allow for phasing.

No Ward Councillors were present at the meeting.

A statement objecting to the application from Mr Cox was read by the Chair:

“ I object to the development proposals in their current form. The reason for the objection is because of loss of privacy to existing residents, inadequate car parking provision and the design of the northern apartment block.

1. I am a resident and live at 13D Brookfield Close. The Proposed Landscape Plan General Arrangement shows a Community Bus Stop opposite my property. I regularly struggle to manoeuvre in and out of my driveway due to cars parking on-street along Brookfield Close opposite my property. It is only possible to manoeuvre without excessive movements if drivers have used their common sense and parked on the kerb. If a bus were to be parked in the bus stop then I would not be able to manoeuvre in and out of my driveway. This is a wholly inappropriate location for a bus stop and it should be removed or provided elsewhere.

2. Opposite my property is plot 56, a 3-bedroom house (B1 house type). Plot 56 has a first-floor bedroom window which would look directly in to our front bedroom window. This would lead to a loss of privacy. Plot 56 either needs to be reconfigured, or the window removed, or should contain obscure glazing so that my property does not suffer a loss of privacy as a result of the development.

3. The report on the application acknowledges that the proposed scheme would deliver a net shortfall of 27 parking spaces and does not comply with the Council’s own adopted parking standards (page 28). The report then attempts to justify the breach in policy because the site is located in a ‘walkable neighbourhood’. The location does indeed benefit from good public transport, cycling and walking links. However, the reality is that residents chose to own their own motor vehicle(s) regardless of access to a dedicated parking space. This is evident with the high number of vehicles parked on-street along Brookfield Close and wider Hutton Drive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

This application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant is Brentwood Borough Council.

The application relates to the refurbishment of an existing two storey dwelling into two apartments and a front porch extension. 17 Crescent Road is currently derelict, the application sought to carry out works to provide two x 2 bedroom residential units for homeless families. The proposal includes the exterior walls to be re-decorated and made good, replacement windows and a new communal entrance lobby.

Ms Brooke Pride was present at the meeting and summarised the report.

Cllr Russell, Ward Councillor, was present at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Ms McAllister, Project Lead, was present at the meeting and spoke on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application.

Cllr Cloke MOVED and Cllr Bridge SECONDED that the application be APPROVED.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barratt, Bridge, J Cloke, Cuthbert, Fryd, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Laplain, Mynott , Wiles (12)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The application was APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1        TIM01 Standard Time - Full

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        DRA01A       Development in accordance with drawings

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.

Reason:  In Order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

Informative(s)

1

Reason for approval: The proposal would accord with the relevant policies of the development plan as set out below.  The Council has had regard to the concerns expressed by residents but the matters raised are not sufficient to justify the refusal of permission.

2

The following development plan policies contained in the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 are relevant to this decision: CP1, T2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 and NPPG 2014.            

3

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

This application had been referred to Planning and Licensing Committee as the applicant and owner of the building/land is Brentwood Borough Council.

The proposal sought to remove internal partitions between existing shops to create one single shop unit with alterations to shop fronts, installation of a ramp to the rear elevation, raise flat roof to the rear of the store and minor alterations to include the infilling of existing openings at 2-8A Harewood Road, Pilgrims Hatch, Brentwood.

Mr Daryl Cook was present at the meeting and summarised the report.

There were no Ward Councillors present at the meeting.

A statement from Mr Chris Edge was read on behalf of the applicant in support of the application:

“Dear Chair and members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you through this statement. This statement has been prepared by Chris Edge of Pegasus Planning, the planning consultant instructed by the Co-operative Group on this and many other planning applications across the country.

The Co-op have a rolling programme to extend and modernise their existing portfolio of food stores across the country alongside an acquisition programme to find new stores.

Their food store at Pilgrims Hatch is in need of a refit and the last one was almost 10 years ago. This is to bring it in line with customer and staff expectations for a modern convenience store. In such circumstances, the Co-op will look to see if an extension to their food store is an appropriate course of action, rather than simply refitting it. In this case, given the availability of the two adjacent shop units, the Co-op has taken the decision to acquire these units and extend into them to create a modern convenience store with a wider range of products and a more attractive retail offer.

The proposed extension will deliver modern energy efficient lighting and refrigeration as well as wider aisles to improve mobility for all users. The new store will deliver an additional 100 square metres of sales area, allowing the Co-op to sell a wider range of goods, and the larger back of house area will allow more stock to be held, improving availability and providing better conditions for Co-op colleagues. Taken together, the proposed development will allow the community to do more of their shopping locally and hopefully attract more footfall to this area.

The change of use of the two shop units proposed does not constitute development and the planning application seeks consent only for the external works necessary to facilitate the extension. These works are limited to shopfront works, and other minor alterations to the rear. There is a separate application pending for plant to the rear as well as an application for advertisement consent.

As such, the proposed development is minor and uncontentious and would ordinarily have been dealt with under officer delegated powers. However, in this case the applicant is Brentwood Borough Council and the Council's constitution requires that in these circumstances, planning applications are always dealt with at planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

This application was for a proposed redevelopment comprising of the construction of 15 detached dwellings, new access, retention of woodland, provision of new footpath and landscaping.

The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Parker.

Mrs Caroline Corrigan was present at the Committee and summarised the report.

A statement from Ms Griffiths was read by the Chair objecting to the application:

“The reasons I feel that this planning application should be rejected are listed below.

No valid very special circumstances have been presented. The argument that it is an eyesore is subjective and if you visit the site, you will see what a wonderful, good job Mother Nature has done at restoring the area. Fly tipping can be equally prevented by CCTV. Previous use as landfill and multiple enforcement issues and blatant disregard for planning laws seems a strange thing to reward as a special circumstance for residential development to be granted on Green Belt. Note that the latest planning application in 2009 concluded the same. 

The proposed redevelopment is significantly larger than the footprint that the current illegal structures cover (equivalent to at least a 20 fold increase of the bulk on the site). The primary use of this land was Agricultural (evidenced by both the planning history and this land still had horses, pigs and chickens until the owner passed in 2016) which shouldn’t give rise to special circumstances to develop beyond the existing footprint. The Size of the dwellings (>5k square foot) and the associated price tag does not aid the Brentwood Local Plan where the Council’s latest SHMA indicates that the greatest need for Market housing is two bedroom units. There is also no Affordable Housing provisioned. The Local Development Plan already has an allocation (RH34) only 600m from this Site which has a provision for 30 houses on Green Belt land. The applicant has also made no attempt to address the additional strain on local resources when considering this redevelopment

The size of the proposed dwellings is also not in keeping with that of properties in Doddinghurst. The average property in Doddinghurst (and Brentwood) a is 3bed dwelling 1000-1500 sqft in size. Therefore these are not ‘modest’ but in fact not in keeping with the size, character or appearance of those in its vicinity. 

In regards to the argument that the development needing to be this size for the developer to make a profit, the effect of the value of your property is not considered relevant when commenting on planning applications, so I argue that the profitability of the proposed development is also not relevant. The applicants acceptable profit is subjective, £1 is still profit!

The size and scale of this development will take years to complete, subjecting local residents to years of noise and disruption which will undoubtedly have an impact on their enjoyment of their property and their quality of life, especially at weekends.

Dagwood Lane is a single track carriageway that is not designed for high volumes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

This application related to the residential redevelopment of the former garden centre site.  The proposal would remove the remaining buildings and erect six detached dwellings.  Access to the site would remain from North Drive. As originally submitted, the proposal would also have involved the replacement of a single dwelling along the Rayleigh Road frontage with two dwellings, though that part of the scheme had been omitted at the applicant’s request.

This application had been referred to committee at the request of Councillor Hossack for reasons set out in the report.

Mr Mike Ovenden was present at the meeting and summarised the report.

Cllr Hossack, Ward Cllr, submitted a statement in support of the application which was read by the Chair.

The Chair read a statement from Mr and Mrs Laut objecting to the application:

          PARKING

This proposal includes a total of 24 bedrooms and yet only allows for 12 resident car parking slots. Our concern is that residents and visitors will cause an obstruction by parking along North Drive or in front of our house in Rayleigh Road.

BOUNDARIES

The plans show that a new 1.8mtr fence will be built all around the site. 

All of the boundaries around 634 are ours - as documented in our pre-purchase searches by the original owners of this site.

We have a high decorative brick wall to the north of our property that matches our hard landscaping.  We will not authorise the loss of our wall.

Special care needs to be taken when doing works near our north boundary wall.  We would expect any damage to be repaired by the developer’s insurance.

OVERLOOKING

We are pleased to see that proposed plot 6 does not have any windows directly overlooking us at 634. We’d like it included in the conditions that no further windows could be added.

LIGHTING

The plans say that each property will have its own lighting. Please can a condition be made that their lights don’t shine onto our property.

PROPERTIES

We feel that this is too dense a development for Havering’s Grove. Currently the area enjoys long frontages, substantial houses and large gardens.  To retain the feeling of our village this site should have no more than 3 properties rather than the 6 proposed.

Additionally, the proposed height of the houses will be visible from our garden and our house. With the proposed garden centre development, the building was tucked behind our games room so not obtrusive.

AMENITIES

The plans show a bin store. We don’t think this is necessary and it could encourage rats.

OUR GAMES ROOM

The eastern end of the northern wall of our games room is covered by the existing garden centre building.  We envisage that when the garden centre building is removed that portion of the wall may need rendering as it will no longer be protected.

Also, when building works commence for plot 6, including their fence, special care must be taken not to cause damage, such as cracks, in our building. Any such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

This application had been referred to Committee in accordance with the Constitution due to the development being of a particularly significant scale.

The site is in two parts 1) south of Eagle Way and 2) north of Eagle Way. In total it measures 5.29 hectares.  It forms part of the land holding formerly owned by Ford and operated as its UK headquarters, until it left the site in 2019. The ownership of the southern site has since been subdivided and its redevelopment is being taken on by two developers. The main HQ building opened in the mid 1960’s, its large formal green in front of the HQ building, and the former employees’ car parking is being developed by Land Charter. It is carrying out the residential conversion of the main HQ building, plus seven additional units on the roof, with limited areas of new building adjacent to that building – terrace at the rear and 13 dwellings adjacent Clive Road. The redevelopment of the rest of the site, both to the north and to the south of Eagle Way, is subject to this application and is proposed by Fairview New Homes.

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

“Fairview are proud to present their proposals on this important emerging site allocation. Fairview strongly believe the new proposals represent a considered and high quality design response, that

accommodates the principles of the emerging Local Plan. In particular the scheme embraces the emerging policies in terms of sustainable development and represents an exciting scheme of new homes, public and semi-public spaces and a care home facility within an edge of Green Belt setting.

The evolution of the scheme has adopted a design-led approach, and has been influenced by discussions with officers, members and interested parties, such as Trailnet and the Design Review Panel.

The scheme before you has addressed the key points raised in respect to design, public realm sustainability, parking and energy and provides 133 new homes in a range of sizes from 1 bed

apartments to 4 bed houses and an outline permission for a 60-65 bed care home facility.

A new square is proposed on the northern site, which provides a strong focal point for the development. It is a key area that connects the site to the Keys Hall Local Centre, and plays a complementary role by adding landscaping, pedestrian accessibility and seating.

The County Council are content with the proposals and have not raised any objections. The existing zebra crossing across Eagle Way will be converted into a Pelican crossing. A new zebra crossing will be

provided across The Drive to the west of the northern parcel. This will improve the safety and

connectivity between the sites as well as the local centre. The car parking provision is supported by an

Integrated Transport Strategy including:

• implementing a Travel Plan;

• providing a car club;

• Active and Passive charging spaces are provided for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

There were no items of urgent business.

The meeting concluded at 23:20