Apologies had been received from Cllrs Fryd and Jakobsson.  Cllrs Sankey and Hones were substitutes respectively.

The Minutes of the last meeting held on 28^th June 2022 were agreed as a true record.

The application had been referred at the request of Cllr McLaren for the following reason:

Resident has put forward a proposal which in volumetric terms is similar to what has been approved under PD for a single story extension. The proposal is modest in scale and further development could be constrained through removal of further PD rights. I can only assume that it has been refused on basis of being inappropriate development in the green belt, as from a street scene / scale perspective it is more modest than other schemes which have previously been approved. Any impact on the green belt, e.g.

openness, is subjective and I believe should be open to question by the planning committee. Note that even in it's proposed form the property does not meet the residents housing need.

Mrs Vint presented the report to the committee.

Ms Bland, resident, was present at the meeting and addressed the committee in support of the application.

Mr Driscoll, Agent, was also present and spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The Chair also read a statement from Ward Councillor, Cllr McLaren, in support of his referral.

Cllr Parker spoke in favour of the application and MOVED that the application be APPROVED, which was SECONDED by Cllr Bridge.

Cllr Parker requested that future permitted development rights be withdrawn.  Officers confirmed a condition could be applied in exceptional circumstances.  This condition was enforceable and had been tested.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Gelderbloem, Hones, Parker, Tanner, Wiles (7)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Cuthbert, Laplain, Mynott, Sankey (5)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the following conditions agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair following the meeting:

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 documents 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          U0047283    

No development above ground shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

4          U0047285    

No development shall take place, including any ground works or demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Plan shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

The application had been referred at the request of Cllr Heard for the following

reason:

The developer has spent the last 3 to 4 years obtaining highways approval / working with the church and diocese to agree an extension to the church car park to increase parking for both the church and the school. In addition they have worked with the local badger protection group to avoid harm to the protected species, and addressed the drainage issues as currently the existing buildings are not connected to mains drainage.

So it is clear that a lot of work has been going on behind the scenes. The developer would welcome the opportunity to show the committee the project and for them to make a decision on the development.

The overall area is approximately 2 acres and this is a very low density project which would provide much needed accommodation to local residents. Another critical point is that enhanced parking for the church will stop people parking on the road which can become hazardous.

Mrs Vint presented the application to the committee, which included amendments to the agenda by way of;

An additional neighbour comment raising concerns regarding the proposed access and highway safety for users of the Church Car Park;

Clarification on the description of the proposal in the comments from the Historic Buildings and Conservation Officer, from 7 dwellings proposed to 6;

Page 55 of the agenda, the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant were identified as the first paragraph and first sentence under housing demand and community asset, with the remaining being officer’s assessment.

A statement of objection from Mr Jones was read by the Chair.

Mr Willis, Agent for the applicant, addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant.

Cllr Aspinell, County Councillor, addressed the committee and welcomed the application as it highlighted the current parking issues and highways danger in the area.

Cllr Heard, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in support of his referral and the need for more family homes in the area.

Cllr Tanner spoke in favour of the application adding the new car parking was a generous offer. 

Cllr Tanner MOVED and Cllr Gelderbloem SECONDED that the application be APPROVED.

Some members raised concerns that the character of the buildings was not in keeping with the surrounding area and no very special circumstances for building in the green belt.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Gelderbloem, Hones, Parker, Tanner, Wiles (6)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cuthbert, Laplain, Mynott, Sankey (6)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The Chair took the deciding vote and the motion to APPROVE the application was LOST.

A vote was then taken to REFUSE the application and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cuthbert, Laplain, Mynott, Sankey (6)

AGAINST: Cllrs Barber, Gelderbloem, Hones, Parker, Tanner, Wiles (6)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The Chair took the deciding vote and the motion to REFUSE the application in accordance with the recommendation was RESOLVED.

This application had been referred to committee at the discretion of the Corporate Director - Planning and Economy - as a major application that is likely to be of interest to the committee.

Mr Ovenden presented the application to the committee.

Mrs Burgess, resident, addressed the committee opposing the application.

Mr Greest, resident, spoke supporting the application.

Ms Beaney, addressed the committee on behalf of Great Warley Conservation Society opposing the application.

The Agent, Mr Jeffrey, spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Cllr Cuthbert, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee raising concerns of detriment to the green belt, and MOVED that the application be REFUSED, this was SECONDED by Cllr Laplain.

Members commented that they saw very little change from the previous application which had been refused by committee.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Bridge, Cuthbert, Laplain, Mynott, Sankey (6)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barber, Gelderbloem, Hones, Parker, Tanner, Wiles (6)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The Chair had the deciding vote  The motion to REFUSE the application in accordance with the recommendation was RESOLVED.

This application has been referred to the Planning and Licensing Committee at the request of Cllr Sarah Cloke for the following reasons:

In the planning statement associated with this application the developer cites (policy) BE14 in our new LDP and reminds us that developments should safeguard the living conditions of future occupants. However, they fail to cite the full statement which is item J of BE14: safeguard the living conditions of future occupants of the developmentand adjacent residents.

The alterations to the development disregard the living conditions of adjacent residents as follows:

1. Relocation of bin store and bike shed now mean these elements of the development will abut directly onto the rear of 2 Fairfield Road. Planned tree planting to form a barrier seems to have been removed from between the store and 2 Fairfield Road from what I can discern of the plans. We believe the adjustments should retain a planted barrier and in LDP 8.45 it states Trees, woodlands, hedges and hedgerows, wherever appropriate, should be incorporated within a landscape scheme. Since this was incorporated before it is unacceptable this has now been removed/downscaled. Furthermore, the noise and disruption of residents from 20 apartments entering the binstore regularly should not be underestimated. An alternative location should be soughtand if not available measures to prevent door noise and transmission of smells into adjacent neighbours should be taken.

2. The reduction of car parking spaces from 14 to 12 is also unacceptable. The plan was originally approved for 12 apartments with 14 spaces, now 20 apartments with 12 spaces. Despite proximity to the train station, it is likely more than 50% of residents (even assuming only 1 adult per apartment which seems unlikely will want to park cars, not to mention visitors etc. Fairfield road is a narrow cul-de-sac that already suffers from antisocial parking issues that will only be worsened by this step. Recently a fire engine was not able to access the street to attend to an emergency. The LDP part 5.111 states "b. the type of development (fringe site, infill site, etc.) - infill sites are much more likely to be located in areas with existing travel patterns, behaviours and

existing controls, and may be less flexible" This small street has already seen huge over development around it with no consideration to the ever-worsening access issues that existing residents are suffering.

Mr Cook presented the application to committee which included amendments to the published report (namely, drawing number revisions and additional and revised conditions).

A statement was read by the Chair from Ms Cook, resident, objecting to the application.

Ms Marrocco, Agent for the applicant, addressed the committee.

Cllr Cloke, Ward Councillor, spoke regarding significant access issues in the area, but was pleased that the reasons for her referral had been addressed by the developer, namely planting between the bin store and street area, soft closing doors to minimise noise and the 2 additional parking spaces.

Cllr Bridge MOVED and Cllr Barber SECONDED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

This application had been submitted on behalf of Cala Homes, for the erection of 57 dwellings (including 20 affordable dwellings) accessed from Roman Road, together with associated highway works, landscaping, utilities, drainage infrastructure and parking.

Ms Williams presented the report.

Mr Angus, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant, Cala Homes.

Members thanked Ms Williams for a thorough and comprehensive report and presentation.

Members raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of 3 storey buildings among surrounding bungalows and 2 storey buildings.  Also, another major issue is with regard to air quality and noise given the proximity to the A12 and the proposed siting of the children’s playground.

Members also commented that the site was within the LDP, recommended by officers and conditions thoughtfully applied.

Cllr Tanner MOVED and Cllr Hones SECONDED that the application be APPROVED.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, Gelderbloem, Hones, Laplain, Parker, Tanner, Wiles (9)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Mynott, Sankey (3)

ABSTAIN:  (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

[Cllr Bridge declared a non-pecuniary interest as he lives near the site]

[Cllr Sankey declared a non-pecuniary interest as Parish Councillor for Fryerning and Ingatestone Parish Council]