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

Apologies had been received from Cllrs Gelderbloem and Dr Barrett.  Cllrs Barber and Barrett were substituting.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 21^st November 2023 were agreed as a true record.

The Chair MOVED and Cllr Cuthbert SECONDED a motion to vary the order of the Agenda and bring Item 4, Land East of Nags Head Lane, before Item 3.  This was RESOLVED by Members.

This report included a summary of reasons why the application was deferred at July Planning Committee and how these matters have been addressed.

The list of drawings and supporting documents and the conditions and s.106 Heads of Terms provided are a comprehensive list and supersede those in previous reports.

Ms Fiona Dunning presented the report to Members.

Mr Mike Baker spoke on behalf of Mascalls Gardens Residents’ Association outlining their reasons why they remained opposed to the application.

The Committee then heard from Mr Barney Orr, Crest Nicholson, supporting the application and the further measures undertaken to improve the application, following its deferral.

Cllr Kendall, not a member of the Committee or Ward Councillor, spoke in his capacity of knowledge of the area and having liaised with residents. He gave his reasons for opposing the application which included loss of privacy, inadequate open space, lack of infrastructure and insufficient S106 contributions.

Cllr Munden, Ward Councillor, thanked Crest Nicholson for their engagement, and echoed many of Cllr Kendall’s points, however, he disagreed with the Highways Authority that there is no severe impact on the safety and efficiency of the local highway network.

Many members raised concerns regarding the highway and the extra burden of traffic at Brook Street.  As the Highways Authority could not be present at the meeting Ms. Dunning read out a statement from Essex Highways clarifying their position.

[Essex Highways Statement:?]

Cllr Mynott, although sympathising with residents, spoke in support of the application recognising the improvements made since the application was deferred.

A motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr M Cuthbert.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Barrett, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Mynott (5)

AGAINST: Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Mrs Francois, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Mrs Murphy (7)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was LOST.

Cllr Barrett MOVED and Cllr Gorton SECONDED a motion to DEFER the application. 

Following advice from officers and further discussion this motion was withdrawn.

A motion to REFUSE the application was MOVED by Cllr Barber and SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Mrs Francois, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Mrs Murphy (7)

AGAINST: Cllrs Barrett, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Mynott (5)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to REFUSE the application was CARRIED.

This application had been referred to Committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Olivia Francois and Cllr Ben Rigby for the following reasons:

‘Following a recent refusal, the applicant has now looked to decrease the ridge height thus not creating a first floor to include dormer and instead look to create a single story ground floor front and rear extension. The height and bulk which was argued would result in the building becoming overbearing in comparison to neighbouring buildings has been amended. No windows will be facing neighbouring properties so no risk of loss of privacy. The height of the existing roof will not be altered. This property would still be in keeping with neighbouring properties. I do not think that the proposed extension would be harmful to the openness of the green belt. There are multiple properties on this road which have all benefited from added development.’

‘The applicant has put forward plans, on a single story basis, which I believe are in keeping with both the character and style of Havering’s Grove. In this instance, I feel given the previous planning history, and the clear willingness to comply with planning regulations, the Committee must take a view and in doing so enable Members to rule on the application. I do not believe the officer’s report has taken into consideration the considerable efforts at compliance with the objections raised at previously refused applications, while I believe the single storey elements that have been suggested in replacement of increasing the ridge height, alongside the Local Plan Policy MG02 and the NPPF, are appropriate both for the property and for the specific area. No neighbour objections have been received, despite the impacts on the property, which have been minimised and any overbearing features are tolerable as a result. The refusal, therefore, strikes me as something on which members must take a view as to whether the extent of the development genuinely amounts to significant harm to the Green Belt and non-compliance with the standards above, or not, and whether those standards need to evolve for single-story buildings in Havering's Grove accordingly.’

Ms Georgia Taylor presented the report. 

The Applicant, Mr Blewitt, addressed the Committee in support of his application.

Cllr Rigby spoke as Ward Councillor outlining the reasons for referral.

Cllr Mrs Francois also spoke as Ward Councillor in support of the application and advised the Committee as she had referred the application she would not be voting.

Whilst some members agreed with the reasons for referral other members considered inappropriate development in the green belt which they believed should be protected.

Following a full discussion a motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Barber and SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Mrs Murphy (6)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Barrett, M Cuthbert, Mrs M Cuthbert, Gorton, Mynott (5)

ABSTAIN (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED.

[Cllr Mrs Francois left the meeting following this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

The application had been reported to the Planning Committee in accordance with the requirementsof the Council’s constitution.

Ms Brooke Pride presented the report.

Mr Thomas Clarkson was presented and spoke in support of the application on behalf of the Applicant.  Members thanked Mr Clarkson for his attendance.

Members favoured the proposal of a multi-use mast.

Following a full discussion a motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Bridge and SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs Barber, Barrett, Bridge, Mrs N Cuthbert, Heard, McCheyne, Murphy.

AGAINST:  Cllrs M Cuthbert, Gorton, Munden, Mynott (4)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED.

The application is reported to the Planning Committee in accordance with the

requirements of the Council’s constitution.

Ms Brooke Pride recommended the report.

Following a full discussion Cllr M Cuthbert MOVED and Cllr Mynott SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs Barber, Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Murphy, Mynott (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The application is reported to the Planning Committee in accordance with the

requirements of the Council’s Constitution. The site and building in question are Council owned and the applicant is Brentwood Borough Council (c/o Adrian Tidbury).

Ms Brooke Pride presented the report.

Following a short discussion Cllr McCheyne MOVED and Cllr Mynott SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs Barber, Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Murphy, Mynott (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The application relates to a Council owned building and is therefore to be

determined by the Planning Committee.

Ms Georgia Taylor presented the report.

Following a full discussion Cllr Barber MOVED and Cllr McCheyne SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs Barber, Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Heard, McCheyne, Munden, Murphy, Mynott (11)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

This report provided the committee with a summary of recent planning appeal

decisions in the borough. It forms part of a regular series of updates for information.

Mrs Corrigan summarised the report.

Following a short discussion members noted the report.

The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA), consisting of 12 local planning authorities across Essex, including Brentwood, has prepared guidance on the updated Essex Parking Standards. Parking Standards are referred to in local plans and the Essex County Council Local Transport Plan. The guidance sets parking for different vehicle types, design and location, dimensions for parking and a suggested quantum for different types of development.

A consultation on the draft document commenced on 16 October and will conclude on 4 December 2023.

The current Essex Parking Standards guidance (EPOA) was approved by Brentwood Borough Council in 2009. Therefore, it requires an update as there have been changes in planning legislation and policy, the introduction of Garden Communities, and a greater awareness of the need to manage the impact of developments on local communities and the environment.

Mr Quilter summarised the report.

Cllr Mynott MOVED the recommendations in the report.  This was SECONDED by Cllr Cuthbert.

Members voted by show of hands and it was RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that Members:

          1.       Approve the response to the Essex Parking Standards

consultation, as set out in Appendix A

Reason for Recommendation

The council as local planning authority should respond to planning guidance

proposals by seeking to improve content or query issues. In this case, the

proposed response seeks to do so before a finalised version of the Essex

Parking Standards is published. At that point, it will be for the council to

decide whether this planning guidance is adopted or not.

The proposed consultation response (Appendix A) provides general support

for the new parking standards and focuses on specific amendments

consisting of:

a) Flexibility on the maximum parking standards may be needed,

considering the diverse neighbourhood, village, town centre, and city

size and population across the county;

b) Consideration of alternative bicycle storage to improve security and

reduce bicycle theft;

c) Ensuring the most up to date EV charging types and power and

increased future proofing of this infrastructure; and

d) Changes to the colour codes used in Maps 1-3 in Part 2 to make it

more user friendly.

There were no items of urgent business.

                                                            The meeting concluded at 21:40