https://youtube.com/live/e1t760Msnuc?feature=share

Apologies had been received from Cllrs Mrs Francois and Heard.  Cllrs Mrs Marsh and Barber were substituting respectively.

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

This application had been referred to Planning Committee by Councillor Gareth Barrett for the following reasons:

This application conflicts with strategic policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan, specifically:

1. e. respond positively and sympathetically to their context and build upon existing strengths and characteristics, and where appropriate, retain or enhance existing features which make a positive contribution to the character, appearance or significance of the local area (including natural and heritage assets);

i. avoid unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy;

j. safeguard the living conditions of future occupants of the development and adjacent residents.

Further the Town Centre Design Guide states for the Brentwood Station area where this site is located that:

- Scale, massing and architectural style

- Respect the scale, proportions and style of adjacent and surrounding buildings and ensure that proposals respond appropriately to this context.

- Ensure that building height is in-keeping with the surrounding townscape. The exact height is subject to the site specific location and must be discussed in the preapplication process. Taller buildings are acceptable along the railway and around the station, but where new development is adjacent to existing low rise buildings, the proposed heights should respect this scale.

It is in conflict with policy BE13: Parking Standards, with justifications for this position not sufficient. Given restrictions on local parking permits and that the location is at capacity, new residents would not be able to access any parking nearby.

The Brentwood Town Centre Design Guide states that for this area:

- Ensure any parking is well designed and integrated into the public realm proposals and provide an appropriate quantum of parking subject to parking surveys and local need.

That justifications for the lack of affordable housing are not sufficient and in breach of policy HP05.

The supplementary Brentwood Town Centre Design Guide, highlights that developments respect the scale, proportions and style of adjacent buildings and respond appropriately to context.

This development will be overbearing on two Victorian streets of terraced housing, inappropriately moves the boundary of building of a significantly greater height from Kings Road into the wider community of Gresham Road and King Edward Road.

Overall, by scale, massing, overlooking, impact on privacy, lack both of car parking and affordable housing provision, and the inappropriate context of the height of the application in the wider setting of King Edward Road and Gresham Road.

Ms Julia Sargeant presented the report to Members.

Mr Sam Mullender was present at the meeting and spoke objecting to the application.

Mr Mark Thomson addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application.

Cllr Barrett, Ward Councillor, was present and summarised his reasons for referral.

Cllr Dr Barrett also spoke, objecting to the application for reasons including lack of parking, no affordable housing provision, loss of sunlight and out of context with surrounding area.

A motion to REFUSE the application was MOVED by Cllr Dr Barrett and SECONDED by Cllr Mynott.

Following a full discussion Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

This application is a Brentwood Borough Council planning application and had been referred to Committee as per the constitution.

Miss Brooke Pride presented the report.                                                             

Following discussion a motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Cuthbert.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Mrs Gelderbloem, Gorton, Mrs Marsh, McCheyne, Munden, Murphy, Mynott (12)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

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

Ms Emma Doyle presented the report to Members.

Mr Ian Ellingworth was present at the meeting and spoke objecting to the application.

The Committee also heard from Mr Phil Barrett on behalf of Great Warley Conservation Society and their reasons for objecting to the application.

Ms Caroline McDade, Agent, spoke on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application.

The Committee also heard from Ward Cllr Laplain who spoke supporting the objections made by residents and Great Warley Conservation Society regarding the impact this development would have on the village.

Ms Paulette McAllister confirmed to Members that due processes had been taken on behalf of Heritage England and although there would be impact to Great Warley, they are satisfied that the harm would be less than substantial.

Officers also confirmed that the Lower Thames Crossing had been taken into account along with the proposed development, and that both schemes benefited each other.

Members raised concerns regarding nighttime lighting and what could be put in place to mitigate the evasive glare.  Also whether mature trees could be used for screening to speed up the process.

Following a full discussion a motion to APPROVE to grant Full Planning Permission subject to Conditions and Completion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene was MOVED by Cllr Barber and SECONDED by Cllr Mynott.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Barber, Dr Barrett, Bridge, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Mrs Gelderbloem, Gorton, Mrs Marsh, McCheyne, Munden, Mynott (11)

AGAINST:  (0)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Murphy (1)

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

It was agreed verbally, and not contained within the report or addendum, that £6,760 for a ECC Monitoring fee in respect of Travel Plan (Plus relevant indexation) was agreed as an extra Head of Term to be added to the S106 agreement.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Chair took this opportunity to thank Mr Drane for his work and dedication over the years and to wish him all the best in his new journey.

                                                            The meeting concluded at 10.30