Live broadcast to commence at 7pm and available for  repeated viewing.

Apologies were received by Cllr Gelderbloem and Cllr Dr Barrett.  Cllrs Barber and G Barrett were substituting respectively.

The Minutes of the last meeting held on 20^th February 2024 were agreed as a true record, with the addition of Cllr Munden listed as “in attendance”.

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

The documents for the South and West elevation and North and East elevation show a proposed increase in the size of the development that will impact on the privacy of properties nearby. The car parking planned for the development is a 14 space carpark which will not meet the demands for a care home of this size. Potentially creating parking issues on the roads surrounding Brookes House.

Ms Julia Sargeant presented the report.

Mr Joe Swallow was in attendance and spoke opposing to the application for reasons including overwhelming scale, negative impact on surrounding neighbourhood and damage to trees.

Mr Douglas Bond, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application, pointing out the benefits including the amended high quality design, reduction in height and removal of less trees.

Cllr Fulcher, Ward Councill, spoke opposing to the application and reiterating the reasons for referral.

Members enquired about the parking provision. Officers advised that the development fell between two uses defined within the adopted vehicle parking standards (C2 care home and warden assisted retirement developments) with a short-fall of 2-3 spaces for staff car parking and 24 spaces for future occupants at the rate of around 0.44 spaces per unit. However, the location was sustainable and close to the High Street and public car parks as well as the Station. Essex County Council Highways had raised no objections.

Cllr Mynott raised concerns including contradiction to the Town Centre Design Guide, height and encroachment and MOVED a motion to REFUSE the application. This was SECONDED by Cllr M Cuthbert.

Officers advised that the Town Centre was a “guide” and each application should be determined on its merits. Also density does not equate to massing. The scheme also has to be assessed with regard to the extant permission on site which could be implemented and represents a realistic fallback position.

Following a full discussion a vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs G Barrett, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Munden, Mynott. (5)

AGAINST: Cllrs Bridge, Barber, Mrs Francois, Heard, McCheyne, Mrs Murphy (6)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Gorton (1)

The motion to REFUSE the application was LOST.

A motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Bridge and SECONDED by Cllr McCheyne.

Members voted as follows:

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

AGAINST: Cllrs Munden, Mynott (2)

ABSTAIN: Cllrs G Barrett, M Cuthbert, N Cuthbert, Gorton (4)

The Motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED.

The application was APPROVED subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions outlined in the report.

This application has been scheduled for determination by the Council’s Planning Committee because the land is owned by Brentwood Borough Council and has been submitted by the Council’s Housing Team.

Ms Julia Sargeant presented the report.

Ms Paulette McAlllister spoke on behalf of the Strategic Housing Development Programme in support of the application.

Ward Cllr Fulcher spoke in support of the application commenting that this was important affordable housing for residents.

Members raised concerns regarding the negative biodiversity net gain calculation.

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

Members voted as follows:

FOR: Cllrs M Cuthbert, Munden, Gorton (3)

AGAINST: Cllrs Barber, Bridge, Mrs Francois, Heard, McCheyne, Mrs Murphy (6)

ABSTAIN: Cllrs G Barrett, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton (3)

The motion to DEFER the application was LOST.

Officers advised that it was normal practice to require full details of biodiversity enhancement strategies through a planning condition as they are often linked to soft landscaping details and this is recommended as per condition 9 of the report. This application is not subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain.

A motion was MOVED by Cllr Heard and SECONDED by Cllr Barber to APPROVE the application.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

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

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Mynott (1)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED.

The application was APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report.

This report provides the committee with a summary of recent planning appeal decisions in the borough.

Mrs Corrigan summarised the report.

Following discussion the report was noted.

This report summarises the planning enforcement activity undertaken in Brentwood Borough for the period between 1 October 2022 and 31 January 2024.

Mrs Corrigan summarised the report.

The report was welcomed by Members and noted.

There was no urgent items.

                                                            The meeting concluded at 21.47.