This report is an addendum to the reports submitted to Planning Committee in July and November 2023.

At the November Planning Committee meeting it was resolved to refuse the above application based on highway safety grounds. The application was viewed as being contrary to Policy BE12: Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development,  point 1, which states ‘Developments must not have an unacceptable impact on the transport network in terms of highway safety, capacity and congestion’, due to the new access road being near a blind bend with no speed warnings or turning signs and the proposed visibility splays not enough to warn drivers.

Officers drafted a reason for refusal and, in accordance with Part 5.2, Part B paragraph 7.7 of the Constitution, shared the draft reason with the Chair of the Planning Committee. The Chair of Planning Committee requested officers share the draft reason with the Members who moved and seconded the motion to refuse the application. This was to ensure the draft reason for refusal fully covered their concerns. It became evident, in sharing the officers’ draft reason for refusal, that the Committee in reaching its decision did not have all the facts on the speed limit of Nags Head Lane and this was material to the decision. For this reason, a decision could not be issued. The planning application is now referred back to Planning Committee for consideration of the application in its entirety.

Ms Fiona Dunning presented the report.

Mr Soni Sunger, objector, addressed the Committee. 

The Committee then heard from Ms Kate Caruso representing Mascalls Gardens Residents’ Association and their reasons for objecting to the application. 

Mr Barnaby Orr, Crest Nicholson, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Cllr Russell, not a member of the Committee, spoke in opposition to the application outlining specific concerns including landscaping, visual impact, ridge heights and traffic issues. 

Cllr Kendall, also not a member of the Committee, spoke addressing his concerns including issues with Brentwood Gateway, overcrowding of homes and lack of appropriate infrastructure and services. 

Ward Councillor Munden, also raised his concerns regarding the application in particular the over-cramming of homes, negative visual impact to residents and traffic impact on Nags Head Lane and Brook Street.

The Council’s legal representative, Mr Michael Rhimes, clarified the reasons for the application’s return to Committee, advising it was lawful under the Constitution and should be determined on the basis of planning grounds and with an open mind.

Mr Brendan Johnston, Essex Council Highways, advised Members that a safety audit had been undertaken with findings of no significant issues.  Other safety aspects such as speeding had been investigated and evidence suggests speeding is not an issue in this location. No objections have been raised to the scheme by Essex Highways, National Highways and Brentwood’s own Transport Consultants considered that it could be delivered without a major impact.  A further safety audit would be carried out by Essex Highways, should the application be approved where signage and other aspects would be reviewed.

It was confirmed that the proposal did not include a 30mph speed limit on Nags Head Lane.

Following a full discussion a short adjournment took place for officers to respond to a query regarding Policy BE09 covering  roads both on and offsite.

On recommencement of the meeting, Mr Rhimes clarified to Members the test on refusal on behalf of traffic grounds, that an unacceptable impact on highways safety or severe impact on road network would need to be demonstrated. Rigorous testing carried out by the statutory consultee, Essex County Council Highways, had found no indication of this.  Mr Rhimes also explained S278, and advised it is usual in planning applications that the detail is considered later, and the S278 Agreement allows for the Local Authority to effect changes in the highway outside the red line of the planning application.  The application has been reviewed and deemed safe, and further details will be effected later, should the application be approved.

Mr Quilter confirmed that Policy BE09 covers road safety both on and off site. 

Regarding concerns of Members as to the number of homes planned within the site, it was confirmed that around 125 homes were allocated in the Local Development Plan, and the application provides this number. Exceptionally strong reasons would need to be identified for refusal under those grounds.

Following a full discussion 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 follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, M Cuthbert, Mrs N Cuthbert, Gorton, Laplain, Mynott (6)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Mrs Gelderbloem, Barber, Murphy (3)

ABSTAIN: Cllrs Bridge, Mrs Francois, McCheyne (3)

The Motion to APPROVE was CARRIED.  The application was APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report.

Members requested that Ward Councillors be kept informed of the S278 Agreement, when appropriate.

[Cllr Mrs Francois left the meeting after this application.]