Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Place, Planning and Growth, (copy enclosed).

It was noted from the written Addendum circulated prior to the meeting that there had been amendments to paragraphs 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.5.1 and to consultee comments. Insertion of section 106 clauses and amendments to condition 5.

Further to this a verbal addendum was provided highlighting a typographical error in the report at 5.12.13 which states ‘transport assessment does project a significant increase to traffic to Colchester road’ which should read as ‘does not’. Essex County Council (ECC) had provided additional comments stating that they maintain their previous comments including the financial contributions listed in the Committee report. Four further letters of representation from the public had been received with no new material planning considerations. Finally, a letter had been received earlier in the day from a local Member of Parliament objecting to the scheme which had not added any new material planning considerations.

The Officer then presented the report.

Following this an Objector Andrew Gilbert, Tollesbury Parish Councillor Caroline Page and the Agent Rhys Bradshaw addressed the Committee.

A Lengthy discussion ensued between Members and Officers, with Officers providing the following information:

·                The Council did not currently have a five-year housing land supply, so the tilted balance was applied. They advised that, under the NPPF, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Officers confirmed their recommendation was based on national and local planning policy, recent appeal decisions and the evidence before the Committee.

·                Cumulative impact had been considered, but the weight given depended on the status of other schemes. The approved Obsidian scheme was given moderate weight because the Section 106 was still ongoing. The Gladman appeal scheme was given very limited weight because it had not yet been determined. He said cumulative effects had to be considered topic by topic, such as highways, infrastructure and landscape.

·                The proposal would result in the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land. However, they gave this limited weight, reflecting recent appeal decisions where similar or greater agricultural land loss had been given limited weight.

·                Highway assessments were based on traffic surveys and modelling reviewed by the Highway Authority. The officer stated that even with cumulative development scenarios, Essex Highways considered key junctions to remain within acceptable operating levels. Concerns about parked cars and local congestion were acknowledged, but the officer advised these had not been identified by statutory consultees as not substantial enough to justify refusal.

·                The applicant had submitted a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5