Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Members’ Update circulated prior to the meeting provided the following information:

·                 Amendment to paragraphs 3.1.5 and 3.1.7 of the report;

·                 Information regarding approval of pre-commencement conditions (section 5.15 of the report)

·                 Further consultation response had been received from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council.

·                 An additional letter of objection received from a neighbouring occupier.

Following the Officers’ presentation Mr Butler-Finbow, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker, Leader of the Council, proposed that the Officers’ recommendation as set out in the report be agreed.  This was duly seconded.

Following an exchange between herself and the Chairman of the Council regarding Procedure Rule 8(4) – Content and length of speeches, Councillor Miss M R Lewis requested that her disgust at the Chairman’s attitude to a request she had made be Minuted.

A number of concerns were raised regarding the size of the proposed garages and the annexe accommodation above them.  The Lead Specialist Place clarified that the garages were as per the previous application approved and although they did not accord with the Council’s Parking Standards (recently amended) they could be built as proposed without needing planning permission.

In response to a question regarding letting out the annexe accommodation above the proposed garages, the Lead Specialist Place advised that this could occur but there was a proposed condition which required that the use of the annexe accommodation remain ancillary to the main dwelling.

Councillor S J Savage declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business as he had a garage and someone else’s house was above it.

The Lead Specialist Place informed the Council the extant permission meant that the garages could be built out at any time with the same shortfall in policy this was a material consideration and held substantial weight.  In his opinion the Officer advised that it was not possible to demonstrate harm by this shortfall.

Following further debate the Chairman put the Officers’ recommendation as proposed by Councillor Fluker and upon a vote being taken this motion was declared lost.  The Chairman then sought a proposal for refusal.

Councillor B E Harker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendations, because it failed to meet the Council’s adopted parking standards of the Local Plan as the depth of the garages was only 6.1m and 7m contrary to the Local Plan.  This proposal was duly seconded.

The Chairman asked the Lead Specialist Place to comment on whether this was a valid material consideration for a reason for refusal and reminded Members of need to have valid reasons for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 980