Agenda and minutes

The Chairman drew attention to the list of notices published on the back of the agenda.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor D M Sismey.[1]

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 February 2018 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 February 2018 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, other Pecuniary Interests or Non-Pecuniary Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraphs 6-8 inclusive of the Code of Conduct for Members.

(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).

Councillor Mrs P A Channer CC declared that she was also a Member of Essex County Council and had a non-pecuniary interest in relation to any item on the Agenda pertaining to that authority, including access, highways and education.

Councillor J V Keyes declared that he was also a Member of Great Totham Parish Council and, therefore had a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Agenda Item 5 – FUL/MAL/17/01228 – Poultry Sheds, Moors Farm, Moors Farm Chase, Little Totham, Essex.

Councillor M F L Durham CC declared that he was also a Member of Essex County Council and had a non-pecuniary interest in relation to any Agenda item pertaining to that authority.

The Committee received the reports of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services and determined the following planning applications, having taken into account all representations and consultation replies received, including those listed on the Members’ Update circulated at the meeting.

The Officer presented the report to the Committee and drew attention to the Members’ Update which contained detail of responses received from both the Highways Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority.  The Officer then highlighted details of an email received from the Agent that contained the following:

·         Permission had been given in 2015, but the Officer advised that this was for storage within the buildings only;

·         Section 5.4.4 of the report addressed highways issues;

·         Environmental Health had looked into the issue of noise and this was addressed at section 7.3 of the report;

·         Landscaping had been introduced, but would only offer limited screening.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr P Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

There followed a lengthy debate on this application and Councillor J V Keyes, a Ward Member proposed that this application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  He was of the opinion that the previous use of the site would have involved much more noise, the fence that was there was necessary for security and hedging had been planted to provide screening, it was possible to turn a lorry at the end of the road and the sheds were only to be used to store second hand material.

The proposal was duly seconded.

Members had previously requested that the Applicant provide a more specific application giving greater detail.  The Applicant had complied with that request and Members were minded to approve the application in light of the new application.  It was difficult to refuse when the Applicant had done what Members asked of them.

Members were content to put the contrary motion to a vote, provided there were stringent conditions imposed to protect neighbours and to limit vehicle access.

In response to a question regarding the future use of the site, the Development Management Team Leader confirmed that future use of the site could be changed if it were not a material change of use and this could not be avoided.  All conditions would have to satisfy tests of enforceability.  The Development Management Team Leader reiterated that the reason for recommending refusal was the significant visual impact as the storage exceeded 2m in height, together with the increase in noise.

A question was asked as to the current use of the site and the Development Management Team Leader confirmed that it was B8 use.

Members considered the site to have changed enormously and the Development Management Team Leader advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 857.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1          The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

2          The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 16.3666/P201 Rev B, 16.3666/E101 Rev A, 16.3666/M002 Rev A, 16.3666/P203, 16.3666/P202, 16.3666/M004, 16.3666/M003, 16.3666/M001. 

3          No development shall take place until samples of the facing material to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4          No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works to be carried out have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include the layout of the hard landscaped areas with the materials and finishes to be used and details of the soft landscape works including schedules of shrubs and trees to be planted, noting the species, stock size, proposed numbers/densities and details of the planting scheme's implementation, aftercare and maintenance programme. The hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The soft landscape works shall be carried out as approved within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in its replacement, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.        

5          Details of the siting, height, design and materials of the treatment of all boundaries including gates, fences, walls, railings and piers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The screening as approved shall be constructed prior to the first use/occupation of the development to which it relates and be retained as such thereafter

6          Prior to the commencement of development, details of the surface water schemes to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 858.

The Officer presented the report to the Committee and drew Members’ attention to the Members’ Update which contained details of additional objections received to the application.  The Officer also advised that a further four objections had also been received, together with a letter from the Member of Parliament.  All objections stated that there should have been wider consultation.  However, Officers had made the appropriate consultations that were required.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr Lederman, a Solicitor on behalf of Mr Yardsley, an Objector, of Gun Farm, Maypole Road, Great Totham and Mr Green, the Agent, of Green Planning Studio Ltd both addressed the Committee.

Members raised concerns about this application as the current permission on this site was passed in 2015, but nothing had happened to the site since then.  Members questioned why there was a need for further pitches.  Furthermore, the Council had fulfilled the allocation that the Council was required to provide.  There was, therefore, no outstanding need for travellers.  A question was raised as to whether the applicant would fulfil the definition of a traveller in any event.

This application was debated in some detail by Members and they were of the opinion that the original reasons for refusal were still valid and that an intensification of the application site would make the situation worse.  It was understood that the Planning Inspector on appeal had implied that there should only be one pitch on the site and, whilst there was sympathy with the applicant, the Council should maintain its previous decision.

The Development Management Team Leader advised Members that there was a day room at the site and the use of the land was lawful.  One of the pitches was established and there was no requirement for an Applicant to demonstrate a need for additional pitches.  Officers would recommend a condition that occupants must comply with the definition required should Members be minded to approve this application.  He then advised that significant weight should be given to the findings of the Planning Inspector and that the submission of further applications was not prevented.

In response to a question, the Development Management Team Leader advised that visual impact was inherent with development and that whether that was harmful was a matter of judgment.  In relation to this application, Officers considered that the expansion could be accommodated without causing material harm.

Councillor J V Keyes,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 859.

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr C Howell, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.

Members were in favour of this application and understood it to be a sympathetic infilling to the existing building.  The Applicant’s neighbour had spoken at the Parish Council meeting and thoroughly approved of the application.

Councillor H M Bass, a Ward Member, proposed approval of this application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

This was duly seconded and upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that planning application HOUSE/MAL/18/00059 be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1          The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            REASON: To comply with Section 91(1) The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 5758/03, 5758/05 and 5758/01.

            REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

RESOLVED that the application for listed building consent – LBC/MAL/18/00060 be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1          The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            REASON: To comply with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 5758/03, 5758/05 and 5758/01.

            REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

3          Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            REASON: In the interest of the character, appearance and setting of the listed building area in accordance with policies D1 and D3 of the approved Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4          Any exterior brickwork in the extension hereby approved shall be laid using a Flemish bond.

            REASON:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 860.