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 W Stamp.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2020, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2020 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 R P F Dewick declared in the interest of openness and transparency on Agenda Item 7 - 20/00087/OUT, Land East of Charwood, Stoney Hills, Burnham-on-Crouch, as he knew the agent.

Councillor A S Fluker declared in the interest of openness and transparency on Agenda Item 7 - 20/00087/OUT, Land East of Charwood, Stoney Hills, Burnham-on-Crouch, as he knew the agent.

Councillor M W Helm declared in the interest of openness and transparency on Agenda Item 7­ - 20/00087/OUT, Land East of Charwood, Stoney Hills, Burnham-on-Crouch, as he knew the agent.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC, declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council a consultee on highways, access, education and all planning matters. She further declared on Agenda Item 7 -20/00087/OUT, Land East of Charwood, Stoney Hills, Burnham-on-Crouch, as she knew the agent.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing an objection. Following the Officer’s presentation, Kevin Schultz, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued where some Members agreed that the alterations were acceptable and in keeping with the area. Other Members were of the opinion that the Officer’s recommendation to refuse was correct.

The Lead Specialist Place, referring to the Officer’s recommendation, said that the refusal was on the grounds that the alterations would introduce a different architectural feature not in keeping with the original row of houses.

Councillor Skeens proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. He reasoned that properties on the opposite side had similar features, that it was important to encourage sensible extensions and that the alterations did not have a major impact on the street scene. This was duly seconded.

The Chairman put Councillor Skeens’ proposal to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken it was approved subject to standard conditions of plans, time, material and where necessary consideration of any statutory consultees.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the aforementioned conditions.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing an objection from an interested party. Following the Officer’s presentation, the Applicant, Mr Robert Shaw, addressed the committee.

Councillor Channer opened the debate having called in the application. She said that she knew the site well and that it contained a variety of design styles and sizes.  In particular, she asked for clarity regarding the distance between the proposed and neighbouring properties. On being advised that the distance was 5.8 meters, she concluded by saying that whilst she was all for protecting residential amenity, given the distance was 5.8 metres there should not be an adverse impact.

Further discussion centred on the use of the room that could potentially overlook private amenity and the siting of the windows in that area. It was noted that the room was gallery in style, not habitable and the windows were positioned at a height that would preclude overlooking.

Councillor Helm proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was in keeping with the diverse architecture in the area and the windows were positioned in such a way to overcome overlooking. This was not seconded.

Councillor Boyce, referring to previous examples of perceived overlooking proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to refuse be approved. This was not seconded.

Councillor Bassenger then seconded Councillor Helm’s proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and for the reasons already outlined.

The Chairman put Councillor Helm’s proposal to approve the application to the Committee and it was carried subject to standard conditions of time, materials, plans and where necessary consideration of any statutory consultees.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the aforementioned conditions.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing an objection from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council. Following the Officer’s presentation Anthony Cussen, the Agent, addressed the Committee.                                                                             

Councillor Skeens opened the debate referencing an email from Councillor Stamp regarding the number of houses already approved on this site. He said that Stoney Hills represented an estate by stealth, resulting in the development of a large number of houses with no contribution to infrastructure. Furthermore, he felt the proposed development looked too large for the site and could not support the application.

Councillor Bell agreed with the previous comments and said that it represented over development.

The Lead Specialist Place reminded Members that this was an outline planning application for a two storey dwelling and therefore it was the principle of a building on the site the Committee was considering. If Members were to accept the principle of outline planning, then it could be accompanied by an informative detailing the concerns regarding the indicative dominant size of the proposed property. At this stage the Committee could not assume there would be privacy issues, however were they to materialise they could be discussed at the reserved matters stage.

Councillor Fluker, noting the Officer’s recommendation to approve the principle of a dwelling on the site, proposed that this be supported, albeit with a heavy heart. He stressed that should the Committee approve the application a strong message be conveyed that the Committee was not happy with the indicative proposal and the potential for overlooking This was seconded by Councillor Boyce

The Lead Specialist Place assured the Committee that an Informative would be completed reflecting the concerns raised.

The Chairman put Councillor Fluker’s proposal to approve the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee on the understanding it be accompanied by an Informative detailing the Committee’s concerns and subject to a signed Unilateral Undertaking. Upon a vote being taken it was approved.

RESOLVED that the outline application be APPROVED subject to conditions contained in section 9 of the report.