Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to this, the first remote meeting of the South Eastern Area Planning Committee, held under new regulations which came into effect on 4 April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 situation.  The Chairman went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

A roll call of those Members present was taken.

An apology for absence were received from Councillor R P F Dewick.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 March 2020, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9March 2020 be approved and confirmed.

At this point reference was made to an email circulated by the Lead Legal Specialist and Monitoring Officer in respect of Members declaring pecuniary interests in a remote meeting.  At the request of the Chairman this email was read out to the Committee.

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned due to a technical issue with the live video streaming.

RESOLVED that the meeting resume in open session.

On resuming the meeting a roll call of Members present was started, during this some concerns were raised regarding the streaming of the live meeting and the link to this on the Council’s website.

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned to allow Officers to address issues relating to the link on the Council’s website to the live video stream of the meeting.

RESOLVED that the meeting resume in open session and a roll call of those Members present was taken.

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 disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council who were consulted on matters in terms of highways or anything within their remit that they had been consulted on.  She also declared in respect of Agenda Item 6 - 20/00271/FUL 7 Riverside Road, Burnham-on-Crouch that she knew the applicant.

Councillor N J Skeens disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in both planning applications for consideration as a member of Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council.

Councillor Mrs W Stamp disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 6 - 20/00271/FUL 7 Riverside Road, Burnham-on-Crouch as she knew the applicant.

Councillor A S Fluker declared the following pecuniary interests:

·                 He owned property adjacent to that being considered under Agenda Item 5 – 20/00113/FUL 171 – 173 Station Road, Burnham-on-Crouch and would take no part in that item of business and leave the meeting.

·                 In respect of Agenda Item 6 - 20/00271/FUL 7 Riverside Road, Burnham-on-Crouch he knew and was associated with the applicant.

Councillor Fluker left the meeting at this point and did not return.

There was some discussion regarding the declaration made by Councillor Fluker and the Chairman advised that he had declared a pecuniary interest and it was up to each individual Member to make their own declaration as appropriate.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that two letters of support had been received, along with supporting information from the Applicant and a correction to paragraph 3.1.6 of the Officers’ report.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Chairman advised Members that under the Council’s public participation scheme two submissions had been received, one from Mr Hutton-Penman, a supporter and another from the Applicant Mrs Dawson.  In accordance with the scheme he had reviewed the submissions and proceeded to read them out. 

The Chairman then moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.  This was not seconded.

Councillor V J Bell, a Ward Member, raised concern and commented on the evidence submitted to show the premise was never used for river related trade, how it was a heritage site, in a conservation and flood zone area and one of the biggest retail areas in Burnham-on-Crouch.  She referred to the current and ongoing impact of the recent COVID-19 emergency on retail and retail space in the High Street.  She felt that the reduction in retail space would make the development more sustainable, returning it to its original footprint.  Councillor Bell noted that the Conservation Officers supported the application and that the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Area Act 1990 required that the Council paid special attention to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area, which she felt this application did.  Councillor Bell commented that she could not see any objection to the application and highlighted the benefits to the town of Burnham-on-Crouch.  She then proposed that the application be supported, contrary to Officers’ recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response, the Lead Specialist Place reminded Members that each application had to be determined on its own merit.  He provided the following responses in relation to matters raised:

·                 in Officers consideration the level of evidence submitted did not, on balance, provide enough information to argue the site had not been used for employment-based activities in relation to maritime. 

·                 it was relatively common not to have onsite car parking in a high street location / retail area, but this was covered within the Officers’ report.

·                 the suggested reasons for refusal did not refer to the conservation area but this was covered in the Officers’ report.

·                 the impact of COVID-19 was yet unknown and Members should not be giving a lot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 994.

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

Councillor Mrs P A Channer raised the earlier disclosure of a pecuniary interest in this application by Councillor A S Fluker and whether in light of this she should also declare a pecuniary interest.  Following some discussion Councillor Mrs Channer confirmed that her earlier disclosure of a non-pecuniary interest in this application was correct but that she may not vote and would take the matter up with the Monitoring Officer for clarification outside of the meeting. 

Councillor A L Hull disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in this application.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Chairman advised Members that under the Council’s public participation scheme two submissions had been received, one from Parish Councillor R Pratt on behalf of Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council and the other from the Applicant Mrs Owers.  In accordance with the scheme he had reviewed the submission and proceeded to read them out. 

The Chairman then moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.  This was not seconded.

Councillor V J Bell, a Ward Member, referred to the location of the dwelling, advising the Committee how in her view the proposal made changes to enable the applicant to remain in her accommodation and overall she supported the application.  Councillor Bell proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officers recommendation.  This was duly seconded.

Councillor W Stamp, another Ward Members, commented how the application, if approved, would make improvements to the applicants living conditions, would not cause any detrimental harm, would not be detrimental to the character and was not contrary to policies.  She agreed with and seconded the proposed approval of the application.

In response, the Lead Specialist Place highlighted the following points:

·               each application had to be considered on its own merit and assumption should not be given to approving a householder application because it was not harmful in comparison to another scheme.

·               In planning terms a cart lodge was a permanent structure and therefore required planning permission.

·               he cautioned on giving too much weight to personal circumstances and that case law was clear it needed to very special circumstance and the weight should reflect this.

The Chairman advised that he had earlier moved the Officers recommendation of refusal and this had not been seconded.  He then reminded the Committee of the proposed approval of the application, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, in the name of Councillor Bell, duly seconded and requested reasons for approval of the application.

In response to a question regarding a consultation response from Essex County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 995.