Agenda and minutes

The Chairmanwelcomed all presentandtookthe Committeethrough some general housekeeping issues.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M G Bassenger, R P F Dewick and A L Hull.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 July 2021, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED by assent that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 July 2021 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 M W Helm declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 – 21/00628/FUL, Land North of Riversleigh, Nipsells Chase, Mayland, CM0 6EJ as he knew the applicant. He added that his grandfather had previously owned Nipsells Chase Farm so was familiar with the property.

Councillor W Stamp declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council a consultee on the application at Agenda Item 5.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 as she knew the applicant.

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

It was noted that a Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that detailed other relevant information, an update on RAMS and other material considerations. Following the Officer’s presentation, the Applicant, Mr Paton, addressed the Committee.

The Chairman then opened the debate and a lengthy discussion ensued. Councillor Helm proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Members continued to debate the merits/de-merits of the application. Some felt that the area was sustainable, close to facilities, that it was a way of future proofing homes and development was already taking place in the countryside. Others felt concerned that, whilst recognising development had already taken place in the countryside, this would create a precedent resulting in problems controlling the building of single dwellings in the countryside.  

The Chairman then referred to the proposal on the table from Councillor Helm and called for reasons for approval. Officers reminded the Committee that the strating point was the Local Development Plan (LDP) and that should Members be minded to accept a development outside the settlement boundaries there needed to be material planning considerations.

Councillor Helm proposed that the application be approved as the site was considered to be in a sustainable location. In addition, the dwelling could not be seen outside of the site boundary from public views due to screening and therefore did not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.

The Chairman then put Councillor Helm’s proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the aforementioned reasons and subject to RAMS mitigation and conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman, to the Committee. A recorded vote was requested and seconded and the results were as follows:-

For the Proposal

Councillors B S Beale, R G Boyce, M W Helm and W Stamp.

Against the Proposal

Councillor N J Skeens

Abstentions

Councillor V J Bell and Mrs P A Channer

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED with conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman.