Agenda and minutes

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M G Bassenger and R G Pratt.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 June 2025.

The Chairperson advised that the Minutes of the last meeting had been circulated as a supplementary pack prior to the meeting.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 June 2025 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable interests and Non-Registrable Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraph 9 and Appendix B 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).

There were none.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Prior to the Officer presentation they clarified that the report should say Mangapp Chase not Mangapp Close and reference to the Stoney Hills settlement boundary

should be Burnham-on-Crouch settlement boundary. This was duly noted.

Following the Officers presentation Mrs Sadler an objector addressed the Committee.

During the lengthy debate that ensued, a number of Members commented on the application and particular concerns relating to the following areas were raised:

·        a lack of footpaths and street lighting in the area

·        highways issues including the speed limit on Green Lane adjacent to the site leading to accidents and incidents

·        the affordability of the proposed housing

·        the lack of an arboricultural impact assessment mentioned by some statutory consultees

·        the development breaching the character and beauty of the surrounding area

·        the development being an incongruous form of development in relation to its surrounding.

Councillor W Stamp proposed that the Committee reject the Officer recommendation and refuse this application. This was duly seconded.

In response, the Development Management Team Manager provided the following information:

·        In terms of Planning Policy, as the Council didn’t have a Five-Year Housing Land Supply the titled balance would be engaged.

·        In terms of planning balance, Officers had recognised there would be new houses but given the scale of the development this was given minimum weight.

·        An arboricultural impact assessment was not a requirement that had to be submitted with an application, however in this case as the agricultural consultant has identified there was a need this could be satisfied by a condition.

In response to a request for clarification on the reasons for refusal Members discussed these as well as the relevant policies. The Officer provided guidance advising that issues raised in terms of location, design, height, layout and the combined incongruous form of development in that location could form a reason for refusal in terms of Policies S1, S8, D1 and H4. In terms of comments regarding location, she suggested a reason relating to the inaccessible location due to the narrow road, being unlit, no footways and therefore poor access to public services so occupants would be reliant on a car. A Member mentioned the national speed limit in terms of the unlit narrow road being in a 60 mile per hour zone and this was noted.

Following further discussion and questions from Members, the Officer suggested a third reason for refusal relating to Policy H2, having a suitable housing mix, the Local Housing Needs Assessment and not meeting the greatest need because the Council already had provision for large homes.

The Chairperson then put the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.