Agenda and draft minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor V J Bell.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 November 2024 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED

(i)             that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 November 2024 be received.

Minute No. 387 – 24/00017/FULM – Glebe Meadow, Adjacent King Georges Field, Station Road, Southminster, Essex

Councillor A S Fluker expressed some concern that the Minutes did not fully reflect the points he had raised at this meeting, particularly that the application was contrary to Policy D1 regarding both design (specifically the tapering between existing properties at Vicarage Court and the proposed new properties) and loss of amenity, and contrary to Policy S8 due to the size of the buffer zone, which he commented had reduced.

In response, the Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control provided Members with some guidance in respect of how Officers would have identified the reasons for refusal detailed in the Officers’ report due to be considered at a later point on this agenda. He noted that reference to Policy S8 had not been included in the reasons for refusal and advised that this could be amended when the Committee considered the Officers’ report.

Councillor Fluker then provided further detail of the points he had raised at the last meeting and he commented that the reasons for refusal should reference Policy S8.

Following further discussion, it was agreed that the second sentence in the second paragraph of this Minute would be amended to include reference to loss of amenity and design. In the subsequent sentence the words ‘to the above policies’ would be replaced with reference to the specific policies D1 and S8. The exact wording was to be agreed with the Chairperson and Councillor Fluker outside of the meeting.

The Chairperson put the proposed amendment to the Committee, and this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED

(ii)            that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 November 2024 be 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)*.

The Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control presented the report and reminded Members that this application had been deferred from the last meeting of the South Eastern Area Planning Committee and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution the constitutional brake invoked. The report provided further advice to Members following the last meeting and detailed three suggested reasons for refusal, taking into discussions at the last meeting and relevant Local Development Plan policies, should Members be minded to refuse the application.

In response to comments raised regarding the land ownership, the Head of Service provided guidance in respect of consideration given to this matter when any planning application was submitted. Comments specifically relating to the footpath were raised and the Head of Service advised that this land was under the ownership of the developer. Councillor A S Fluker asked that it be Minuted, that concerns had been raised regarding land ownership and the Committee was unhappy with this. Councillor M G Bassenger also commented and asked that it be minuted that the Committee did not agree that the developer had control of the footpath. Councillor Fluker further requested that it be minuted that Essex County Council Highways had not confirmed if they had visited the site and their consultation response appeared ambiguous as it referred to an adopted highway and then stated the access road was not adopted by the Highways authority.

A lengthy debate ensued with particular discussion had regarding the amenity of the site. Concern was expressed regarding loss of amenity and that the quality of life of residents that could occupy the proposed dwellings would be greatly impacted by noise and disturbance from adjacent existing developments. Reference was made at this point to the King George V Sports Field, the recently upgraded Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), sports pavilion and community centre. Councillor Fluker asked that it be recorded that should the proposal go ahead along with the proposed changes to walls, street furniture, hedged and lampposts to accommodate the proposed footpath, he felt this would result in problems for some of the existing properties coming out from their garages straight onto a footpath.

It was noted that loss of amenity had been raised during discussions at the last meeting of the Committee and Members felt that this should have been included in the suggested reasons for refusal. The Head of Service advised that he had captured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 441.