Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors V J Bell, S J Burwood, J Driver, M F L Durham CC, J C Hughes, W J Laybourn, R H Siddall and S White.

It was noted that Councillors N D Spenceley and W Stamp would be arriving late due to an urgent commitment.

To confirm the Minutes of the special meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 15 January 2025 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 15 January 2026 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.

Councillor N D Spenceley joined the meeting at this point.

.

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

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector Mr Vickers and the applicant Mr Wilsher from Bloor Homes addressed the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker referred to the consultation response from Anglian Water objecting to the proposed development due to insufficient infrastructure in Southminster and queried if this was addressed within the reasons for refusal. He felt that Officers had come to the right decision and then proposed that the application be refused in accordance with Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to a query regarding a consultation response from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council, the Development Management Team Leader advised that a response had been received that afternoon. He referred to this consultation response, advising Members that the Town Council were recommending refusal of the application as they felt it was in an unsustainable location and contrary to policies.

Members were informed that Officers had considered the consultation response from Anglian Water alongside other recent appeal decisions for similar developments. Referring to a development in Latchingdon, the Development Management Team Leader explained how the Planning Inspector had considered a Grampian style condition requiring the sewage and foul drainage system to be approved by the Council, discharged, built and be in place prior to any occupation of any of the buildings and how this also accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework. Officers had not included this as a reason for refusal as it was felt that the matter could be mitigated by a Grampian condition. In response to a suggestion that this be included as a reason for refusal, the Director of Place, Planning and Growth provided further explanation, advising that if Members were considering referring to this they needed to consider if the tilted balance applied because the Council was unable to demonstrate a Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS). It could be mitigated by a Grampian condition but if a Grampian condition couldn’t be satisfied until Anglian Water had provided a facility (which potentially had a long lead in time) this wouldn’t be delivering the homes to mitigate the impact of the Council’s 5YHLS.

Councillor Fluker proposed and amendment to his earlier proposal, proposing that the comments raised by Officers in relation to the Latchingdon appeal decision and Anglian Water be included as a reason for refusal. This was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken the amendment was agreed.

The Chairperson  ...  view the full minutes text for item 511.

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

Members noted that the Members’ Update, circulated prior to the meeting, detailed an amendment to paragraph 5.1.2 of the report, additional paragraph 7.5.2 and amendments to proposed conditions 3, 4 and 7.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a further five letters of objection had been received since publication of the Members’ Update and highlighted the concerns raised. He noted that the construction hours and width of the pavement on Burnham Road were dealt with at outline stage and could therefore not be reconsidered at this point. A consultation response had also been received from Latchingdon Parish Council raising three issues; overlooking of existing residents, discharge of conditions and a landscape buffer zone. Members were advised that comments regarding the discharge of conditions also related to the outline application and were not for consideration at this point. The Officer advised that the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that the office hub was part of the reserved matters application.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Applicant Mr Owen from Dandara Eastern addressed the Committee.

During the lengthy debate that ensued the Officer provided Members with further clarification in respect of the appearance of the proposed dwellings, lighting scheme, removal of hedgerow, layout, landscape buffer, proposed footpaths, maintenance of Local Areas of Play and Local Equipped Areas of Play, and the discharge of proposed conditions if the application was approved.

It was confirmed that the drainage basins were not part of the objection received from Anglian Water and that the outline application contained conditions regarding drainage.

In response to a query regarding the mix of affordable housing the Officer showed Members a plan of the site which detailed this. It was confirmed that the Council’s Housing team had checked that the proposal was consistent with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document.

Officers provided the following information in response to further questions raised by Members:

·                The outline application had been subject to a road safety audit, with all pavements connecting to Latchingdon designed accordingly. Essex County Council Highways had not raised any objection regarding displays, turning angels and pavement widths.

·                Education contributions had been dealt with at the outline stage. It was noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 512.