Agenda and 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 K Jennings, S White and L L Wiffen.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 30 July 2025 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 30 July 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).

Agenda Item 5 – 24/00901/FULM – Solar Far at 596892 196989 Marsh Road, Burnham-on-Crouch

Councillor V J Bell declared that her decision was pre-determined so would recuse herself from the Committee during that section of the meeting.

Councillor A Fittock declared that he was the Chairperson of Latchingdon Parish Council and had already discussed this application at a Parish Council meeting.

Prior to the next item of business and following her earlier declaration, Councillor Bell left the meeting.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that an additional representation from an interested party had been received.

Following the Officers presentation the Applicant, Mr James Wallwork addressed the Committee.

During the debate that ensued some Members raised concerns regarding the development, including access to the site past local schools, the overall height of the solar panels including their impact on the surrounding area, and the proposed materials used for the entrance and exit of the site.

In response to a request for an additional condition to request that the contractors repaired any damage to the access roads or property, Officers advised that this would depend on who owned the road as if privately owned this would be a civil matter.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that a pre-commencement condition be added regarding the binding of roads after completion. In response the Principal Planning Officer advised that was included within the suggested conditions.

Following further discussion, Councillor S J N Morgan proposed that Members accept the officers’ proposal to approve the application and this was duly seconded.

Members discussed the fire safety of the site, and in response to some concerns raised the Officer reassured the Committee that a consultation with the fire authority had taken place and a number of conditions, which included a fire risk management plan were proposed.

At this point in the meeting the Chairperson put Councillor Morgan’s proposal of approval to the Committee and this was duly agreed. It was further agreed that an additional conditionl regarding surfacing materials would be included. Councillors A S Fluker, M G Neall, D O Bown, K M H Lagan, L J Haywood, J C Stilts, W Stamp, U G C Siddal-Norman, S Dodsley, M G Bassenger and J C Hughes requested to have their vote against the approval recorded.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and an additional condition regarding surfacing materials:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2.         The grant of planning permission shall expire 40 years from the date of when electricity is first exported from any of the solar panels to the electricity grid ("First Export Date"). Written notification of the First Export Date shall be given to the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of its occurrence.

3.         If the use of the hereby approved development should cease for the purposes of energy generation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 220.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that an appeal against non-determination of the application had been received along with a consultation response from the Environment Agency.

Following the Officers presentation an Objector Emma Derham addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued and in response to questions raised, the Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control advised the appeal received was for non-determination and that the Council had missed the deadline for determination of the application because of resource limitations.

In response to a question regarding invoking the constitutional brake should Members be minded to refuse, the Head of Service stated that this would not be an available option due to related timescales. He explained that if Members were minded to refuse this application, a decision notice would not be issued due to the appeal in progress however this decision would form part of the information sent to the Planning Inspectorate by the Council.

Considerable concern was raised about Anglian Waters’ (AW) consultation response about not having the capacity to deal with foul water in the new development. The Head of Service explained that it was outside of the Council’s remit to refuse the application based on this, as a connection to a sewer in the UK could not be refused due to it being a matter of law and procedure and therefore it would be the responsibility of AW to resolve this.

Concerns regarding the traffic infrastructure and how the new development would impact the whole region were raised and it was highlighted that Essex County Council Highways had no objections to the proposal. Therefore, this would not be a valid reason for refusal.

In response to a discussion regarding the design of the development, Head of Service advised that refusing a scheme based on an illustrative plan may be difficult because it was not part of the formal consideration of the layout.

During the discussion that ensued and in response to concerns raised, proposals to refuse the application, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, were put forward from Councillors A Fittock and A S Fluker, but not seconded.

Following further debate, Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation for reasons relating to the application being unsustainable. This proposal was duly seconded. Members then discussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.