Agenda and minutes

The Chairperson welcomed those present to the meeting and outlined the general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

The Chairperson then invited the Head of Development Management to provide an update on the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which had come into effect on 17 August 2026. The Head of Development Management advised that Members had previously received a briefing on the new NPPF, highlighting key policy changes and how these should be taken into consideration when determining applications. He further advised that the reports for this meeting had been amended to reflect the new policies and expressed confidence that the Council was fully equipped to make robust and lawful planning decisions.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 1(4)a, the Chairperson advised that he would be varying the order of business and bringing forward Agenda Item 7, application 26/00066/OUTM - Land Rear of 6 to 108 Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex to be considered following Agenda Item 5, Declaration of Interests.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J C Hughes, W J Laybourn and S White.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 14 July 2026.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 July 2026 be approved and confirmed.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 5 August 2026 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 August 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).

Councillor E L Stephens declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, 26/00066/OUTM - Land Rear Of 6 To 108 Mell Road, Tollesbury. She advised that she had founded and led a campaign relating to the site and would therefore speak at the beginning of the item. She further advised that she would then leave the Council Chamber and would not take part in the debate or vote on the application.

Councillor W Stamp declared an interest in Agenda Item 6, 26/00018/FULM - Land West of Edmond Street and Newman Drive and Benson Close, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex. She advised that, although she was an Essex County Councillor and lived near the site, she had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer and did not have a pecuniary interest. She further advised that she would speak on the application but would not vote on the matter.

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

An Addendum to the Officer report had been circulated prior to the meeting and detailed:

·                amendments to paragraphs within the report;

·                further consultation and public participation responses received;

·                amended consultation reviews from Place Services Ecology and Essex County Fire and Rescue Service;

·                an amendment to Condition 12;

·                an additional proposed condition 42.

It was noted that this application was the subject of an appeal for non-determination and therefore the Committee was required to make a ‘minded to’ decision.

During his presentation of the application, the Principal Planning Officer advised that since publication of the Addendum a letter had been received from a Member of Parliament along with four further letters of objection. He highlighted some new issues that these raised and advised that following consideration Officers did not feel any change was required to the recommendation. The Officer informed Members that Place Services Ecology had reviewed the updated ecological assessment and as a result removed their objection. They would be requesting a number of conditions, and should Members be minded to approve the application the Officer explained that these would be added.

Following the Officer’s presentation, an objector, Mr Ludden, and Parish Councillor Sarah Hawes (representing Tollesbury Parish Council) addressed the Committee.

With permission of the Chairperson, Councillor E L Stephens then addressed the Committee, highlighted a number of concerns that she had with the application including its impact on education, the environment, GP services and its sustainability. In response further information was provided by the Officer, who highlighted how concerns particularly those regarding infrastructure, education and healthcare would be addressed by financial contributions within the Section 106 Legal Agreement. In response to a comment regarding the transport contributions relating to Tolleshunt D’Arcy Primary School, the Officer advised that should Members be minded to approve the application he would seek further confirmation from Essex County Council (ECC) prior to the introduction of that statement of case. Following this, in accordance with her earlier declaration, Councillor Stephens left the meeting and did not return.

A lengthy debate ensued, during which a number of questions and comments were raised by Members of the Committee. In response Officers provided further clarification and information, which included:

·                If the Committee was minded to approve the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214.

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned at 9:06pm for a short break.

RESOLVED that the meeting of the District Planning Committee resumed at 9:16pm.

At this point, the Chairperson referred to Procedure Rule 1(6)(i) and confirmed that he considered it appropriate to continue the Committee’s business after 10pm in order to consider and determine the second application on the agenda.

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

An Addendum to the report was circulated prior to the meeting and contained the following information received and clarifications following publication of the Officers’ report:

·                a further consultation response from Essex County Council (ECC) Highways advising that the scheme was acceptable from a highway and transportation perspective subject to a number of conditions;

·                an updated consultation response from Anglian Water confirming that the scheme was acceptable subject to conditions;

·                two further letters of objection had been received;

·                clarification to paragraph 5.9.2 and section 5.17;

·                amendment to the Section 106 Heads of Terms (paragraph 8.1) to include the ECC Highways consultation response and provide further clarification;

·                amendment to condition 11;

·                information relating to correspondence received from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council in relation to the employment allocation and subsequent discussions with the applicant;

·                amendment to recommendation (i), taking into account the resolved Highways consultation response and providing further clarification of the associated obligations relating to ECC Highways and Network Rail.

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector, Ms Chant, and the applicant, Mr Houghton, addressed the Committee.

In response to comments made regarding highway safety, Members were informed that a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) had been submitted and would provide a considerable amount of protection in terms of residential amenity and highway safety. In addition, ECC Highways had examined the traffic movements and proposed junction, and was satisfied that the movements, in combination with the proposed mitigation, would be acceptable.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the revised recommendations as set out in the Addendum be agreed, subject to highway works at Kitts Hill / B1012 being completed prior to the first occupation of any properties. He explained that leaving the junction works until after the houses were occupied would make the existing situation worse. This proposal was duly seconded.

A lengthy debate ensued, and in response to comments raised by Members, Officers provided additional information and clarification, which included:

·                Should the proposed diversion of the railway crossing not be possible, Officers would propose that a contribution be sought. The benefit to pedestrian safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.