Agenda and draft minutes

The Director of Service Delivery opened the meeting and welcomed all present. He reminded the meeting that the decision on the application rested with the Directors in consultation with Members whose views would be sought during the meeting.

Councillor A S Fluker declared in the interest of openness and transparency on  agenda Item 1- 8 The Cobbins, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8QL, as he knew a relative of the applicant.

Councillor W Stamp  declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 1- 8 The Cobbins, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8QL, as Ward Member she knew the residents.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed)

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Lead Specialist Place took the meeting through the report addressing concerns expressed in recent emails relating to both the report and the recommendation.

Firstly, he advised that the report outlined the main planning issues and material considerations. He acknowledged that the inclusion of the garage in the report may have led to some confusion regarding the applicant’s position. However, the fact that the garage had been granted planning permission by South East Area Planning Committee in 2019 was a material planning consideration in determining this application, therefore appropriate to include in the report.

Referring to the plans for this application he clarified that the percentage of floorspace in the Officer’s report included the previous permission for the garage, together with the proposed new extension.

He concluded by reminding the meeting that unfortunately personal circumstances would have to be very special to outweigh the harm identified to  planning policy. Planning had to consider the life time of the development.

A lengthy discussion ensued around the issue of size and bulk and the housing mix onthe estate. Councillor Stamp referring to the Cobbins Estate said that the proposedapplicationwas no bigger than some of the existing houses. The Lead Specialist Place advisedthat each application had to be determined on its own merit. Parts of thisdevelopment would have been approved prior tothe National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) and Local Development Plan (LDP). That the general acceptance was that additions should appear subservient, not dominant, within the site and to the main dwelling and that the special circumstances for one ofthe annexes had fallen away.

Councillor Fluker noted thatit was a subjective view that the application contravened policies D1 and H4 ofthe LDP and asked to seethe existingand proposed elevations. At this point the Lead Specialist Place, for the purpose of clarity, explainedthat the dotted outline on the elevation represented the garage that already had extant planningpermission

Councillor Fluker, on reviewing the proposed versus the existing elevations commented that the windows and fenestrations all looked balanced and whilst it was a big house the plot itself was equally large.

The Lead Specialist Place in response to a comment regarding the original garageplanning permission reportedthat this need had now fallen away, and the currentapplicationaddition was to meet the needs ofthe father. He advised that should therecommendation onthis applicationbe overturned the other permission could still be implemented.

Councillor Fluker suggested that if officers were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.