Agenda and minutes

South Eastern Area Planning Committee - Monday 10th February 2020 7.30 pm

Venue: Burnham Town Council Offices, Chapel Road, Burnham-on-Crouch

Contact: Committee Services 

Items
No. Item

741.

Chairman's notices

Minutes:

The Chairman drew attention to the list of notices published on the back of the agenda.

742.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor B S Beale, MBE.

743.

Minutes of the last meeting pdf icon PDF 188 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 January 2020, (copy enclosed).

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

(i)                        that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 January 2020 be received.

 

 

Minute No. 654  - HOUSE/MAL/19/01124 – 36 Anchorage View, St. Lawrence, Essex, CM0 7JH

 

That the second sentence in the second paragraph be amended to read ‘In response to a question from Councillor Channer Officers clarified that the development, being approximately 18 feet from the shared boundary, was not considered to result in unacceptable harm by way of overlooking or shadowing.

 

RESOLVED

 

(i)              that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 January 2020 be confirmed.

 

 

744.

Disclosure of Interest

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, other Pecuniary Interests or Non-Pecuniary Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraphs 6-8 inclusive 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).

 

Minutes:

Councillor M W Helm, declared in the interest of openness and transparency on Agenda Item 8-19/01214/OUT, Land At Bellsgate, as he had known the applicant for many years and his land abutted the applicant’s property. He advised that he would leave the Chamber for this item of business.

 

Councillor N Skeens declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 -  19/01181/ful, Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch,                   as he knew the architects and Agenda Item 8-19/01214/OUT, Land At Bellsgate, as he had known the applicant for many years.

 

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC declared a non-pecuniary interest in all items on the agenda as a member of Essex County Council, a consultee on highways, access, education and all planning related matters. She further declared on Agenda Item 8 - 19/01214/OUT, Land At Bellsgate, as she knew the applicant. 

 

Councillor M G Bassenger declared in the interest of openness and transparency on both Agenda Item 6-19/01181/ful, Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch and Agenda Item 7-19/01194/HOUSE, 29 mill Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8PZ as he knew the agents.

 

Councillor A S Fluker declared in the interest of openness and transparency on both Agenda Item 7-19/01194/HOUSE, 29 mill Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8PZ and Agenda Item 8-19/01214/OUT, Land At Bellsgate, as he knew the applicants.

 

Councillor Mrs A L Hull, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6-19/01181/ful, Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, as she knew the owner of the adjoining land.

745.

19/01163/FUL - Sun and Anchor, The Street, Steeple pdf icon PDF 603 KB

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number

19/01163/FUL

Location

Sun and Anchor, The Street, Steeple

Proposal

Demolition of the Sun & Anchor Public House and erection of 6 dwelling houses

Applicant

Gray & Sons (Chelmsford) Ltd

Agent

Mr Mark Jackson

Target Decision Date

16.02.2020

Case Officer

Anna Tastsoglou & Devan Hearnah

Parish

STEEPLE

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In

Councillor M W Helm – Policy E3

 

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing archaeology comments and summarising two letters commenting on the application. Following the presentation, a supporter, Chris Harvey, Parish Councillor Kay Davey, Steeple Parish Council, the Applicant, John Hubbard and the Agent, Mark Jackson addressed the Committee.

 

A debate ensued regarding the need for a second pub in the village. Councillor Helm said that the other public house was a viable business and a second public house could not compete.

 

Whilst Members acknowledged the comments from the speakers and the support from the Parish Council they also accepted the need to comply with the Local Development Plan (LDP). It was noted that the Officers had got it right in that the application resulted in a cramped and contrived form of development. 

 

Councillor Fluker, noting the previous concerns, said that the main difficultly was the lack of compliance with Policy E3, in that there was no evidence of marketing of the business. However, he felt that the in the main all issues could be overcome and proposed that the application be deferred. This was seconded.

 

The Lead Specialist Place reminded Members to be conscious of policy compliance and the need to evidence policy requirements, as in this case. No formal marketing evidence had been submitted and there were no material planning considerations put forward to overturn the officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor Fluker then declared in the interest of openness and transparency, as he knew the supporter, Chris Harvey, and said he should be commended for the great Guide he wrote on real ale in the Dengie that had resulted in a lot of business for a number of public houses.

 

The Chairman reflecting on the debate said he did not want developers saying that the Committee approved the application without the requisite evidence. Furthermore, he stressed that too many public houses had already been closed, to the detriment of communities.

 

The Lead Specialist Place added that it would not just impact on public houses and could create a very dangerous precedent. He reiterated that there was no evidence as per Policy E3 in the application and that the Committee needed to make a decision on the application as it stood.

The Chairman put the first proposal to defer the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken it was refused.

 

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee and the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1          The proposed development would result in the loss of a community facility. 

No suitable justification or evidence has been provided to demonstrate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 745.

746.

19/01181/FUL - Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch pdf icon PDF 823 KB

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number

19/01181/ful

Location

Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch

Proposal

Construction of outbuilding for storage of classic cars and motorcycles. Formal removal of additional use of property as a wedding venue.

Applicant

Mr Mark Sadleir

Agent

Mr Michael Lewis – Bailey Lewis

Target Decision Date

10.02.2020

Case Officer

Louise Staplehurst

Parish

BURNHAM NORTH

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Major Application

Member Call In by Councillor W Stamp

Reason: D1

 

A Members’ Update was submitted summarising two letters of support. Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Michael Lewis, addressed the Committee.

 

A debate ensued regarding the ongoing issue of curtilage. Councillor Stamp, having called in the application said she was disappointed that this issue had not been resolved prior to Committee.

 

The Lead Specialist Place drew Members’ attention to paragraph 5.1.4 and the case law on curtilage. He said that in respect of this application it was a large amount of land that did not have an intimate relationship with the property, therefore, could not be defined as residential curtilage.

 

The debate continued as Members were still unclear as to what did or did not constitute residential curtilage. The Lead Specialist Place reminded the Committee that this application had been before the Committee on two previous occasions and had been refused on the basis that the application was not within the residential curtilage. He said that there was a need for consistency going forward and that it would be dangerous to disagree with case law.

 

Councillor Helm believed that the application was within the residential curtilage and proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded.  

 

Councillor Fluker referred to paragraph 3.1.8 in the Officer’s report that stated the application would have an unacceptable visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition, he said that no new material planning information had come forward since the application was last refused and proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Chairman put the first proposal by Councillor Helm, duly seconded, to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the recommendation was refused.

 

The Chairman then put the second proposal from Councillor Fluker to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee. Following a vote and there being an equality of votes the Chairman exercised his casting vote and the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

1          The proposed outbuilding, as a result of its siting, scale, bulk and design

would be unduly detached from the host dwelling and would have a substantial and unacceptable visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.  This would be exacerbated by the substantial increase in built form and the fact the development is located outside of Mangapp Manor’s residential curtilage resulting in the urbanisation of the countryside.  The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 746.

747.

19/01194/HOUSE - 29 Mill Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex CM0 8PZ pdf icon PDF 526 KB

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*

 

Minutes:

Application Number

19/01194/HOUSE

Location

29 Mill Road, Burnham-On-Crouch, Essex CM0 8PZ

Proposal

Demolition of 2 existing conservatories and garage. Erection of side extension incorporating new garage, and entrance porch. Alterations to roof creating a chalet bungalow incorporating rear facing balcony.

Applicant

Mr & Mrs David Marchant

Agent

Michael Lewis - Bailey Lewis

Target Decision Date

EOT 14.02.2020

Case Officer

Annie Keen

Parish

BURNHAM NORTH

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call in – Councillor W Stamp

Policy D1

 

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Applicant, Emma Marchant, addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Hull opened the debate noting that the application would benefit the neighbourhood and provide a home for a young couple from the area. Both Councillor Stamp and Councillor Bell echoed these comments and said the application represented a real improvement and that the applicants had made every effort to meet the planning requirements.

 

Councillor Fluker noted that it complimented the street scene and was not contrary to policies D1and H4. He therefore proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded.

 

The Chairman put the proposal to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and including standard conditions around time, materials, plans, carparking etc. to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was approved.

 

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2.               The development herby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans and documents: 1969.04A, 1969.01, 1969.02A, 1969.03A and 1969.05A

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan.

3.               The materials used in the construction of the development hereby approved

shall be as set out within the application form/plans hereby approved.

Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy D1 of the approved Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.               Prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted, the first-floor

rooflight(s) in the eastern and western elevations shall be glazed with opaque glass and of a non-openable design and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with policies H4 and D1 of the approved Local Development Plan.

5.         The garage shall not be used other than for the accommodation of private

motor vehicles or for any other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such and shall not at any time be converted or used as habitable space / living accommodation.

Reason: To ensure there is adequate vehicle parking on-site in accordance with policy T2 of the LDP and the Maldon District Vehicle Parking Standards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 747.

748.

19/01214/OUT - Land at Bellsgate, Maldon Road, Latchingdon pdf icon PDF 553 KB

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number

19/01214/OUT

Location

Land At Bellsgate, Maldon Road, Latchingdon

Proposal

Proposed detached dwelling.

Applicant

Mr Fred Dash

Agent

Mr Paul Harris

Target Decision Date

11/02/2020

Case Officer

Louise Staplehurst

Parish

LATCHINGDON

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In – Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC

Reason – LDP policies relating to Sustainable Development, Design Quality and the Built Environment, Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside and Replacement Dwellings.

 

A Members’ Update had been submitted advising that no objections had been received from Essex Highways.

 

Councillor Channer, having called in the application, said that she knew the site and given it was clear there had been an original dwelling there had sympathy with the applicant. She said she recalled a like application some time back that had been refused by Committee and subsequently agreed by the Inspector.

 

The Lead Specialist Place said that previous like applications may have had intent to protect the property through for example continuous payment of Council Tax. However, that was not the case in this instance, where no tax had been paid for over twenty years, so the residential use had ceased, and the dwelling abandoned.

 

A debate ensued where concerns were raised about some of the reasons for refusal outlined in the report. The consensus was that a replacement dwelling rather than harmfully altering the character of the area or having an unacceptable visible impact would be an improvement. However, the Committee further agreed it should not be a two storey building. 

 

Councillor Bell felt that a replacement dwelling would not have a harmful impact and therefore proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Fluker said that he supported the principle of a replacement dwelling but that it be conditioned to a reasonable height, with a caveat against a traditional two storey building.

 

Councillor Channer said she would support this with the proviso that the remaining conditions be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members. 

 

The Chairman put the proposal to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, subject to a caveat against a traditional two storey dwelling and a Unilateral Undertaking being submitted with conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members, to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was approved. 

 

 

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following delegated conditions:

1.               The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and particulars relating to the appearance, access, landscaping, layout and scale of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), for which approval shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is begun. The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the details as approved.

REASON:The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for consideration of the reserved matters.

2.               Application(s) for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 748.