Agenda and draft minutes

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting. She apologised for the late start of the meeting due to technical issues.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M FL Durham CC, J C Hughes, A M Lay, N R Miller, N G F Shaughnessy, N J Swindle and S White.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 4 September 2024 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 4 September 2024 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 W Stamp advised that in relation to Agenda Item 8 – 24/00672/FUL Land South of Brent Way and off of Endeavour Way, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, she would not be declaring an interest, would contribute to the discussion but would not vote on this item of business.

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

Following the Officers’ presentation a supporter, Mr Coward addressed the Committee.

In response to a question the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of the application, the use of the building was retrospective but the proposed cladding was not.

Councillor S J N Morgan proposed that the application be approved, as per Officers recommendation. This proposal was duly seconded. The Chairperson put this to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to the follow conditions:

1          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

·                3741.02 REV B

·                3741.04 B

·                3741.05

2          The contractors yard element of the scheme hereby permitted, shall be restricted to the following hours of use: -

Monday to Friday - 7am till 7pm

Saturday - 7am till 1pm

Sundays and Bank Holiday – closed.

3          The height of the external storage shall not exceed 1.8 metres in height, including the height of any racking unit.

4          Within 2 months of the date of this decision, a site plan showing the layout of the external storage areas and detailed parking and turning areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

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

During the Officers’ presentation Members were advised that should they be minded to approve this application an amendment to condition 2 was required to detail an additional plan. This was noted. The Applicant, Ms Kemp then addressed the Committee.

A lengthy debate ensued and in response to a number of comments raised, the Principal Planning Officer provided Members with additional information, including:

·                A number of concerns were raised regarding the car parking provision for both residents and staff and compliance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document. The Officer advised that given the level of dementia care proposed it was felt that the level of car parking spaces proposed would be acceptable. During the discussion, Councillor A T Fittock provided the Committee with details of the number of spaces required to be policy compliant.

·                Full biodiversity net gain had been submitted to show how this was to be achieved.

·                The materials would be of a palate to match those approved across the rest of the garden suburb site.

·                A lift was proposed for the development in order to access all three storeys.

·                No space, internal or external, was provided for storage of mobility scooters. It was confirmed that a condition regarding this would not be considered unreasonable. In response to a query regarding Parking Standard 4.10.5 and provision for mobility scooter storage the Officer advised she would have to check this outside of the meeting.

·                The Officer advised that the delivery point would be at the back of the development where the kitchen was, although there was no specific delivery point detailed.

Councillor R H Siddall requested that an amendment be made to the report as the application site was not within the Parish of Great Totham, but in fact Heybridge. The Officer advised that having checked the site was within the boundary of Great Totham.

Councillor P L Spenceley proposed that the application be deferred on the grounds that there was not enough information on mobility scooters, Officers were to request if further car parking spaces could be provided, and that consideration be given to the Council’s Design Guide. This proposal was duly seconded.

In light of the proposal, the Chairperson put this to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken she declared this was not agreed.

The Chairperson reminded Members of the Constitutional Brake Clause as provided for in the Committee’s Operating Protocol and advised that the constitution brake was therefore invoked.

At this point the Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control clarified the two options available  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Agent, Mr Smith, addressed the Committee.

During the debate that ensued and in response to comments made, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the related outline planning permission included a condition regarding the breakdown of the types of dwelling. If Members were mindful to approve the application the accompanying Section 106 agreement required submission of a housing delivery plan.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the Committee accept the Officers’ recommendation and approve the application. This proposal was duly seconded and agreed.

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

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

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

BV061-OP2-PL-01 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-02 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-03 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-04 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-05 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-06 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-07 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-08 rev. B

BV061-OP2-PL-09 rev. C

BV061-OP2-PL-10 rev. B

GL2143 01 rev. D

GL2143 02 rev. D

GL2143 03 rev. B

62333-RJL-DR-C-0010 rev. P4

BV061-OP2-HA-1BBa-01 rev. C

BV061-OP2-HA-1BBb-02 rev. B

BV061-OP2-HA-B1a-01 rev. B

BV061-OP2-HA-B1a-02 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HA-B2a-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HA-B2a-02

BV061-OP2-HA-B4a-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HA-B4b-02 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HA-B6a-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-ASa-01 rev. B

BV061-OP2-HT-ASb-02 rev. B

BV061-OP2-HT-ASb-03

BV061-OP2-HT-BRa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-BRa-02

BV061-OP2-HT-CEa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-CHa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-CHb-02 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-CHa-03

BV061-OP2-HT-CHb-04

BV061-OP2-HT-CYa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-CYb-02 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-CYa-03

BV061-OP2-HT-CYb-04

BV061-OP2-HT-HLa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-JUa-01 rev. A

BV061-OP2-HT-JUb-02 rev. B  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

The Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control presented the report and provided the following updates:

·                The report incorrectly listed 28 conditions, however five related to the previously approved application and had been discharged. Therefore, if Members were minded to approve this application there would be 23 conditions proposed by Officers.

·                In respect of Section 106 contributions Members were advised that conversations between Officers, the NHS and Essex County Council Education had indicated that a consultation response from each organisation in relation to proposed contributions was expected. If Members were minded to approve this application Officers would have further discussions with both organisations and the applicant in respect of this. It was noted that a decision would not be issued until any Section 106 agreement had been signed.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector, Mrs Janet Cook, and the Agent, Guoda Vaitkeviciute, addressed the Committee.

Councillor W Stamp raised concern regarding the increase in number of dwellings to what had been previously agreed. She then read out a letter she had received from an objector.

In response to a question regarding the mock tudor design proposed, Officers explained that the applicants had advised should Members be mindful to approve the application they would accept a condition that the architectural detail on the north elevation of plots one and three (the Morton house types) be reserved for future consideration as an above slab level condition. This was noted.

Councillor A S Fluker raised a number of concerns relating to the proposed design particularly that the dwellings should face Maldon Road to match the existing street scene and the proposed mock Tudor beams which he felt were out of place. He then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to Policy D1. Councillor Fluker asked that Officers request the developers move the houses to face Maldon Road and remove the proposed mock Tudor beams.

In response to concerns raised regarding overlooking, the Head of Service advised that in terms of the Council’s development standards having a sense of feeling of overlooking was not the same as if the orientation and distance of a property resulted in direct overlooking. He further clarified that in planning terms the proposed development had no detrimental overlooking in terms of there being any material loss of privacy and detriment to the residential amenity.

Further debate ensued and in response to additional concerns raised, the Officer confirmed that the Housing team supported the proposed commuted sum  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.