Agenda item

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that comments had been received from the Council’s Ecological Consultant.  The Update detailed a number of additional conditions which were recommended should Members be mindful to approve the application.  An additional letter of representation had also been received and this was detailed on the Update.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector, Jo Coombs, addressed the Committee.

The Chairman moved the Officers’ recommendation of approval, but this was not supported.

During the lengthy debate that followed Members expressed concern regarding a number of areas and in response to these and questions raised Officers provided further clarification which included:

·                 This application related to a temporary building (showroom) for a maximum of 12 months or less, depending on when the permanent showroom was constructed on the development site.

·                 The proposal was not tied into the delivery of affordable housing.

·                 In respect of concerns regarding the application being in an agricultural setting, it was highlighted that the site location had been approved under a discharge of condition as a construction compound for phase 1 of the related development.  Further details of the use of this compound were provided by Officers.

·                 This application had been brought forward following a delay by Essex County Council in the signing of the Section 278 agreement regarding Highways and construction of the main road into the site.  This temporary permission was sought to allow the applicant to start marketing as soon as possible.

Members were advised that two emails had been received by the Developers on the day of this meeting regarding the signing of the Section 278 agreement and the content of these letters were read out.  It was noted that the Developers had advised that the Section 278 agreement had now been signed, with the site entrance booked for November and the permanent show home being on site December / January.

Councillor Stamp proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to the development being outside of the development boundary; intrusive in the countryside; planting; the site being visible; and the proposed design as the site was in an agricultural area.  In response the Chairman clarified that the proposal related to Policies S1, S8, H4 and D1.  This proposal was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The application site lies within a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundaries where policies of restraint apply.  The design of the proposed development would be incongruent to the character of the surrounding area which comprises of agricultural fields and the rural countryside.  The development would be intrusive within the rural area and the proposed planting would not screen the development which would be highly visible from public vantage points.  This would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the rural area contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the LDP and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

Councillors R P F Dewick and A L Hull returned to the chamber.

IN THE CHAIR : COUNCILLOR R P F DEWICK