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 an amended Garden Strategy Plan had been submitted and a consultation response received from Heybridge Parish Council.  The Update also detailed a number of corrections to the Officers’ report and revision to proposed conditions to reflect the latest changes incorporated into the scheme.

Following the Officers’ presentation the Applicant, Mr Jamie McArthur on behalf of Bellway Homes addressed the Committee.

The Chairman moved the Officers’ recommendation of approval as set out in the report and Members’ Update.  This proposal was duly seconded.

The Chairman asked Officers to note a request that where an application site crossed different Parish boundaries that all Parish Councils were consulted.  Officers advised that this was in place.

A lengthy debate followed during which a number of questions were raised by Members and in response Officers provided the following clarifications:

·                 An Ecology report had been submitted with the application which set out all the biological enhancements proposed. 

·                 If the applicant wished to make any changes to materials proposed they would have to submit a variation to what was being assessed.

·                 The application for the relief road had been granted as part of a previous application and this included mitigation to overcome any harm caused by noise.  There was some discussion regarding additional noise mitigation relating to those houses adjacent to the relief road.  Members were advised that the level of mitigation required was in accordance with building regulations, however Officers felt more was required and therefore a condition had been included relating to this.

·                 Officers had sought clarification from the applicant to justify that the location of the Early Years facilities within the local centre would not impact on other facilities and services or deliverability.

·                 The Conservation Officer had considered the impact on adjacent Listed Buildings and had suggested a change to the northern dwellings fenestration which had been incorporated into those dwellings

·                 The Highway impact assessment was submitted as part of the outline application and the impact of the houses on Broad Street Green Road had been considered acceptable at the time as well as being within the Local Development Plan (LDP) to delivery this amount of housing.

·                 A number of concerns were raised regarding the proposed three storey apartment block on Broad Street Green, it being out of keeping with and did not blend in with the residential area.  In response, Members’ attention was drawn to the building heights parameter plan which allowed buildings of up to three storeys in height.  Officers also advised that the three-storey building would be some distance from Broad Street Green Road properties, not adjacent to any Listed Buildings and with a roundabout in between such properties.  In response to a further question regarding fenestration, it was noted that if Members felt the properties fronting Broad Street Green should have traditional fenestration this could be imposed by way of a condition.

·                 Natural England had not provided any comments regarding the development.  In response to a question regarding completion of a net biodiversity matrix it was noted that submission of this had not previously been requested and was only guidance, not a legal requirement.

·                 The Ecology Consultant had raised no objections and commented that there would be net biodiversity gain.

In response to concerns raised regarding the proposed three-storey development on Broad Street Green, Councillor Miss A M Beale proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of the basic structure and layout of the whole estate, particularly the development on Broad Street Green.  The Chairman advised that there was already a proposal on the table that this had to be considered first, should it not be agreed alternative proposals could be considered at this point.

The Chairman then moved the motion to accept the Officers recommendation.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor P L Spenceley requested a recorded vote.  This was duly seconded, and the voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors Mrs J L Fleming, A S Fluker, C Swain, Mrs M E Thompson and S White.

Against the recommendation:

Councillor M G Bassenger, Miss A M Beale, V J Bell, M S Heard, K M H Lagan, C Mayes, S P Nunn, N G F Shaughnessy, R H Siddall and P L Spenceley

Abstention:

Councillors Mrs P A Channer, M R Edwards, B B Heubner and S J N Morgan.

The Chairman advised that the Motion was lost and called for an alternative proposal.

Councillor R H Siddall referred to the height of the main block on Broad Street Green and proposed that the application be deferred to come back to this Committee with an amended plan.  This proposal was duly seconded.

The Lead Specialist Place explained that Members could defer the application subject to further negotiations as concerns had been raised, however there was a risk of appeal regarding non-determination.  Members could not defer the application requesting an amended plan as the developer could refuse to do this.

Councillor Siddall amended his proposal accordingly, the Chairman put this to the Committee and upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be DEFERRED subject to further negotiations.