Agenda item

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

During the lengthy debate that ensued Members commented on the applications, with the following areas being raised and additional information provided by Officers:

Reference was made to a recent appeal for a similar site in Southminster which had been rejected based on sustainability reasons and in response the Officer explained to Members the impact of the Council not having a Five-Year Housing Land Supply and due to circumstances the tilted balance tipped in favour of the developer.

Ecological concerns raised in the Essex Wildlife Trusts consultation response in relation to the wildlife habitats and reptile population issues on the site had been taken into consideration. However it was noted that the Place Services Ecology specialist had removed their objections requesting instead a number of conditions to ensure that throughout the development there was no ecological harm. The Development Management Team Manager explained that therefore Council did not have a reason for refusal on ecological grounds.

• In response to a query regarding buses and construction vehicles, Members were informed that the Council had requested a Construction Environmental Management Plan as part of one of the proposed conditions to identify measures to control and monitor impact arising from construction traffic. As the Highways Authority had not objected in relation to this, a reason for refusal on highway safety grounds could not be included.

• It was noted that through these applications the Council would look to secure the amount of affordable housing and the type of tenure mix, but matters relating to the actual number of one-bed, two-bed properties would form part of a Reserved Matters application.

The Officer confirmed that the second application had been amended during the application process meaning that both applications were now identical and therefore now a twin tract application.

There was some discussion regarding the implications if the Committee were minded to approve the applications in relation to the current related appeal submitted, and the Officer provided further guidance in respect of the Constitutional Brake should Members be mindful to refuse either / both applications. In response to a question the Officer advised that any reasons for refusal would form part of the Council’s defence in relation to any related appeal.

Following further discussion, Councillor M E Thompson proposed that the applications be agreed, as per the Officers’ recommendation. This was not seconded.

Councillor L L Wiffen then proposed that the applications be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation. This was duly seconded. The Chairperson advised that sound reasons for refusal were required. In response to the earlier discussions and advice from the Officer, Members agreed that the reason for refusal should be formed around Policies S1, S2, S8 and T1 (in terms of transport) and that the site was in an unsustainable location and outside of the settlement boundary.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee would vote on each application individually. He then moved the earlier proposal in the name of Councillor Wiffen, that the Committee were minded to refuse application 25/00473/OUTM. Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

The Chairperson then moved the proposal in the name of Councillor Wiffen that the Committee were minded to refuse application 25/00474/OUTM. Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

The Committee were advised by the Chairperson that as they were minded to refuse both applications the Constitutional Brake would be invoked, both applications were therefore deferred, and a report would be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the Development Management Team Manager for her responses to all questions raised.

25/00473/OUTM

RESOLVED that the Constitutional Brake Clause be applied, and consideration of this application is therefore DEFERRED to the next meeting of the North Western Area Planning Committee.

25/00474/OUTM

RESOLVED that the Constitutional Brake Clause be applied, and consideration of this application is therefore DEFERRED to the next meeting of the North Western Area Planning Committee.