Agenda item

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

A Members’ Update and Officers’ verbal update were provided. The Members update corrected some typographical errors and added additional information in reference to paragraph 7.5.2 and 5.12.1. The Verbal update included clarification that an assessment of heritage harm against the public benefits for the application had been undertaken, amendments to conditions regarding bus stop improvements so the details of any changes to the bus stop had to be sent to the Council beforehand to assess the impact on any heritage assets, and a change to recommendation B of the Report from 6 months to secure a S106 agreement to 3 months with possible extensions of time.

The Officer presented the report. Following this an Objector Mr Gilbert, Tollesbury Parish Council Representative Councillor Roy Clare and the Applicant Mr Johnson addressed the Committee.

The Chairperson then opened up the floor to Members. Some concerns were raised by Members over the landscape and visual impact of the site which they believed would cause a detriment to the coastal landscape. The Officer responded that whilst there would initially be a more serious impact, there are mitigations in place that would reduce this over a number of years and on the balance the harm would not outweigh the benefits. The Officer then answered questions about the bus schedule and the time it would take for the affordable housing to be built on site. The Officer stated that funding for a bus service on Monday through Saturday for three years, and a Sunday bus service for a five-year period had been secured; following guidance from Essex County Council highways, to allow the service to become commercially viable. The Officer informed the Committee that the details for the affordable housing had not been compiled yet as it was dealt with at the reserved matters stage; additionally, there would likely be a provision within the s106 legal agreement where the applicant could only build 75% of market houses before the affordable housing was built.

A Member referred to the site being a field and then questioned how the measurements for the open spaces proposed as part of the application were worked out, and how they would be maintained. The Officer confirmed that the open space would be secured by planning conditions and obligations, including a measure of Biodiversity Net Gain within the parameters of the design of the site and that was what the comments in the report related to. Additionally, they confirmed that the people living on the site would contribute financially to the management of the green spaces through a Management Company secured through the legal agreement

Councillor T Fittock then addressed the Committee regarding his recent experience with the appeal process and what he believed the Planning Inspectorate took as legitimate reasons for refusal advising the Committee that they needed substantial reasons if they were to refuse this application. Following this he proposed an amendment to the recommendation that the timeframe to get the Section 106 agreement completed be reduced to a strict three-month time span. In response, the Director of Place Planning and Growth explained that a hard limit could be difficult because outside circumstances could sometimes delay this process. However, there was a possibility the wording could be amended to reflect a stricter deadline with some flexibility.

The Officer then confirmed that a condition would secure a mitigation strategy for any potential harm to the local Skylark population in place before any work can start.

Following this the Chairperson proposed the Officers’ recommendation to approve be agreed, subject to the amendments to conditions as per the officer's verbal update. This proposal was duly seconded. Upon a vote being taken this proposal was not agreed.

Councillor U G C Siddall-Norman then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was duly seconded. In response Officers sought clarification what the reasons for refusal would be and highlighted the potential consequences of refusing this application.

A discussion then ensued between Members about the potential reasons for refusal during which earlier points discussed were reiterated.

Following this discussion the Director of Place, Planning and Growth reminded Members that if reasons for refusal could not be agreed an amended proposal for approval could still be considered.

The Chairperson then advised that he was adjourning the meeting for a short comfort break.