Agenda item

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

Prior to his presentation of the application, the Head of Development Management provided a verbal update in respect of Section 7, Consultations and Representations Received, of the report and asked that Members note the following:

·                 The Officer response to the NATS (National Air Traffic Services) consultation, detailed on page 70 of the agenda pack, should be disregarded. The objection from NATS as detailed remained at this time.

·                 Essex County Council Place Services Ecology had submitted a holding objection; however, following the submission of further information by the applicant, they were satisfied with the mitigation measures in respect of migratory bats and protected species badgers. With regard to biodiversity net gain, Place Services Ecology commented that their concerns related to further assessment of the river and channel conditions in providing the pre-development baseline. They have now stated that with the right data this could be discharged, however the Officer advised that, to date, this had not been resolved.

Following this the Officer presented the application.

The Chairperson opened the discussion to Members and Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that they accept the Officers’ recommendation to refuse. This was duly seconded.

Further discussion ensued with Councillor A S Fluker raising issues with the access route proposed for the site. He stated that the current plan would cause harm to residents, businesses and tourists who used them, creating traffic pressures and safety issues that had not been mitigated in the plan. The Director of Place, Planning and Growth responded by reiterating the position of Essex County Council’s Highway Authority, as set out in the report, and the potential outcomes of including this as a reason for refusal.

Councillor Fluker then proposed that an amendment be made to the reasons for refusal to include highway reasons. This was duly seconded. Following this, some Councillors expressed their support for the proposed amendment.

Councillor T Fittock then stated that in reference to Natural England’s objection concerning Habitat Assessments, the refusal should reflect that it was not about weighing harms and benefits, but was about meeting the test beyond reasonable scientific doubt and, as such, the application could not be approved.

In response to some of the discussion, the Director of Place, Planning and Growth suggested that, should Members be minded to refuse the application, a new reason for refusal based on highways could be delegated to him, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee and Ward Members, to agree appropriate wording. In addition, the wording for the Officer’s proposed reason for refusal could be altered to reflect the points raised regarding the Habitat Assessments.

Following this the Chairperson put to the vote the proposed amendment, in the name of Councillor Fluker, to include an additional reason for refusal based on highway safety. This amendment was duly agreed by the Committee.

Councillor Morgan then amended his earlier proposal for refusal and proposed that the Officers’ recommendation for refusal be modified in respect of the wording regarding the Habitat Assessment. He further proposed that the previously agreed additional reason for refusal, based on highway safety, be included, with the final wording delegated to the Director of Place, Planning, and Growth in consultation with the Chairperson and Ward Members.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED in line with the Officer’s recommendation for refusal, subject to amended wording in respect of the Habitat Assessment and the inclusion of an additional reason for refusal relating to highway safety. The final wording of both reasons for refusal was delegated to the Director of Place, Planning and Growth, in consultation with the Chairperson and Ward Members.