Meeting Details

Planning Committee
9 Sep 2021 - 18:00 to 20:00
Occurred
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Part A
Live Broadcast

Please follow this link to watch the meeting live on YouTube:

 

(107) ColchesterCBC - YouTube

1 Welcome and Announcements (Virtual Meetings)
The Chairman will welcome members of the public and Councillors to the meeting and remind those participating to mute their microphones when not talking. The Chairman will invite all Councillors and Officers participating in the meeting to introduce themselves. The Chairman will, at regular intervals, ask Councillors to indicate if they wish to speak or ask a question and Councillors will be invited to speak in turn by the Chairman. A vote on each item of business will be taken by roll call of each Councillor and the outcome of each vote will be confirmed by the Democratic Services Officer.
2 Substitutions
Councillors will be asked to say if they are attending on behalf of a Committee member who is absent.
3 Urgent Items
The Chairman will announce if there is any item not on the published agenda which will be considered because it is urgent and will explain the reason for the urgency.
4 Declarations of Interest
Councillors will be asked to say if there are any items on the agenda about which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest which would prevent them from participating in any discussion of the item or participating in any vote upon the item, or any other pecuniary interest or non-pecuniary interest.
5 Minutes of Previous Meeting
The Councillors will be invited to confirm that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2021 are a correct record.
873

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2021 were confirmed as a correct record.

 

 

6 Have Your Say(Hybrid Planning Meetings)
At meetings of the Planning Committee, members of the public may make representations to the Committee members. This can be made either in person at the meeting  or by joining the meeting remotely and addressing the Council via Zoom. These Have Your Say! arrangements will allow for one person to make representations in opposition and one person to make representations in support of each planning application. Each representation may be no longer than three minutes(500 words).  Members of the public wishing to address the Committee either in person or remotely need to register their wish to address the meeting by e-mailing democratic.services@colchester.gov.uk by 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting date.  In addition for those who wish to address the committee online we advise that a written copy of the representation be supplied for use in the event of unforeseen technical difficulties preventing participation at the meeting itself.

These speaking arrangements do not apply to councillors who are not members of the Committee who may make representations of no longer than five minutes each
 
7 Planning Applications
When the members of the Committee consider the planning applications listed below, they may decide to agree, all at the same time, the recommendations in the reports for any applications which no member of the Committee or member of the public wishes to address the Committee.

Development of 153 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, open space, drainage and infrastructure and formation of new access and alterations to existing access onto Berechurch Hall Road.      

874

Councillor Hazell (by reason of the fact that she was a supporter of the Eudo Road Tennis Centre) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).


Councillor Barton (by reason of the fact that she was a supporter of the Eudo Road Tennis Centre) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).

 

Councillor Warnes declared a pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5), and left the room while the item was being considered by the Committee.

 

The Committee considered a planning application for the development of 153 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, open space, drainage and infrastructure and the formation of new access and alternations to existing access onto Berechurch Hall Road.

 

Eleanor Moss, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. A presentation was given of site photographs, aerial views and sketches of the proposed site layout and property design, including street scene illustrations. The Committee heard that the proposal was considered to be sustainable development and had been allocated within the emerging section 2 of the Local Plan for residential development.

 

The Committee had before it a report and an amendment sheet in which all information was set out.

 

Mary Stuttle, a local resident, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in opposition to the application. The Committee heard that Berechurch Hall Road had become extremely busy since the construction of the Solus estate, and there were significant concerns about the impact that a further 153 dwellings would have on the road. Although there was a thirty mile per hour speed limit, there were concerns that this was not obeyed by motorists, and the proposed entrance to the new development was unsuitably located and had the potential to create an accident black spot. Concerns were also raised about the removal of hedgerows to accommodate the development, and the pressure that more houses could place on local services such as doctor surgeries, which were already struggling to meet demand.

 

Stuart Willshire of Persimon Homes addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in support to the application. The Committee heard that the site in question had been identified as an allocated site in the emerging Colchester Local Plan for residential development. The proposal before the Committee was for 153 mixed dwellings consisting of a variety of houses and flats and including 46 affordable homes which met identified affordable housing needs in the borough. Care had been taken with the design of the development to ensure that it was aesthetically appropriate for the area and it incorporated planting elements which would provide biodiversity. The scheme provided a toucan crossing on Berechurch Hall Road, as well as two bus stops and the Highway Authority were supportive of the scheme. A package of planning contributions including healthcare, open space, education and community benefits would be provided via a Section 106 agreement which was to be signed. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the Officer’s report, which stated that the benefit of the site convincingly outweighed any adverse impacts.

 

Councillor Harris attended the meeting and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He was addressing the Committee in his role as a County Councillor for the area, and echoed concerns raised by local residents with regard to the negative impact on road safety on Berechurch Hall Road which could be caused by the proposal. A number of local residents had contacted him about the safety of pedestrians crossing the road, and the Committee was urged to do all that it could to ensure that the development did not go ahead without the necessary infrastructure for road safety and highways improvement.

 

Members of the committee raised concerns about traffic provisions in the area, although welcomed the introduction of the toucan crossing. An enquiry was made whether a mini roundabout could be introduced at the junction of Maypole Green Road to assist road users exiting the road, as the area was already very busy and likely to become more so. A wish was expressed that the proposed cycle path could be installed to the level requested by the Colchester Cycling Campaign, and badger sets in the area be left undisturbed and supported through the introduction of a wildlife corridor. Concerns were raised about the added strain that additional residents in the area would place on local doctor surgeries which were already struggling to meet demand, and the location of the proposed scheme in a semi-rural area with few transport links would drive residents to use their cars instead of more sustainable methods of transport.

 

It was recognised by the Committee that many of the concerns that had been raised about the proposal were concerned with highway issues, and it was noted that a representative from Essex County Council Highways was not in attendance to provide any answers to the questions that had been asked, which would have been very helpful to the Committee.

 

The Committee sought clarification on the access that would be provided to the development from Berechurch Hall Road, and in particular for pedestrians using the road. It was noted that some of the proposed housing did not seem to have any car parking spaces, which would force vehicles to be parked on the road or pavement in a potentially obstructive manner, and a request was made for more green space to be incorporated into the plan with mature trees being introduced.

 

In response to the questions and concerns expressed by the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the access to the proposed site would be incorporated with the access point to the adjacent development which had already received planning permission, and both sites would be accessed by this entrance. Consideration had been given to a secondary access point to the site, but the Highway Authority had taken the view that this was not required given the size of the proposed site and the negative impact on road safety that a second access point would have. The Committee heard that badgers were a protected species, and that an ecology report has identified an active set on site with two subsidiary sets, and a further ecological report would be provided prior to the start of construction. It was not proposed to close the main set if this was still active. Car parking had been provided in line with the Council’s car parking standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), together with cycle parking. The toucan crossing was proposed to be installed before the site was occupied, however, the mini roundabout that had been suggested by the had not been recommended by the Highways Authority. The Senior Planning Officer had met with the Colchester Cycling Campaign and had passed their concerns to the Highway Authority who had taken the view that the improvements requested were not required for a development of this size.

 

It was explained to the Committee that a condition could be imposed requiring proposed traffic calming measures to be provided to the Planning Authority in writing prior to the development being occupied to ensure that highway safety had been carefully considered.

 

The Committee repeated its concerns about the volume of traffic that used Berechurch Hall Road and it was suggested that the decision on the application be deferred in order to allow a representative from Essex County Council Highways to attend to provide answers to the questions that had been posed in relation to road safety issues.

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that:- the decision on the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee in order that a representative from Essex County Council Highways could attend and provide answers to the questions of the Committee. 

Outline application for up to 18 dwellings with access to be determined and all other matters reserved.       

875

Councillor Maclean (by reason of the fact that her daughter lives opposite the 
cricket club) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant 
to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).

 

The Committee considered an outline application for up to 18 dwellings with access 
to be determined and all other matters reserved. The application was referred to the 
Planning Committee as it was a major application and would require a S106 
agreement to secure planning obligations/contributions. The land had been allocated 
for the development in the West Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan Policy PP9 under 
Policies SG8 and SS15 of the Emerging Local Plan. The?application site was part of 
one of the allocated sites?(Site B)?included in the?Neighbourhood Plan?as indicated in 
Policy PP9 and Map PP9/2.?Due to the presence of a badger sett and the 
requirement for a wildlife buffer zone, the site does not accord entirely with the area 
as defined by Map PP9/2. However, it was considered that the area proposed was 
acceptable and that the proposed site was compliant with Policy PP9 of the 
Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal was therefore acceptable in principle. 

 

The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information
was set out. 

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the outline application be approved subject to 
legal agreement. 

Demolition of existing car showroom buildings and construction of a sheltered housing facility, comprising 44no. 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, and the construction of a residential apartment building, comprising 10no. 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, together with associated access, basement and above ground parking and landscaping.
 
876

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing car showroom buildings and construction of a sheltered housing facility comprising 44 1 and 2 bedroom apartments and the construction of a residential apartment building comprising 10 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings together with associated access, basement and above ground parking and landscaping. The application was referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Cope for the reasons set out in the report and in addition to this, the application constituted a major application and was the subject of a S106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet.

 

John Miles, Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. A presentation was given of site photographs, aerial views and sketches of the proposed site layout and property design, including street scene illustrations and detailed proposed floorplans.

 

A written representation had been submitted by Catherine Spindler, a local resident, and in opposition to the application, which was read to the Committee by Richard Clifford, Lead Democratic Services Officer. Although the provision of sheltered accommodation and low income housing was fully supported, concerns were raised about the proposed development itself, including woefully inadequate parking for residents, visitors, medical vehicles and carers. It was also considered that there was insufficient green space for a development likely to house children, and the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the local area. The Committee were asked to request that the application be re-submitted with amended plans showing additional parking, a more sympathetic design and more green space to include vegetation separating the sheltered accommodation from the apartments.

 

Councillor Cope attended the meeting, and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed the Committee. The Committee were requested to take note of some objections which had been received, including concerns raised about the lack of local doctor and school provision, and a serious issue that had been raised by Anglia Water in relation to the possibility of flooding, and a request that the applicant compiles a feasible drainage strategy to counteract this. Additionally, there appeared to be no storage provided for mobility scooters, which residents would be likely to use, and it was considered that residents using these vehicles would need to park them near to their own property, and in a manner that did not create a hazard to other residents. Last minute changes to the proposal were noted, for example provision of a space for an emergency vehicle to park, although concerns about elements of the design remained, and the Committee heard that the Military Road area deserved to be enhanced.

 

The Planning Officer responded to the concerns that had been raised and questions that had been asked, and confirmed to the Committee that with regard to parking, there were 45 spaces provided in the basement area of the sheltered housing accommodation, which represented an overprovision against Colchester Borough Council’s adopted standards. The overprovision was acceptable because there were good local transport links and the ability to walk into town meant that it was considered that sustainability credentials would not be undermined. With regard to the C2 units, 10 spaces were offered which were not allocated and could be used by residents and visitors. This was below the Council’s adopted standards, although Development Policy DP19 did state that a lower standard of parking provision may be acceptable where it can be demonstrated there is a high level of access to services. The National Health Service had been contacted, and they had requested the sum of £23,000 to mitigate against the impact that the proposed development may have, which had been agreed in principle. Anglia Water had confirmed that there was adequate capacity for the waste water flow anticipated and with regard to surface water disposal they had also confirmed that the information submitted with the application was considered acceptable, and a request had been made that an agreed strategy be reflected in the planning approval. Essex County Council had been consulted as the lead local flood authority, and a number of conditions had been recommended in relation to sustainable urban drainage systems. The site was in a flood zone with a low risk of flooding and was considered suitable for all types of development from a flood risk perspective. It was confirmed that there was a large scooter storage facility contained within the facility, and proposed cycle parking was shown on the plans. A landscaping strategy had been submitted which would be the subject of conditions.

 

In response to a number of questions raised by the Committee, the Planning Officer confirmed that electric vehicle charging points would be provided in accordance with an agreed condition. The Council’s archaeological advisor had also been consulted, and there were no grounds to recommend a potential refusal on the grounds of potential damage to archaeological assets, and a condition was proposed which would cover initial investigatory works and monitoring throughout construction to ensure that any discovered archaeological assets were protected. The Committee were advised that the provision of a defibrillator in a public location could be included as an informative, together with the suggestion that solar panels be installed. Sprinkler systems and other fire safety matters were more appropriately dealt with via Building Regulations, but a consultation response had been received from Essex Fire Service and an informative had been included welcoming the inclusion of sprinklers in the development.

 

Concerns had been raised by the Committee that there was potential for the development to overlook neighbouring properties, as the proposed development was taller than the existing buildings on the site. The Planning Officer explained that although the height of the existing two storey building was being increased to three storeys, the new building was located nearer to the centre of the site, and it was therefore not considered that there would be a material difference between the imposition of the structures. Furthermore, the Committee were assured that a number of steps had been taken to ensure that overlooking from the sheltered housing block was kept to a minimum, including the use of obscured glazing and oriel windows to ensure that any angles of overlooking were kept away from neighbouring properties.

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved subject to prior execution of a Section 106 agreement, with additional informatives that the installation of solar panels and a publicly accessible defibrillator be considered. 

Demolition of brick boundary wall to Lexden Manor. Construction of three 4-bedroom detached houses, each with integral garage, plus individual private driveways 
connecting to Marlowe Way. Retention of two TPO trees.
 
877

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of brick boundary wall t 
Lexden Manor and the construction of three 4-bedroom detached houses, each with 
internal garage, plus individual private driveways connecting to Marlowe Way with 
the retention of two Tree Protection Order trees. The application was referred to the 
Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Lissimore for the reasons set out in 
the report. 

 

The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together 
with further information on the Amendment Sheet. 

 

Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and assisted the 
Committee in its deliberations. A presentation was given of site photographs, aerial 
views and sketches of the proposed site layout and property design, including street
scene illustrations and detailed proposed floorplans. In terms of the unilateral 
undertaking, whist the monitoring fee had been paid, the unilateral undertaking had 
not been finalised. A comment had been received from the Member of Parliament, Will 
Quince, requesting that the Committee pay particular attention to the concerns that 
had been raised by local residents, including the appearance of the proposed 
properties and their height. Reference was also made to concerns that part of the wall 
had already been demolished, but it was confirmed to the Committee that removal of 
part of the wall would not have required planning permission. Since the report had 
been written, eight further letters of objection had been received which were largely 
re-iterating concerns raised previously in respect of the size and design of the 
proposed properties, parking and overlooking issues. 

 

The Committee were advised that overall this was a very finely balanced scheme 
which had attracted a lot of objections. The existing area was a very nice mix existing 
properties and open spaces, which contributed to the overall value of the area. In terms 
of the principle of the development, it was within the settlement limits and the National 
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gave a presumption in favour of such sustainable 
development, and therefore the proposal should be judged on its planning merits. 
Although there would be some loss of open space to the front of the proposed 
properties, there would be a condition applied to ensure that there were no enclosures 
on the frontage area, and it was not considered that the loss of open space would be 
so significant to constitute supporting a refusal on these grounds. 

 

The building of Lexden Manor was a pleasant building but one which was not listed or 
locally listed, which reduced the level of protection attributed to it. Some views of the 
manor would be lost if three dwellings were built in front of it, although some additional 
sight lines may be opened up between the proposed houses with the removal of the 
existing wall. It was not considered that the loss of the view of Lexden Manor and its
setting was so significant that a refusal could be justified on those grounds, as 
indicated in the report. 

 

With regard to the form of the development, the proposed design was different to the 
surrounding area, which was comprised of dwellings with no particular architectural 
merit but which comprised a pleasant urban context. It was recognised that the 
proposed development represented good design in terms of a sharp contemporary 
scheme and with the use of high quality materials could fit in with the character of the
area. The designs showed a traditional gable width, coupled with more modern 
features on the front, and with the use of high quality materials with a variation in the 
middle dwelling including the roof material meant that the properties could fit into the 
setting. It was therefore not considered that the proposals should be refused on the 
grounds of design, scale and form. 

 

The Committee heard that the garden areas did exceed the area required for dwellings 
of this nature and scale, and in this regard it was difficult to argue that the proposal 
represented an over-development of the site. The dwellings were considered far 
enough away from neighbouring properties to avoid an overbearing impact or loss of 
light, and although the rear of the proposed dwellings did look over Lexden Manor, 
obscure glazing conditions would ensure that windows did not overlook any private 
amenity spaces. It was considered that there were adequate parking spaces on site, 
with two spaces to the front of the property in addition to the garage. The Committee 
were advised that a condition could be added to require that the garages be retained 
as garaging if it wished. 

 

This was a very finely balanced case. It was possible to say that there would be some 
loss of open space and some loss of the view of Lexden Manor, while on the other 
hand this was a sustainable development with design considered acceptable to the 
character of the area and no highways issues, retained trees and some openness on 
the site. The recommendation was therefore that the application be approved subject 
to the finalisation of the unilateral undertaking. 

 

Simon Sorrell, a local resident, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions 
of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in opposition to the application. The 
Committee heard that Marlowe Way was situated in an area with its own character, no 
through traffic and houses of similar design and uniform height on low density plots. 
Equally important were the open, publicly accessible green spaces, which were vital 
to the streets’ attraction and amenity of local residents and wildlife. The Committee 
were requested to refuse the application in order to protect the open area of land that 
was the subject of the application, together with other such areas in the locality. The 
demolition of the section of the wall that had taken place was described as a flagrant 
breach of planning control, and concerns were expressed that the objection that had 
been received from residents had been given insufficient weight on the Officer’s report, 
which seemed to favour the applicant. The Committee heard that the proposal 
conflicted with policies DP1 and DP15. The proposed scheme design seemed to be in 
conflict with policy DP1, which required designs that respected the character of the 
immediate area, and the proposed houses were three floors high and higher than any 
other dwellings in the area. Marlowe Way enjoyed a particular character which 
deserved to be recognised, and the Committee were requested to consider the 
concerns that had been raised by so many, the detrimental impact that the proposal 
would have on Marlowe Way, and to refuse the application. 

 

By way of a point of clarification, the Chair explained to the Committee that the partial 
removal of the boundary wall was considered to be permitted development, and as 
such no planning permission would have been required for these works. 

 

Robert Pomery, a Planning Consultant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the 
provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 and in support to the application. 
The Committee heard that both national planning policy, and the Council’s own Local 
Plan supported the use of land in locations which were accessible to schools, shops 
and other services, and the use of such sites reduced the need for housing growth on 
greenfield land. The site was described as a ‘windfall site’, which made an important 
contribution to the Council’s housing supply and it was important that these sites 
continued to be developed. The site in question had emerged through the 
simultaneous purchase of Lexden Manor by the applicant, and the area of frontage on 
Marlowe Way which had afforded the opportunity to combine the two sites. The 
Committee was referred to the Local Plan Policies, and were informed that the land 
did not benefit from any protections or other designations, other than the trees subject 
to Tree Protection Orders, and the land was not public open space. The scheme was 
compliant with the policies of the Council in every respect and included the provision 
of solar panels, electric vehicle charging points for veery property and ground source 
heat pumps. Although the proposed buildings had been described as three storey, this 
was incorrect as the buildings were two storey with accommodation in the roof space. 
Officers were content that there were no aspects of the proposal that would sustain or 
support refusal of planning permission. 

 

Councillor Lissimore attended the meeting, and, with the consent of the Chair, 
addressed the Committee. The Committee heard that the application had been called 
in much earlier in the year, and the length of time that been taken to bring it before the 
Committee demonstrated that it was not a straightforward application. It was felt that 
the proposed design of the scheme was out of keeping with the locality, and the fact 
that the proposals had been described as ‘finely balanced’ meant that approval was 
by no means guaranteed. It was suggested that the development was out of character 
for the area and was not a good design. The Committee were directed to the street 
scene illustration that had been shown, which it was suggested did not demonstrate 
that fact that houses to both the left and right of the proposed development were chalet 
style properties which although two storey buildings, were not full height two stories.
Similar style properties were commonly located in the area immediately surrounding
the proposed scheme, many of which had very low roof lines and restricted roof height. 
The proposed development properties had roof heights that were at least 1.8 metres 
higher than all neighbouring properties, and properties within the estate. The 
Committee’s attention was drawn to the report which stated that the design of the 
proposed properties differed significantly in design from neighbouring properties. 
Local residents and Councillors believed that the design went against the Council’s 
own design policies, and was in fact in breach of National Planning Policy Framework 
section 12 in respect of achieving well designed places, DP1 design and amenity in
the Council’s development policy, in addition to DP12 and DP14 in that the 
development did not enhance the site or surroundings. Given the acknowledged and 
significant design differences from neighbouring properties, the Committee was urged 
to reject the application on the grounds of design. 

 

Councillor Buston attended the meeting, and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed 
the Committee. The Committee heard that there were sufficient material planning 
considerations, including deviations from the Council’s own policies to justify refusing 
the application. The unique character of the area was characterised by mostly low rise, 
mostly chalet bungalows which presented a uniformity of a fundamentally open plan 
aspect, with open green publicly accessible spaces of key importance to the area. The 
proposal before the Committee was completely at odds with the unique character of 
the locality, and the design did not respect of reflect the character of the site, its context 
or surroundings. Councillor Buston referred to a similar application which had been 
made in the area which had been refused, as the presumption in favour of sustainable 
development did not override the harm that would have been caused to the character 
of the local area. He suggested that the parallels to be drawn between the two cases 
were compelling, and reminded the Committee again that the land currently in question 
was publicly accessible. He suggested that the application would not make Marlowe 
Way a better place for its residents, and called for the reinstatement of the wall that 
had been partially removed from the boundary of the site. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the concerns that had been raised, and
confirmed that the case was finely balanced, with arguments both for and against the 
scheme. The Committee heard that it was a judgement on whether a more 
contemporary design was to be favoured in the area, and although it was the opinion 
of the Senior Planning Officer that the difference in the street scene was not enough 
to justify a refusal, this was again a matter of judgement. It was confirmed to the 
Committee again that the partial removal of the wall did not require planning 
permission. Although there were similarities between this case and the case that 
Councillor Buston had referenced, there were also significant differences in the impact 
that building on a green space would have had in each area, and each case was to be 
determined on its own merits. 

 

The Committee carefully considered the points that had been made, and 
acknowledged that the application was finely balanced and that accordingly the views 
of residents should be carefully considered. Concern was expressed about the modern 
design of the houses, and although some Committee members favoured the stye of 
design in itself, serious reservations were voiced as to whether it was appropriate in 
the setting. Of particular concern to the Committee was the height of the proposed 
properties in comparison the rest of the locality, and the fact that the proposed 
buildings were very distinctive in design and not at all in keeping with the area. 

 

A Committee member voiced a particular concern in respect of the requirement of 
obscured glazing, considering that the ability to open windows was of key importance 
in a family home. Consideration was given to the Lexden Manor overlooking the 
scheme, although it was acknowledged that the Manor already overlooked existing 
properties in the area. 

 

A Committee member raised questions about the green space which was the subject 
of the application, seeking clarification on rights of access over this land, and who had 
been responsible for maintaining it up until this point. The Committee recognised that 
although the green space would not be entirely lost, it would be punctuated by tarmac 
driveways, and the view of the Manor impeded. 

 

The Committee did acknowledge the environmentally sustainable elements of the 
design, but sought clear assurances from Officers that the scheme was in keeping 
with the policies that had been referenced by Councillor Lissimore. 

 

By way of response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that other design options 
were possible for the site, and while the design could not be referred to as poor in and 
of itself, it was a judgement as to whether it was in keeping with the character of the 
area. The ownership and maintenance of the land prior to the acquisition by the 
applicant had not been established, but whether or not the area had been maintained 
by the highway authority, it was now private property. The Committee heard that it was 
possible to fit obscure glazing that could be opened above a height of 1.7 meters 
above the floor level to allow for ventilation. The Senior Planning Officer suggested 
that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application, then it should be very clear 
on the grounds for the refusal. 

 

With regard to the queries that Councillor Lissimore had raised, the Committee were 
advised that it was for it to make a judgement in terms of the design. Both the Essex 
Design Guide and the National Policy Framework did promote a variety of designs and 
encouraged contemporary design in some areas, but a judgement was required in 
terms of context. 

 

There was some discussion in the Committee about the current and present ownership 
of the land, and Simon Cairns, Development Manager, explained that he believed 
through anecdotal evidence that the land had previously been owned by the original 
developer. Although there may be issues of prescriptive rights relating to access of the 
land, this was not a material planning issue, and would be a civil law matter. The main 
planning consideration was the character of the proposed development and whether 
it would result in material harm. 

 

A Committee member asked for clarification from the Officers as the chance of an 
appeal being successful should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, 
and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that in his opinion an appeal could go either 
way. He did consider it highly unlikely that costs would be awarded against the Council, 
as he considered that a refusal would not be viewed as unreasonable, but urged the 
Committee to be clear and careful when determining the specific grounds for refusal, 
if this was the route that it wished to go down. Any refusal reason would be key to any 
propose development on the site in the future, as the Committee could indicate that it 
was opposed to all development on the site and the loss of the green space, or that it 
would consider a modified proposal in the future. As the land was privately owned, 
there was a right to apply for development, and as the land was within settlement limits 
there was a presumption to approve a sustainable development, but the Committee 
could decide that it did not consider the site was suitable for development at all 
because of the loss of open space and the setting of Lexden Manor. 

 

A Committee member suggested that they considered that the site would be 
developed in the future, but that the Committee had the opportunity to try to ensure 
that any future design was more in keeping with the locality. The Committee 
considered whether the Council would be placed at risk of a costs order being made 
against it should a refusal be appealed the subject of an appeal, and debated whether 
or not the matter should be deferred to allow the applicant to return with updated 
designs. The Development Manager did not consider that there was a risk of costs
being awarded against the Council as matters that were being considered were within 
the context of the application, and the Committee had a variety of options before it. 

 

The Committee considered whether or not to refuse the application in principle, but a 
number of Committee members indicated that they could not support this approach, 
and it was considered that a proposal more in character with the area would be 
considered more favourably. 

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be refused on the basis that the 
proposed design, scale and form was out of character for the local area. 

The proposed fence is 2.4m high palisade fencing and will cover an areas of 20m and placed along side of the existing palisade fence. Second section of fence approximately 
4m in width.
 
878

The Committee considered an application for the installation of a 26m length of fencing 
2.4m in height alongside existing palisade fencing in order to prevent public access to 
the railway line. The application had been referred to the Committee in the interests of 
clarity because the applicant was the Borough Council. The application was 
recommended for approval. 

 

The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information
was set out. 

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved. 

Discharge or revoke an existing Section 106 Agreement.
879

The Committee considered a request to discharge an existing Section 106 agreement 
in respect of The Orchard, Foxes Lane, Eight Ash Gren. The Section 106 Agreement 
applies to planning application COL/98/1681 which granted permission for the erection 
of an agricultural workers dwelling. The Section 106 Agreement provided that the 
dwelling erected under application reference COL/98/1681 shall be occupied only by 
a stockman (together with his immediate family) employed to supervise the livestock 
located at Thurgoods Farm. In April 2021, the Council issued a Certificate of Lawful 
Existing Use (reference 211311) for the occupation of the dwelling by persons who 
are not solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in 
forestry or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependents. 
Subsequently, in July 2021, the Council granted permission for the removal of 
condition 5 of application COL/98/1681 (reference 210547) which restricted the 
occupation of the dwelling to persons who are solely or mainly working, or last working, 
in the locality in agriculture or in forestry or a widow or widower of such a person, and 
to any resident dependents. Application COL/98/1681 is therefore no longer the 
subject of any occupancy restrictions. The Section 106 agreement is therefore 
considered no longer relevant. 

 

The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information
was set out. 

 

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the Section 106 Agreement be discharged.

Exclusion of the Public (not Scrutiny or Executive)
In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public, including the press, from the meeting so that any items containing exempt information (for example confidential personal, financial or legal advice), in Part B of this agenda (printed on yellow paper) can be decided. (Exempt information is defined in Section 100I and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).
Part B

Additional Meeting Documents

Attendance

NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
Councillor Robert Davidson Councillor Peter Chillingworth
Councillor Roger Mannion Councillor Jeremy Hagon
Councillor Beverley Oxford  
NameReason for AbsenceSubstituted By
No absentee information has been recorded for the meeting.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting