To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 28 September 2017.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 28 September 2017 were approved as a correct record.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

Councillor Ojetola declared a non-pecuniary interest regarding Item 8, 17/01171/FUL: Smurfit Kappa Lokfast Site, London Road, Purfleet, RM19 1QY in that he had previously had a number of dealings with Harris given their two sites within his ward.

Councillor Redsell declared she would be presenting a statement in her capacity as Ward Councillor in objection to item 9, 17/01107/HHA: 18 Brookmans Avenue, Stifford Clays, Grays, Essex, RM16 2LW and therefore would not participate in the debate or vote on that item.

The Chair declared receipt of an email regarding Item 10, 17/01165/FUL on behalf of the entire committee.

Councillors Churchman, Hamilton, Jones, Ojetola and Rice also declared that they had received phone correspondence in relation to the same item.

The report provided information regarding planning appeals performance.

Councillor Rice questioned whether the appeal would mean that flats could be expected on the 76 High Street, Grays site.  The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth advised the Committee that it was not the Council building the flats but matters could progress.

RESOLVED:

The Planning Committee noted the report.

The application sought planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to construct a 6 form entry secondary school for 1,150 pupils, including 250 sixth form pupils in 8,850m² new school building. The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were suggested slight amendments to conditions 20 and 21 and minor revisions to a number of submitted plans as detailed below:

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-RF-DR-A-1304 now Revision A

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-ZZ-DR-A-1350 now Revision A

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-ZZ-DR-A-1351 now Revision A

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-ZZ-DR-A-1370 now Revision A

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-ZZ-DR-A-1371 now Revision A

Plan no. 17075-LSI-A1-XX-DR-A-1400 now Revision A

Condition no. 20: insert “of the playing pitch” after “development”.

Condition no. 21: substitute “above finished ground level” with “of the MUGA”.

Councillor Ojetola felt that it was good to see applications for new schools in the borough, but expressed concern at issues regarding highways and access.  London Road was not wide and this might cause problems regarding turning in and out of the site, similarly the access was in close proximity to the railway station and he was worried there would be tailbacks during peak hours when the barriers were down at the crossing.  The Committee was advised that the site had previously been used by HGVs which had ingressed and egressed the site with the current road layout and width; it was therefore deemed acceptable.  The Transport Assessment had also included a traffic count and predicted movements relating to the proposed use which gave no indication of great impact.  The existing use of the site was greater than the proposed use.

Councillor Ojetola continued that he felt more should be done to encourage alternative travel to the site and to reduce the number of vehicle movements, however he accepted that presently there was not a complete cycle route to the site.  Members heard that there were two bus routes within 300m of the site.  The modal share of cycling would be monitored through the Travel Plan condition and addressed if not met.  There were also physical measures within the transport assessment such as the introduction of a puffin crossing immediately outside the entrance to the site and the proposed drop off facility at Cornwell House.  The site was deemed to be fairly accessible to secondary school pupils and the traffic plan was a starting point.  There were aspirations to enhance sustainable travel including a mode shift star system managed by road safety officers which would push the school to improve its sustainable transport modal figures.  Similarly the Council could look at highway improvements for better cycling and other options.

Councillor Jones sought clarity around the bus drop off points in relation to the site, and whether the Cornwall House car park would continue to be available in the future.  The private school coach drop off point would be within the site itself, which was in place to facilitate the relocation of pupils from the temporary Chafford campus.  There were also local bus routes nearby and the Cornwall House car park was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a summer house / home office.  The application was scheduled for determination by the Planning Committee because it had been called in by councillors to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of overshadowing the garden and the dwelling to the south.

The Vice-Chair sought confirmation that the height of the proposed building was fairly standard.  The Committee was advised that, were the summerhouse further from the fence, residents could build up to 4m high within Permitted Development.

Councillor Hamilton asked officers to clarify the function of a ‘sunpipe’.  There would be a dome on top of the roof to provide natural light.

A Ward Councillor, Joycelyn Redsell, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of objection.

The applicant, Mr Preou, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

Councillor Ojetola questioned the issue regarding the height and the proximity to the fence.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposed building was closer to the property at the rear than the existing building; however given the direction both properties faced the shadow would fall within the applicant’s garden.

Councillor Rice referred to page 67 whereby the proposal complied with the Council’s policy.  He sought verification that the outhouse could have been built without the demolition of the existing garage.  Given the policy regarding percentage of footprint, it would be acceptable for the applicant to have both structures simultaneously.

Councillor Hamilton noted that, whilst the work must commence within 3 years, there was no limit for when the works should be completed.  He questioned whether, given the restrictions regarding commercial use, the building could be used as a granny annex in future.  Condition 4 limited usage of the building to ancillary purposes of the existing property as a single dwelling; the proposed building could be used for guests with on occasion but could not be used for independent living.  The time limit was a standard condition and it was not considered reasonable to place a limit upon completion date.

Councillor Jones asked whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of height.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that it was a standard height and could have been taller within Permitted Development.  Councillor Jones continued to question whether there were any regulations regarding the distance from the property boundary.  The Council held no specific regulations however if the building were shorter it could reasonably be built closer to the fence and cover a larger footprint.

Councillor Ojetola questioned the “home office” use.  It was confirmed that use like a study would be deemed acceptable however if it were used to meet clients that would be contrary to the conditions in place.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative noted the plans included a business address, which matched that of the property.  Councillor Ojetola questioned what enforcement was possible if the conditions were broken.  It was clarified that, within Condition 4, working from home with a computer and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The application sought planning permission for the installation of a new ‘Flying Fox’ adventure course at Alexandra Lake, comprising the installation of start and finish platforms on the Boardwalk; connected by zip line to 5 station structures positioned around the lake, together with associated fencing and hardstanding; and a new ‘floating maze’ platform.

Councillor Jones queried the distance of the zip line from the offices.  The nearest points ranged between 16-23m from the office building.

Councillor Hamilton expressed concerns around access and density of platforms.  It was confirmed that the application included no proposal for new staircases however the platforms were well spaced and the application had been accompanied by a health and safety document, though this was not within the remit of the Committee.  The scheme would be an entire route followed from start to finish by groups as large as 16 with up to two instructors.

Councillor Ojetola asked for more details regarding the floating maze.  There would be assault courses anchored in the lake bed.  It would be visible and accessible from the Boardwalk for route climbing in groups.  Councillor Ojetola continued to question whether noise assessments had been carried out regarding the two landing spots closest to the office building.  There had been a noise assessment which concluded there would be no adverse impact and this had been checked and considered by Environmental Health Officers, who raised no objections to the scheme.

Councillor Rice referred to the Council’s policies regarding open space and leisure and recalled that these would only support recreation on the east of the Lake, not the north and west.  The Committee was advised that the policies did not prevent development but sought to protect and enhance what was already there.  The application included an arboricultural assessment and a landscaping assessment; Members were advised that a planning condition required replacement of trees as 10 trees would be removed through the development.  There had been no objections from relevant consultees as the condition was deemed to provide acceptable mitigation.  Councillor Rice questioned whether the noise and distraction would be conducive to businesses situated within Alexandra House.  The main noise would be from users rather than the zip wire itself. Following consultation with Environmental Health and the Landscape and Ecology Advisor there were no objections raised with regard to noise and visual impact.

Councillor Jones asked whether the proposed scheme was the first of its kind or whether there were others elsewhere.  It was confirmed that the organisation was responsible for similar schemes.

An agent, David Maxwell, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of objection.

The applicant, Matt Nicholson, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

Councillor Rice expressed concern that, in his view, policies were being ignored as it had been included that the north and west of the lake would not be used for leisure purposes and therefore he could not support the application.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified that nothing within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.