To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 2 December 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2021 were approved as a true and correct record, subject to showing Steve Taylor as attending the meeting.

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.

In relation to 21/01787/HHA, Councillor Halden declared that he would remove himself from the discussion on this application as he had been in discussions with the applicant and felt he could not hear the application with an open mind. He continued by stating he was disappointed how long it had taken the application to be presented to the Committee, as he had called in this application 90 days ago and it was only just being put before Members.

In relation to 21/01357/FUL, Councillor Polley declared that she was one of the Members who had called in the application, however felt that she could hear the applicant with an open mind.

Councillor Kelly declared for application 21/01787/HHA Councillor Halden had circulated a photograph which had been received by all Members.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Public Protection presented the report to Members.

During discussions Members raised concerns as to the decision from the planning inspector to allow an appeal. Members commented it was it hard to understand how the inspector came to that decision and sought whether challenging these decisions were possible.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection assured Members that Planning Officers had read through the report in detail, along with speaking to Officers in the Legal Department. He explained that all appeal decisions are reviewed and the team look for trends in decisions to ensure the Council continues to place the correct weight on factors and policies.  Where decisions are challengeable, the Council’s Legal team would naturally seek to challenge the decision. 

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

Councillor Byrne enquired as to whether the LED lights were environmentally friendly and efficient to run. The Principal Planner advised that he was unable to confirm the exact bulb specification, but one would assume that the most efficient units would be used by the school. Councillor Fletcher followed up seeking as to whether the light projected would affect local resident’s gardens, he further asked that given the location of the school and the bend in the road as to whether the light would affect drivers. The Principal Planner commented that the light spilling into neighbouring gardens was limited and was also clear of the bend in the road so would not impact on drivers.

Councillor Polley stated she had been informed the sports pitch would be used regularly and to full capacity, should these lights be installed there would be an increase of noise generated from sites which could impact on neighbours not to mention the additional traffic which would be generated from people using facilities. The Principal Planner explained that the hours of use were not to be changed and therefore would remain the same throughout the year.

Councillor Haldon stated he understood there were few facilities such as the football courts at St Clere’s and Harris Chafford Hundred which also had this type of lights and if these were standard lights which were used. The Principal Planner confirmed that the other schools had similar flood lights as that proposed here. The Highways Engineer advised should traffic issues arise then officers could look at completing a car park management assessment.

Speaker statements were heard from:

 Mr Khan, Resident in objection

During discussions the Chair sought as to whether there was anything Members could do with regards to the possible noise increase should the application be agreed. The Principal Planning Officer explained that a noise assessment had not been considered to be necessary and no request had been made by either the Environmental or Health Team. Councillor Churchman asked if there was anything Members could do with regards to the working time and keeping on top of any construction work which was still to be completed. The Committee were advised as yet present were no conditions on the application for this however it was something officers could look at.

Councillor Piccolo stated he had listened to the reasons listed by residents with regards to the hours on the application, he continued by stating as the hours the site could be used were still the same he could not at this stage give a reason to object against the application, he felt the noise would perhaps be more noticeable during the winter months however it would not be any louder than in the summer months when the daylight would be longer.

Councillor Fletcher mentioned he was interested in a noise survey being carried out before he was able to agree to the application, as the longer the site was to be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The report was presented by the Principal Planner. 

Councillor Liddiard enquired as to whether there were any highways issues in the location of the application. The Highways Engineer confirmed there were none.

Councillor Piccolo commented that he visited the site and was confused as to why the application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Fletcher echoed Councillor Piccolo's comment in that he too was struggling as to how the application would be out of keeping with the area. The Principal Planning officer explained most houses in the area which had an extension the roof was parallel to the main property; this application was proposing a mono pitched roof.

Speaker statements were heard from:

 Mr Kirkby, Resident in support

Councillor Byrne commented that properties along Branksome Avenue were all different and that was part of the road’s characteristics.

Councillor Fletcher echoed Councillor Byrne comment that the characteristics of Branksome Avenue was that there was no uniform build to the properties. He further stated he could not see the reason to refuse the application.

Counsellor Polley stated that areas such as Chafford Hundred were subject to design plans and therefore applications submitted would have to keep in with such plans, however Branksome Avenue did not have a design plan and therefore she felt this application was keeping in with the characteristics of the road.

The Chair of the Committee sought if any Member wished to propose the officer’s recommendation. No Member wished to propose the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Fletcher proposed that the application be approved on the grounds that rather than negatively impacting the streets around Branksome Avenue, with the removal of the wall the application would in fact improve it and there was nothing within the design submitted, which the committee considered to be out of character in the local area given that non-formality was its character.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection advised the committee that in line with the constitution should a recommendation not be agreed then an alternative recommendation was to be put forward, which has been submitted by Councillor Fletcher. He continued by stating he had listened to the debate and discussion had by Members and had made a note of their concerns, mainly the fact that the characteristics of Branksome Avenue was that there was no format to properties in the local area.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection summed up by advising should the committee approve the application the standard conditions would need to be applied to the application and agreed to by the Chair

Councillor Fletcher proposed that the application be approved

and was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

For: (8) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Gary Byrne, Mike Fletcher, Terry Piccolo, Georgette Polley and Lee Watson

Against: (0)

Abstained (1) Councillor James Halden

The Chair of the Committee advised Members the applicant had withdrawn this application.