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.

The Chair of the Committee advised that to allow residents to attend for Planning Application 21/01812/FUL Land Adjacent And To The Rear Of The George And Dragon, East Tilbury Road, Linford, Essex, he was going to rearrange the order of the agenda for this application to be heard second.

Councillor Arnold declared an interest in item 7, planning application 21/01812/FULin that there was a press article regarding another site being developed by the applicant which as accompanied by a photograph. Councillor Arnold commented he was named within the article; however, he was not at the site.

The Chair declared the following correspondence on behalf of all Members:

• Planning Application 21/01812/FUL: Land Adjacent And To The Rear Of The George And Dragon, East Tilbury Road, Linford, Essex an email in support of the application from the agent of the applicant.
• Planning Application 22/01241/FUL: The Hollies Rectory Road, Orsett, Essex, RM16 3EH an email in support of the application.

Councillors Arnold and Thandi also declared emails had been received from the applicant for planning application 22/01241/FUL: The Hollies Rectory Road, Orsett, Essex, RM16 3EH.

The Interim Strategic Lead for Development Services presented the reports to Members.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. 

The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager.

The Chair of the Committee enquired if the application would be considered acceptable, if it wasn’t located within the Greenbelt.  He further commented if the area wasn't restricted by the conservation area and the fact that it breaches into the green belt, as to whether it could be down to judgement. The Major Applications Manager advised that Members would be need show that the harm to the Greenbelt was clearly outweighed.

Members enquired as to what proportion of the new build would be sitting in Greenbelt and what would be in the Conservation Area? The Major Applications Manager commented with regards to the conservation area, it became a factor for officers to consider if the building or the extended replacement building was visible in the context of existing buildings in the conservation area.  The Committee were advised that developments within a conservation area must either preserve or enhance the location and the advice by officers was this application did neither preserve nor enhance partly due to its size.

Councillor Watson observed that planning permission must have previously been granted due to development on the site. The major applications manager advised 2/3 of the house was deemed to be on Greenbelt land with one third being conservation area. Referring to the report he advised Members that previous planning permission had been granted in 1983 and the site land had been designated as a conservation area in 1975.

The committee enquired as to the usage of the footpath and commented that it would possibly be used more so during the summer months and whether officers believed it was a regularly used foot path, it was advised members that the footpath linked to Horndon on the Hill and confirmed it was a recreational footpath. It was confirmed by the major applications manager that the site was visible from the footpath and as it was located on Greenbelt land there would need to be a very special circumstance for approval given the proposal constituted inappropriate development .

Following a question from Members the Interim Strategic Lead for Development Services advised Members that a recent development within Orsett was located within a residential area and therefore did not follow the same tests as the application in front of Members.

The Chair addressed the committee advising he had received a late submission from the agent in relation to the application and on the basis of there being no active letters of objection he had decided to accept the speaker’s statement.

Speaker statements were heard from:

·   Statement of Support: Councillor Johnson, Ward Member

·   Statement of Support: Mr S Burke, Agent

During the debate it was suggested that Members visit the site to be able to see first-hand the harm which would be caused on the Greenbelt should the application be agreed, to be able to better understand the technicalities.

Councillor Piccolo proposed that a site visit be held and was seconded by Councillor Carter.

For: (7) Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The report was presented by the Major Applications Manager, during which he updated Members with the following points:

• Officers had received an additional 4 objections from local residents.
• A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit from the applicant
• A list of terms for any potential section106 agreements from the applicant which included:
  • 100% of the of the development will be affordable housing.
  • 25% of the units: 58 homes would be described as “zero bill” [in relation to energy costs].
  • Confirmed the level of education contribution
  • Discussed potential East Tilbury Train Station upgrades

The Chair thanked Officers for the report and sought advice as to whether in terms of the development whether there was any government funding for affordable schemes such as this one. Officers replied advising the affordable housing element was one to be taken up by a registered provider. He continued advising there was a process where Homes England had grant funding, however it would be for the registered provider to explore that route.

Councillor Arnold enquired as to the difference between this site in East tilbury and the Stanford Le Hope site, as he believed both were deemed Greenbelt land. The Major Applications Manager explained the Stanford Le Hope site the land was deemed as Greenbelt from 1987 however in 2008 the site was allocated for residential uses and further to this in the 2011 Core Strategy was removed from being Greenbelt land.

Councillor Arnold further observed within the report it stated an 18 month build time, he questioned as to whether this could be a condition on the application that the build had to be completed in 18 months. Officers advised should full planning permission be granted; the development would have to be completed within three years of permission being approved.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 9.15pm to allow the agenda to be completed.

Following questions from Members it was clarified that the “Zero Bill” homes were not to be connected to the gas network, however they would be connected to an electrical supply system. It was explained on the roof the dwellings would have photovoltaics which would generate electricity during hours of daylight. With this there would be a battery storage to hold the energy for when it was required.

Councillor Watson raised concerns with regards to flooding during which she referred to the report which highlighted Anglian Water had mentioned flooding and requested a drainage strategy. She asked what mitigation there was in the area with regards to the area getting flooded. The major applications manager explained the location of the proposed properties on the presentation and in doing so explained that none of the properties where to be located in the medium and high-risk flooding area.

It was enquired as to the impact the development would have on the road network including any additional impact on the rail crossing at East Tilbury. The Highways Officer advised Members that a safety audit was undertaken which included the possibility of queues and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.