Councillors K Blake and Moore replaced Councillors Buckenham and Tomlin respectively for the duration of the meeting.

Apologies were received from Owen Richards, South West Primary Care Trust and Parish Councillor D McPherson-Davis.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, and declarations under the protocols of the Regulatory Committee Probity Code.

DECLARATIONS UNDER THE PROBITY IN PLANNING CODE:

Planning Application No. 07/00801/OUT

Councillors S Buckley, A Blake, K Blake, Gordon and Nandanwar - lobbied.

Planning Application No. 07/01362/FULL

Councillors S Buckley, Gordon and Nandanwar - lobbied.

DECLARATION UNDER THE MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT:

Councillor A Blake declared a personal interest in the application as she is an employee of John Baron MP, who had publicly objected to the proposal.

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Development Control and Traffic Management Committee held on 29 January 2008.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Traffic Management Committee held on 29 January 2008 were approved as a true record, subject to an amendment to Minute 2008/54 to include:

Councillor Gordon had expressed concern that approval of the revised details of the design of the building would be delegated to the Manager of Planning Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control and Traffic Management Committee.

The Minutes were signed by the Chairman.

(For voting see Appendix, Column 1).

The Committee considered an outline application for planning permission on two fields at the north/western end of Station Avenue, Wickford.  It was clarified that an appeal against non-determination of the application had been lodged and, therefore, the Committee was invited to determine what its view would have been had the appeal not been lodged and to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State accordingly.

The Committee was advised that outline planning permission was sought for the residential development of the application site and that two illustrative layouts had been submitted comprising 157 units and 200 units respectively to indicate the types of development that could be put on the site.  It was also confirmed that a Tree Preservation Order was in place to protect several mature trees along the field boundaries.

It was noted that Network Rail had objected to the proposal on the basis that the impact on the station had not been taken into consideration.  The comments submitted by Housing Strategy indicated no objection to the development, however it had been clarified by the Housing Strategy Manager, that they would not wish to support an application contrary to the development plan and their views were on the basis that should the proposal for development be approved it would not object subject to appropriate affordable housing being provided by the applicants in line with adopted local plan policies.  Essex County Council Highways and Transportation also had no objection to the application subject to a number of provisions including contributions to junction improvements and public transport infrastructure within the vicinity.

It was recognised that a considerable number of representations from the public had been received in response to the consultation.  These included 328 letters and emails, two petitions and objections from two MPs.

A summary of the Council’s approach to the delivery of housing targets was provided.  It was advised that the Council was seeking to use land effectively through urban development, regeneration and use of brownfield sites.  To allow peripheral Greenfield site housing development on open countryside would undermine this approach.

It was confirmed that sites for housing should be decided through the local development process which takes into consideration the impact of proposals on local infrastructure .  It was highlighted that any decision in relation to the proposed site should be made in accordance with saved policy BAS S3.  It was confirmed that full consideration of Government Policy had been taken and that the Council’s approach to planning in the District should be allowed time to bear fruit.

The meeting was adjourned at 7.50pm to enable members of the public to express their views.  A number of residents reiterated comments made in response to the consultation, in particular:

·        the loss of the fields and encroachment on the countryside;

·        the impact on infrastructure, particularly the rail station and road network;

·        impact on local hospital and medical facilities.

A number of Ward Councillors also added to these comments:

·        Development on the site was not required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing community hall and garages, and the erection of a terrace of 6 two storey dwellings and a two storey block containing four flats.  It was confirmed that the site was predominantly surrounded by typical new town two storey dwellings.  It was also confirmed that the garages on the existing site were in poor condition and would be removed as part of the new development.  The tenants had been offered alternative sites for use.  The Committee was advised that the proposed houses were to be of a traditional appearance with pitched tiled roofs.  A consultation with neighbours and external consultees had been undertaken.  As a result, an issue had been raised by the Arboricultural Officer recommending the retention of specific trees.  These trees would now be replaced and this had been deemed acceptable by the officer. 

It was noted that six letters of objections had been received.  The concerns expressed were primarily around the loss of the site to housing.

The Committee was informed that there were no specific policies preventing development on the site.  It was highlighted that Policy BAS CF3 (loss of Community Facilities) of the Draft Development Control Policies was relevant to this application.  However, it was advised that the site was underused and beyond economic repair.  The site was close to existing community facilities and for these reasons it was felt acceptable for the site to be put forward for housing.

It was advised that there would be minimal overlooking issues associated with the development of the site, with the site located 25 metres from the closest dwelling.  The development would also improve the appearance of the site and would overlook the remaining garage block, providing additional security.

The Committee was informed that 17 spaces for parking would be provided not 15 as indicated in the report.  This was deemed acceptable due to the proximity of the site to the Town Centre.

It was highlighted that Essex County Council Transportation and Highways had no objection to the scheme.

It was recognised that the proposal would make use of the site, the scheme would be a mixed development and the applicant had indicated a willingness to provide a contribution to community facilities, still subject to negotiation.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.10pm to enable members of the public an opportunity to express their views.  Concern was expressed at the loss of the site as a community asset and a request made that local residents and Councillors be consulted on how any financial contribution towards community facilities should be spent.  A resident also expressed concern that the financial contribution would be used to fund the Sporting Village Development rather than being spent in the local vicinity.

When the meeting reconvened at 9.15pm the Committee discussed the application, in particular:

·        The loss of trees and greenery;

·        The appearance of the lobby section of the proposal, that Members felt was disjointed from the rest of the building;

·  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.