Outline Planning Application (access to be considered) - for up to 30 dwellings and associated infrastructure including public open space, landscaping, and sustainable drainage.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under minute 26 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members and that she was pre-determined on this application. She did not sit therefore as a member of the Committee for this item, and she retired from the room whilst it was deliberated upon and determined.

Also, as reported under minute 26 above, Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was also one of the local Ward Members for this application.

Further to minute 13 (7.7.26), when this application had been deferred by the Planning Committee so that further information could be sought in respect of: ownership; what happens to the footpath; a clearer plan for the access point; and further consideration of the impact on amenity, Members were informed that the additional information requested had been detailed under the ‘Proposal’ section of the Officer report (A.1) from paragraph 7.6 onwards and that all changes to the previous committee report (excluding those copied from the 7^th July 2026 Update Sheet and updated paragraph references) were in bold italics.

The Committee was reminded that the application site lay outside but abutted the settlement development boundary in the adopted Local and Neighbourhood Plans; within a Green Landscape Buffer in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan; and within a draft Strategic Green Gap in the emerging Local Plan. No objections had been raised by consultees.

Members were made aware that the NPPF 2024 had been replaced on 17^th August 2026 by the NPPF 2026. The Officer report had been updated to assess the proposal against the new NPPF 2026 including Policy S5 for development outside settlements. It was important to note that the NPPF 2026 under Policy S5 created a stronger presumption in favour of sustainable development outside settlements where there was an evidenced unmet housing need than the previous ‘tilted balance’. The report still concluded that the proposal was recommended for approval.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report (A.1) containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval subject to conditions.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (AN) in respect of the application.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting, an Officer update sheet had been circulated to the members of the Committee in relation to this application and published to the Council’s website. That update sheet had reported that 12 additional letters of objection had been received raising the following additional concerns which had not already been addressed within the Officers’ report (A.1)(Officer response shown in brackets and italics):

-    Object to double yellow lines this specific area has average age of 80 and multiple disabled badge holders with an application submitted for a disabled parking bay close to the new access (Disabled parking bays and double yellow lines are separately controlled by Essex County Council. Given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29