Present Cllr J Devlin – Chairman
Cllr J Buchanan – Vice Chairman
Cllrs J Garlick, M Dunn, Daphne Spencer, T Stansfield

In Attendance Madeline Gapes – Committee Clerk

Also In Attendance Mike Miners – Press

113 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Rapley, Moore and Bowditch.

114 Signing of Minutes of Meeting Held 30^th January 2007
Following approval, the minutes were signed by the Chairman as a true record.

115. Planning Applications

07/00045/FULL – 51 Stock Road, Billericay
Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a detached house
RESOLVED: The Town Council objected to this application on the following grounds:-

07/00055/FULL – 60 Potash Road, Billericay
Demolish existing dwelling and construct a pair of semi-detached houses
RESOLVED: The Town Council objected to this application on the following grounds:-

07/00058/FULL – 127 High Street, Billericay
New Shop front
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00059/TPOBAS – 61 South Ridge, Billericay
Reduce height of Oak tree by 25% and reshape (A03 of TPO/01/62
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00073/FULL – St. John’s School, Stock Road
Redevelopment of site to provide new three-storey school building
2 letters of objection were read by the Chairman.

RESOLVED: The Town Council objected to this application on the grounds of highway safety and traffic flow.

The Town Council considered carefully the information contained in Chapter 10 - Pupil Drop-off/Pick-up Arrangements. The overriding concern was with the entry and egress predictions. Stock Road is a very busy major North/South route through Billericay.

Using the data provided, the conclusion drawn is that at the end of the school day, a car must exit the site every 6 ¼ seconds (this presumes there is a clear exit on to Stock Road). This presumption would clearly not be feasible and would result in tailback on-site and consequently queuing back out on to Stock Road as parents try to enter the site. Councillors questioned the basis of the statistics, and concluded that the drop off times allowed in the report could not be substantiated as "policing" of drop-offs would not be possible. This is very difficult at airports where traffic wardens operate constantly. The suggestion by the consultants for mitigating the negative impact of the traffic scheme did not seem practicable or feasible.

The Town Council believed that this scheme would not work with the current number of pupils, and the Town Council therefore objects to an increase in the number of pupils at the school.

The Town Council would only wish to have on-site parking for staff, and for visitors after commencement of school. However, provision should be made for a school bus(es) on-site and a bus plan initiated. The school should investigate a Green Transport plan as a priority.

The Town Council had no objection to the buildings.

07/00082/FULL – Unit H Radford Business Centre, Radford Way, Billericay
New Shop Front
Cllr Spencer declared an interest, took no part in the discussion and did not vote.
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00084/ABAS – Unit H Radford Business Centre, Radford Way, Billericay
Display two internally illuminated fascia signs to front elevation
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00092/FULL – 24 Charity Farm Chase, Billericay
Rear conservatory
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00111/FULL – 344 Outwood Common Road, Billericay
Rear conservatory
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00120/FULL – 263 Perry Street, Billericay
Single storey rear extension
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00128/FULL – 164 Stock Road, Billericay
First floor rear extension
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application.

07/00110/FULL – 5 Outwood Farm Road, Billericay
Single storey rear extension and flat dormer to front elevation
RESOLVED: The Town Council had no objection to this application but commented that the new front bedroom does not appear to have sufficient head height. Although the dormer does not comply with DC31, it does match the adjoining semi and the Town Council would not object, on this occasion, as it gives a balanced appearance.

116 Questions from Press and Public
None

There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.20 pm.

Next Planning Committee meeting – 27^th February 2007

Top of Page