Decision details

It was noted from the Members’ Update that there a proposed amendment to conditions 4 and 42 and informative 6.

Following her presentation of the application and in response to a question regarding delivery of the relief road mentioned within the application, the Officer advised that proposed the Section 106 agreement (S106) would require a financial contribution towards the construction of the relief road and these together with contributions already secured would be used by Essex County Council (ECC) to build the relief road.  There were no timescales detailed within the S106 but ECC were working with the Council to deliver the relief road in accordance with the infrastructure delivery plan.

The Chairman advised Members that under the Council’s public participation scheme one submission had been received from Nicolas Mann, the Applicant.  In line with the public participation scheme he had reviewed the submission and the Lead Specialist Development Manager proceeded to read out the submission received.  The Chairman then moved the Officers’ recommendation of approval subject to the conditions detailed within the report.  This was not supported.

Councillor N G F Shaughnessy declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business as she knew one of the objectors.

A lengthy debate ensued, a number of Members commented on the application raising concerns about a variety of issues.  In response to these concerns and questions raised Officers provided further detailed information which included:

·                 the percentage of affordable housing provided by the scheme;

·                 how the proposed relief road would be delivered, that the sum anticipated to be required for construction of the relief road was identified at the time the Council’s Local Plan was developed and that this funding had been secured through Section 106 Agreement.  The Officer also provided Members with information regarding why the construction of the proposed relief road would be carried out by Essex County Council Highways rather than the developer as had originally been proposed.

·                 the requirement for a Strategic Phasing plan was covered in proposed condition 8.

·                 non-compliance with conditions relating to landscaping etc. would be an enforcement matter.

·                 the proposed bridleway location was identified, and Members were advised that its location remained unchanged from what was proposed in 2017.

·                 a horse crossing was not part of the proposal and had not been requested by Essex County Council highways to be included in the S106.

·                 the location of the proposed vehicular access to the site and Members were advised that if the relief road did not come forward in time, potential alternative means of access would be reviewed.

·                 proposed condition 33 included green infrastructure management and surface water requirements.

The Officer explained that details of the phasing, buffers, building heights etc. were not part of this application but would come forward with the reserved matters application, when submitted would need to accord with the Parameter Plans which form part of the outline application.  Assessment of any reserved matters application would include the impact the proposed development had on local residents.

Councillor Miss S White raised some concerns and then proposed that the application be deferred for reason of there being insufficient information and until some of the questions had been answered.  This proposal was duly seconded.  In response the Lead Specialist Place sought confirmation what information Members’ would be seeking if the deferment was agreed and advised that further information relating to the relief road was outside the applicant’s control.  The Chairman then advised Councillor Miss White that he would not be allowing her proposal.

In response to a question regarding including further information in the legal agreement, the Lead Specialist Place provided further detail regarding the relief road, highlighting how the Council would be working with Essex County Council to deliver the relief road. 

The Chairman put the proposal for approval of the application, as set out in the Officers report, but upon a vote being taken this was declared lost.  The Chairman then sought from Members sustainable reasons for refusal.

In response to some suggested reasons given by Members, the Lead Specialist Place provided clarification in respect of financial contributions as set out in the Council’s policies, the detail available as part of the outline application and further points of clarification in respect of the relief road.  The Officer reminded Members that this was an allocated site within the Local Development Plan.

Following further lengthy debate, Councillor S P Nunn proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to the lack of certainty in respect of access and infrastructure causing potential concerns regarding traffic movement including emergency services.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to a question regarding the height and location of buildings, the Lead Specialist Place advised that this detail was not set out in the outline application.  Councillor N G F Shaughnessy requested that it be noted that residents of her Ward had raised concern regarding three storey buildings being close to existing properties and the change to the location of the existing bridleway.  The Lead Specialist Place advised that Highways had not raised any objection in relation to the bridleway.

In response to the proposal, the Lead Specialist Place sought clarification on this and reminded Members of the need to ensure it was as robust as possible.

Further debate ensued and there was some discussion around deferring the application although this was not agreed.

The Chairman then put the proposal in the name of Councillor Nunn and upon a vote being taken was agreed. 

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the reason that there is a lack of certainty with respect to access and infrastructure causing potential concerns regarding traffic movement including emergency services, contrary to Policies S3, S4, T2 and I1 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan.

Councillor M F L Durham left the meeting at this point and did not return.