Issue - meetings

A lengthy debate ensued and in response to a number of questions and concerns raised by Members, the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services and Major Applications Officer provided the Council with the following information:

·                 No viability tests around infrastructure and affordability had been carried out as part of this application as the proposal was policy compliant.

·                 The application met the required amount of amenity space in accordance with Council’s policy, and in fact exceeded this for many dwellings.

·                 It was clarified that although the Secretary of State had powers to call in an application it was unlikely that these powers would be exercised in respect of density as it was expected that density would be determined at a local level.

·                 Any monies agreed as part of the heads of terms for a Section 106 would constitute a legal obligation which would run with the land in perpetuity unless appealed or varied by Deed of Variation

·                 It was confirmed that the last two points of the heads of terms referenced requirements to manage and maintain green infrastructure and the attenuation lake.

·                 The land adjacent to the site and within the ownership of the applicant could not be annexed to the current site through a Section 106 agreement so as to require that it not be the subject of any future application. To do so would fetter the right of the land owner to make a future application

·                 The Council’s legal representative explained how the Council would seek detailed drafting of any Section 106 agreement to ensure that development / infrastructure came at the right stage of scheme in order to alleviate concerns about future insolvency of the developer prior to provision of the affordable housing.

Some Members, including the Ward Members, raised concerns regarding the proposed development which related to:

·                 density and design of the site;

·                 the need for the proposed care home, the location of the day-care facility and its proximity to the proposed industrial areas, and car parking provision for these facilities;

·                 how the proposed development would fit in with existing surroundings and the entrance to Burnham-on-Crouch;

·                 the desire for a coastal buffer and how this would give opportunity to have open land along the bottom half of the site.

Councillor Miss M R Lewis drew Members’ attention to the amendments made by the developer since deferral at Council on 31 March and advised of the age profile for the Maldon District which had recently been published.  She requested that if Members were mindful to approve the application that condition 14 be amended to read “…areas of the site outside of the operating hours as detailed in conditions 12 and 13.”.  She then proposed that the Officers’ recommendation of approval be accepted subject to the proposed amendment to condition 14.  This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor R G Boyce raised a point of order referring to an earlier ruling by the Chairman in respect of a statement made by Councillor B E Harker when he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 387