Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone present and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

There were none.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 March 2022, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED (by assent) that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 March 2022 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, other Pecuniary Interests or Non-Pecuniary Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraphs 6-8 inclusive of the Code of Conduct for Members.

(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).

There were none.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Specialist: Development Management explained that a Grampian condition was a condition applied for works outside of the application site considered necessary to be completed before the erection of the development and without which the development would not be considered acceptable.

A lengthy debate ensued, during which a number of comments and questions were made by Members of the Committee to which Officers provided the following information:

·                 Provision of electrical charging points were included within condition 14.  The introduction of solar panels was raised and Members advised that the Council was unable to enforce solar at the moment because it was not included within the Local Development Plan, however the applicant could be asked to consider this.

·                 It was noted that following an initial objection from Environmental Health (EH) regarding 24/7 operation of the site Members were advised that the hours of operation had been reduced to 7am – 11pm and were now considered acceptable by EH. 

·                 There was not a condition to propose introduction of an acoustic barrier and this had not been requested by EH.  Therefore, Officers did not see there was a reason to impose an acoustic barrier.  However should Members be mindful to impose such a barrier Officers suggested that the Committee may wish to consider deferring consideration of the application to allow them to discuss the matter with the applicant as such structures were normally subject to detailed analysis etc. was not something that could be applied by the Committee at this stage.  During such a discussion the visual impact would also be raised.

·                 The application did not include a new attenuation basin.

·                 The 20m of undeveloped land within the site was to allow the Environment Agency (EA) to access the site carry out improvement works along the flood defences, should these be required in the future.

·                 Condition 22 sought to secure Sustainable Drainage Systems as requested by the Lead Local Flood Authority and all details of how surface water would be managed on the site would be secured through this condition.

·                 There were some discussions regarding public footpaths both within and adjacent to the site.  Members were advised of plans for a footpath to run along Heybridge Creek, but it was noted this was outside of the application site.  In response to a request for a pathway behind the causeway and linking up to the shopping centre and Bates Road Park, Officers explained this could not be conditioned.  If Members were considering requesting a contribution to such a footpath outside of the site justification for it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted that this application was in the Maldon East Ward and not South as detailed in the report.

In response to comments, the Lead Specialist Development Management explained the consideration given by Officers when making recommendations and explained how concern had been raised regarding the scale of the proposed dormers and the front extension being out of character.

In response to a question regarding the consultation response from the Tree Officer, Members were advised that if they were mindful to approve the application a condition requiring submission of a tree protection method statement would be applied.

Councillor K M H Lagan proposed that the application be approved, contrary to Officers recommendation for reasons that the proposed extension to the front, together with the front dormer windows, by reason of their design, position, height and depth would benefit the area, were not a dominant addition and did not result in demonstrable harm to the character and in line with the existing dwelling and locality, and with Policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan.  This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor Mrs J C Stilts proposed that a condition regarding the tree protection method statement be included.  This was duly seconded. 

The Chairman confirmed that if Members were minded to approve the application standard conditions would be imposed.  She then put the proposal in the name of Councillor Lagan to approve the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.  The Committee then voted on the addition of a condition regarding trees and this was duly agreed

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED for the reasons detailed above and conditions (including a condition regarding a tree protection method) to be agreed by Officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed).                                                            

In response to questions raised Officers provided further detail regarding the stages relating to a proposal to divert a Public Right of Way (PROW) and it was noted that if the Committee agreed the recommendation, this would enable the proposal to move onto the next stage in the process which would include formal consultation on the diversion proposed.

Some concern was raised that diversion of the PROW was being proposed but Officers clarified that the diverted route would be through a landscaped belt at the edge of the development, the land was within the ownership of the developer and no fencing or screening of the new path was proposed.

Councillor S Swain proposed that the Diversion Order be approved as set out in the recommendation.  This was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that a permanent Diversion Order of the highlighted sections of Public Footpath 14 Hazeleigh and Public Footpath 41 Maldon is MADE and, if no relevant objections are received, CONFIRMED by Maldon District Council, as ‘competent authority’ under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.