Agenda and minutes

The Chairman drew attention to the list of notices published on the back of the agenda.

There were none.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 April 2019, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 April 2019 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).

Councillor J V Keyes disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as he is a Councillor for Great Totham Parish Council.  An interest was declared in the following agenda items as he knew the applicant:

·       Agenda Item 7

·       Agenda Item 8

·       Agenda Item 9

·       Agenda Item 10

·       Agenda Item 11

A further non-pecuniary interest was declared for Agenda Item 12 as he was a former employee of the applicant.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC, declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council, a consultee on planning application matters with respect generally to highways, matters of access and education primarily.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC, declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council, a consultee on planning application matters with respect generally to highways, matters of access and education primarily.

The Chairman advised the Committee that Councillor K W Jarvis was yet to undertake Area Planning Committee Training and therefore he would be allowed to take part in discussions but not permitted to vote.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Carol Sorrell, an Objector, addressed the Committee.

Members discussed the application, taking into consideration whether a refusal would be overturned at appeal, and queried whether a restriction could be placed on the size, bulk, and scale of the dwelling.

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the Committee could restrict permitted development rights, and that were the development to change a different application would have to be submitted.

The Chairman put the Officers recommendation of approval to the Committee, which was duly seconded, and upon a vote being taken the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED in accordance with the following conditions:

1                 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2                 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 1820.33, 1820.30revG

3                 No development shall take place above slab level until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4                 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no wall, fence, gate or other means of enclosure shall be erected within or around the site without the prior grant of planning permission by the local planning authority.

5                 No development shall take place above slab level until details of the soft and hard landscape works for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The soft landscaping works approved shall be carried out as approved within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in its replacement, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation. The approved hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Councillor M F L Durham, CC, spoke on the application and acknowledged that the Parish Council had undertaken a lot of work and that the public play ground was favoured by the residents surveyed.  The Ward Member raised concerns on the location being outside of the village and queried whether adult fitness equipment would be included at the site.

In response to questions from Members the Development Management Team Leader advised that the proposal includes an agility trail aimed at the younger demographic, anti-social behaviour would fall under the jurisdiction of the other bodies, and it would be at the discretion of the Parish Council as to whether dogs would be permitted.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC, proposed that the application was approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations, this was duly seconded, and upon a vote being taken the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1                 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001,002, 003, 101, 201, 301, 401, 501 and 601.

3          The materials used in the construction of the play area equipment hereby approved shall be as set out within the application documents.

4          Full details of the provision and subsequent retention of hard landscape works on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any works occurring above ground level at the application site. These details shall include:

       1)  Details of fencing, construction design and dimensions.

       2)  Details of ground surfacing, with materials finishing and edgings.

       3)  Details of street furniture, with designs materials and dimensions.

The hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the first use / occupation of any part of the development hereby approved and retained and maintained as such thereafter.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Peter Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

It was acknowledged by the Chairman that this was the first of five applications presented to the Committee from the same applicant, and Member’s were reminded to judge each application on its own merits.

Members raised concerns that there was a Gypsy site located within close proximity to that of the application and that there were surplus vacant sites within the district.  Further concerns over the noise generated by nearby businesses, and soil contamination from the neighbouring stables were raised.

Councillor R H Siddall proposed that the application was refused, in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, as the application was not conducive to the street scene and sited outside of the development boundary; this was duly seconded.

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that the applicant had foregone travelling to support the educational needs of their children.  The Committee was informed that sustainability testing as part of the Local Development Plan (LDP) would have been carried out to determine the districts need, and Officer’s advised that they were only aware of one vacant pitch and that access was not a viable reason for refusal.

The Chairman put the proposal of refusal to the Committee, and upon a vote being taken the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development, particularly due to the poor accessibility of the site and the visual impact of the development which results in a development which is remote from essential support facilities, community services, is inaccessible by a range of transport and is located where the need to travel would be maximised and the use of sustainable transport modes would be minimised. Further, the siting of a mobile home would detract from the character and appearance of the site and the streetscene. Furthermore, it is considered that insufficient information with regards to whether the applicants comply with the 2015 definition of a Gypsy/Traveller has been submitted and minimal evidence to back up the personal circumstances of the applicant have been provided to warrant this development within the countryside location. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies S8, H6, D1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Peter Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor J V Keyes, the Ward Member, advised that on a visit to the site he noted that the stables were nicer than those on his land and that he agreed with the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

In response to Members’ questions the Lead Specialist – Place advised that the condition referring to “equestrian buildings and stables” used standard phrasing.
 

Councillor R H Siddall proposed that the application be rejected.  He questioned how 45metres of hardstanding is laid by accident, and made comment to the impact on the structure, environment and landscape of the area.

Councillor E L Bamford raised concern over the application being retrospective.  Further concern was raised over the amount of hardstanding and disputed that the application was in keeping with the Local Development Plan (LDP), specifically policies D1, S2 and S8.  It was noted that excessive fencing had destroyed a lot of the hedgerow.  Councillor E L Bamford made the recommendation and proposal that the application be rejected for the aforementioned reasons.

A short discussion ensued which acknowledged the attractive style of the stables

and commented on the size of the hardstanding.  Councillor P A Channer suggested the amending of Condition 2 to omit the wording “…equestrian building...”.

Councillor J V Keyes commented on the size of the hardstanding with relation to his experience as a HGV driver, and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman put the recommendation of refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the proposal was refused.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation of approval to the Committee, subject to the variation of Condition 2 to remove “equestrian buildings and” from the last line, and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.               The stables hereby permitted shall be used solely for the private stabling of horses shall not be used for business or commercial use including for the purposes of livery and no riding school activity shall take place at the site.

2.               The use of the stables hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below.

(i)          within 3 months of the date of this decision details  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Peter Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor J V Keyes declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he was a Member of Great Totham Parish Council and informed the Committee that another Member of the Parish Council residing opposite the site.

Councillor E L Bamford informed the Committees that the land was not currently in use and no horses were housed in the stables which had been standing for eighteen months.  Further concern was raised over the amount of hardstanding and disputed that the application was in keeping with the Local Development Plan (LDP), specifically policies D1, S2 and S8.  Councillor E L Bamford put forward a proposal for refusing the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendations, for the aforementioned reasons.  This was duly seconded.

A brief discussion ensued with Member’s commenting on the site being located outside of the village and whether this was the first development to occur on that part of the road.  It was acknowledged that the site was outside of the District’s settlement boundaries and that this was not unusual for stable developments.

The Chairman put the recommendation of refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the proposal was rejected.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation of approval to the Committee, subject to the variation of Condition 2 to remove “equestrian buildings and” from the last line, and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.               The stables hereby permitted shall be used solely for the private stabling of horses shall not be used for business or commercial use including for the purposes of livery and no riding school activity shall take place at the site.

2.               The use of the stables hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below.

(i)          within 3 months of the date of this decision details of the arrangements for the storage, drainage and disposal of manure, bedding and liquid animal wastes shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation;

(ii)        if within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Councillor J V Keyes stated that he agreed with the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

Councillor E L Bamford advised the Committee that as per the two prior applications she was proposing the application be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the application was in breach of D1, S2 and S8 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and there was a risk of contamination to the ditch situated at the front of the site.

Councillor R H Siddall seconded the proposal adding that this was situated close to residential properties and could be problematic due to noise and odour especially in warmer seasons.

A short discussion from the Committee agreed that the same amendment to Condition 2 to omit the wording “…equestrian building...” was also included.

The Chairman put the recommendation of refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the proposal was rejected.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation of approval to the Committee, subject to the variation of Condition 2 to remove “equestrian buildings and” from the last line, and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.               The stables hereby permitted shall be used solely for the private stabling of horses shall not be used for business or commercial use including for the purposes of livery and no riding school activity shall take place at the site.

2.               The use of the stables hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below.

(i)              within 3 months of the date of this decision details of the arrangements for  the storage, drainage and disposal of manure, bedding and liquid animal wastes shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation;

(ii)            if within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by the Secretary of State;

(iii)          if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Officer presented their report to the Committee.

Councillor J V Keyes declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he was a Member of Great Totham Parish Council, and commented on the size of the hardstanding with relation to his experience as a HGV driver.  Councillor J V Keyes proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

A short discussion ensured with Member’s commenting on the use of horse boxes at the site, that there was no horses on the land at present and the impact this could have on neighbouring properties.

Councillor E L Bamford commented on there being three separate stables sited on the same lane, the impact on neighbouring properties, and that the application was not in keeping with the Local Development Plan, specifically policies D1, S2, and S8.  Councillor E L Bamford made the proposal that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, for the aforementioned reasons, and this was duly seconded.

Following a brief discussion where Member’s questioned the length of time vehicles were stored at the site, that the shipping container was not in keeping with the street scene, and voiced disproval at the application being retrospective.

The Development Management Team Leader advised the Committee that ancillary vehicles in keeping with the use of the land can not have parking restrictions applied and the applicant could be made aware that permission would be required to retain the container.

The Chairman put the recommendation of refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the proposal was rejected.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation of approval to the Committee, subject to the variation of Condition 2 to remove “equestrian buildings and” from the last line, and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.               The stables hereby permitted shall be used solely for the private stabling of horses shall not be used for business or commercial use including for the purposes of livery and no riding school activity shall take place at the site.

2.               The use of the stables hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below.

(i)   within 3 months of the date of this decision details of the arrangements for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Alison Dempsey, an Objector, and Peter le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

A discussion ensured in which Member’s raised concern over the height, scale, and bulk of the proposed dwelling impacting the amenity of neighbouring properties and whether it was incongruous to the street scene.  The Committee considered that a replacement for the existing dwelling would be welcomed however the current design was not suitable.  Reference was made to comments from the Environmental Health Officer in section 7.3 of the report.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation of refusal to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1                  The proposed development represents a substantial building that would, as a result of its excessive width, scale, bulk, mass and unsympathetic design, create a prominent and visually intrusive development on this part of Witham Road.  The proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the site, its immediate surroundings and the wider rural area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Claire Udall, an Objector, Councillor Phil Lloyd from North Fambridge Parish Council, and Russell Barnes, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

A short discussion ensued with Member’s commenting on the application being located outside the development boundary, the aesthetic of the current buildings, and their duty to support the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the rural environment.

The Chairman put the Officers recommendation of refusal to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.      The erection of three dwellings on this site and associated works, outside the defined settlement boundary of North Fambridge would fail to protect or enhance the natural beauty, tranquillity, amenity and traditional quality of the rural landscape setting it is likely to cause a loss of landscaping and rural qualities that currently forms an integral part of, and contributes to, the rural quality of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to the locality and cause an unacceptable degree of harm to the character and appearance of the locality and represent unwarranted development within the countryside contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Maldon District Design Guide (2017). 

At 21:12 the Chairman adjourned the meeting.

At 21:14 the Chairman resumed the meeting.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Councillor Ian Wardrop, from Wickham Bishops Parish Council, addressed the Committee.

The Chairman asked that Member’s noted that the application was called in by former Chairman and Councillor, Mr H M Bass.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC, spoke on the item commenting on the 5 year housing supply, that the applicant had the past three years to build on the site, and that the application was now contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP).  Councillor M F L Durham, CC, then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officers recommendation, and this was duly seconded.

A discussion ensued where the Members’ commented on the dwelling being sited outside the settlement area, the current use of the land, and whether this was an unsustainable location.

In response to Members’ questions the Development Management Team Leader advised that LDP should be followed unless material considerations dictate otherwise and that the Planning Inspector was aware of Maldon District Councils LDP at the time the prior application was made.

The Chairman put the proposal of refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the proposal was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.               The proposed development would result in the domestication and urbanisation of the rural application site and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the site and the rural locality and would therefore represent an unsustainable form of development contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Chairman thanked Members and Officers of the Committee and with there being no further items of business, closed the meeting at 9:33 pm.