Agenda and minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor J V Keyes.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 October 2017 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED

(i)                 that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 October 2017 be received.

Present

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC was shown as present as a Member of the Committee, whereas she should be recorded as an Ex-Officio Member.

RESOLVED

(ii)               that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 October 2017 be 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 Mrs M E Thompson declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Agenda Item 5 – OUT/MAL/17/01034 – Land to the Rear of Strawberry Lane, Tolleshunt Knights, Essex, as she was a Member of Tolleshunt Knights Parish Council.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as she was also a Member of Essex County Council who was consulted on highways, access, education and other matters.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC declared that he was also a Member of Essex County Council and has a non-pecuniary interest in relation to any application pertaining to that authority.

Councillor A K M St. Joseph declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Agenda Item 5 – OUT/MAL/17/01034 – Land to the Rear of Strawberry Lane, Tolleshunt Knights, Essex, as he knew the Applicant.

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Chief Executive (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated).

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr M Porter, representing Tolleshunt Knights Parish Council and Mr P McIntosh, the Applicant’s Agent, both addressed the Committee.

Members debated this application and raised a number of questions to which the Officer responded:

·         The footpath was referred to in the Members’ Update, but was not included in the reasons for refusal

This application included a footbridge which would give greater connectivity in the wider area and, as this issue had been addressed, it was not included as a reason for refusal;

·         Flood risk

The development is sited outside of the flood risk area and the Environment Agency had not raised any objection.  Therefore, this reason for refusal had been removed from this application;

·         Layer Brook connected to Abberton Reservoir.  Was there a risk of contamination?

Environmental Health had assessed this application and had raised no objections, but had recommended that if this application was approved then conditions regarding contamination be included;

·         Japanese Knotweed

This was dealt with outside of planning legislation;

·         Wildlife

The previous application had mentioned badgers and, if necessary, this could be dealt with by way of condition.  However, as it was not previously a reason for refusal it could not now be introduced as one.

Concern was raised that even though the housing was not in a flood area, the public open space and play area of the proposed development was.  Members considered that the site was not sustainable and drew attention to the Parish Council’s opinion that the proposed development would be detrimental to the existing community.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          At present, the application site prevents the coalescence of Tolleshunt Knights and Tiptree where it falls under the jurisdiction of Colchester Borough Council.  It is considered that the proposed development would fundamentally alter the open character of the north western edge of the village of Tolleshunt Knights, contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2          The application site is in a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundary for Tolleshunt Knights where policies of restraint apply.  The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply to accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The site has not been identified by the Council for development to meet future needs for the District and does not fall within either a Garden Suburb or Strategic Allocation for growth identified within the Local Development Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 626.

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Chief Executive (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated).

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Ms L Cook, the Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Committee.

Members debated this application and, whilst they appreciated that the proposed development was close to the road, it was a single track road and the property was fairly isolated.  The proposed building was modest compared to other replacement dwellings and the existing building was not an attractive one.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC proposed approval of this application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.

RESOLVED that this 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.

REASON:  To comply with Section 91(1) of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2.                  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with approved drawings: 17.4204/M001, 17.4204/M002A, 17.4204/M003A, 17.4204/E101A, 17.4204/E102, 17.4204/E103, 17.4204/E104, 17.4204/E105, 17.4204/E106, 17.4204/P201B, 17.4204/P202C, 17.4204/P203B, 17.4204/P204, 17.4204/P205 and 17.4204/P206C

REASON:  In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan.

3.                  The external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be constructed of materials and finish to match the existing dwelling.

REASON:  To protect the amenity and character of the area in accordance with policy D1 of the Local Development Plan

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Chief Executive (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated).

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr D Wallis, the Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Committee.

There followed a debate and some Members did not agree with the Officer’s recommendation and raised the following reasons:

·         The road was a relatively main road

·         There were large properties located on the same road that the Council had granted permission for

·         There was a shortage of two bedroomed properties in the District

·         There was a bus stop, so the location was sustainable

·         The Parish Council was in support of the application.

Councillor Miss S White, a Ward Member, proposed approval of the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded.

Other Members held a contrary view and were of the opinion that the site was at the edge of the settlement boundary and, if this application was allowed, there was a danger of creating an urban ribbon development.  The Council had both clear policies and a Local Development Plan in place and this application fell outside of the development boundary.  The Council must be consistent in its decision making

Members voted on the proposal to approve the application and the motion failed.  There followed a vote on the substantive motion.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED, for the following reason:

1          The proposed first floor extension due to its scale, bulk and design would result in a visually dominant, unbalanced and incongruous form of development which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original dwelling, to the surrounding area and to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be detrimental to the dwelling and the character and appearance of the area contrary to approved policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Local Development Plan, Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Woodham Walter Village Design Statement.