Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the first remote meeting of this committee, held under new regulations which came into effect on 4 April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She then took Members through some general housekeeping issues, the etiquette for the meeting and asked all Officers present to introduce themselves.

This was followed by a roll call of all Members present.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor C P Morley.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 February 2020, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 February 2020 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 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.

Councillor K W Jarvis declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 - 19/01207/OUT – Land Adjacent 2 Grange Road, Wickham Bishops, and advised he would leave the meeting for this item of business.

Councillor Mrs J L Fleming declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8 – 20/00310/FUL-Barns Adjacent Mosklyns Farm, Chelmsford Road, Purleigh, as she knew the family. The applicant’s brother was their baling contractor and since this was a financial contract would leave the meeting for this item of business.

Councillor R H Siddall declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5- 19/01183/FUL – Plainswood House, 25 Plains Road, Great Totham, as he knew the applicant.

Councillor Miss S White declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8– 20/00310/FUL-Barns Adjacent Mosklyns Farm, Chelmsford Road, Purleigh, as she knew the applicant

Councillor J V Keyes declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 -19/01183/FUL – Plainswood House, 25 Plains Road, Great Gotham, and Agenda Item 9 – 20/00340/FUL-Land South West of Broadfield Farm, Berated Park Road, Great Braxted, Essex, as he knew the applicants.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Bamford.

Councillor Keyes, having called-in the application, said that he did not agree with the Officer’s recommendation. He felt that the dormer windows added character, that the detached building was not significant enough to be a separate dwelling and was within the curtilage of the building on a plot large enough to contain both the main dwelling and detached building. He proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor White.

Councillor Jarvis echoed these views as architecturally he felt the dormer windows complimented  the look and feel of the building and therefore was not grounds for refusal. 

In response to a query regarding site history the Specialist: Development Management confirmed that whilst the reference on page 19 was incorrect the site history itself was correct. 

The Chairman put the first proposal on the table to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was refused.

The Chairman then addressed the proposal from Councillor Keyes to approve the application.  The Lead Specialist Place suggested the usual conditions would apply around plans and materials, with obscure glazing for the dormer windows given that floor was for storage and by so doing would also protect the amenity, and finally, that the outbuilding be used as ancillary to the main dwelling.

A discussion ensued regarding the need or not for obscure glazing of the dormer windows. Councillor Keyes agreed with all the aforementioned conditions with the exception of the obscure glazing. He pointed out that the windows did not overlook neighbouring properties therefore they were not detrimental to the neighbouring amenity. This was echoed by Councillor Siddall.

At this point Councillor Bamford proposed an amendment to the second proposal to include obscure glazing of the dormer windows in the conditions. She said that the development should be restricted from use as an annexe as the original application was for storage purposes therefore obscure glazing was appropriate. This was seconded.

The Chairman put the amendment to include obscure glazing as a condition to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken this was refused.

The Chairman then addressed the substantive proposal from Councillor Keyes and  requested reasons for  approval.  Councillor Keys said it was not detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and that from all directions the main dwelling was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 980.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

A Member’s update was submitted confirming that the developer had paid the contribution towards the Essex Coast Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) and summarising additional comments received since agenda publication.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman moved the Officer’s recommendation of approval as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Durham.

At this point Councillor Bamford declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as she knew the applicant.

The Chairman then put the proposal to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was unanimously approved.

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

1.           Details of the appearance, landscaping and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

REASON  The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for  consideration of the reserved matters.

2.           Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON  To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).      

3.           The development hereby permitted shall be begun within two years from the date of the final approval of the reserved matters.

REASON To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

4.           The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan A13383/02, as far as it relates to the access and layout of the proposed development.

REASON  To ensure the access and layout details are carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

5.           The landscaping details referred to in Condition 1 shall provide full details and specifications of both hard and soft landscape works which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall be submitted concurrently with the other reserved matters. These landscaping details shall include the layout of the hard landscaped areas with the materials and finishes to be used together with details of the means of enclosure, car parking layout, vehicle and pedestrian accesses. The details of the soft landscape works shall include schedules of shrubs and trees to be planted, noting the species, stock size, proposed numbers/densities and details of the planting scheme's implementation and maintenance programme. The hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 981.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman advised Members that in line with the Council’s public participation scheme a submission had been received from Mr Paul Calder, the Agent for the application. In accordance with the scheme’s criteria she had reviewed the submission and then read aloud the submission to the Committee.

The Chairman then moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Durham.

A debate ensued around the condition of the buildings, loss of employment and the benefit of the proposed development. Councillor Siddall proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal reflected the character of the area and would enhance the streetscene.  Councillor White seconded the proposal as she also felt that the existing buildings were not fit for purpose and the development would be an improvement to the area. 

The Lead Specialist Place explained that the Council policy allowed for loss of employment when appropriately evidenced but in this instance that was not the case. There was no substantive argument put forward by the applicant and he advised that assumptions should not be part of a planning application. Furthermore, the location was unsustainable as it was outside of the settlement boundary.

Councillor Durham expressed concerns about setting a dangerous precedent in this case should it be approved. He reminded Members that this was contrary to the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) policies and the 5 year land supply and said that the Officer’s recommendation of refusal should be supported.

The Lead Specialist Place echoed this view and stressed the need for consistency in decision -making to avoid applications coming forward without the necessary evidence or contrary to approved policies. Finally, in response to a question on guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) he advised that the NPPF accepted that the LDP was the starting point for determination of applications and its policy did not accept residential as a first consideration for previously developed land. This view was also supported by the inspector.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken it was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.           The application site lies within a rural location outside of a defined settlement boundary where policies of restraint apply. The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply to accord  ...  view the full minutes text for item 982.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Member’s Update that further comments had been received from interested parties

Following the Officer’s presentation and in accordance with the public participation scheme the Chairman read out a submission from the Applicant, Susan Strathern.

The Chairman then moved the Officer’s recommendation as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Durham.

The Lead Specialist Place in response to a query about private amenity and boundary treatments clarified that the private amenity space was to the rear of the property only. He advised that since boundary treatments were currently not included in the application, should Members be minded to approve, boundary treatment appropriate to the setting would need to be imposed as a condition.

To dispel any confusion around the status of previous planning history the Lead Specialist Place took the Committee through the key details. Prior approval was granted in 2015 on the proviso that works be completed in 2018. The works were not completed within the timescale; therefore the permitted development application had ceased. Furthermore, the previous application was a prior approval process that did not require consideration of sustainability issues, confirmation of compliance with policies etc. This application was a planning application and, as such, had to be measured against all material planning considerations and policies before granting approval.

Councillor Durham, noting that it was outside of the development boundary therefore contrary to the adopted LDP and the need for consistency in decision - making, said he supported the Officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.               The application site lies within a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundary of Purleigh 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 Maldon District Local Development Plan to meet the objectively assessed needs for housing in the District. The proposed development would substantially alter the open character and intrinsic beauty of the countryside and would detract from the agricultural character and appearance of the site as a result of the domestication of the site and the inclusion of associated residential paraphernalia. If  ...  view the full minutes text for item 983.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman moved the recommendation of refusal as set out in the Officer’s report. This was seconded by Councillor Durham.

A debate ensued where some Members felt that the alterations were sufficient, and it should be supported, and others felt that there was insufficient information to make a decision.

The Specialist: Development Management advised that as part of the appeal  process the Inspector had said that evidence of need had not been made.  This new application included some more information but not enough.

The Lead Specialist Place said that professionally speaking the application hadn’t changed significantly. He said that Members should be mindful that the Inspector had deemed the site inappropriate for a barn and there was insufficient new information to change that opinion.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation of refusal to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.               The proposed development would be outside the development boundary and

within the countryside. There is no justifiable or functional need for the building/activity, the function of the proposed building/activity is not directly linked, and ancillary to, the existing use and it has not been demonstrated that the building/activity could not reasonably be located elsewhere within the District. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policies S1, S8 and E4 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan, and the NPPF.

2.               The proposed building, for which a functional need has not been

demonstrated, as a result of its size and height, would be visually incongruous and have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of this part of the countryside, contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1 and E4 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan, the NPPF and the Maldon District Design Guide.