Agenda and minutes

North Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 26th August 2020 1.00 pm

Venue: Members to access the meeting via Teams. Members of the press & public may listen to the live stream on the Council's website: https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=150&MId=2149

Contact: Committee Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

1155.

Chairman's notices

Minutes:

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

1156.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs J L Fleming and C P Morley.

1157.

Minutes of the last meeting pdf icon PDF 136 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 July 2020, (copy enclosed).

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 July 2020 be approved and confirmed.

1158.

Disclosure of Interest

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).

 

Minutes:

Councillor Miss S White declared a interest in relation to Agenda Item 5 20/00472/FUL Oakfield Farm, Hyde Chase, Purleigh advising that she would partake in the discussion but note vote on the application.

 

Councillor M F L Durham declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council who were statutory consultees on a variety of matters relating to planning.

1159.

20/00472/FUL - Oakfield Farm, Hyde Chase, Purleigh pdf icon PDF 688 KB

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

Minutes:

Application Number

20/00472/FUL

Location

Oakfield Farm, Hyde Chase, Purleigh

Proposal

Demolition of existing barn to be replaced by 3 bedroom dwelling

Applicant

Mr M King

Target Decision Date

03.04.2020

Case Officer

Hayleigh Parker-Haines

Parish

PURLEIGH

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member call in from Councillor Miss White

Reason: Effect on the countryside, contrary to policy, public interest, unsustainable location, outside development boundary.

 

The Chairman put to the Committee that the Officers’ recommendation of refusal be agreed.  This was duly seconded.

 

In response to a question regarding the reasons for refusal and the use of Policies T1 (sustainable transport) and T2 (site accessibility) within such reasons, the Lead Specialist Place provided some guidance.

 

The Chairman then put the proposal to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

 

RESOLVED that this 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 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 site is poorly located relative to facilities, services and sustainable modes of transport.  The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment use and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the LPA that there is no demand for an employment use at this site.  Furthermore, the proposal would substantially alter the character and intrinsic beauty of the countryside, particularly through the introduction of a domestic character and dense form of residential development, contrary to the existing grain of residential development in this rural area.  The development would therefore be unacceptable, does not constitute sustainable development and is contrary to policies S1, S2, S8, E1, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

 

2          In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing a necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy or an appropriate mitigation strategy to overcome the impacts of the development on the European designated nature conservation sites, the development would have an adverse impact on those European designated nature conservation sites, contrary to Policies S1, and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the NPPF.

 

3          Insufficient evidence has been submitted to show that the development would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of ecology.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1159.

1160.

20/00486/FUL - Novoli Farm, Pump Lane, Purleigh pdf icon PDF 641 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number

20/00486/FUL

Location

Novoli Farm, Pump Lane, Purleigh

Proposal

Demolition of existing outbuildings and construction of 6no. dwellings (comprising two terraces of three 2-bedroom dwellings) with associated landscaping and access works.

Applicant

Mr Allen

Agent

Mr Paul Calder

Target Decision Date

05.08.2020

Case Officer

Hannah Bowles

Parish

PURLEIGH

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member call in from Councillor Miss S White

Reasons: Public interest, effects on the countryside, deviation from Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a further letter of support and objection had been received.

 

During her presentation of the application the Officer advised that information contained within paragraph 5.1.3 of the report did not relate to this application and should be ignored.

 

Following the Officer presentation Members were advised that one public participation submission had been received from the Applicant and this was duly read out.

 

The Chairman moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal and this was duly seconded by Councillor Miss S White, a Ward Member who highlighted a number of concerns she had with the application.  These concerns were reiterated by a number of Members.  Upon a vote being taken the proposal was agreed.

 

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1          The application site lies outside of the defined settlement boundaries 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 character of the site and surrounding area and have an unacceptable visual impact on the countryside through the urbanisation and domestication of the site, representing a sprawl of built form outside the settlement boundary of Purleigh.  The development would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

 

2          The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic form, design, layout and density results in an incongruous form of development that would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the rural locality and the streetscene.  The development would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

 

3          In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing a necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy or an appropriate mitigation strategy to overcome the impacts of the development on the European designated nature conservation sites,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1160.

1161.

20/00601/FUL - The Bungalow, Green Lane, Little Totham pdf icon PDF 599 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number

20/00601/FUL

Location

The Bungalow, Green Lane, Little Totham

Proposal

Section 73A application for the refurbishment of a building and the change of use of associated land to residential (C3)

Applicant

Mr Tom and Mrs Vicky Witney

Agent

Mr Chris Moore – Plainview Planning Ltd

Target Decision Date

EOT 28.08.2020

Case Officer

Hayleigh Parker-Haines

Parish

LITTLE TOTHAM

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In – Councillor Siddall – Policy S1 and S8 – Sustainable Development within the Village and Settlement Boundaries

 

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a consultation response had been received from Little Totham Parish Council.

 

Following the Officer presentation, the Chairman advised that there had been one submission under the public participation scheme from the Applicant and this was duly read out.

 

The Chairman then put the Officers’ recommendation of proposal to the Committee.

 

Councillor R H Siddall, a Ward Member, provided some background to the site, felt the proposal did not represent change or urbanisation, was well screened and did not have a detrimental impact on the countryside.  This was supported by Councillor J V Keyes, the other Ward Member, who proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.  The Chairman advised that there was already a proposal which was the substantive motion and had to be voted on first.

 

In response to further discussion, the Lead Specialist Place advised the Committee of the Council’s Policies, and how legislation was clear that the application should be determined in accordance with the Local Development Plan.  He provided further advice and expressed concern with the proposed approach.  The Officer explained to the Committee that if they were mindful to approve the application they needed to address and evidence the reasons for refusal.

 

In response to a question the Officer clarified that there was not legally a dwelling on the site as it had been abandoned and this decision had not been challenged by the applicant.

 

The Chairman then put the Officers’ recommendation of approval to the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this motion was declared lost.

 

The Chairman then sought a proposal and reasons for approval.  Councillor Siddall proposed that the application be approved for reasons that it returned a building to use, did not represent urbanisation and was sustainable, with conditions.  In response the Lead Specialist Place advised if Members were mindful to approve the application he would recommend that this be delegated to Officers subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and the confirmation of conditions etc. also being delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman.  A debate ensued during which further advice was provided by Officers and additional reasons for approval were discussed.  The proposal in the name of Councillor Siddall was duly seconded by Councillor Keyes.

 

Following further discussion, Councillor Siddall clarified that the reasons for approval were because the application was returning an existing residential building back into residential use, there was no harm in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1161.