Agenda and minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor K W Jarvis.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 October 2021 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED by assent that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 October 2021 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 declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda item 6, 21/00901/FUL - Walden Cottage, 58 Walden House Road, Great Totham, CM9 8PN and also declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda item 7, 21/00987/OUT - Land Adjacent 24 Catchpole Lane, Great Totham.  He advised the Committee he would leave the Chamber for this item of business.

Councillor M F L Durham declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council, a statutory consultee on all planning related matters. 

Councillor Mrs J L Fleming declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council, a statutory consultee on all planning related matters.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman opened the debate.

Councillor S White having called in the application said that this was due to concerns raised by the Parish Council regarding sewage and flooding.  She acknowledged that these issues had now been addressed under the conditions as detailed in Section 8 of the report and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor J V Keyes.

There being no further discussion the Chairman put Councillor White’s proposal to approve the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the application was unanimously approved.

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 herby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21/23/01, 21/23/02, 21/23/03, 21/23/04, 21/23/05 and 21/23/07.

3       Prior to their use in the development hereby approved, details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including windows and doors, of the development hereby approved shall 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 and retained as such thereafter.

4       Within 3 months following the first occupation or connection to utility services, whichever is the sooner, of the dwelling hereby approved, the existing dwelling on the site shall be demolished and the resulting material removed from the site.

5       No development works above ground level shall occur until details of the surface water drainage scheme to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. The scheme shall ensure that for a minimum:

1)    The development should be able to manage water on site for 1 in 100 year events plus 40% climate change allowance.

2)    Run-off from a greenfield site for all storm events that have a 100% chance of occurring each year (1 in 1 year event) inclusive of climate change should be no higher than 10/ls and no lower than 1/ls. The rate should be restricted to the 1 in 1 greenfield rate or equivalent greenfield rates with long term storage (minimum rate 1l/s) or 50% betterment of existing run off rates on brownfield sites (provided this does not result in a runoff rate less than greenfield) or 50% betterment of existing run  ...  view the full minutes text for item 351.

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

A Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that stated Great Totham Parish Council objected to the application.  It also stated that the design, scale and setting were inappropriate and would be out of character with the nearby buildings. 

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Fred McKennon, addressed the Committee.  The chairman then opened the debate and a discussion ensued.  Councillor White proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded. 

Members continued to debate the merits/de-merits of the application.  Councillor Durham commented that the application was not in keeping or sympathetic with the local area and that the proposed design was incongruous.  Councillor Siddall and Councillor Morley concurred with this view.

In response to issues raised the Lead Specialist Place confirmed that this application hadn’t raised any issues in relation to renewable energies or sustainable development, therefore the point about a newer dwelling being more sustainable than the existing was a neutral material consideration.  Furthermore, additional car parking facilities was also a neutral material consideration.

The Chairman then put the duly seconded proposal in the name of Councillor White to approve the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was refused.  She then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons detailed in Section 8 of the report.  Upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1             The proposed replacement dwelling, due to its design, appearance and scale is considered to form a dominant and bulky building, wholly out of keeping with the character of the area.  Furthermore, the harm, as a result of the change of use of agricultural land to residential, would result in the unnecessary urbanisation of the open and undeveloped countryside, which currently positively contributes to the rural area in which it is set.  The proposal would result in demonstrable visual harm to the site and surrounding area contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Councillor J V Keyes left the meeting for this item of business and did not return.

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

A Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that detailed further representation received from Essex County Council Highways. The Officer added a verbal update clarifying that the associated fee for the unilateral undertaking had not been received which was a valid reason for refusal.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Peter Le Grys, addressed the Committee. Prior to opening the debate the Lead Specialist Place addressed issues raised by the agent as follows:

·                 That the unilateral undertaking had not been checked as the fee had not been received and that this stood as a reasonable reason for refusal.

·                 That the Planning Inspector had a significantly different opinion on this site. The previous appeal decision was a material consideration in this instance as the inspector had found the site to have intrinsic value.

·                 That the weight given to this development was minimal in relation to the Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS). The site provided a view of the open countryside and was important as it marked the end of the village.

A debate then ensued where Councillor Durham also referred to the Inspector’s comments about the value of the site and confirmed that he agreed with the Officer’s reasons for refusal.  Councillor Siddall commented that he knew the area and confirmed it was prone to flooding.  He said that if the proposed dwelling could be built in line with the streetscene it would be favourable but this was not possible due to the flood risk.

Councillor White proposed that the application be approved on the basis of a lack of a 5YHLS, with conditions delegated to Officers.  This was not seconded.  Councillor Durham then proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Siddall.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee for the reasons detailed in Section 8 of the report and upon a vote being taken it was approved.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1             The proposed development of this site for a new single dwelling would result in demonstrable harm to the open character and appearance of the area which, due to the urbanisation of the site, would detract from the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The siting if the dwelling would not reflect the pattern of development within the area and would exacerbate the harm to the character and appearance of the area. The harm identified above would significantly outweigh any benefits of a new dwelling house, given the limited contribution that a single dwelling would provide to the housing stock. Therefore,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 353.