Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R H Siddall and Mrs J L Fleming.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 December 2021 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED by assent that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 December 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 M F L Durham 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)*.

A Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that contained an additional paragraph to be considered under section 5 of the report Main Considerations which detailed the impact of the proposal in relation to the existing stable building, in order to allow Members to make a fully informed decision.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent Ms Bingham-Wallis, addressed the Committee.  The Chairman then opened the debate.

A lengthy discussion ensued around self-build criteria, potential encroachment into the countryside, the existing development and the possible over development in the area.

The Lead Specialist Development advised that, as outlined in the Officer’s report, the concern was the over development in the area as referenced by both Officers and the Inspector and that this space provided relief from this. When considering the site in its totality, should this be permitted, it would potentially have a negative impact on the garden suburb development and surrounding countryside. Furthermore, given it was a single dwelling, it would not have significant economic or social benefits to the community.

Councillor White proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that there was a need to provide more self-build plots in line with government policies, the benefits outweighed the harm, it had good access and was not an encroachment on the countryside given the existing development. This was seconded by Councillor Keyes.

The Chairman put the proposal to the Committee and there being an equality of votes used her casting vote to refuse the proposal and it was lost.

She then put the Officer’s recommendation of refusal to the Committee and upon an equality of votes used her casting vote to support the Officer recommendation and the application was refused in line with the report recommendation.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.     The application site lies within a rural location. The proposed development would represent an unacceptable form of backland development that fails to accord with the prevailing pattern of development within the area. The development would be visually prominent from surrounding properties and would result in an unwelcomed visual intrusion and urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, an Objector, Ms Button, addressed the Committee. The Chairman then opened the debate.

A brief discussion ensued regarding the tree and the fact that it had been a permanent feature of the street prior to any development.  The general consensus was that it should remain and that the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) would ensure maintenance and replacement as appropriate, thus retaining the character and historical references of the area.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation, in line with an earlier proposal, to confirm the TPO to the Committee and it was duly seconded and agreed.  It was noted that Councillor White abstained from voting.

RESOLVED that theTree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED.

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.

A discussion ensued around the amenity value of the tree and its contribution to the area. Councillor Durham said that he fully supported the Officer’s recommendation as retaining such a beautiful tree was in line with the green credentials of the Council.

The Lead Specialist Development highlighted the maintenance and management advantages that came with the granting of a TPO.

The Chairman put the recommendation to confirm the TPO to the Committee, it was seconded by Councillor Morley and agreed.  It was noted that Councillor White abstained from voting.

RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED.