Agenda and minutes

As the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the North Western Area Planning Committee would not be appointed for the municipal year until the extraordinary Council meeting on 8 June 2023 a Chairperson was required for this meeting only. Councillor S J N Morgan proposed that Councillor M F L Durham be appointed as Chairperson of the Committee for this meeting. There being no other nominations this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that Councillor M F L Durham be appointed as Chairperson for the meeting.

IN THE CHAIR :  COUNCILLOR M F L Durham

Councillor Durham then proposed that Councillor M E Thompson be appointed as Vice-Chairperson of the Committee for this meeting. There being no other nominations this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that Councillor M E Thompson be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for the meeting.

Councillor Thompson, as the previous Chairperson of the Committee, wished to thank the Members, Planning Officers, Committee Clerks and members of the public that participated in the Committee meetings, during the last municipal year.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J C Hughes, R H Siddall and L L Wiffen.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 March 2023 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 March 2023 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable interests and Non-Registrable Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraph 9 and Appendix B 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 E Thompson disclosed a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 23/00010/FUL - Spital Farm, Station Road, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, CM9 8HR, as the Applicant farmed the land immediately around her property and she would leave the Chamber for that item of business.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update, circulated prior to the meeting, that there had been a change to the Council’s Five-Year Housing Land Supply figures.

Following the Officer’s presentation, a brief debate ensued where Members aired their concerns around there being no affordable housing included in the application. Officers explained that compliance with affordable housing requirements would have rendered the scheme unviable and the applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) was independently verified to the Council’s satisfaction. Officers further explained that, having regard to the Planning Balance of the proposal, taking into account the Council’s 5 year housing land supply position at that time of 3.66, and the need to bring forward housing in accordance with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the Council’s adopted Local Plan, the Affordable Housing and  Viability Supplementary Planning Document 2018, and relevant housing strategies of the Council, exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to support the proposal.

Councillor S J N Morgan proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded. The Chairperson moved the proposal and it was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 agreement and 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 hereby permitted shall be carried out and retained in complete accordance with following approved drawings:

·        260 REV P2

·        255 REV P2

·        254 REV P2

·        253 REV P3

·        252 REV P3

·        251 REV P2

·        258 REV P2

·        257 REV P2

·        256 REV P2

·        250 REV P4

·        270 Rev P1

3          Prior to their use in the development hereby approved, details and photographs or samples 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.

4          The development shall be implemented in accordance with the dwelling mix hereby approved, which is as follows:

Open market houses:

·        2 no. one-bedroom dwellings

·        6 no. two-bedroom dwellings

·        9 no. three-bedroom dwellings

5          Full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any works occurring above ground level at the application site. These details shall include, for example:

i.          Proposes finished levels contours;

ii.         Means of enclosure;

iii.        Car parking layouts;

iv.        Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

v.         Hard surfacing materials;

vi.        Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Mr I O'Hanlon, addressed the Committee. The Chairperson then opened the discussion.

Councillor S White proposed to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as it conformed with Policy D2, part 4, the reuse of existing and redundant buildings, and policy H5, Rural exception schemes; Councillor White also noted that the previous refusal was under delegated powers and that rural councillors have a high knowledge of local sites and in the absence of an alternative proposal, the scheme could be supported under policy D2,  this was duly seconded by Councillor Morgan.

The Lead Specialist: Development Management, clarified that Policy D2 is for re-use of buildings and not rebuild, and the proposed development would result in demolishing the barns so would not be applicable It was further clarified by officers that H5 was not a relevant policy in this instance, as H5 requires rural exception schemes to be 100% affordable housing for local needs and satisfy a number of other criteria which this scheme does not, including being inconsistent with the Class Q permission the site currently benefits from.

Councillor White then proposed to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it conformed with Policy D1 given the construction would accord with the street scene, whether it was a reuse or rebuild; this was duly seconded by Councillor Morgan. The Chairperson moved the proposal and upon a vote being taken it was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairperson.

Councillor Thompson returned to the Chamber at 8:23pm

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Applicant, Mr B Strathern, addressed the Committee.

A brief discussion ensued, resulting in a proposal from Councillor S White to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, citing Policies D1 and S1, this was duly seconded.

A debate then took place around the amenity space and the design of the proposed development. In response to issues raised, Officers provided the following information:

·        That the proposed extension would reduce the private amenity space at the property to approximately 74m2, which would be significantly below the recommended minimum standard for a property of the size proposed, which would also compartmentalise the amenity space, making it unusable.

·        That a similar application considered by the Central Area Planning Committee on 15 July 2020, was refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation due to the reduced garden size.

·        Officers drew Members’ attention to the Maldon District Design Guide (2017) that stated that a garden (private amenity space) would be at the rear of the property and urged Members to be clear in the minutes what they were allowing, to ensure Committee Members weren’t setting a dangerous precedent for future applications. It was also pointed out that gardens are normally to the rear of properties and not the front and the Councils policies concerned rear gardens.

Councillor White reiterated her proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, citing Policies D1 and S1, as it complimented the landscape, the design and character were commensurate with the existing buildings and materials that were in use, it allowed a family to remain in the area, this was duly seconded by Councillor Morley.

Councillor Stephens wanted it recorded that the material difference with this application was that the front garden, on its own, was sufficient amenity space and was capable of being made into a private, secure amenity space.

There being no further discussion, the Chairperson moved the proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairperson.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Mrs M Bingham-Wallis, addressed the Committee. The Chairperson then opened the discussion.

A brief debate ensued and Officers advised that there had not been a justifiable and functional need demonstrated for the proposed development as there were two stables to the north on the existing site that could house two donkeys and the development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the rural area.

Councillor S J N Morgan suggested that a condition be placed upon the development to ensure it was for equine use only, Members and Officers agreed. Councillor White proposed to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the proposed use and design of the building was suitable in a countryside setting, this was duly seconded by Councillor Morgan.

The Chairperson put the proposal to approve the application to the Committee and this was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to conditions delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chairperson and to include a condition that restricts the use of the building for equestrian purposes only.