Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed all present and took the Committee through some general housekeeping issues.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R G Boyce and RP F Dewick.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 May 2021 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED

(i)              that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 May 2021 be received.

Minute No. 2 Apologies for Absence

That Councillor Mrs P A Channer be added to this minute as she had tendered her apologies in advance of the meeting.

RESOLVED

(ii)            that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 May 2021 be 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 W Stamp 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)*.

Prior to the presentation the Officer verbally updated the Committee by confirming that the four affordable dwellings would be two bedroomed and not three as mentioned in the report and condition 2 had been updated as it referred to plans which have since been superseded. Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman opened the debate.

A discussion ensued where concerns were raised around poor layout and design of the development, the materials used and the development access. The Lead Specialist Place advised that Planning Policy allowed for the current layout of affordable versus market housing as the development was for thirteen houses only. The mix of materials would apply to both affordable and market houses and the access was the same as discussed at appeal, where the Inspector had agreed the principle of thirteen houses erected on the site.

There being no counter proposal given the principle to erect the thirteen houses had already been established, the Chairman moved the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application. This was seconded by Councillor Helm.

The Chairman then put the recommendation to approve to the Committee and it was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions

1.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission. 

2.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents:

·       1551/01

·       1551/02

·       1551/B1/02

·       1551/D1/02

·       1551/P/03

·       1551/P/07

·       1551/B1/01

·       1551/C1/01

·       1551/C1/02

·       1551/D1/01

·       1551/DG/01

·       1551/E1/01

·       1551/E1/02

·       1551/P/08

·       1551/ST/01

·       1551/P/02 REV B

·       1551/P/04 REV A

·       1551/P/05 REV A

·       1551/P/06 REV A

·       MC/1604/20 REV A

·       1551/HA/02 REV A

·       1551/HA/01 REV A

·       1551/HA/03 REV A

·       2014-409-SC00 – location plan

·       Flood Risk Assessment

·       Expended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

·       Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal

·       Planning Statement

·       Design and Access Statement

·       Open space management plan and open space specification October 2020

·       Amenity areas management plan and amenity areas specification October 2020

·       Land registry documents (transfer of part of registered titles) – management company details

3.   No development above ground level shall take place until written details and photographs or samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4.   The car parking provision demonstrated on plan referenced 1551/P/02 shall be constructed, surfaced, laid out and made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

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

At this point Councillors Mrs P A Channer, M W Helm and A L Hull declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business as they were acquainted with a member of the Dengie Project Trust.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman, exercising her discretion as a result of extenuating circumstances, read out a submission from an Objector, Mr Newbury. She then opened the debate to Members.

A lengthy discussion ensued where Members raised concerns particularly around the urbanisation of the countryside, with specific emphasis on the inappropriate design of the proposed conversion, the additional strain this would cause to the local infrastructure and that it was unsustainable given the benefits did not outweigh the harm the development would cause.

Councillor Beale requested that a letter be sent to Essex County Council Highways outlining the Committee’s concerns regarding Steeple Road. This was agreed by assent.

Councillor Stamp said that she would not be supporting the application and proposed that it be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons that it was harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area; encroaching on the countryside; it would increase demands on local infrastructure, it would not be a sustainable development and it was contrary to Policy H4. This was seconded by Councillor Skeens. 

The Lead Specialist Place advised that Officers considered that there was an acceptable level of public services and that the development would not cause demonstrable harm. It was a material consideration that this site could lawfully be used for a residential type of use. There was a significant shortage of housing units and the government encouraged re-use of these types of brownfield sites for residential accommodation.

Further discussion followed regarding developments being proposed without commensurate increases in services. Members felt that whilst development was necessary it should be in appropriate locations and this site already contained an adequate amount of buildings.

The Chairman then moved to a vote on Councillor Stamp’s proposal to refuse the application and Councillor Stamp requested a recorded vote which was duly seconded, the results of which were as follows:-

For the Recommendation to refuse

Councillors M G Bassenger, N Skeens and W Stamp

Against the recommendation to refuse

Councillors B S Beale and M W Helm

Abstentions

Councillors V J Bell, Mrs P A Channer and A L Hull.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons.

1.     The development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the rural area within which the site is located as a result of the urbanisation of the countryside location particularly due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

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.

In response to a query regarding a lawful development certificate and residential planning on the site Officers advised that in 1994 a lawful development certificate was granted for seasonal occupation of the site together with a mobile home. All mobile homes were deemed caravans under the Caravan Act therefore not permanent residential occupation. The applicant had not applied since for a lawful development certificate and there was no established permanent residence since 1994. It was further noted that there were no facilities on the site.

The consensus was that the Officer’s recommendation of refusal was correct. The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Helm, to the Committee and it was agreed by assent. 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1             The proposed development would be disconnected from services and facilities by reason of its inaccessible location and would provide poor quality and limited access to public transportation, resulting in an increased need of private vehicle ownership.  The limited sustainability credentials of the site and its locality would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the proposal.  The development would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1, H4 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

.

2             The proposed development, due to its design and layout, would result a substantial urbanisation of this rural site which is would result in significant harm and detract from  the character and appearance of the countryside.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies S1, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the Maldon District Design Guide and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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, 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.