Agenda and minutes

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

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

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2018, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED

(i)              that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2018 be received.

Councillor N R Pudney informed the Committee that he had been in attendance at the meeting on 12 February 2018

RESOLVED

(ii)            that subject to the above amendment the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2018 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 Mrs P A Channer CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council and advised that she represented the Maldon Division.

Councillor R Pratt CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Essex County Council.

Councillor M W Helm declared a pecuniary interest in respect of Agenda Item 6 – OUT/MAL/17/01338 – Mapledean Poultry Farm, Mapledean Chase, Mundon, Essex as he knew both the applicants. He advised the Committee that he would leave the Chamber for this item of business

Councillor Fluker, acting Chairman, declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 7 – FUL/MAL/17/01364 – Steeple Bay Holiday Park, Canney Road, Steeple, Essex CM0 7RS as he knew one of the objectors.

The Committee received the reports of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services and determined the following planning applications, having taken into account all representations and consultation replies received, including those listed on the Members’ Update circulated at the meeting.

To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed)

The Chairman informed the meeting that the application had been withdrawn that afternoon by the agent.

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned to allow those members of the public in attendance for the previous application to leave the Chamber.

RESOLVED that the meeting resumes in open session.

To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed)

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the site is located within the boundaries of Mundon Parish Council. It was further noted that following the publication of the agenda representations were received from interested parties.

In addition to the Members’ Update an Addendum was provided to Members for Agenda Item 6 in relation to a Health Impact Statement. 

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr Peter Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Members debated issues around flood risk given this was a flood zone and the  potential adverse impact this development would have on the ecology of the area.

Councillor Mrs B E Acevedo proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded and agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The application site lies within a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundaries where policies of restraint apply. The site has not been identified by the Council to meet the needs of the District in terms of Employment Land and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the need for an additional 2.4ha of employment land outside the designated sites listed in policy E1. The development would result in an unjustifiable employment use outside the designated areas for employment purposes and by reason of its nature in an unjustifiable encroachment to what is currently considered as agricultural land. The development would be therefore unacceptable and contrary to the policies S1, S2 and E1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2          According to the NPPF local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The development which would create new office space (which falls within the definition of town centre uses) is located outside the town centre and it has not been demonstrated that sequentially preferable sites have not been considered first as required by national and local planning policy in the interests of maximising accessibility by sustainable modes of transport and ensuring the vitality and viability of more central locations. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3          The proposed development is located within a high risk flood zone (flood zone 3a) and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no other available sites within lower risk of flooding that can accommodate the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 895.

To consider the report of  the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed)

Following the Officer’s presentation of the application, Mr Chris Norton, an Objector, Mr Kevin Hind, a Supporter and Mr Ian Butter, the Agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Members debated the application and concerns were raised regarding the adverse impact it could have on the natural environment, in particular, the habitat for over wintering birds.

Councillor M W Helm proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was duly seconded and agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.         In the absence of appropriate habitat assessment or survey information to demonstrate whether or not the development would have an adverse effect upon the internationally and nationally designated nature conservation site, the Local Planning Authority is unable to be satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment.  The proposal would therefore, conflict with Policies S1, S8, E5, D2 and N2 of the approved Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.  Given the importance and sensitivity of the site the Local Planning Authority considers that a precautionary approach should be adopted and that no permission should be granted until it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect protected species or habitats or that any such effects can be mitigated.

To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed)

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr Nick Skeens, Town Councillor, Burnham Town Council and Mr Roger Barcroft, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.

Members’ discussion centred on the fact that the proposed development did not accord with policies outlined in the Local Development Plan (LDP), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan. It was noted that considerable work had been invested in these plans and it would not be appropriate to erode those efforts.

Councillor N R Pudney proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation. This was duly seconded and agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.         The proposed development, by reason of its appearance, scale, siting and cumulative impact in addition to other developments that have occurred at the site, would detrimentally harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and locality by resulting in an addition that harms the character of the existing building at the site.  The harm is further exacerbated due to the prominent position of the proposed extension. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with Policies D1 and S8 of the LDP, guidance contained within the NPPF and the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan.