Agenda and minutes

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

An apolgy for absence was received from Councillor Mrs H E Elliott.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2019, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2019 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 R Pratt, CC declared a non-pecuniary interest in several items of business as a member of Essex County Council, a consultee on planning application matters with respect generally to highways, matters of access and education primarily.

Councillor M W Helm declared a pecuniary interest in Item 5 - OUT/MAL/18/01034 - Mapledean Poultry Farm, Mapledean Chase, Mundon, Essex, as he was a neighbour. He informed the Committee that he would leave the Chamber for this item of business.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Essex County Council, a consultee on planning application matters with respect generally to highways, matters of access and education primarily.

Councillor Helm left the Chamber for the first item of business – Agenda Item 5 – OUT/MAL/18/01034 – Mapledean Poultry Farm, Mapledean Chase, Mundon.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed)

A Members’ Update was submitted clarifying that comments from waste management were not relevant to the application as they don’t provide a Trade Waste Collection Service.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Martin Read, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.

A long discussion ensued on this application. Members debated the policies in the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the need for rural diversification. It was noted that this application chimed with their objectives to support local businesses. This was particularly timely given the ever-growing new population and the need for jobs locally. There were no objections from residents, the Environment Agency and Anglia Water.

The issue of alternative sites was discussed, however, those reported by Officers were deemed to be unsuitable due to distance from the application site and the fact that they had not been developed. The consensus was that should this be refused it would be a missed opportunity as it was a site that would provide employment opportunities.

The Chairman then requested from Members reasons for approval contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. It was agreed that the benefits of the development would outweigh the harm caused in terms of flood risk. Furthermore, given that Policy E1 states that ‘new proposals for employment uses will generally be directed to the designated employment areas prior to considering other sites within the District’ demonstrates that the application was acceptable for approval.

Councillor Beale proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement. This was seconded by Councillor Fluker.

Due to the complexity of the conditions required the Committee agreed that these be delegated to Officers and the Chairman to agree following the meeting. The Chairman then put the proposal to approve to the Committee and this was carried.

Councillor Boyce asked that his vote against approval be recorded.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the delegated conditions being finalised and agreed with both Officers and the Chairman following the meeting, together with the completion of a S106 agreement in relation to highway improvements and Travel Plan monitoring fee.

Councillor M W Helm returned to the meeting.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed)

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Mark Sadleir, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Pudney expressed concern regarding the application due to its size and bulk. A discussion ensued regarding this issue and the negative impact of the design of the building. It was considered that the proposed outbuilding would result in unacceptable urban sprawl into the countryside.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse to the Committee and this was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.      The proposed outbuilding, as a result of its siting, scale, bulk and design would be unduly detached from the host dwelling and would have a substantial and unacceptable visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.  This would be exacerbated by the substantial increase in built form and the fact the development is located outside of Mangapp Manor’s curtilage resulting in the urbanisation of the countryside.  The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, policy HO.8 of the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed)

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing comments from the Environment Agency and a summary of a further letter of support.

The Committee as a whole felt that this was a good use of the site and that going back to the original form would enhance the conservation area. It was noted that the club had struggled for years without success therefore there was no real loss of facilities. This option was really welcome as currently the building was an eyesore and this proposal would be a major improvement in the area.

The Chairman then requested from Members reasons for approval. It was agreed that this application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as it complied with policies S1, D1 and D3 of the Local Development Plan. Furthermore, the benefits to the conservation of the area in developing the site outweighed the harm outlined in the report. It was stressed that working in partnership with the Conservation Officer and setting the correct conditions around materials, joinery, windows etc. would be crucial to ensure a sympathetic result that blended with the area.

Councillor Pratt proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded. The Chairman put the proposal, along with the conditions to approve to the Committee and it was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions being finalised and agreed by both Officers and the Chairman following the meeting.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed)

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing comments from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council.

A debate ensued regarding the street scene and the difference between new build and old. It was noted that given the approval of 75 houses in the area this application did not constitute harm. Members felt that given the surrounding completed development the Officer’s recommendation to approve was correct.

Councillor Fluker proposed that given the size, scale and bulk of the design the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded. 

The Chairman put the proposal to the Committee and this was refused. The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to approve to the Committee and this was carried.

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 and documents: 001, 200 Rev A, 201 Rev B, 202 Rev B, 203 Rev A. Design and Access Statement 28.11.2018.

3          No development works above ground level shall take place until written details of the facing material to be used, including glazing, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

            4          No development work above ground level shall occur until a detailed

Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme as specified in the Essex Sustainable

Drainage Systems Design Guide has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to occupation of the development and should include and not be limited to:

•           Discharge rates/location

•           Storage volumes

•           Treatment requirement

•           Detailed drainage plan

•           A written report summarising the final strategy and highlighting any minor changes to the approved strategy

Where the surface water drainage strategy proposes the use of soakaways the details of the design and the results of a series of percolation tests carried out upon the subsoil in accordance with DG 365 2016. You are advised that in order to satisfy the soakaway condition the following details will be required: - details of the area to be drained, infiltration rate (as determined by BRE Digest 365), proposed length, width and depth of soakaway, groundwater level and whether it will be rubble filled.

Where discharging to a watercourse the proposed scheme shall include details of the destination and discharge rates equivalent to "greenfield runoff" up to and including a 1 in 100 year rainfall event inclusive of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 942.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed)

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing supportive comments from an additional letter received post publication of the report.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr G Carr, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued regarding the impact of this application, the fences on surrounding properties and safety issues. Members sympathised with the applicant, however, the negative impact of these high fences on the street scene was also noted. It was agreed that the development was not in keeping with the prevailing boundary treatment in the area and contrary to policies S1, S8 and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan.

Councillor Fluker proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee and there being an equality of votes he exercised his casting vote in support of the Officer’s recommendation to refuse.  

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason: -

1                    It is considered that the development by reason of its height, length and prominent location has resulted in a dominating feature within the site.  The development is considered not to be in keeping with the prevailing boundary treatment within the area and fails to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.  Therefore, the development is contrary to policies S1, S8 and D1 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan, and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.