Agenda and minutes

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor R P F Dewick.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 August 2019, (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 August 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 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, flood risk, matters of access and education primarily. 

Councillor N Skeens declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 – FUL/MAL/18/00381 – Millfields Caravan Park, Millfields, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex as his houseboat borders Riverside Park.

Councillor A S Fluker reminded the Committee that on Agenda Item 5 - FUL/MAL/18/00381 – Millfields Caravan Park, Millfields, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex all Members had an interest as it was Council owned land.

Councillor M G Bassenger declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 – FUL/MAL/19/00656 – Mangapp Manor, Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, as he knew the agent

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr Roy Harris, an Objector, addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued where concerns were expressed regarding the design, materials and location of the building. It was strongly argued that this would potentially have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the area.  Conversely, given that the building would include a pool, it was also noted that this would be a good facility to have in the location. 

The Lead Specialist Place informed the Committee that the application had been considered on planning merits alone and the principle of provision of facilities and services ancillary to an existing tourist use is considered acceptable. The lawful use of the site was as a caravan park and the application in front of Members was for the building only. It was noted that the fabric of the building could be conditioned to more suitable materials.

Councillor Skeens said that the application should be rejected on the grounds that it adversely affected the beauty of the countryside. This was not seconded.

Councillor Fluker, acknowledging that there had always been caravans on the site, proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation but subject to conditioning the materials used. This was duly seconded.

The Chairman put the proposal to the Committee and upon a vote being taken the application was approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.         Prior to works above ground level, details of the external materials to be used in the construction of the outbuilding hereby approved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The construction of the outbuilding shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.

3.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance

with approved drawings: ATS/537/03; 10955-0020-002; 10955-0001-007; RCEF64080-SK002 REV B and RCEF64080-SK003 REV A.

4.         The development hereby permitted shall only be used ancillary to the caravan

park proposed as shown on approved drawing 10955-0001-007 and for no other purpose, including any type of residential accommodation, at any time.

5.         The proposed development shall be implemented in accordance with the forms

of mitigation included in Ecology Survey Report (dated November 2018) and be retained as such in perpetuity.

6.         The use of the site hereby permitted shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the agent, Mr Michael Lewis, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Stamp opened the discussion by saying that she liked the application and proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation but conditioned on the use restricted to car storage etc. The Lead Specialist Place clarified that where a condition can overcome the harm then it can be used. However, in this case, given that the siting of the proposed building was outside of the residential curtilage, this was not possible. He went on to say that it was the responsibility of the decision maker to look at the application for planning purposes, consider future use and plan long-term.

At this stage Councillor Skeens declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application as he knew the architect.

A long debate then ensued on the issue of residential curtilage and the Lead Specialist Place took the Committee through the case law governing this area of planning. He advised that, going forward, should Members have any queries, ideally in advance of meetings, planning staff were available to answer questions and advise on all pertinent matters.

Councillor Stamp then said she would withdraw her proposal given that it could not be conditioned. It was requested that future applications dealing with curtilage should contain a plan showing curtilage boundaries.

Cllr Fluker commented that he was unhappy with an application that was outside of the curtilage, the concerns over future use and that the design was not in keeping with the Manor building. He proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was duly seconded.

The Chairman put the proposal to refuse the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken it was refused.

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 residential 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.