Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D O Bown, K Jennings, W J Laybourn and L L Wiffen.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 16 February 2023 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 16 February 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).

There were none.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the number of letters of objection received was 165 and one letter of representation, not as detailed in paragraph 7.4.1 of the report.

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector (Mr Entwhistle), a representative of Latchingdon Parish Council (Councillor Dienn) and the Applicant (Ms Adams) addressed the Committee.

Councillor M E Thompson apologised for joining the meeting late and advised she would not take part in the debate or vote on this item of business as she had missed some of the Officer presentation.

During the lengthy debate that ensued a number of concerns were raised by Members regarding the proposed development.  These related to the proposal being outside of the settlement boundary, access from the north of the site onto a 60mph road, the impact on traffic through Latchingdon, sustainability of the site and how the infrastructure of Latchingdon would cope with the proposed development.  In response, the Head of Development Management (HoDM) drew attention to relevant consultee responses supporting infrastructure provision and maintenance through the Section 106 legal agreement and planning conditions.  In response to a comment that the HELAA (Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment) facilitated a housing development on the land, if was clarified that the HELAA did not encourage proposals on land.  The HELAA was a required process in the review of the Local Plan and through the call for sites landowners were encouraged to submit their land for consideration of allocation in any forthcoming plan.  It was not a part of the Local Plan and had no status as a material consideration of the merits of a planning application.  It was highlighted that if a developer submitted an application on the basis of a comment in the HELAA, they did so at their own risk.

Councillor A S Fluker advised that the proposal was not within the settlement boundary of Latchingdon and how the Local Development Plan (LDP) directed in such cases development should be confined to ‘urban areas’.  Councillor Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendations, as the proposal did not represent sustainable development and the adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits of the scheme contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the LDP and National Planning Policy Framework.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned at 8:58pm for a short break.

RESOLVED that the meeting of the District Planning Committee resumed at 9:02pm.

It was noted that Councillor C P Morley did not return to the meeting.

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a consultation response had been received from the Strategy Theme Lead – Place and a proposed additional condition was detailed.  The Specialist – Development Management advised following a query from the applicant regarding vehicle charging points for visitor spaces, that should Members be minded to approve this application Officers would recommend an amendment to condition 4, removing the requirement for electric charging points for visitor spaces.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Agent, Mr Joseph Daniels addressed the Committee.

In response to the debate that ensued, the Officer responded to a number of comments from Members and provided clarification regarding:

·                drainage on the site had been agreed as part of the outline application.

·                the number of parking spaces provided complied with the Vehicle Parking Standards.

·                pedestrian crossings were proposed to link with existing footpaths and provide access to the surrounding area including the Plume School.

·                financial contributions to both Essex County Council and the National Health Service for the provision of primary education and medical facilities had been secured as part of the outline planning permission.

A question regarding covenants restricting parking of particular vehicles was raised and in response Members were advised that covenants were not exercised through the planning process.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be approved in accordance with Officers’ recommendation.  This was duly seconded.

In response to a question regarding the proposed dwellings whose layout included a study, the Officer outlined changes the applicant had made to reduce the size of this space any why it was therefore not identified as a further bedroom.  This was based on the floorspace being below Nationally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

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

The Members’ Update advised of a request from the Applicant to defer this application and the advice of Officers that there was no reason to delay determination of the application.  It was also noted from the Members’ Update that consultation responses had been received from Essex County Council (ECC) Highways, ECC Ecology and the Strategy Team and updated reasons for refusal were detailed.

Following the Officers’ presentation the Agent, Mrs Kath Slater addressed the Committee.

Councillor M F L Durham proposed that the Committee accept the Officers recommendation of refusal.  This proposal was duly seconded and duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The proposal would undermine the aim identified within Policy S4 of the Local Development Plan and the North Heybridge Strategic Masterplan Framework for this site to form part of the rural setting at the edge of the Garden Suburb and Maypole Road being the logical and ‘defensible’ edge of the housing area. The development, as a result of its nature, extent and location, would harm the character of the site and its rural surrounding, visually intruding into the countryside. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S8, D1 and H4 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan and the NPPF.

2          It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the impact on the local highway network caused by this proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety and accessibility with particular regard to the following:

1.         It has not been demonstrated that the proposed vehicular access can be provided with appropriate visibility splays for the actual speed of the road at this location. The lack of such visibility would result in an unacceptable degree of hazard to all road users to the detriment of highway safety.

2.         An appropriate assessment of the proposal in terms of the safety impact for all users of the highway has not been made. The submitted Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is not satisfactory as the standards for Road Safety Audits have changed since 2016 and the speed and accident data are out-of-date.

3.         The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed off-site works to encourage the use of modes of transport other than the private car can all be fully accommodated within highway land. Therefore, trips to/from the site by means other than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.