Draft minutes

RESOLVED that the meeting of the District Planning Committee on 25 June 2026 resume in open session.

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to this continuation meeting and then went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

In addition to those apologies given for the meeting on 25 June 2026, it was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors S J Burwood, S Dodsley, L J Haywood, J C Hughes, W J Laybourn, S J N Morgan and L L Wiffen.

The Chairperson reminded Members of the requirement to declare any interests as soon as they became aware of them.

A Members’ Update had been circulated, which detailed amendments to a number of paragraphs and revisions to conditions 8 and 9 within the Officers’ report.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Agent, Mr Croft, addressed the Committee.

A number of Members spoke during the debate that followed and, in response to comments made, the following information was provided by Officers:

·                The outline planning permission relating to this application had been granted before paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework was introduced, which related to refusing planning applications for hot food takeaway and fast-food outlets close to schools. Therefore, this application could not be refused on that basis.

·                In response to a comment regarding a proposed graphic which showed the letters ‘Maldon’ down the side of a building, the Officer advised that an additional condition could be added to reconsider or amend this.

·                The Officer provided clarification regarding a comment in the report about the existing care home stock, explaining that the assessment carried out by the applicant had highlighted that only a small number had bedrooms which were en-suite or had wet rooms.

·                The scale, appearance and height of the proposed development were what had been approved in the parameter plan and it was 2.3m higher than the school on the site.

·                The residential nursing and care home was a Class C2 unit, was not classed as supported living, and therefore its effect on the Council’s Five-Year Housing Land Supply would be neutral.

·                The proposed parking allocation for the care home was based on the number of staff  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Members’ Update circulated prior to the meeting detailed an amendment to paragraph 5.4.1 of the report, together with a further consultation response and objection received.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Agent, Mr Rowe, addressed the Committee.

Councillor W Stamp spoke regarding the proposal and commented on the length of time It had taken for the related phase one development to be built. She raised a number of concerns that had been brought to her attention by a local resident, including vibration and noise mitigation, particularly on nearby listed buildings, light pollution, and the screening of houses through sufficient planting to reduce overlooking.

In response to a comment, the Head of Development Management advised that the Conservation Officer had not raised any objections to the application and that, in terms of heritage and the National Planning Policy Framework, the harm would be less than substantial. He explained that concerns such as vibrations and the impact on listed buildings would be matters for building control.

It was clarified that an archaeological assessment would have been carried out under the related outline application.

Councillor A S Fluker referred to the need to deliver the scheme and proposed that the Officers’ recommendation of approval be agreed. This proposal was duly seconded.

A lengthy debate took place in response to a specific query regarding the phase one development on the site and how the discharge of the affordable housing provision included within the Section 106 Agreement (S106) affected this application. In response, Officers acknowledged the concerns raised, provided some comment, and advised they did not consider the question raised to be relevant to the determination of this application. Reference was also made to a recent appeal decision, and concern raised regarding the delivery of the application if approved. In response, the Chairperson advised while Officers would look into the matter raised regarding the phase one application, the Committee needed to consider the application before it and whether it agreed with the design and reserved matters.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.