Agenda item

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, a long debate ensued.

Members expressed concerns regarding the potential for all year round use of the caravans; the additional strain on local services like doctors and schools, despite the accommodation not being the primary residence and above all the risk of flooding during the winter months. It was noted that monitoring the conditions and the register was the responsibility of the Council.

The Lead Specialist Place advised that since there were no material planning objections the development was acceptable. Furthermore, since these were not primary residences but holiday lettings, occupants should not impact on key services like schools or doctor surgeries.

Councillor Fluker, noting that there were no planning reasons to refuse, proposed, albeit reluctantly, that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Boyce on the proviso that Condition 3. The owners/operators shall maintain an up to date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual caravans on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON In order to ensure that the approved use is carried out in accordance with the submitted details, that the use of the site is for holiday purposes only, that there is no adverse effect to the adjoining designated nature conservation site and to ensure that the impact from any flood events is limited in line with policies S1, S8, E5, D1, D2, D5 and N2 of the approved Local Development Plan, policies EC.6, EN.1 and EN.3 of the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework was strictly enforced.

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

The discussion then reverted to the concern over flooding, particularly during the winter months. Whilst it was acknowledged that the Environment Agency had made no objection it was also noted that the location was below sea level and in the event of flooding the occupants did not have the facility to decant to an upper floor.

The consensus was that the application be refused as the potential for flooding and damage to the seawall defences during the winter months, putting occupants at risk, was too serious to overlook and contrary to policy in the Local Development Plan.

The Chairman put the recommendation to refuse the application for the aforementioned reason to the Committee and the application was refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  

Councillors R G Boyce, MBE and A S Fluker asked that their original vote to support the application be recorded.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.      It is considered that there is an increased risk of flooding and the sea wall collapsing in the winter months and therefore the proposal is considered to put the occupiers of the caravans at risk during winter, contrary to policy D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.