Agenda item

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

At this point of the meeting Councillor MS Heard, the Chairman, declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he knew the agent.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Mr Derek Lawrence, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Morris opened the debate by stating that his opinion had not changed since the previous time this was before committee. He felt that in light of the need both locally and nationally for two bedroomed affordable housing properties, this should be agreed. He proposed that given this would help local people improve the area and add to the housing stock, the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

The Lead specialist Place reminded the committee that when this had been before committee previously it had been refused. What the Committee had to determine was if the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome. He further advised that irrespective of the financial costs, this property did not constitute affordable housing.

At this point Councillor Nunn asked for clarity regarding ‘Zones of Influence’ and the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS). The Lead Specialist Place informed the Committee that approximately two years ago the Government introduced RAMS and that Maldon District Council (MDC) alongside other Essex authorities created a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that focuses on the mitigation that is necessary to protect the wildlife of the Essex Coast from the increased visitor pressure associated with new residential housing development built in the Zone of Influence (ZOI). As the district falls within a ZOI the Council had to consider and mitigate the harm its actions could result in and ensure it operated within an appropriate legal framework.

In response to other questions raised the Lead Specialist Place responded as follows:-

·       that S106 payments were attached to the development and paid after planning permission was granted;

·       that cycle bay capacity was included as the application had to be determined in line with current policy, and,

·       that there were no material changes in this report hence the Officer’s recommendation to refuse, as the previous reasons for refusal had still not been overcome. 

The Chairman, referring to the earlier proposal to approve, seconded by Councillor Shaughnessy, asked Councillor Morris to outline the reasons for approval. Councillor Morris responded that the development was in character with the area and fulfilled the need for this type of housing stock, therefore should be approved.

The Chairman put the proposal to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken it was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1             The development proposed is located within a visually prominent location and, as a result of the size and design of the dwellings proposed, would be visually incongruous within the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan, the NPPF and the Maldon District Design Guide.

2             In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy has not been secured. As a result, the development would have an adverse impact on the European designated nature conservation sites, contrary to Policies S1, D1, N1 and N2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the NPPF.