Agenda item

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

A Members’ Update was submitted detailing archaeology comments and summarising two letters commenting on the application. Following the presentation, a supporter, Chris Harvey, Parish Councillor Kay Davey, Steeple Parish Council, the Applicant, John Hubbard and the Agent, Mark Jackson addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued regarding the need for a second pub in the village. Councillor Helm said that the other public house was a viable business and a second public house could not compete.

Whilst Members acknowledged the comments from the speakers and the support from the Parish Council they also accepted the need to comply with the Local Development Plan (LDP). It was noted that the Officers had got it right in that the application resulted in a cramped and contrived form of development. 

Councillor Fluker, noting the previous concerns, said that the main difficultly was the lack of compliance with Policy E3, in that there was no evidence of marketing of the business. However, he felt that the in the main all issues could be overcome and proposed that the application be deferred. This was seconded.

The Lead Specialist Place reminded Members to be conscious of policy compliance and the need to evidence policy requirements, as in this case. No formal marketing evidence had been submitted and there were no material planning considerations put forward to overturn the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Fluker then declared in the interest of openness and transparency, as he knew the supporter, Chris Harvey, and said he should be commended for the great Guide he wrote on real ale in the Dengie that had resulted in a lot of business for a number of public houses.

The Chairman reflecting on the debate said he did not want developers saying that the Committee approved the application without the requisite evidence. Furthermore, he stressed that too many public houses had already been closed, to the detriment of communities.

The Lead Specialist Place added that it would not just impact on public houses and could create a very dangerous precedent. He reiterated that there was no evidence as per Policy E3 in the application and that the Committee needed to make a decision on the application as it stood.

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

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee and the application was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The proposed development would result in the loss of a community facility. 

No suitable justification or evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing business/service is not and cannot be made viable or that effective marketing has been undertaken to demonstrate that there is no viable and appropriate alternative community based service use.  The development would therefore be contrary to policy E3 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2          The proposal involves the erection of six dwellings adjacent to listed

buildings. The proposed dwellings by reason of their design, scale, mass, bulk and positioning would result in a cramped and contrived form of development, which fails to accord with the historic character and appearance of Steeple and also the prevailing pattern of development . Furthermore, the dwellings to the front of the site due to their height, scale, bulk and design are considered to cause some harm the setting of the adjacent listed buildings, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements policies S1, D1 and D3 of the Maldon District local Development Plan and paragraph 179 of the National Planning Policy Framework and there would not be significant benefits that would outweigh the harm identified.

3          The proposed development would fail to provide adequate on-site parking

provision for Plot 6. The proposal would therefore be likely to cause additional on-street parking to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and highway safety.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies S1, D1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan.

4          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.