Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’

Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman advised Members that in line with the Council’s public participation scheme a submission had been received from Mr Paul Calder, the Agent for the application. In accordance with the scheme’s criteria she had reviewed the submission and then read aloud the submission to the Committee.

The Chairman then moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Durham.

A debate ensued around the condition of the buildings, loss of employment and the benefit of the proposed development. Councillor Siddall proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal reflected the character of the area and would enhance the streetscene.  Councillor White seconded the proposal as she also felt that the existing buildings were not fit for purpose and the development would be an improvement to the area. 

The Lead Specialist Place explained that the Council policy allowed for loss of employment when appropriately evidenced but in this instance that was not the case. There was no substantive argument put forward by the applicant and he advised that assumptions should not be part of a planning application. Furthermore, the location was unsustainable as it was outside of the settlement boundary.

Councillor Durham expressed concerns about setting a dangerous precedent in this case should it be approved. He reminded Members that this was contrary to the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) policies and the 5 year land supply and said that the Officer’s recommendation of refusal should be supported.

The Lead Specialist Place echoed this view and stressed the need for consistency in decision -making to avoid applications coming forward without the necessary evidence or contrary to approved policies. Finally, in response to a question on guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) he advised that the NPPF accepted that the LDP was the starting point for determination of applications and its policy did not accept residential as a first consideration for previously developed land. This view was also supported by the inspector.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken it was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.           The application site lies within a rural location outside of a defined settlement boundary where policies of restraint apply. The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply to accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site has not been identified by the Council for development to meet future needs for the District and does not fall within either a Garden Suburb or Strategic Allocation for growth identified within the Maldon District Local Development Plan to meet the objectively assessed needs for housing in the District. The site is poorly located relative to facilities, services and sustainable modes of transport.  The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment use and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the LPA that there is no demand for an employment use at this site. Furthermore, the proposal would substantially alter the character and intrinsic beauty of the countryside, particularly through the introduction of a domestic character and dense form of residential development, contrary to the existing grain of residential development in this rural area. The development would therefore be unacceptable, does not constitute sustainable development and is contrary to policies S1, S2, S8, E1, D1, H2 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2.           In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing a necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy or an appropriate mitigation strategy to overcome the impacts of the development on the European designated nature conservation sites, the development would have an adverse impact on those European designated nature conservation sites, contrary to Policies S1, and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the NPPF.

Councillor Fleming left the meeting for this item of business- Agenda Item 8 – 20/00310/FUL, Barns Adjacent to Mosklyns Farm, Chelmsford Road, Purleigh.