Agenda item

21/00987/OUT - Land Adjacent 24 Catchpole Lane, Great Totham

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



Application Number



Land Adjacent 24 Catchpole Lane, Great Totham


One detached dwelling


Mr A Marven


Mr Peter Le Grys

Target Decision Date


Case Officer

Sophie Mardon



Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In – Councillor J V Keyes - Policies D1, H4 and S1 of LDP


A Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that detailed further representation received from Essex County Council Highways. The Officer added a verbal update clarifying that the associated fee for the unilateral undertaking had not been received which was a valid reason for refusal.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Peter Le Grys, addressed the Committee. Prior to opening the debate the Lead Specialist Place addressed issues raised by the agent as follows:

·                 That the unilateral undertaking had not been checked as the fee had not been received and that this stood as a reasonable reason for refusal.

·                 That the Planning Inspector had a significantly different opinion on this site. The previous appeal decision was a material consideration in this instance as the inspector had found the site to have intrinsic value.

·                 That the weight given to this development was minimal in relation to the Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS). The site provided a view of the open countryside and was important as it marked the end of the village.

A debate then ensued where Councillor Durham also referred to the Inspector’s comments about the value of the site and confirmed that he agreed with the Officer’s reasons for refusal.  Councillor Siddall commented that he knew the area and confirmed it was prone to flooding.  He said that if the proposed dwelling could be built in line with the streetscene it would be favourable but this was not possible due to the flood risk.

Councillor White proposed that the application be approved on the basis of a lack of a 5YHLS, with conditions delegated to Officers.  This was not seconded.  Councillor Durham then proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Siddall.

The Chairman then put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee for the reasons detailed in Section 8 of the report and upon a vote being taken it was approved.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1             The proposed development of this site for a new single dwelling would result in demonstrable harm to the open character and appearance of the area which, due to the urbanisation of the site, would detract from the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The siting if the dwelling would not reflect the pattern of development within the area and would exacerbate the harm to the character and appearance of the area. The harm identified above would significantly outweigh any benefits of a new dwelling house, given the limited contribution that a single dwelling would provide to the housing stock. Therefore, the development is considered to form an unjustified sprawl of built form on this currently undeveloped land, contrary to policies S8, D1 and H4 of the LDP.

2             In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the development makes no contribution for affordable housing to meet the identified need in the locality, the necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy, the management and maintenance of the public open space and would fail to secure the provision of residential travel packs for sustainable modes of transport, required for the future occupiers of the site contrary to Policies S1, D1, H1 and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.


Supporting documents: