Agenda item

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a consultation response had been received from Burnham Town Council along with a further 70 letters of objection.  The Specialist: Development Management advised Members that since publication of the Members’ Update a further letter of objection had been received but the only additional comments made were in relation to prejudicing the emerging Local Plan and that elderly homes should be spread out and not all in Burnham-on-Crouch.  Officers had noted that could not be resolved, the application comments. 

The Officer reported that a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment had been received and it concluded that the development had the potential for over 95% area (the wider area) biodiversity net gain and 20% linear (waterways and hedgerows) biodiversity net gain.  As there were a number of consultation responses that had not been received in relation to this application, Officers advised that the recommendation as set out in the report was made on the basis that no unresolvable objections were received prior to planning permission being issued.  Should there be issues raised by consultees that could not be resolved, the application would be brought back to the Committee.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector Ms Coombes, Councillor Kevin Coles (on behalf of Burnham Town Council) and the Applicant Mr Rowe addressed the Committee.

The Chairman put the recommendation of approval as set out in the report to the Committee.  This proposal was duly seconded.

At this point the Chairman advised Councillor N J Skeens that he was unable to debate this application due to a lack of planning training.  In response, Councillor Skeens left the meeting at this point and commented that he had lost his democratic voice and requested that the Lead Specialist Place make suitable arrangements for training.

A lengthy debate followed during which Members raised a number of questions and some concern regarding the application.  In response, Officers highlighted information contained in the report and provided the Committee with detailed information, including:

·                 Clarification that the majority of the site was in flood zone 1, the runoff rate would be no greater than currently on the site and any areas at risk had been assessed and appropriate measures proposed.

·                 The Local Housing Needs Assessment and Supplementary Planning Document identified the level of need in the District for this type of development.  The need had been established and reference was made to a recent appeal decision on phase 2 of the overall development where the Planning Inspector had been conclusive on this matter. 

·                 In response to a question whether Burnham-on-Crouch was the right place for this development as the area had taken more than a fair share of retirement properties, the Committee were advised that Officers were of the view that there were no defendable planning reasons to refuse on this basis.

·                 No consultation response had been received from Essex County Council (ECC) Highways, however Members were advised that the developer had offered to make further financial contribution torwards improvements to the junction onto the main road in Burnham-on-Crouch to address any issues regarding capacity.

·                 The affordable housing proposed was also for elderly persons not general needs and priority would be given to those on the Maldon District Council Affordable Housing Needs Register.

·                 In respect of parking provision, the reserved matters application would need to include details of parking provision that accords with the adopted parking standards.

·                 Officers clarified that the density of the site was lower than the densities for phases one and two.  There was a proposed relaxation to the minimum amount of private amenity space to be provided for each dwelling as the groups of bungalows were to be provided with areas of shared amenity space to give a communal feel.  Members were advised by Officers that if they felt the application could only be accepted with full provision of private amenity, a condition could be imposed requiring compliance with the Maldon District Design Guide, although this was unusual.

·                 Members were reminded that phase one included the provision of a medical centre and it was confirmed that it was to be a private facility, not NHS.

At this point the Chairman advised the Committee that he would be suspending Procedure 1(6)i regarding the time limits of meetings, referring to the important debate and need to extend the meeting past 10:30pm.  This was duly noted.

Councillor A S Fluker commented on the application and then proposed that it be approved, as per Officers recommendation, but subject to consultation response from ECC Highways any other bodies (as Members may wish to include).  This proposal was duly seconded.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that there was already a proposal on the table and asked if Members were seeking an amendment to this.

The Lead Specialist Place advised that he had heard Members’ concerns regarding consultation responses and suggested that Members amend the recommendation to delegate approval to the Director of Service Delivery subject to there being no objections from ECC Highways, ECC Sustainable Drainage Strategy team and the Environment Agency.  The inclusion of Ward Members was also mentioned at this point.  The Chairman advised the revised wording would be to delegate approval of the application to the Director of Service Delivery in consultation with the Chairman of this Committee and Ward Members and subject to their being no objections from ECC Highways, ECC Sustainable Drainage Strategy team and the Environment Agency. 

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor V J Bell requested a recorded vote.  This was duly seconded.

Councillor M S Heard requested that an additional condition regarding the gardens conforming with the minimum amenity space being included.  This was duly noted.

At this point the Chairman removed his earlier proposal and put the revised proposal of approval as he had detailed earlier with an additional condition regarding amenity space provision.  This was duly seconded and the voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors M R Edwards, Mrs J L Fleming, A S Fluker, M S Heard, B B Heubner, C Mayes, S J Morgan, S P Nunn, N G F Shaughnessy, R H Siddall, P L Spenceley, Mrs M E Thompson and S White.

Against the recommendation:

Councillors M G Bassenger, Miss A M Beale, V J Bell and K M H Lagan,

Abstention:

Councillor C Swain

RESOLVED that APPROVAL this application be DELEGATED to the Director of Service Delivery in consultation with the Chairman on this Committee and Ward Members subject to no objections being received from Statutory Consultees (Essex County Council (ECC) Highways, ECC Sustainable Drainage Systems and Environment Agency), all relevant parties first entering into a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of the conditions recommended plus an additional condition requiring private amenity space provision to accord with minimum standards.