Agenda item

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

Following the Officer’s presentation, an objector, Mrs Osbourne, a supporter Mrs Taylor and the Applicant, Mr Bishop addressed the Committee. The Chairperson then opened the floor for debate.

Members raised queries around the possible conditions that could be put in place to allow the application to be accepted and in in response to questions raised, Officers provided the Committee with the following answers:

•           No additional information had been received regarding a possible Recreation disturbance Avoidance Strategy (RAMS) agreement being put in place.

•           Constructing a footpath prior to the development starting would be a consideration not only for the Council but for Highways also.

•           The appeal referred to is active and as such, the Officers were unable to comment on this as the appeal was a separate matter and not for consideration at the meeting . Officers reminded Members that they needed to be mindful to assess the application that was in front of them for consideration.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor W J Laybourne.

Members raised concerns around approving an application that was outside the settlement boundary and how this Committee would potentially be setting a precedent for similar applications in the future.

Councillor W Stamp proposed to refuse the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded.

There being no further debate, the Chairperson put Councillor Fluker’s proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officers recommendation to the Committee and upon a vote being taken it was lost. Councillor Fluker requested that his and Councillor Laybourne’s vote for the proposal be recorded in the minutes.

The Chairperson then put Councillor Stamp’s proposal to refuse the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The site is outside of a defined Settlement Boundary and is in open countryside. Future occupants of the site would therefore be heavily reliant on the use of the car to gain access to everyday services and facilities, and the proposal therefore does not provide a sustainable form of development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1, H4, T1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the Maldon District Design Guide (2017) and the policies and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

2.         The proposed development has not considered the context within which it would sit and would introduce an incongruous form of development that would be out of keeping with the rural character of the area and would cause harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the open countryside by the introduction of built form and associated changes such as the provision of a more engineered vehicular access and a footway. This is contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the Maldon District Design Guide (2017) and the policies and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

3.         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 (2017) and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).