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 the applicant had submitted a document containing photographs with headings relating to cake making and making apple juice. Whilst the photographs were noted, Officers considered that they did not provide any justification of the need for the building for agricultural storage or the other uses proposed.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Applicant Mr Paton addressed the Committee. The Chairperson then moved the Officer’s recommendation of refusal as set out in the report and this was duly seconded.

During the debate that ensued and in response to questions raised by Members, Officers provided the following responses:

·        The Planning history of this site was a material consideration. The initial application for the apple storage barn was approved by Members because it was considered appropriate, being an agricultural use in the countryside. Subsequently there was an application last year for a change of use to a residential dwelling. In that application, the applicant made it clear that the building wasn’t fit for purpose as an apple storage / processing due to the rooms being too small and the roof being too low meaning access for a forklift was unachievable. At that time, the applicant advised that they would use another building on the site for apple storage and processing.

·        No information had been submitted with this application that justified the structure as being necessary for being located in the countryside.

There being no further discussion the Chairperson put the Officer’s recommendation to refuse to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was not agreed. In light of this the Chairperson then sought an alternative proposal from the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor W J Laybourne. Upon a vote being taken there was an equality of votes and the Chairperson used her casting vote to vote against the approval of the application. The proposal in the name of Councillor Fluker was therefore not agreed.

The Chairperson referred back to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal as set out in the report and moved that this be agreed. This proposal was duly seconded. Upon a vote being taken there was an equality of votes and the Chairperson used her casting vote to vote for the refusal of the application.

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. The proposed development would result in an unjustified intrusion in the countryside which, by virtue of the scale, design and siting of the building within the open countryside, would cause substantial harm to the intrinsic rural character and beauty of the area. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, E4 and D1 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     No information has been submitted with the application regarding the proposed uses of the building, therefore it is not possible to assess the level of activity at the site and within the building and the potential impacts on the amenity of residential neighbours. Accordingly, in the absence of any information, the proposal is contrary to Policy D1 of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.