Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that since the publication of the agenda, a formal response from the Local Lead Flood Authority had been received.

Following the Officer’s presentation an objector Mr Williams and the Agent Mr Wragg addressed the Committee.

The Chairperson moved the Officer’s recommendation as set out in the report which was duly seconded.

A lengthy debate ensued during which some Members raised concerns regarding the Officers’ proposal and the following points were discussed:

·        The application site was situated outside the defined settlement boundaries and was therefore contrary to Policy S8 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) (2017).

·        The Council could currently demonstrate a Five Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) which met with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·        The development would be detrimental to the character and openness of the Countryside in which Tillingham sits in.

·        The site had not been identified by the Council for development to meet future needs for the District.

·        Although the application would provide affordable housing due to the rural location and facilities available it was questioned whether this would be better suited in a location with better access to employment and facilities.

Councillor A Fittock outlined how he felt the application would conflict with the Council’s core policies and then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that it was contrary to Policies S1, S2 and S8 of the LDP and that the benefit did not out way the harm. This proposal was duly seconded by Councillor M G Neall.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor A S Fluker requested a recorded vote. This was duly seconded.

In response to queries raised by Members, the Team Manager - Development Control advised that there were several factors that Officers had given great weight to when coming to their recommendation of approval. These included the provision of affordable housing ensuring that the Council maintained its 5YHLS figure for the remainder of the plan and reference to recent appeal decisions for adjacent sites. The facilities of the village were also looked at and the range of facilities present would be able to sustain everyday need. In answer to a question, about approval creating a precedent, members were advised that each application is treated on its own merits and that to approve the application would not weaken the case for members in considering applications for sites elsewhere in the District.

The Chairperson put the Officers’ recommendation of approval to the Committee and the voting was as follows: 

For the recommendation:

Councillors A S Fluker, W J Laybourn and R G Pratt.

Against the recommendation:

Councillors M G Bassenger, D O Bown, A Fittock, L J Haywood, M G Neall and W Stamp.

Abstention:

Councillor V J Bell.

The Chairperson advised that the recommendation of approval was therefore not agreed.

The Chairperson then put Councillor Fittock’s proposal to refuse the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was agreed. It was agreed that reasons for refusal should refer to the departure from the Local Plan.

It was agreed that Councillor Neall would represent the Committee at appeal, if required.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The application site lies outside of the defined settlement boundaries where policies of restraint apply and the proposed development would be detrimental to the character and openness of the countryside.  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 and employment in the District. The development is therefore contrary to Policies S1, S2 and S8 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017).

2          The proposed development would represent an unnecessary encroachment and visual intrusion into the countryside harmful to the setting and identity of Tillingham to the detriment of the rural character of the area. The development is threfore contrary to Policies S1, S2 and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

At this point of the meeting and in accordance with his earlier declaration Councillor Pratt left the Chamber and did not return.