Agenda item

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

The Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control presented the report and provided the following updates:

·                The report incorrectly listed 28 conditions, however five related to the previously approved application and had been discharged. Therefore, if Members were minded to approve this application there would be 23 conditions proposed by Officers.

·                In respect of Section 106 contributions Members were advised that conversations between Officers, the NHS and Essex County Council Education had indicated that a consultation response from each organisation in relation to proposed contributions was expected. If Members were minded to approve this application Officers would have further discussions with both organisations and the applicant in respect of this. It was noted that a decision would not be issued until any Section 106 agreement had been signed.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector, Mrs Janet Cook, and the Agent, Guoda Vaitkeviciute, addressed the Committee.

Councillor W Stamp raised concern regarding the increase in number of dwellings to what had been previously agreed. She then read out a letter she had received from an objector.

In response to a question regarding the mock tudor design proposed, Officers explained that the applicants had advised should Members be mindful to approve the application they would accept a condition that the architectural detail on the north elevation of plots one and three (the Morton house types) be reserved for future consideration as an above slab level condition. This was noted.

Councillor A S Fluker raised a number of concerns relating to the proposed design particularly that the dwellings should face Maldon Road to match the existing street scene and the proposed mock Tudor beams which he felt were out of place. He then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to Policy D1. Councillor Fluker asked that Officers request the developers move the houses to face Maldon Road and remove the proposed mock Tudor beams.

In response to concerns raised regarding overlooking, the Head of Service advised that in terms of the Council’s development standards having a sense of feeling of overlooking was not the same as if the orientation and distance of a property resulted in direct overlooking. He further clarified that in planning terms the proposed development had no detrimental overlooking in terms of there being any material loss of privacy and detriment to the residential amenity.

Further debate ensued and in response to additional concerns raised, the Officer confirmed that the Housing team supported the proposed commuted sum which could support the provision of two affordable houses elsewhere in the district. In addition, the Housing Team had spoken to Registered Housing Providers who had confirmed they would not support affordable housing on this site.

In light of the discussion and concerns raised the Chairperson asked for a show of hands to confirm if Members were minded to go against the Officers’ recommendation. In light of the indication given by the Committee the Chairperson advised that the constitutional brake would be applied, and this item deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

In response, the Head of Service referred to the advice he had given at an earlier part of the meeting and the two options available to the Committee in respect of the constitutional brake. For this application he advised that there were enough reasons for refusal relating to design, particularly the building orientation which could be made.

In light of the Officer guidance, the Chairperson then asked Councillor Fluker to repeat his earlier proposition for refusal. Councillor Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to Policy D1. This proposal was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for reasons relating to Policy D1 and the wording of them delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairperson.