Agenda item

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Interim Head of Planning Services, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services and determined the following planning application, having taken into account all representations and consultation replies received.

Following the Officers’ presentation Brenda Major, an objector, Lorraine Evers, a supporter and Andy Butcher, the agent, addressed the Committee.

The members discussed the application, particular discussions were had around the access to the site, with the Group Manager for Planning Services reading out the twelve conditions Highways had recommended the Council use, he also clarified that Highways had no objections to this application but had just suggested the conditions in relation to access.

In answer to a question the Interim Head of Planning Services explained the current process behind viability assessments, he advised that he felt that this information should be supplied to members within the committee reports but to move forward with this in the future, he recommended that Councillors be trained on how to read and interpret viability information.

It was agreed to go with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.      The site is in a sensitive rural location outside of the defined settlement boundary for Mayland where policies of restraint apply.  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 Local Development Plan to meet the objectively assessed needs for housing in the District.  The proposal would have an unacceptably intrusive urbanising effect upon the site adversely affecting the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.  As such the proposal does not represent sustainable development and the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme contrary to policies S2, H1, CC6 and BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies S1, S8 and D1 of the Maldon District Submitted Local Development Plan and the guidance and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.      The proposed development would not meet the requirements for affordable housing provision in this part of the District.  The development would not therefore contribute to a strong vibrant community because it would not provide a supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations and as such is not considered to represent sustainable development contrary to policies S2 and H1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies S1, S8, H1 and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Paragraphs No. 7, 14, 17 and 50.