Agenda item

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

A Members’ Update was distributed before the meeting containing details regarding Heritage Assets, Tree considerations, further consultation responses received, and additional letters of objection.

The Officer presented the report. Following this an Objector Paul Guppy addressed the Committee.

A Member then recalled that a similar application on the same site was recommended for refusal a year ago and questioned the Officer on what the differences were between the current application and a previous one. The officer advised that the National policy Planning Framework had changed in December 2024, which gave different weight to aspects of the site, additionally the Applicant had mitigated some of the objections to the site in regards to the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy payments and Trees.

Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation. This was duly seconded.

Councillor Morgan suggested that the reasons for refusal would be based on what the application was called in for which was as follows:

·        The site being outside the settlement boundary, contrary to Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy S8.  

·        Over-development of the site, contrary to LDP Policy D1.  

·        The proposals would result in the urbanisation of an area currently rural in nature and erode the character and appearance of this part of the village, contrary to LDP Policy H4.

·        The development would have a detrimental impact on the wildlife and existing trees, contrary to Policies D1 and N2 and Policy WBEn 02 of the Wickham Bishops Neighbourhood Plan.

A discussion then ensued regarding the reasons for refusal. The Officer highlighted that there were no grounds to refuse based on overdevelopment or wildlife and environment. That the site was adjacent to the settlement boundary and in terms of urbanization this was considered harm, but the weighting tipped the planning balance in favour of the application.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) the Chairperson requested a recorded vote for the proposal to refuse the application in line with the urbanisation and settlement boundary issues. The voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors M F L Durham, J C Hughes, S J N Morgan, C P Morley and L L Wiffen

Against the recommendation:

Councillors E L Stephens and M E Thompson

Abstention:

None

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          Notwithstanding that Maldon District Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the harm which would be created by the development outside the development boundary of Wickham Bishops is not outweighed by the very limited contribution made by five additional homes. The proposed development would introduce residential development beyond a settlement boundary where the principle of the proposed development is not supported as development plan policies seek to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposed development would result in the urbanisation of the site through the introduction of built form, hardstandings and associated domestic paraphernalia which would erode the character and appearance of the site and surroundings. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this National Planning Policy Framework with particular regard to paragraphs 135, 136 and 187, and the proposal would conflict with the development plan's spatial framework contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017).