Minutes:
The Chairperson proposed that the application be approved, in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was not seconded.
Councillor A T Fittock outlined his concerns regarding this application and proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons that it did not meet Policies S1 (Sustainable Development, S2 (Strategic Growth), S8 (Settlement Boundaries in the Countryside) and D1 (Design Quality and Built Environment). This proposal was duly seconded.
In response to a further question regarding the impact of the development on the landscape, character and countryside setting of Maldon, the Development Management Team Manager advised that Officers were not suggesting that there would not be any harm, it was acknowledged that there would be some impact on the land. However, when reviewing these against the planning benefits Officers were of the view that this wouldn’t constitute a reason for refusal.
At this point the Chairperson sought nominations for a Member(s) who would be involved in any subsequent appeal relating to this application, should it this application be refused and the decision subsequently appealed. It was confirmed that this would be Councillor J Driver.
The Chairperson referred to the Constitutional Brake and that the Committee would need to vote on what it was minded to do at this point, unless Officers were content that the could use the reasons for refusal already stated. The Director of Place, Planning and Growth provided a summary of the discussions that had taken place and Members’ concerns regarding this application. He spoke about the Constitutional Brake and made some suggestions that Members may wish to consider in order for Officers to resolve with the applicant of some matters raised.
Further debate ensued. In response to a question regarding whether the Highways Authority would reconsider their recommendation, the Highways Officer advised they would not and explained how they had reviewed the transport assessment submitted with the planning application, been back to the developer a number of times in terms of changing some things they thought wrong and arrived at a position that they believed was representative of what would occur on the network. Highways had to then test that against their section of the NPPF which was the position reflected in their recommendation. It was requested that details of this background information be provided to Members.
The Chairperson then asked Members for a show of hands to confirm if the Committee was minded to go against the Officer recommendation and vote for refusal. Upon a show of hands being taken, the Chairperson advised that the majority of Members had indicated they were minded to refuse the application. She advised that the Constitutional Brake would therefore be invoked.
The Director of Place, Planning and Growth provided some further guidance in respect of applying the Constitutional Brake and the need to consider appropriate reasons for refusal that linked to the Local Plan and NPPF. In response to a point of clarity the Director of Legal and Governance (Monitoring Officer) advised that when the application came back to the Committee just the grounds for refusal would be discussed, it would not be an opportunity to re-examine the debate. The Director highlighted the importance of clear, precises and robustly worded reasons for refusal. It was noted that if the Constitutional Brake was invoked Officers would consider the issues raised during this meeting and draft reasons for refusal would be brought back to a future meeting of this Committee for consideration.
Following further discussion, the Chairperson advised that as Members were minded to overturn the Officers’ recommendation of approval, she was therefore applying the Constitutional Brake.
RESOLVED that the Constitutional Brake Clause be applied, and consideration of this application is therefore DEFERRED to a future meeting of the District Planning Committee, time and date to be confirmed.