Agenda item

25/00706/OUTM - Land East of Birch Road, Tillingham

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

Minutes:

Application Number 

25/00706/OUTM 

Location 

Land East of Birch Road Tillingham 

Proposal 

Outline planning application for residential development of up to 36 dwellings (Use Class C3) with new vehicular and pedestrian access and associated open space, parking and landscaping with all matters reserved except access 

Applicant 

c/o WSP 

Agent 

Mr Joshua Webb - WSP 

Target Decision Date 

21.01.2026 (Extension of Time - EOT - Agreed) 

Case Officer 

Chris Purvis 

Parish 

TILLINGHAM 

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council 

Councillor M G Neall has ‘called in’ the application due to concerns of this development being outside of the settlement boundary (policy S8) and would creep into the countryside; concerns with regards to layout and density, house types are not in line with others (policy D1); concern over housing mix and affordable housing levels (policy H1) and the location of affordable housing in area of the development (policy H2) 

Major Development 

Departure 

 

The Officer presented the report. Following this an Objector John Williams and the Agent Michael Wood addressed the Committee.

 

A Member then raised their concerns over this application making reference to the reasons for refusal on the previous application on the site which included:

·        The rural location of the site

·        The site being outside of the settlement boundary

·        Limited services, facilities and employment opportunities

·        The poor quality and limited access to sustainable public transport, which would mean an increase in traffic movements and private vehicle ownership

The Member believed that this new application had not addressed these issues and stated that it is contrary to policies S1, S2, S8, D1, T1, T2 and H4. They then went on to note that they believe the density design has still not been addressed stating they thought it was contrary to policies S1 S8 and H4.

 

A Member then raised concerns over the grade two agricultural land that the site was proposed on, wanting to know why this had not been given a more substantial consideration questioning what the officer had taken consideration.

 

The officer responded that the site is 1.78 hectares in size and there is no requirement to ask natural England for comment on land below 20 hectares leading to its limited weight.

 

Following this, issues were discussed with the design and location of the site. Concerns about the entrance and exit to the site were raised with reference to the size of the proposed access being too small; additionally they thought the single entrance to the site was not enough and would lead to loss of amenity to current residents.

 

The location was questioned with the Member stating it was in the wrong place in reference to the settlement to constitute good design.

 

Councillor M G Neall then Proposed that they refuse this application it was duly seconded.

 

Following this Councillor V J Bell proposed that the Committee approve this application this was not seconded.

 

Before a vote occurred, members had a discussion to clarify the planning reasons for refusal to ensure they were robust and relevant.

 

The Chairperson then put Councillor Neall’s proposal to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken this was passed.

 

It was decided that Councillors Neall, Bassenger and Bell would represent Maldon District Council if this application was to go to appeal.

 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED with the reasons for refusal to be finalised with the Members and Chairperson of this Committee.

 

                                   

Supporting documents: