Agenda item

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

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector Mr Vickers and the applicant Mr Wilsher from Bloor Homes addressed the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker referred to the consultation response from Anglian Water objecting to the proposed development due to insufficient infrastructure in Southminster and queried if this was addressed within the reasons for refusal. He felt that Officers had come to the right decision and then proposed that the application be refused in accordance with Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to a query regarding a consultation response from Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council, the Development Management Team Leader advised that a response had been received that afternoon. He referred to this consultation response, advising Members that the Town Council were recommending refusal of the application as they felt it was in an unsustainable location and contrary to policies.

Members were informed that Officers had considered the consultation response from Anglian Water alongside other recent appeal decisions for similar developments. Referring to a development in Latchingdon, the Development Management Team Leader explained how the Planning Inspector had considered a Grampian style condition requiring the sewage and foul drainage system to be approved by the Council, discharged, built and be in place prior to any occupation of any of the buildings and how this also accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework. Officers had not included this as a reason for refusal as it was felt that the matter could be mitigated by a Grampian condition. In response to a suggestion that this be included as a reason for refusal, the Director of Place, Planning and Growth provided further explanation, advising that if Members were considering referring to this they needed to consider if the tilted balance applied because the Council was unable to demonstrate a Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS). It could be mitigated by a Grampian condition but if a Grampian condition couldn’t be satisfied until Anglian Water had provided a facility (which potentially had a long lead in time) this wouldn’t be delivering the homes to mitigate the impact of the Council’s 5YHLS.

Councillor Fluker proposed and amendment to his earlier proposal, proposing that the comments raised by Officers in relation to the Latchingdon appeal decision and Anglian Water be included as a reason for refusal. This was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken the amendment was agreed.

The Chairperson then put the proposed refusal in the name of Councillor Fluker with the additional reason for refusal as agreed. Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

It was agreed that the additional reason for refusal would be drafted by Officers and agreed in writing with the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Committee.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The proposed indicative housing mix would not meet the current and future housing needs of the District as set out in latest Maldon District Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA 2025) along with the Council’s own Technical Advice Note (TAN). Consequently, the current and future population of the District would not have access to the type of housing that is needed. As such the proposal is considered unacceptable and contrary to policy H2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and contrary to the guidance contained in Chapter 5 of the NPPF and PPG.

2.         The proposed development is not well related to and does not integrate with the existing settlement and as a result it would not achieve connectivity and permeability linkages with the existing settlement in placemaking terms and would appear disconnected and detached from the existing settlement. Furthermore, the proposed pedestrian and cyclist path to the southeastern corner of the site would use an existing shared access arrangement with the employment site, and this would lead to potential conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles using this area, particularly through any lorry movements or vans serving the employment site. As such this is considered contrary to policy S1, D1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, Maldon District Design Guide CO1 and the guidance contained with Chapters 8 and 9 of the NPPF.

3.         Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that a list of other ‘reasonably available sites’ have been considered for the purposes meeting the PPG requirements for the Flood Risk Sequential Test. Consequently, in the absence of this information the Flood Risk Sequential Test cannot be considered to have been passed and as a result the proposal is contrary to the guidance within the NPPF/PPG and is contrary to policy D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan.

4.         In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to secure the delivery of affordable housing to meet the identified need in the locality, address the Council's strategic objectives on affordable housing and support a mixed and balanced community, contrary to Policies S1, H1 and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.         In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the necessary improvements to bus services, the management and maintenance of the public open space, provision of necessary contributions towards health care, community facilities, primary and secondary school places, and library improvements, the impact of the development on existing services and provision cannot be mitigated contrary to Policies S1, D1, N1, N3, I1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.         In the absence of a completed legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, securing a necessary financial contribution towards Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy or an appropriate mitigation strategy to overcome the impacts of the development on the European designated nature conservation sites, the development would have an adverse impact on those European designated nature conservation sites, contrary to Policies S1 and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the NPPF.

7          Anglian Water object to the application as the Southminster Water Recycling Centre lacks the capacity to accommodate the additional flows that would be generated by the proposed development for wastewater treatment requirements, and this would lead to environmental harm. There is insufficient information within the application to demonstrate how the additional demands for foul drainage arising from the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing sewerage infrastructure in the area. As a result, there is not a clear strategy on how the adverse impacts of the development can be mitigated to make it acceptable in planning terms. Without an agreed mitigation strategy, it is impossible to know whether the mitigation would need to be secured by a planning condition or S106 planning obligation. Furthermore, in the absence of an agreed mitigation strategy, including timings for its delivery, there is no clarity when the proposed homes would be delivered. If the homes cannot be delivered within the next five years then limited weight can be given to the benefits of delivering new homes when judged against the Council’s five year housing land supply. This is important part of the planning balance when judged against the NPPF.  As such the application is contrary to policies S2 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained with the PPG ‘Water supply, wastewater and water quality’.

Councillor W Stamp joined the meeting at this point.