Agenda item

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Ms E Hampson of Raymond Stemp Associates Ltd, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

The Group Manager for Planning Services commented to Members on the Agent’s presentation to the Committee that Maldon District Council does not object per se to a proposed development that was outside the settlement boundary.  It was necessary to show demonstrable harm.  Decisions made on other applications in the vicinity of this site do not alter comments made by the Planning Inspector on this site.  If another site was granted permission this would not overcome the harm that the Planning Inspector considered that this site may cause if this application was granted permission.  If Members were minded to approve this application, then reasons why must be given.

Members then debated this application in some detail and Councillor N R Pudney, a Ward Member, proposed Approval of the application contrary to Officer recommendation.  He was of the view that the Applicant dealt with rural matters and should be permitted to live on the site.  He was also of the opinion that everyone living nearby encountered the same difficulties with transport links etc.

Members commented on the following issues:

·                 The design of the site was innovative and attractive;

·                 There were already stables on the site;

·                 Permission had been granted for 180 houses in that locality and there had been permissions for two houses to the east and one to the west and it was, therefore, difficult to argue that the location was unsustainable.

In response to a question as to whether the application was for a dwelling or a business, the Chairman advised that Members could only consider the application before them and that was for residential accommodation.

Councillor R G Boyce drew attention to the development of Stoney Hills and was of the opinion that if this application was allowed, then it would weaken the Council’s argument to protect the remainder of Green Lanes for the future.  He was in support of the Officer’s recommendation.  The Group Manager for Planning Services advised that although some applications around Green Lanes had been approved and the locality had changed, that does not overcome the Planning Inspector’s comments that this site was unacceptable for development.  Members must take into account the full history of the site.

The Group Manager for Planning Services raised concerns regarding Members’ comments.  He reiterated that Members must determine the application before them, i.e. for a residence only and, furthermore, that Members must be consistent in their decision making.  He also advised Members that for a dwelling to be permitted in a rural area for its design, then the criteria under paragraph 55 of the NPPF was stringent and the design must be truly exceptional/innovative.

With regard to the comments concerning the 180 dwellings for which permission had been granted, the Group Manager for Planning Services advised Members that this did not mean that this current site was automatically acceptable.  Strategic sites had benefits for planning balance that one dwelling on its own could not bring.

The proposal to overturn the Officer recommendation was then duly seconded and upon a vote the motion failed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          The proposed development would be located outside of a defined settlement development boundary where policies of restraint apply. The proposal would result in the introduction of a dwelling and associated residential paraphernalia which would have an urbanising effect upon the rural locality to the detriment of its character and appearance. Therefore, the proposal is considered to result in an unsustainable form of development which would be contrary to policies S2, H1, BE1 and CC6 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies S1, S8, H4 and D1 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan as well as guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.