Agenda item

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Chief Executive (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Executive on this planning application.  Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, during which she advised Members that the Agent had requested deferral, the Chairman asked Members if they wished to take a vote on deferring this application.  Members declined to vote on deferral.

Mr M Porter of Tolleshunt Knights Parish Council then addressed the Committee.

Although this application would not have come to Committee under the parish trigger rule, the Chairman and Councillor E L Bamford, the Ward Members, had called this is as there were so many objections and they wanted to show support to the residents of Tolleshunt Knights.  In addition to the proposed reasons for refusal, there were problems with accessing the bus-stop as there were no pavements, the junction was considered to be dangerous and the density of houses proposed was considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding roads.

Councillor D M Sismey proposed that this should be determined by full Council to demonstrate the Council’s opposition to this type of speculative application.  This proposal was not seconded.  However, Members were of the opinion that their issues should be mentioned and both coalescence and lack of affordable housing were valid reasons for refusing this application.

Members considered that the Highways Authority had let the Council down on this and other applications and requested that the Essex County Council (ECC) Members who were also District Council Members speak to the Cabinet Member for Highways at ECC.  The respective ECC Members confirmed that they would do so.

The Group Manager for Planning Services advised Members that concern regarding the bus stop could not form a reason for refusal.  However, coalescence could be added as a further reason for refusal.  He also advised that if the Highways Authority did not raise an objection then it was difficult for the Council to use highways problems as a reason for refusal.  The Committee agreed to refuse the application as recommended by the Officers together with the additional reasons as identified above.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          At present, the application site prevents the coalescence of Tolleshunt Knights and Tiptree where it falls under the jurisdiction of Colchester Borough Council.  It is considered that the proposed development would fundamentally alter the open character of the north western edge of the village of Tolleshunt Knights, contrary to policies BE1, CC6 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies S1, S8, D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Government advice as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2          The application site is in a rural location outside of the defined settlement boundary for Tolleshunt Knights where policies of restraint apply. The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply to accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The site has not been identified by the Council for development to meet future needs for the District and does not fall within either a Garden Suburb or Strategic Allocation for growth identified within the Local Development Plan to meet the objectively assessed needs for housing in the District.  If developed, the site would be disconnected and isolated from the existing settlement, which has limited access and connectivity with the existing village thus would represent an unsustainable form of development.  The proposed development would fail to protect and enhance to the character and appearance of the rural area and the built form would have an urbanising effect resulting in an unwelcome visual intrusion into the undeveloped countryside, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the rural area.  Further, the application site is not considered to be in a sustainable location.  This is  due to lack of footways, together with the distance to local services / facilities means that there would not be a safe or convenient pedestrian access to local services / facilities and it is likely that there would be greater reliance on the private car.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies BE1 and T2 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan; policies S1, S8, D1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan; and the three dimensions to sustainable development as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3          The application site is located in fluvial Flood Zone 3 which has the high probability of flooding.  The Council can demonstrate a Five Year Housing Land Supply, as such residential development should be directed to areas of low risk of flooding. Furthermore, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is unsatisfactory as it fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would be safe for prospective occupiers of the site. Therefore, the development is contrary to Government guidance and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Planning Practice Guide, and policy D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan.

4          In the absence of a signed legal agreement the development makes no contribution for affordable housing, which would be required with respect to mitigating the wider impacts of the development on local infrastructure and townscape.  As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy PU1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies H1 and I1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework.