Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Executive, (copy enclosed).

It was noted from the Members’ Update that additional letters of representation had been received.  In addition, the Update advised that since publication a number of supporters / objectors had contacted the Council to advise that they wanted their letters redacted.

At the end of his presentation the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) advised of an amendment to reason for refusal 5 to add in reference to Policy T2 of the proposed Local Development Plan.  This was to be added on the second to last line after Policy S1 and referred to transport modes and the choice of transport.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector, Mr Patrick Forsyth (on behalf of Goldhanger Road Residents Group) and Councillor S Burwood on behalf of Heybridge Parish Council, addressed the Committee.

The Leader of the Council proposed that the Council accept the Officers’ recommendation of refusal as set out in the report and amended by the Officer.  This proposal was duly seconded.

A number of other Members commented on the application, raising concerns which included the proposed lighting, noise, location and removal of hedgerows and supported the recommendation of refusal.  Members thanked the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) for his excellent report.

The Chairman then put the proposition from the Leader of the Council which upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          The proposed site is within a sensitive rural location outside of the defined settlement boundary of Heybridge, within the open countryside, and the site is located within a Coastal Zone as defined in the Adopted Maldon Replacement Local Plan where restraint policies apply.  In terms of the 2006 Maldon Landscape Character Assessment the site falls within ‘D2 – Maldon Drained Estuarine Marsh’ and this provides the baseline landscape character for this area, this being a drained coastal marsh landscape now isolated from tidal influences, hedgerows, isolated farmsteads and the urban / suburban influence of Maldon on eastern edges of the character area.  The character area has no villages within it but is characterised by dispersed historic farmsteads and scattered agricultural buildings within an irregular field pattern.  Historic footpaths and tracks link the farmlands to the main highway and the estuary.  Overall this character area has a strong sense of tranquillity, particularly in areas away from Maldon / Heybridge (eastern fringe) and the main road (B1026).  The provision of a football pitch and associated facilities is not connected with a coastal location and its location; siting and design would adversely affect the open, flat rural landscape of the area, its wildlife and its features.  The development by reason of the associated noise, light, traffic movements would be injurious to the existing rural character and the views to the site, which are extensive in this wide flat rural landscape, affecting its intrinsic character and value.  This would further be compromised by the removal of existing vegetation increasing the visibility of the development and the reliance on replacement planting would take between 10 and 15 years to establish.  It would result in an urbanising form in this otherwise quiet rural area and would not represent sustainable development.  The impact of this development on the adjacent Saltcote Hall, users of adjacent footpaths and public areas, and the sea wall and estuary would be significant and to the detriment of the area.  As such the adverse impacts of the development would not outweigh the benefits and the scheme is considered to be contrary to policies CC11 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, Policy N2 within the Proposed Local development Framework and Paragraphs 17, 109, 110, 112 and 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2          The proposal is considered, on balance, to have an adverse impact on protected species and wildlife habitats.  It would result in a loss of biodiversity, and impact the current tranquillity of this quiet rural area to its detriment.  It is not considered that the impact of the development on harm to ecology without adequate mitigation has been successfully proven and the impact is considered the impact of the development would, therefore, be contrary to Policies CC5 in the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, Policy N2 within the Proposed Local development Framework and Paragraphs 117, 118 and 119 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3          The development stands adjacent to a property at the southern edge of the site which currently enjoys a dark, quiet rural aspect. Not only does this property enjoy residential amenity from this setting, its business also benefits from this.  In addition the adjacent Chigborough Lakes and Saltcote Hall carry out their own business enterprise which is dependent on peace and quiet.  The establishment of a football club with associated noise, traffic and lights late into the evening would have a detrimental impact on not only enjoyed residential amenity but also on the future success of the landowners established business’s.  The proposals will not only change the character of the exiting land use but have a significant lasting impact on neighbouring land providing an alien landscape feature in an otherwise flat landscape including the introduction of floodlights in an intrinsically dark landscape.  As such the development is considered contrary to Policy BE1 in the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that the impact of the use would adversely affect the tranquillity of adjacent sites, existing business uses and enjoyed amenity.

4          The detailed scale and appearance of the development does not response to the local surroundings nor integrate successfully with the existing character and appearance of the sensitive flat open rural landscape to its considerable and lasting detriment. As such the development is considered contrary to Policies BE1 and BE6 in the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, Policy D1 within the Proposed Local Development Plan and Paragraphs 58 and 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5          The location of the proposed development and the available access arrangements show that the development is predominantly reliant on the motor vehicle and given the proximity to the edge of Heybridge and the use of the development by children and youths in training facilities it is devoid of safe and attractive connections for pedestrians and cyclists other than by the vehicle highway on Goldhanger Road.  There is also no available route for pedestrian and cyclists to access this site from the Scraley Road site and restricted opportunities along Goldhanger Road.  As such the development is considered as contrary to Policies BE1 in the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, Policy S1 and T2 within the Proposed Local Development Plan and Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework.