Agenda item

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that additional letters of objection had been received.

Following the Officers’ presentation Councillor Richard Perry on behalf of Heybridge Parish Council addressed the Council.

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

A number of Members commented on the application, highlighting concerns raised in the report and supporting the recommendation of refusal.  Members commended the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) on his report.

In response to a question regarding maintaining the sporting facilities in the District, the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) provided Members with further information.  He explained that if the Football Club were, for example, to buy a site and build a new pitch it was unlikely that Sports England would object.  

Councillor Mrs P A Channer questioned whether design could be included within or added as a reason for refusal.  In response the Officer suggested that reason for refusal 1 be amended to read “The development, by virtue of its scale, mass, design and layout…”.  This amendment was supported by Members.

The Chairman then put the Leader of the Council’s proposition of refusal for the reasons as set out in the report (with the suggested amendment to reason 1).  Upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.         The development, by virtue of its scale, mass, design and layout is considered to provide for a cramped and contrived development out of character with the surrounding area and to the detriment of this edge of open rural land setting.  This is brought about by the number of dwellings as proposed, their height, scale mass and their form.  The development is considered contrary to paragraphs 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework; policies BE1 and BE6 in the Adopted Maldon District Local Plan, and Policy D1, D2, and N3 within the proposed Local Development Plan.

2.         The development as proposed forms a hard built edge immediately next to the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, which represent the boundaries to open countryside beyond the site.  This is considered to materially affect the character of this area to its considerable detriment contrary to paragraphs 61, 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework; policies BE1, BE6 and CC6 of the Adopted Maldon District Local Plan policy N2 of the proposed Local Development Plan.

3.         The development as permitted makes no provision on site for a designated Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) relying on land outside the ownership for provision of the same. As such the layout as proposed would have no areas for play and recreation to the detriment of the health and well-being of residents.  This is considered contrary to Policy N3 in the proposed Local development Plan, as well as Paragraph 69 in the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The development as proposed has failed to show in detailed terms how a housing development on this site can enable the associated relocation of the new football ground and be viable in terms of affordable housing provision and to show how the applied for 30% affordable housing contribution can be achieved.  As such the development is considered contrary to paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework; contrary to Policy H9 in the Adopted Maldon District Local Plan, and Policy H1 of the proposed Local Development Plan.

5.         The development as proposed shows no formal connection by way of a legal agreement to link the re-development of this existing sports site to the phasing and delivery of the development it enables, that is to say a replacement football facility and associated facilities.  Without it the retention of a sporting facility to house Heybridge Swifts cannot be demonstrated and secured by any legal means.  As such the development if approved would result in the avoidable loss of an existing sports facility with its alternative location not being safeguarded.  Therefore the development would be contrary to paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policy REC in the Adopted Maldon District Local Plan, and Policy N3 of the proposed Local Development Plan.