Agenda item

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

The Chairman proposed that the Officer’s recommendation be accepted.  However, this proposal was not seconded.

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr Le Grys, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

The Chairman advised that a consultation response from Environmental Health was included in the Members’ Update.

Prior to the Committee debating this application, the Group Manager for Planning Services commented on the points made by the Agent.  The application related to the removal of conditions and Members must consider what could potentially happen and how that could be controlled.

Members debated this application in some detail and raised various questions to which the Group Manager for Planning Services responded:

·               Some of the buildings had already been demolished - Members were advised that there remain two buildings on this site, although others had been demolished.  This application relates to storage in the remaining buildings, together with open storage on the site;

·               Varying conditions was not the best way to deal with this and it would be better if the Applicant submitted a new proposal - To a certain extent, this was a reasonable way to deal with the application as it permitted open storage on the entire site.  There were still two buildings in existence and the condition is clear, precise and meets all the tests.  If permission was refused, then the Council could continue with enforcement action;

·               The Agent stated that this is a different application, although the report states it was identical to the previous one - The current application was to remove conditions and this was the same as the previous application.  A material consideration that must be taken into account was the Council’s previous decision.  Members would need to bring forward different material considerations if they thought it appropriate.

The Group Manager for Planning Services advised Members that the consultation period for this application had not expired and a decision would be delegated to the Chief Executive, subject to no new material considerations coming forward.

Members requested assurance that the wording on this application was identical to the wording on the previous application.  Whilst Members did not have a problem to this application per se, due to the previous application being refused, it was difficult to have a favourable attitude to this one if it was identical to the previous one.  The Group Manager for Planning Services confirmed that this application was to remove conditions.

Members were of the opinion that this application should be refused and the Applicant be invited to submit a new application that was different.   It was considered that the site could benefit from landscaping, improvement in access and also that there should be restrictions on working hours etc.

Councillor J V Keyes, a Ward Member, then proposed approval of this application, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, as he was of the opinion that this would cause less harm to the previous use of the site.  This proposal was not seconded.

The Chairman proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application be agreed and this was duly seconded.

It was suggested that Officers meet with the Applicant to discuss how to proceed with a new application for this site.

RESOLVED that the Chief Executive be authorised to REFUSE this planning permission, following expiry of the statutory consultation period, for the following reasons:

1          The use of the site without compliance to Conditions 6 of planning permission FUL/MAL/15/00439 has resulted in a development that is unacceptable in principle, due to its visual impact upon the intrinsic character and appearance of the area contrary to policies S2, CC6, CC19 and BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies S1, S8, E4 and D1 of the Maldon District Submitted Local Development Plan and the guidance and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2          The use of the site without compliance to Conditions 6 and 7 of planning permission FUL/MAL/15/00439 has resulted in noise pollution, which is detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring residential occupiers contrary to saved polices CON5, CC19 and BE1 of the Replacement Local Plan and emerging policies D1 and D2 of the submission Local Development Plan and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.