Agenda item

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

In accordance with his earlier declaration, Councillor R P F Dewick left the meeting at this point.

COUNCILLOR A S FLUKER IN THE CHAIR.

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, Mr A Cussen, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

In response to a question, the Officer advised the Committee that the Burnham Neighbourhood Plan formed part of the consideration on all applications in Burnham-on-Crouch since the referendum had taken place and that this application was in line with previous permission that had been granted earlier this year. 

A further question was asked whether the LDP took precedence over the Burnham Neighbourhood Plan?  The Officer advised that both the LDP and the Burnham Neighbourhood Plan form part of the development plan and many matters must be considered when assessing an application.  In order to recommend an application for refusal, demonstrable harm must be able to be shown.  Stoney Hills had developed considerably over the last four years and whilst Officers appreciated Members’ frustration, we must look at what the area has become and whether this application constituted demonstrable harm.

Members debated this application and considered that it was not unreasonable to raise an objection to this application, as the report itself that the increased number of dwellings would add to the creation of a more urban character.  Members considered that the LDP was very important to the Council.  Furthermore, previous appeals had been determined before the LDP had been approved.

The Group Manager for Planning Services pointed out that, in relation to the Agent’s comment that this would be the final application for Stoney Hills, there was no guarantee that this was the case.  He also advised Members that the relevant policies of the Council must be taken in to account when determining applications.

In response to a question, the Officer advised Members that although the Burnham Neighbourhood Plan was not referred to in the report, it was taken in to consideration when reviewing this application.

Councillor M W Helm proposed deferral of this application so that the Burnham Neighbourhood Plan could be properly considered together with the reasons for refusal/approval within the report.  However, this proposal was not seconded.

Officers confirmed that if this application was refused, then there was still approval for two dwellings.

Councillor Mrs H E Elliott, a Ward Member, proposed refusal of this application contrary to the Officers’ recommendation and this was duly seconded.

The Group Manager for Planning Services advised that there must be some sort of demonstrable harm and that he had heard from Members that the development was outside of the settlement boundary.  In addition, Members considered that the development would be a change in character to the area and result in an urban form of development.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer, CC proposed that a discussion be held between Councillor A S Fluker (as he was in the chair), officers and herself to consider the exact reasons for refusal of this application, if it was refused.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED, for the following reason:

1          The proposed development is located outside of the defined settlement boundaries of the Maldon District and would represent an intensive and urban form of development that would be materially harmful to the character of the application site and the surrounding area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) policies S1, S8, D1, H4 and policies HO.1 and H0.8 of the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017).

Councillors B S Beale, MBE and A S Fluker requested that their votes to approve this application be recorded.

Councillor R P F Dewick returned to the meeting at this point.