Agenda item

The Officer presented the report to the Committee and drew Members’ attention to the Members’ Update which contained details of additional objections received to the application.  The Officer also advised that a further four objections had also been received, together with a letter from the Member of Parliament.  All objections stated that there should have been wider consultation.  However, Officers had made the appropriate consultations that were required.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr Lederman, a Solicitor on behalf of Mr Yardsley, an Objector, of Gun Farm, Maypole Road, Great Totham and Mr Green, the Agent, of Green Planning Studio Ltd both addressed the Committee.

Members raised concerns about this application as the current permission on this site was passed in 2015, but nothing had happened to the site since then.  Members questioned why there was a need for further pitches.  Furthermore, the Council had fulfilled the allocation that the Council was required to provide.  There was, therefore, no outstanding need for travellers.  A question was raised as to whether the applicant would fulfil the definition of a traveller in any event.

This application was debated in some detail by Members and they were of the opinion that the original reasons for refusal were still valid and that an intensification of the application site would make the situation worse.  It was understood that the Planning Inspector on appeal had implied that there should only be one pitch on the site and, whilst there was sympathy with the applicant, the Council should maintain its previous decision.

The Development Management Team Leader advised Members that there was a day room at the site and the use of the land was lawful.  One of the pitches was established and there was no requirement for an Applicant to demonstrate a need for additional pitches.  Officers would recommend a condition that occupants must comply with the definition required should Members be minded to approve this application.  He then advised that significant weight should be given to the findings of the Planning Inspector and that the submission of further applications was not prevented.

In response to a question, the Development Management Team Leader advised that visual impact was inherent with development and that whether that was harmful was a matter of judgment.  In relation to this application, Officers considered that the expansion could be accommodated without causing material harm.

Councillor J V Keyes, a Ward Member, proposed refusal of this application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  This was duly seconded and upon a vote, the motion was carried with seven Members in favour of refusing the application.  The Chairman abstained from voting.

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

1.         The proposed development, by virtue of the increased number of caravans and buildings at the site and the spread of those caravans and buildings further to the west, would have detrimental visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the application site and the countryside.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies S8, D1 and H6(3f) of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed development, by virtue of the location of the site relative to local services and facilities and the poor connections to those services by way of sustainable modes of transport, would represent an unsustainable form of development.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies S1, T2 and H6(3b) of the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.