Agenda item

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Strategy, Performance and Governance, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that further information had been received from the Applicant and Officers had provided comments in respect of this.  In addition, an amendment to conditions 8, 16 and 49 and addition of a new condition 50 were suggested.

The Lead Specialist Place presented the application to the Council and highlighted that the site plan included with the Officers’ report was incorrect and the correct plan was made available on the screen for Members.  Members were reminded of Section 28(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which referred to the development plan and how determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  The Officer then went on and set out for Members what should be considered as a material consideration.

The Council was introduced to Mr Dave Chapman from Essex County Council (ECC) the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) who was in attendance to provide additional information, if required.

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector, Mr Sargood (representing Heybridge Residents Association), Councillor Perry on behalf of Heybridge Parish Council and the Agent, Mr Coleman addressed the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker, Leader of the Council, referred to the Local Development Plan and the disappointment that this scheme did not bring forward a Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS), but how that the application was now policy compliant in terms of affordable housing.  Councillor Fluker proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor Miss M R Lewis, a Heybridge Ward Member, addressed the Committee raising a number of concerns and highlighted how the application had been approved (subject to a Section 106 agreement) in 2016 by the Council in order to achieve a FAS which had been proposed by the Environment Agency.  Councillor Miss Lewis referred to a flood meeting that that had taken place earlier on in this week with the Environment Agency and ECC where new options for flood alleviation were presented. 

A lengthy debate ensued, during which some Members echoed the views of Councillor Miss Lewis and a number of further concerns and comments were raised, including:

·                 removal of the FAS which was part of the application when approved by the Council in December 2016;

·                 the scheme not being compliant with the Local Development Plan (LDP);

·                 the proposed timescale for development with particular reference made to three years for the relief road and six years for the medical centre. 

·                 concerns raised by local residents, in particular regarding the FAS;

·                 potential damage the development would do to local wildlife;

·                 the application did not provide high grass, low density areas;

·                 the impact of the development on Heybridge wood.

It was noted however that this was a strategic site and it was important for the Council’s five year housing land supply.

In response to questions, the Lead Specialist Place clarified the following:

·                 The scheme proposed:

·                 669 (minimum) 1 and 2 bedroomed properties;

·                 402 minimum 3 bedroomed properties;

·                 267 (maximum) 4 bedroomed or above properties;

·                 This would work out at 54 (minimum) bungalows.

·                 The proposed affordable housing units for the elderly would be specified as part of the Section 106 legal agreement.  The market housing did not specify an elderly person allocation, but the provision of bungalows was seen as meeting a demand which related to this.

·                 Affordable housing needs would be in accordance with the Council’s policy in respect of nomination rights.  The policy stated elderly persons housing as being for persons aged 55 and above and this therefore would be the requirement for this application.

·                 This application complied with Policy S4 as it was integral to the strategic development.

Councillor Mrs P A Channer left the meeting at this point and did not return.

In response to a question regarding whether Essex County Council, as LLFA, felt the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme proposed was acceptable, Mr Chapman responded.  Members were advised that at this stage the information submitted demonstrated that the scheme would deal with its own surface water drainage on the site, as it was legally required to do.  However, proposed conditions requested further details of the surface water drainage strategy and maintenance place which would come forward at a later stage. 

Councillor Fluker referred to his earlier proposition of approval and raised concern regarding the comments made by the LLFA.  He then withdrew his proposition of approval and proposed that the application be deferred to allow the LLFA to come back with further information.  This proposal was not seconded.

In response, the Lead Specialist Place referred Members to the National Planning Policy Guidance and read from this regarding planning applications which were outline in nature.  He advised that this was a standard process for the determination of planning application and similar to how the Council had processed every outline application before it.  The flooding report submitted with this application covered all the points and accepted that the general principles could be met and proposed condition 37 would require addition information which was standard practice.

In response to a further question, Mr Chapman referred to the LLFA consultation response in which condition 4 requested submission of a maintenance plan which would then be subject to written approval by the LLFA.  He advised that they were confident that the information provided highlighted that the scheme managed the surface water itself.

Councillor Miss M R Lewis proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, on the grounds that it was not a fully integrated system and that Members were not comfortable under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that they did not have enough information to make a decision in a comfortable and confident way.  This was duly seconded.

It was clarified that the reasons for refusal should relate to Members not being comfortable and confident of the ongoing maintenance and management of the scheme that had been proposed and that the scheme was not fully compliant, in that it was not fully integrated with the North Heybridge Garden Suburb as per policy S4 - paragraph 2.59 on page 53 of the Approved Local Development Plan and bullet point on page 28 of the same document.

In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor I E Dobson requested a recorded vote. 

The Chairman then put the proposal of refusal in the name of Councillor Miss Lewis, contrary to the Officers’; recommendation and the voting was as follows:

For the recommendation:

Councillors J P F Archer, E L Bamford, Miss A M Beale, B S Beale, A T Cain,
I E Dobson, Mrs B D Harker, B E Harker, M S Heard, Miss M R Lewis,
M R Pearlman, J V Keyes, S J Savage, Mrs N G F Shaughnessy,
Rev. A E J Shrimpton and Miss S White.

Against the recommendation: None.

Abstention:

Councillors H M Bass, M F L Durham, A S Fluker, R Pratt and Mrs M E Thompson

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          Insufficient evidence has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposed development would be able to incorporate adequate surface water drainage infrastructure and that the infrastructure that would be proposed would be maintained in a manner that would ensure that the development would not cause increased flood risk within the vicinity of the site and the catchment area of the watercourses that are within the site.  The potential impact on flood risk resulting from the development is unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S4 and D5 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the NPPF.