Agenda item

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

Members were reminded that this application had been deferred at the last extraordinary meeting of the Council.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a further consultation response from the Environment Agency had been received.

Following the Officers’ presentation Ms Williams, the Agent, addressed the Committee.

Having sought clarification on a point regarding design codes, Councillor A S Fluker, Leader of the Council, proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.

A number of Members raised concern regarding some of proposed properties not complying with the recommended minimum amenity space.  Officers advised that whilst this was true it had been assessed in line with the generous amount of public open space which would, by some means, compensate and overall Officers were happy that the proposal would be satisfactory.  It was noted that the proposed parking had been assessed as complying with the Council’s car parking standards. 

Councillor B E Harker referred to the design of some of the proposed flatted blocks, felt that there had been little regard to the garden suburb principles and was concerned regarding the amenity spaces being below the minimum standard.  He proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, due to the under-provision of amenity space for some of the dwellings proposed.  The Chairman advised him that there was already a proposition, of approval, and therefore if he disagreed he would need to vote against it.

A lengthy discussion ensued, during which Officers provided guidance and responded to a number of points and concerns raised by Members regarding the proposed application, including the following:

·             It was clarified that garden suburb principles set out in the South Maldon Garden Suburb Strategic Masterplan Framework Supplementary Planning Document are landscape led in terms of the space around the built form and the approved infrastructure made for provision of that including the Design Codes greenways which are approved at up to 25m wide and accessible for all residential parcels facing onto green spaces.  Those buildings with lower levels of amenity space had been located within significant landscaped public open spaces areas to compensate.

·             The Maldon District Design Guide applied in terms of amenity space standards and are taken from the Essex Design Guide, and Members were referred to the relevant section of the Officers’ report which dealt with that matter. 

·             Occupation of the older persons flats proposed, being part of the affordable housing to be provided, would be controlled through the Section 106 Agreement.

·             Some existing hedgerow had been removed along Fambridge Road for highway works as part of phase 1 and Officers advised that the hedge line and enhanced landscape would be replaced along that boundary in accordance with the landscape design approved as part of the phase 1 application.

·             The comments made by Environmental Health regarding the noise assessment of Limebrook Way were commented on and a Member questioned whether mitigation on those boundaries should be considered.

The Lead Specialist Place advised, in response to further comments regarding amenity space levels, that a small number of the proposed developments did not meet the Council’s policy requirements.  However, legislation required the Council to determine planning applications in accordance with the Council’s Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  Members also needed to assess if this minor shortfall was harmful taking into account the provision of a large amount of public open space and whether that offset that element of harm.  This process had been considered by Officers when making their recommendation and it was felt that the shortfall for quite a small number of properties was acceptable.

In response to a question regarding amending the condition proposed which would require details of management of the shared drainage features, the Lead Specialist Place clarified that the Council was the decision maker and approval of details required by conditions could not therefore be delegated to a third party such as Essex County Council Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Team.  However, the Council would ensure suitable consultation was carried out with the SuDS Team prior to approving any details submitted.  Following further discussion, it was agreed that the Officers would reword the condition relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems to make it more robust.

At this point Councillor S J Savage declared a further non-pecuniary interest in this item of business as he had windows with a trickle vent.

The location of the 19 dwellings with proposed below policy amenity space were highlighted to Members.  There was some discussion regarding Permitted Development Rights (PDR) and in response the Lead Specialist Place advised that a condition could be imposed which removed PDR on those particular plots or all plots if Members were so minded. 

Councillor Fluker raised a point of order asking that his proposition be put to the vote.

The Chairman put the proposal in the name of Councillor Fluker to approve the application in accordance with the Officers’ recommendations, subject to the Officers rewording the condition relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems to make it more robust and removal of PDR in relation to the dwellings with gardens below the Council’s recommended minimum private amenity site levels.  At this point the Lead Specialist Place provided further clarification in respect of the removal of the PDR suggested.  Upon a vote being taken this proposal was declared lost and the Chairman sought a proposal for refusal.

Councillor B E Harker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, because the amenity spaces of some of the dwellings failed to meet the adopted 1997 version of the Essex Design Guide for private amenity space, leading to unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the dwellings and contrary to Policy D1 of the Local Plan and the Essex Design Guide. 

The Chairman asked Officers to comment in relation to the proposed refusal.  The Lead Specialist Place advised that the report covered this matter in a lot of detail.  Officers acknowledged that there was a small percentage of properties below the required standard for amenity space, however there was a very generous level of public open space (both formal and informal) provided.  The Council was advised that the Officers’ recommendation was that this therefore mitigated any harm from the shortfall.

The proposal of refusal in the name of Councillor Harker was duly seconded.

Councillor R B Boyce requested a recorded vote.

The Chairman put the proposal in the name of Councillor Harker and the voting was as follows:

For the proposition:

Councillors J P F Archer, B S Beale, Mrs H E Elliott, P G L Elliott, Mrs B D Harker, B E Harker, M S Heard, Miss M R Lewis, Mrs N G F Shaughnessy, Rev. A E J Shrimpton and Miss S White.

Against the proposition:

Councillors H M Bass, E L Bamford, R G Boyce, Mrs P A Channer, I E Dobson, A S Fluker, N R Pudney, S J Savage, A K M St. Joseph and Mrs M E Thompson.

Abstentions: None.

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED contrary to Officers’ recommendations, for the following reason:

1          A number of the dwellinghouses proposed would be provided with private amenity space which would be below the minimum areas set out in the Essex Design Guide.  This would result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupiers of these properties, contrary to the NPPF and Policy D1 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan.