(Public Pack)Agenda Document for South Eastern Area Planning

Public Document Pack

APOLOGIES Committee Services Tel. 01621 875791 / 876232

Council Chamber 01621 859677 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Fiona Marshall

05 January 2016

Dear Councillor

You are summoned to attend the meeting of the;

SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE on MONDAY 11 JANUARY 2016 at 7.30 pm. in the Council Chamber. Maldon District Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon.

A copy of the agenda is attached.

Yours faithfully

Chief Executive

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN Councillor R P F Dewick VICE-CHAIRMAN Councillor N R Pudney COUNCILLORS Mrs B F Acevedo B S Beale MBE R G Boyce MBE, CC Mrs P A Channer, CC Mrs H E Elliott P G L Elliott A S Fluker M W Helm R Pratt This page is intentionally blank AGENDA SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY 11 JANUARY 2016

1. Chairman's notices (please see page 3)

2. Apologies for Absence

3. Minutes of the last meeting (Pages 1 - 20)

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 December 2015 (copy enclosed).

4. Disclosure of Interests

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, other Pecuniary Interests or Non-Pecuniary Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraphs 6 - 10 inclusive of the Code of Conduct for Members.

(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).

5. Members' Briefing

To receive an Officer led presentation.

6. FUL/MAL/00058 - AA Dog Rescue, Oldfield Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingdon (Pages 21 - 40)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

7. FUL/MAL/15/00175 - Waterside Holiday Park, Main Road, St Lawrence (Pages 41 - 48)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

8. FUL/MAL/15/00707 - The Barn, Whitegate Farm, Mundon (Pages 49 - 56)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Page 1 For further information please call 01621 876232 or 875791 or see the Council's website – www.maldon.gov.uk. 9. OUT/MAL/15/01120 - Land Adjacent The Cloisters, High Street, Bradwell-on-Sea (Pages 57 - 66)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

10. HOUSE/MAL/15/01144 - 7 Mill Road, Mayland (Pages 67 - 74)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

11. HOUSE/MAL/15/01185 - 24 New Moor Crescent, Southminster (Pages 75 - 84)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

12. HOUSE/MAL/15/01222 - The Old Farm House, 1 Brickwall Close, Burnham-on- Crouch (Pages 85 - 90)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

13. OUT/MAL/15/01254 - Land Adjacent 67 Queen Street, Southminster (Pages 91 - 102)

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

14. Other Area Planning and Related Matters (Pages 103 - 108)

To consider the report of the Interim Director of Planning and Regulatory Services on the following matters: (i) Appeals Lodged

(ii) Appeal Decisions

15. Delegated Planning Applications

To receive and note a list of decisions on planning applications taken by the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services.

16. Any other items of business which the Chairman of the Committee decides are urgent

17. Exclusion of Public and Press

To resolve that under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, and that this satisfies the public interest test.

Page 2 18. Appeals Update at Stoney Hills, Burnham-on-Crouch (Pages 109 - 114)

To consider the report of the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services, (copy enclosed).

Note: 1. The Council operates a facility for public speaking. This will operate only in relation to the consideration and determination of planning applications under Agenda Items No. 6 - 13. 2. The Committee may hear from one objector, one supporter, a Parish / Town Council representative, and the applicant / agent. Please note that the opportunity to speak is afforded only to those having made previous written representation. 3. Anyone wishing to speak must notify the Committee Clerk or a Planning Officer between 7:00pm and 7:20pm prior to the start of the meeting. 4. For further information please ring 01621 875791 or 876232 or see the Council’s website www.maldon.gov.uk/committees

* Please note the list of related Background Papers attached to this agenda.

NOTICES

Sound Recording of Meeting Please note that the Council will be recording any part of this meeting held in open session for subsequent publication on the Council’s website. At the start of the meeting an announcement will be made about the sound recording. Members of the public attending the meeting with a view to speaking are deemed to be giving permission to be included in the recording.

Fire In event of a fire, a siren will sound. Please use the fire exits marked with the green running man. The fire assembly point is outside the main entrance to the Council Offices. Please gather there and await further instruction.

Health and Safety Please be advised of the different levels of flooring within the Council Chamber. There are steps behind the main horseshoe as well as to the side of the room.

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) This meeting is being monitored by CCTV.

Page 3 Page 4 BACKGROUND PAPERS

The Background Papers listed below have been relied upon in the preparation of this report: 1. The current planning applications under consideration and related correspondence. 2. All third party representations and consultation replies received. 3. The following Statutory Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance, together with relevant Government legislation, Circulars, Advice, Orders, Directions and Guidance:

Development Plans  Maldon District Replacement Local Plan 2008 – Saved Policies  Maldon District Local Development Plan 2014-2029 - submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public on 25 April 2014 (as amended).

Legislation  The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990  The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)  The Planning Act 2008  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)  The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010  The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)  The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regs 2007  The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regs 2011  Localism Act 2011  The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012  The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012  Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Other Advice i) Government policy and guidance  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guidance  Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)  Planning policy for traveler sites  Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy  Relevant government circulars ii) Essex County Council  Essex Design Guide 1997 iii) Maldon District Council  Submission Local Development Plan (April 2014) (as amended)  Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2014/15  Planning Policy Advice Note v.4 (October 2015)  Infrastructure Delivery Plan (All versions, including update in Council’s Hearing Statement)  Infrastructure Phasing Plan (January 2015)

Page 5  North Heybridge Garden Suburb Strategic Masterplan Framework - 2014  South Maldon Garden Suburb Strategic Masterplan Framework - 2014  Vehicle Parking Standards SPD - July 2006  Accessibility to Buildings SPD – December 2006  Children’s Play Spaces SPD – March 2006  Sadd’s Wharf SPD – September 2007  Heybridge Basin Timber Yard SPD – February 2007  Developer Contributions Guide - 2010  Affordable Housing Guide – June 2006  Heybridge Basin Village Design Statement – November 2006  Wickham Bishops Village Design Statement - 2010

Copies of all Background Papers are available for inspection at the Maldon District Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon, Essex CM9 5DL during normal office hours

Page 6 Agenda Item 3

MINUTES of SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 DECEMBER 2015

PRESENT

Chairman Councillor R P F Dewick Vice Chairman Councillor N R Pudney Councillors Mrs B F Acevedo, B S Beale MBE, Mrs H E Elliott, P G L Elliott, A S Fluker, M W Helm and R Pratt In attendance Councillor H M Bass

677. CHAIRMAN’S NOTICES

The Chairman drew attention to the list of notices published on the back of the agenda.

678. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R G Boyce, CC and Mrs P A Channer, CC.

679. MINUTES

(i) RESOLVED the Minutes of the South Eastern Area Planning Committee held on 16 November 2015 be received.

Minute No. 576 – Declarations of Interest Councillor M W Helm stated that he declared a non-pecuniary interest in item SE1 FUL/MAL/15/00093 as he was a member of an alms house trust.

(ii) RESOLVED that, subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the South Eastern Area Planning Committee held on 16 November 2015 be approved and confirmed.

680. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor R P F Dewick declared a non-pecuniary interest in item SE9 - FUL/MAL/15/01046, as in the past he had carried out a small amount of work for the applicant.

34 Page 1

Councillor M W Helm declared a non-pecuniary interest in item SE12 – OUT/MAL/15/01080 as he knew the applicant.

Councillor A S Fluker advised of the following matters, in the interest of openness and transparency: • SE1 FUL/MAL/15/00033 – he knew the applicant’s family. • SE4 FUL/MAL/15/00913 – he knew the supporter. • SE7 FUL/MAL/15/00984 – he knew the applicant. • SE9 FUL/MAL/15/01046 – knew the objector. • SE11 FUL/MAL/15/01072 – he was a customer of the applicant since the age of 14.

Councillor P G L Elliott declared a non-pecuniary interest in item SE9 - FUL/MAL/15/01046 as he knew the applicant.

Councillors Mrs B F Acevedo declared a non-pecuniary interest in item SE4 as she knew one of the supporters.

681. MEMBERS’ BRIEFING

The Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager provided a presentation to the Committee on the effect of a legislative update relating to the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings.

682. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

The Committee determined the following planning applications, having taken into account all representations and consultation replies received, including those listed on the Members’ Update circulated at the meeting.

The Chairman advised the Committee that members of the public had registered their wish to speak and outlined the procedure for public participation.

SE1 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00033 Location Holiday Cottage Sheepcotes Farm Sheepcotes Lane Southminster Proposal Change the use of holiday home as annexe Applicant Mrs Joanna Wood Date Valid 12 January 2015 Target Date 9 March 2015 Case Officer Kara Elliott, TEL: 01621 875860 Parish SOUTHMINSTER

It was noted from the Members’ Update that there was an error on page 8 of the report as the letters of objection were not relevant to this application and therefore should be removed.

35 Page 2

Following the Officer’s presentation Mrs Wood, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor B S Beale, a Ward Member, spoke in support of the application and proposed that it be approved contrary to Officer recommendation, with an added condition that it be used as an annexe to the main property.

In response to a point raised the Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager advised that the planning history showed that that proposed development was not being used as an annexe and therefore a condition regarding this would not be appropriate.

Members commented that they felt a Section 106 Agreement would be appropriate for this application.

The Chairman put Councillor Beale’s proposal to the Committee. This was duly seconded and upon a vote taken agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement that will ensure that the unit is not sold off as a separate piece of land and a personal condition restriction occupancy to the current residents of the dwelling.

SE2 Application Number HOUSE/MAL/15/00842 Location Lily Rose Cottage Foxhall Road Steeple Essex Proposal New second floor and loft conversion to bungalow including full dormer to rear and three roof lights to front. Applicant Mrs Jane Fariner Agent Mr Gabriel Kakanos - Kticic Architects Date Valid 18 September 2015 Target Date 13 November 2015 Case Officer Emily Hall, TEL: 01621 875744 Parish STEEPLE

Councillor M W Helm, a Ward Member, spoke in support of the application and proposed that it be approved contrary to Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded and upon a vote taken agreed.

36 Page 3

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, Members of the planning committee took the decision to grant planning permission as the proposal has been considered acceptable.

SE3 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00901 Location King And Hines Limited 171 - 173 Station Road Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Proposal Partial reinstatement of 171 Station Road to full residential use. Conversion of brick outbuilding to residential use. Reinstating the wall between the residential and retail areas to reduce the existing retail area. Removal of dilapidated metal clad outbuilding (between rear of 173 and brick outbuilding) and replacement with residential accommodation. With the development comprising a total of 8 residential flats (3no 1 bed units, 5no. 2 bed units) 1 retail unit and associated vehicle access/parking and amenity. Applicant King & Hines Ltd Agent Mr Simon Plater - Plater Claiborne Architecture + Design Date Valid 9 September 2015 Target Date 4 November 2015 Case Officer Rebecca Greasley, TEL: 01621 875805 Parish BURNHAM SOUTH

It was noted from the Members’ Update that this application had been WITHDRAWN by the agent.

37 Page 4

SE4 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00913 Location Church Of All Saints Ferry Road Burnham-On- Crouch Essex Proposal Proposed side extension to the church to provide a meeting room, tea making facility, toilet and an overflow car parking area (Revised following FUL/MAL/12/00528) Applicant The Parochial Church Council Of The Parish Of All Saints' Ch Agent Raymond Stemp Associates Ltd Date Valid 2 September 2015 Target Date 28 October 2015 Case Officer Ernest Addae-Bosompra, TEL: 01621 876274 Parish BURNHAM NORTH

It was noted from the Members’ Update that two additional letters of support had been received.

Following the Officer’s presentation Ms Wadman, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor N R Pudney, a Ward Member, commented that the proposed development was a welcome addition to the Church and a much needed facility. Councillor Mrs H E Elliott, the other Ward Member, agreed with Councillor Pudney and commented that the design should be in-keeping with the Church.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded and upon a vote taken agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved drawings specifically referenced on this decision notice. 3 No development shall take place until written details and samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the materials and details as approved. 4 All rainwater goods shall be of cast metal only with a black painted finish and retained as such thereafter. 5 The roof lights shall be of a conservation style; black painted, cast metal type and shall not protrude above the upper surface of the roof tiles. 6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the foul drainage scheme to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as agreed shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development.

38 Page 5

7 Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, the vehicle parking area as shown on drawing ref: 34 Revision A shall be marked out and retained as such thereafter 8 No development including any site clearance or groundworks of any kind shall take place within the site until the applicant or their agents; the owner of the site or successors in title has submitted an archaeological assessment by an accredited archaeological consultant to establish the archaeological significance of the site. Such archaeological assessment shall be approved by the local planning authority and will inform the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. The development shall be carried out in a manner that accommodates such approved programme of archaeological work. 9 No development including any site clearance or groundworks of any kind shall take place within the site until the applicant or their agents; the owner of the site or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work from an accredited archaeological contractor in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in a manner that accommodates the approved programme of archaeological work.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, Members of the planning committee which took the decision to grant planning permission as the proposal has been considered acceptable.

SE5 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00914 Location Springfield Nurseries Steeple Road Latchingdon Essex Proposal Temporary storage of 3 Mobile Caravans and 3 Heavy Goods Vehicles - limited to two years Applicant Mrs M Anderson Agent Sarah Threlfall - TMA Chartered Surveyors Date Valid 24 August 2015 Target Date 19 October 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish LATCHINGDON

It was noted from the Members’ Update that this application had been WITHDRAWN by the agent.

39 Page 6

SE6 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00947 Location Pixies Folly 14 Mountview Crescent St Lawrence Essex Proposal Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two detached bungalows including two car parking space per plot. Applicant Mr R Tonks - Rianda Properties Ltd Agent Terence Wynn Date Valid 26 August 2015 Target Date 21 October 2015 Case Officer Kara Elliott, TEL: 01621 875860 Parish ST LAWRENCE

It was noted from the Members’ Update that an internal response had been received from the Emergency Planning / Community Safety Department.

In response to a question raised the Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager confirmed that the Flood Risk Assessment provided did not meet the requirements as set out by the Government.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development is located within Flood Zone 3 and seeks to direct and intensify residential development, classified as "more vulnerable" based on the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, in an area with a high probability of flooding contrary to paragraphs 101 and 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the aspirations of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to fail both the Sequential Test and the Exception Test given that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply on sites which have been subject of Sequential Testing; the wider sustainability benefits to the community do not outweigh the flood risk posed and because it is not considered that that the proposed development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users and the proposed safe refuge is not considered to be a sufficient arrangement.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

40 Page 7

SE7 Application Number OUT/MAL/15/00984 Location Land Adjacent To St Anns Southminster Road Asheldham Essex Proposal Proposed 2no. two bedroom bungalows Applicant Mr & Mrs R Pond Agent Mr Raymond Stemp Associates Date Valid 18 September 2015 Target Date 13 November 2015 Case Officer Ernest Addae-Bosompra, TEL: 01621 876274 Parish ASHELDHAM

Following the Officer’s presentation Ms Hampson, the agent, addressed the Committee.

Comments were made in respect of the site being a sustainable location for the proposed development. Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be approved, contrary to Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded and upon a vote taken agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1 Details of the scale, appearance and layout of the development and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2 Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within two years from the date of the final approval of the reserved matters. The development shall be carried out as approved. 4 No development shall take place until written details or samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the materials and details as approved. 5 The scheme to be submitted as part of the reserved matters shall make provision for car parking within the site in accordance with the Council's adopted car parking standards. Prior to the occupation of the development the parking areas shall be constructed, surfaced, laid out and made available for such purposes in accordance with the approved scheme and retained as such thereafter. 6 No development shall commence until details of the siting, height, design and materials of the treatment of all boundaries including existing hedging, gates, fences, walls, railings and piers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The screening as approved shall be constructed prior to the first occupation of the development to which it relates and be retained as such thereafter.

41 Page 8

7 No works or development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works to be carried out have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

These details shall include the layout of the hard landscaped areas with the materials and finishes to be used and details of the soft landscape works including schedules of shrubs and trees to be planted, noting the species, stock size, proposed numbers/densities and details of the planting scheme's implementation, aftercare and maintenance programme. The hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The soft landscape works shall be carried out as approved within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant that tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in its replacement, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation. 8 Unless otherwise agreed through the Reserved Matters of this permission, no trees within the site shall be felled, cut back, damaged or removed, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the local planning authority. No development shall commence until information has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the requirements of BS5837:2012 in relation to tree retention and protection as follows:

• Tree survey detailing works required; • Trees to be retained; • Tree retention protection plan; • Tree constraints plan; • Arboricultural implication assessment; • Arboricultural method statement (including drainage service runs and construction of hard surfaces). • Trees offsite

No development shall commence until fencing and ground protection to protect the trees shall be erected, details to be submitted and approved as per BS5837:2012, and ground protection has been erected details of which shall have been submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The ground protection shall be laid as per Arboricultural method statement in accordance with British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to construction) unless otherwise agreed in writing. The protective fencing and ground protection shall be erected before the commencement of any clearing, demolition and building operations and shall be retained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. If within five years from the completion of the development an existing tree is removed, destroyed, dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority,

42 Page 9

seriously damaged or defective, a replacement tree shall be planted within the site of such species and size and shall be planted at such time, as specified in writing by the local planning authority. 9 No development including any site clearance or groundworks of any kind shall take place within the site until the applicant or their agents; the owner of the site or successors in title has submitted an archaeological assessment by an accredited archaeological consultant to establish the archaeological significance of the site. Such archaeological assessment shall be approved by the local planning authority and will inform the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. The development shall be carried out in a manner that accommodates such approved programme of archaeological work. 10 No development including any site clearance or groundworks of any kind shall take place within the site until the applicant or their agents; the owner of the site or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work from an accredited archaeological contractor in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in a manner that accommodates the approved programme of archaeological work. 11 Prior to the first use of the proposed access, details of the construction and future maintenance of the necessary bridging or piping of the drainage ditch/watercourse shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Lead Local Flood Authority (Essex County Council). 12 Prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwellings, there shall be one vehicular access to serve both dwellings which shall be constructed to a width of 5.5m and shall be provided with an appropriate dropped kerb vehicular crossing of the footway/highway verge to the specifications of the Highway Authority. 13 No unbound materials shall be used in the surface treatment of the proposed vehicular access within 6m of the highway boundary. 14 There should be no obstruction above ground level in height within a 2.4m wide parallel band visibility splay required across the entire site frontage as measured from the edge of carriageway. Such vehicular visibility splays shall be provided before the access is first used by vehicular traffic and retained free of any obstruction at all times. 15 Prior to commencement of the proposed development, details showing the proposed means of preventing the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 16 Prior to commencement of the proposed development, each dwelling shall be provided with a vehicular turning facility for motor cars of a design which shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be provided within the site and shall be maintained free from obstruction in perpetuity. 17 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the surface water and foul drainage scheme to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.

INFORMATIVES 1 Should any contaminated ground conditions or the existence, extent and concentrations of any landfill gas be found that was not previously identified or

43 Page 10

not considered in a scheme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the site or part thereof shall be re-assessed a scheme to bring the site to a suitable condition in that it represents an acceptable risk shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

2 The applicant should ensure the control of nuisances during construction works to preserve the amenity of the area and avoid nuisances to neighbours:

a) No waste materials should be burnt on the site, instead being removed by licensed waste contractors; b) No dust emissions should leave the boundary of the site; c) Consideration should be taken to restricting the duration of noisy activities and in locating them away from the periphery of the site; d) Hours of works: works should only be undertaken between 0730 hours and 1800 hours on weekdays; between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays and Public Holidays. 3 All work within or affecting the highway is to be laid out and constructed by prior arrangement with and to the specifications of the Highway Authority; details shall be agreed before the commencement of works.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

SE8 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/01027 Location 14 The Brambles Foxhall Road Steeple Essex Proposal Erection of detached bungalow Applicant Mr & Mrs A Watts Agent Mr Chris Tivey - Chris Tivey Associates Date Valid 7 October 2015 Target Date 2 December 2015 Case Officer Emily Hall, TEL: 01621 875744 Parish SOUTHMINSTER

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr Tivey, the agent, addressed the Committee.

In response to a question raised, the Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager confirmed that the application was partially retrospective in nature.

44 Page 11

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1 The building is located outside of a defined settlement boundary, remote from community facilities and is not located adjacent to, or is closely related to an existing town, village or public transport infrastructure, which would result in the residents being reliant on the private vehicle for day to day living and would result in the introduction of an isolated dwelling and associated residential paraphernalia which would urbanise the area to the detriment of its character and appearance, contrary to policies S1, S2 and CC6 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies S1 and S8 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan as well as guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, notably paragraphs 17 and 109. 2 Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that there would be no demonstrable impact on the amenity of the future occupiers of the proposed residential units from of the noise generating sources contained within the adjoining site to the east. The council is therefore unable to fully assess whether the proposal would represent an appropriate form of development for this site, contrary to policies CON5 and BE1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies D1 and D2 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan, guidance contained in the Essex Design Guide and core planning principles and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 The proposed development is considered to have an adverse impact on the environment given its reliance on a non-mains drainage system which poses an increased risk of pollution to the environment. In addition, insufficient information has been submitted to justify that discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works or a package sewage treatment plant is not feasible (taking into account cost and/or practicability), contrary to policy CON5 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policy D2 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal approval has not been possible, and the harm has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal.

45 Page 12

SE9 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/01046 Location Land South West Of High House Green Lane Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Proposal Application for the erection of a four bedroom detached dwelling, revised application following refusal FUL/MAL/14/01216 Applicant Mr S Latif Agent Mr Raymond Stemp - Raymond Stemp Associates Date Valid 9 October 2015 Target Date 4 December 2015 Case Officer Ernest Addae-Bosompra, TEL: 01621 876274 Parish BURNHAM NORTH

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the introduction section of the report was to be deleted as Burnham Town Council had highlighted in an email correspondence on 8 December 2015 that the Officer’s recommendation accorded with the views of the Town Council.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mrs Stamp, an objector, Mr Parsons, a supporter, and Mr Latif, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor N R Pudney and Councillor Mrs H E Elliott, the Ward Members, commented that they were concerned with the entrance to the proposed development and the potential danger it posed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development would appear visually intrusive within the rural countryside in this location, which is recognised for its landscape value in the adopted Local Plan. The proposed development would result in the urbanisation of the site and therefore have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies S2, CC6 and BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and policies S1, S8 and D1 of the Maldon District Pre-Submission Local Development Plan. 2 The proposed development would result in an isolated residential development that would not respect the existing pattern of development and is comparatively remote from community support facilities. Furthermore, the development would have an urbanising effect on the rural character of the area and would result in an unwelcome visual intrusion and encroachment into the open and undeveloped countryside, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies CC6 and BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Pre-Submission Local Development Plan. and core planning principles and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

46 Page 13

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

SE10 Application Number OUT/MAL/15/01066 Location Land South Of Old Oak Farm Rectory Lane Latchingdon Essex Proposal Outline application for the erection of 8No. dwellings to enable investment into and business development of Essex Breeding Centre including determination of access and layout. Applicant Mr & Mrs P Gibbs Agent Mr Chris Tivey - Chris Tivey Associates Date Valid 6 October 2015 Target Date 1 December 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish LATCHINGDON

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the decision for a related planning application, FUL/MAL/15/01067 had been provided.

Following the Officer’s presentation Mrs Gibbs, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Mrs B F Acevedo, a Ward Member, commented that she had visited the site and, whilst the animals were kept in good conditions, felt the location was not suitable for the proposal.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1 Policies S2 and H1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies S1 and S8 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan seek to provide control over new buildings in rural areas that are beyond defined settlement boundaries and to ensure that new residential developments are directed to appropriate and sustainable locations. In July 2015 the local planning authority published a Five Year Housing Supply Statement 2014/15 which demonstrated that there was a 6.95 year supply of housing land in the District which gives significant weight to the above policies. In addition policies BE1 and CC6 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies D1 and N2 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan require new developments in rural locations do not adversely affect the character of the rural landscape. In this case the location, form and design of the proposal would result in an urban form of development out of character with, and detrimental to, the appearance of this rural location and would have

47 Page 14

an urbanising impact on the rural area to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area contrary to the requirements of the above policies. In coming to this view the local planning authority has taken account of the applicant's proposition that the proposal would support his business nearby but has concluded that this proposal does not amount to "enabling development", that there is no means of procedurally securing the stated benefit and that the harm to achieving planning policy objectives outweighs any claimed benefit. 2 Policy H1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan requires that where a proposed housing development exceeds 5 dwellings there should be provision of affordable housing. No such provision has been offered and so the requirements of the policy and para 47 of the NPPF are not met. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant/Agent. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out, within its report, the steps necessary to remedy the harm identified within the reasons for refusal - which may lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

SE11 Application Number FUL/MAL/15/01072 Location Rose Inn Burnham Road Southminster Essex Proposal Retrospective planning for Timber built covered area on patio to the rear of the property. Applicant Mrs Liz Meer - Gray & Sons (Chelmsford) Ltd Date Valid 19 October 2015 Target Date 14 December 2015 Case Officer Nicola Ward, TEL: 01621 875864 Parish SOUTHMINSTER

Following the Officer’s presentation Ms Kirkham, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor B S Beale declared a non-pecuniary interest as he occasionally visited the Rose Inn Public House.

In response to a question raised the Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager confirmed that no evidence had been submitted which indicated the structure had been there over four years.

Councillor A S Fluker, a Ward Member, spoke in support of the application as he felt it was an asset to the Public House. Councillor Fluker proposed that the application

48 Page 15 be approved contrary to Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded and upon a vote taken agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1 There shall be no amplified sound used within the development hereby approved or the beer garden of the public house unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

SE12 Application Number OUT/MAL/15/01080 Location Land Adjacent Springwood Rectory Lane Latchingdon Essex Proposal Erect 2No. two storey detached dwelling houses with garages, parking and amenity areas. Stop-up existing vehicular access onto Burnham Road and form new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Burnham Road (amended proposal) Applicant John Plumb Agent Stewart Rowe - The Planning & Design Bureau Ltd Date Valid 22 October 2015 Target Date 17 December 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish LATCHINGDON

Following the Officer’s presentation Mr Rowe, the agent, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Mrs B F Acevedo, a Ward Member, commented that she felt the design was improved compared to the earlier application for a similar development.

In response to a question the Interim Development Management and Enforcement Manager confirmed that the Council had a five year land supply.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded but upon a vote taken the motion was declared lost.

49 Page 16

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1 The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and particulars relating to the layout and the means of access to the site and the landscaping, appearance, scale and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), for which approval shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is begun. The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the details as approved. 2 Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within two years from the date of the final approval of the reserved matters. The development shall be carried out as approved. 4 No development shall take place until written details or samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out using the materials and details as approved. 5 No development shall commence until details of the siting, height, design and materials of the treatment of all boundaries including gates, fences, walls, railings and piers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The screening as approved shall be constructed prior to the first use/occupation of the development to which it relates and be retained as such thereafter. 6 No works or development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works to be carried out have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include the layout of the hard landscaped areas with the materials and finishes to be used and details of the soft landscape works including schedules of shrubs and trees to be planted, noting the species, stock size, proposed numbers/densities and details of the planting scheme's implementation, aftercare and maintenance programme. The hard landscape works shall be carried out as approved prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The soft landscape works shall be carried out as approved within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in its replacement, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation. 7 Prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwellings the proposed vehicular access shall be reconstructed to a width of 5.5 metres straight for at least the first 6 metres within the site and shall be provided with a dropped kerb vehicular crossing of the highway verge to the specifications of the Highway Authority. 8 No unbound materials shall be used in the surface treatment of the proposed vehicular access within 6 metres of the public highway boundary.

50 Page 17

9 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the permanent stopping up of the existing access and associated works shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. These works shall be completed in accordance with the details so approved within 1 month of the date that the new access is available for use. 10 The reserved matters shall indicate the areas to be used for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and such areas as agreed shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be retained for that purpose thereafter. 11 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the finished floor levels of all new buildings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the surface water and foul drainage scheme to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. 13 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no garages, extensions or separate buildings (other than ancillary outbuildings not exceeding 10 cubic metres in volume) shall be erected within the site without planning permission having been obtained from the local planning authority.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant/Agent, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

683. OTHER AREA PLANNING AND RELATED MATTERS

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Services, Development Control and Members’ Update on the following matters:

(i) Appeals Lodged:

It was noted that the following appeal had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:

51 Page 18

Appeal Start Date: 20/11/2015 Application Number: HOUSE/MAL/15/00731 (APP/X1545/D/15/3138670) Site: Bonheur Summerhill Althorne Proposal: Conversion of existing bungalow into two storey dwelling. Demolish existing garage and erect single storey side extension. Appeal by: Mr Nathan Swain Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Householder Written Representations (Householder Appeals Service)

Appeal Start Date: 25/11/2015 Application Number: FUL/MAL/15/00166 (APP/X1545/W/15/3132302) Site: Land Adjacent Fairway Cottage - Creeksea Lane - Burnham On Crouch Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling and associated garage Appeal by: Mr Paul Watling Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Written Representations

Appeal Start Date: 24/11/2015 Enforcement Notice Reference Number: ENF/14/00100/01 Appeal Reference Number: APP/X1545/C/15/3136077 Site: 1A Alamein Road - Burnham On Crouch Alleged Breach of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the erection of a detached dwelling house on the land including the erection of a raised concrete platform, higher than 0.3 metres, with associated walls and steps Appeal by: Mr R Summers Grounds of Appeal: That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice. The steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive, and lesser steps would overcome the objections. The time given to comply with the notice is too short. Please state what you consider to be a reasonable compliance period, and why. Appeal procedure requested: Informal Hearing

Appeal Start Date: 24/11/2015 Enforcement Notice Reference Number: ENF/14/00100/02 Appeal Reference Number: APP/X1548/C/15/3139006 Site: 1A Alamein Road - Burnham On Crouch Alleged Breach of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the erection of boundary walls and fences with height more than one (1) metre above ground level adjacent to the highway. Appeal by: Mr R Summers Grounds of Appeal: That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice. The steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive, and lesser steps would overcome the objections. Appeal procedure requested: Informal Hearing

52 Page 19

(ii) Appeals Decisions:

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the following appeal decisions has been received from the Planning Inspectorate:

FUL/MAL/15/00136 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3127906) Proposal: Erection of two single storey dwellings Address: Land Rear of 5 Mildmay Road - Burnham on Crouch Decision Level: Committee (as per Officer Recommendation) APPEAL DISMISSED – 3 December 2015

OUT/MAL/14/00108 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3003529) Proposal: Outline planning application for the provision of up to 75 dwellings, provision of public open space, a pavilion building, a new vehicular access from Pippins Road and a temporary haul road access from Marsh Road. Address: Land South Of Marsh Road Burnham on Crouch Decision Level: Committee overturned Officer Recommendation to approve APPEAL ALLOWED & COSTS ALLOWED – 7 December 2015

13/00229 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/C/15/3002444) Proposal: Appeal against Enforcement Notice: Without planning permission the change of use of the land from a leisure plot to stationing of a caravan (on the 8 December 2013) for residential purposes and a touring caravan in connection with the residential purposes. Address: Opposite Three Wells - The Willows - Scalby Road - Southminster APPEAL DISMISSED AND THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE IS UPHELD – 8 December 2015 COSTS REFUSED

684. DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Chairman advised that this item of business was not available for circulation at the meeting.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 9:22pm.

R P F DEWICK CHAIRMAN

53 Page 20 Agenda Item 6

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00058 Location AA Dog Rescue Oldfield Lodge Burnham Road Latchingdon Proposal Change of use to include dog rescue and equestrian - sui generius Applicant Ms Charlene Nathan Agent Chris Tivey Associates Date Valid 1 July 2015 Target Date 26 August 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish LATCHINGDON

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 1 / 15 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 21

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reason as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application was presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee on 19 October 2015 and it was resolved that consideration of the application be deferred for “a maximum period of three months to allow for further information on the noise to be provided and a revised application to be submitted and referred to the Committee.” This report provides an update summary (Section A) and the original committee report.

2.2 Update

2.2.1 Environmental Health

2.2.1.1 The Environmental Health service has received formal complaints from local residents about noise from the dog rescue centre. Environmental Health Officers visited the homes of residents and based on their observations and the diaries of noise incidents recorded by of residents they concluded that there was a statutory nuisance arising from dogs barking at the rescue centre. On 24 November 2015 the Council served Noise Abatement Notices under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; the notices were served on the owners of AA Dog rescue. No appeal has been lodged against the notices within the requisite time. The date for compliance with the notices is 9 February 2016.

2.2.2 Further Representations

2.2.2.1 Since the October committee the Council has received the following representations of objection:-

Letters of Objection: Mr and Mrs Wiffen: “Treetops”. Burnham Road, Latchingdon Fiona and David Ashworth: Rosedale Farm, Latchingdon Mrs Nightingdale: Meadow View Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon

Main reasons for Objection:  Noise from the dogs barking is incessant as is the smell from dog waste.  This is our home and we have no respite from the noise.  Dogs bark all the time even at night and especially at feeding and exercise time.  Is the dog waste ever collected or burnt?  Concern about diseases especially as some dogs come from abroad.  Concern about injury being caused to family by escaped dogs.  Smoke from bonfires burning waste.  Increased traffic down shared access track.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 2 / 15 Page 22

2.2.3 Further Information

2.2.3.1 The applicant and agent attended the meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2015 and the agent was subsequently advised by email of the date of this committee meeting and the timetable for preparing reports. At the same time Environmental Health Officers repeated earlier advice on the scope of the acoustic work that would need to be carried out. On 15 December 2015 the Council received information that a new acoustic advisor was being retained.

2.2.4 Consideration

2.2.4.1 Since the Council considered the application the Council has received formal complaints from residents and it has been determined that the current noise from barking dogs is a statutory nuisance and as a result a Noise Abatement Notice has been served. This action under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is entirely independent of the consideration of the planning application that is presently before the committee. However it does indicate that professional environmental health officers consider the barking to be actionable. The level of disturbance that is necessary to demonstrate a nuisance is higher than that would normally be considered to adversely affect residential amenity in planning terms.

2.2.4.2 The applicant and her agent were aware of the Council’s resolution to defer consideration of the application to enable further work to done to establish the noise levels and their characteristics and then what mitigation measures might be feasible. The agent was advised of the timetable for reporting this matter back to the Committee. At the time of preparing this report the Council has been advised that a new acoustic consultant has been retained but it is unlikely that he will be able to complete the necessary surveys and draw up mitigation proposals until well into January 2016.

2.2.4.3 The dog rescue centre has been operating at a level that has attracted complaints from local residents regarding the noise arising from dogs barking since August 2014. The Council has considered it expedient to serve an Enforcement Notice to secure the cessation of the use and removal of associated operational development. Whilst an acoustic report may be produced it is by no means certain that mitigation measures can be put in place that are effective and viable. The commissioning of this information is in the control of the applicant

2.2.5 Recommendation

2.2.5.1 It is recommended that the application be refused as set out in the recommendation at the end of this report.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site is located some 300 metres to the south of Burnham Road, Latchingdon. Access is via an unmade private track which also serves three residential properties including one occupied by the applicant. The application relates

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 3 / 15 Page 23

to an area of 0.48 hectare containing a number of former barns and linked structures including loose boxes, temporary structures, a mobile home and a caravan.

3.2 To the front of the barn is a car parking area in a loose gravel surface. To the rear of the site are open fields that are used for the grazing of horses. At the front of the site is a manege area. This is understood to be used for exercising of horses and dogs associated with the uses of the site.

3.3 Immediately to the west of the site is a dwelling (Oldfield Lodge) which is occupied by the applicant and a mobile home which it is understood is occupied by persons associated with the rescue centre. There are two other unrelated dwellings in the vicinity one 130 metres to the east and the other a similar distance to the west.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the change of use of the site to a sui generis use as a dog care centre and equestrian centre. The Council has served an enforcement notice in respect of this use (see planning history below) and this application seeks to regularise matters. The site is currently being used for a dog rescue centre known as AA dog rescue. The AA website states that it is a not for profit organisation awaiting HMRC charity status although at the time of the 19th October 2015 Committee meeting the applicant confirmed that there was no application pending. The Centre takes in unwanted or stray dogs from the UK and Europe with a view to re-homing them with members of the public who are able to visit the site at opening times. There is a veterinary facility within a mobile home on site where dogs are treated for any ailments and standard procedures such as neutering or worming are carried out. A caravan is used by the night security guard.

4.2 The barn has been divided into 19 blocks used mainly for the keeping of rescue dogs. Two areas are also provided for storage. Externally there are 3 large areas to the rear of the building which each provide a number of smaller dog cages. Attached to the flank of the building is a stable block comprising 6 units. These each have further dog cages within. A stable block of 6 units is provided opposite this also for the keeping of dogs associated with the business.

4.3 The land around the stable building is used for the keeping of horses and also for runs for the dogs. There is also an office building which is a temporary structure, and a number of other outbuildings which are used in connection to the facilities on site, including a retail area which sells AA merchandise. There are no details of these buildings within the application or their uses as part of the rescue centre. It is stated that there are 1 full time and 6 part time jobs associated with the use which also has a volunteer workforce. The agent advises that the equestrian use is not commercial and only the applicant’s own horses are kept on the site.

4.4 The dog rescue centre operates 7 days a week and is open to the public every day (except Tuesdays) between 0900-1300 and 1500-1800.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 4 / 15 Page 24

5. Relevant Planning History  02/00484/FUL - New stable block of 12 loose boxes, menage, change of use of barn from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and storage ancillary to equestrian use, and change of use of part of second existing building to a tack room. Approved 12.06.2002.  03/01061/AGR - Erection of agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 31.10.2003.  03/01186/AGR - Prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of an agricultural building. Refused. 05.01.2004.  04/00272/AGR - Erection of an agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 19.03.2004.  14/00181/CU - Enforcement Enquiry regarding current use. On 15 June 2015 the Council served a Planning Enforcement Notice on land which includes, but is greater than, the application site. The alleged breach of planning control is stated as “Without planning permission the material change of use of the land from mixed agricultural and equestrian to mixed equestrian, retail and use as dog rescue.” The terms of the notice require that the dog rescue and retail uses cease and that a caravan and materials be removed from the site. Following service of the notice an appeal against the notice was lodged and will be the subject of a hearing to be held on 27 April 2016.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Latchingdon Parish Council – Support the application as it appears not to affect any neighbouring properties.

External Environment Agency – proposal falls outside the scope of the consultee.

Highway Authority – Acceptable subject to condition (surfacing of the parking and turning area)

Internal Environmental Health - Insufficient information submitted with the application. The noise report and survey do not fully characterise the noise coming from the site. Therefore Environmental Health cannot comment further on the suitability of the use of the site without a fully comprehensive noise impact assessment.

Planning Policy – No comment to make.

7. Letters of Representation

Letters of Objection: Marianne Jackson 19 Belton Lane Grantham Lincs Mr E Alexander 17 Merton Place Chelmsford CM3 5YW Victoria Barter 1 Avocet Way Heybridge Essex

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 5 / 15 Page 25

Claire Koehl 34 Shakespeare Drive Maldon Essex David & Fiona Ashworth Rosedale Farm Rectory Lane Latchingdon Lindsey Edwards 120 Hainault Avenue Westcliff On Sea Essex Mrs C Ilesley 9 Springhouse Road Corringham Essex Kirsty Cole 14 Starling Way Stowmarket Suffolk Mr & Mrs Wells Birs Lodge Lower Burnham Road Latchingdon Mrs C Davis 28 Eastern Crescent Chelmsford Essex Barrington & Carol Wiffen Treetops Burnham Road Latchingdon Mr & Mrs Bragg 43 Templar Road Braintree Essex The Occupier Folly Faunts Cottage Little Totham Road Goldhanger Alfie Fowkes 139 Glendale Road Burnham On Crouch Essex Sean Baker Flat 10 Bentleigh Court Greenstead Road Colchester Maria Fowkes 139 Glendale Road Burnham On Crouch Essex The Occupier 34 Shakespeare Drive Maldon CM9 6DP Mrs E Smith 101 Bourne Close Laindon Essex Mercedes Koehl 64 SARCEL Stisted Braintree Cassandra Collins 47 Goldhanger Road Heybridge Maldon Mrs S Aldous 76 Cleves Way Ashford Kent S Barter 85A Mill Road Maldon Essex M Barnes 1 Avocet Way Heybridge Maldon T Fittock 110 Swan Lane Runwell Wickford C Hampton The Orchard The Esplanade Mayland N Maunders 68 Braintree Road Witham Essex

Main reasons for Objection:  Concerns about the conditions of the rescue centre, environments the dogs are kept in and lack of food and water for the animals and hygiene.  Significant concerns for animal welfare including the level of care provided for medical operations and neutering.  Concerns for spread of infections and compliance with DEFRA requirements.  Should be limitations on the number of dogs allowed at the site.  Smell and odour.  Significant noise and increasing with the number of dogs; associated concerns with the quality of the noise report.  Too many dogs kept at the site and for the number of kennels (in excess of 100 dogs and under 40 kennels).  Concerns over the wellbeing of the dogs due to the conditions they are kept in  Inadequate facilities.  High numbers of dogs bring brought over from Spain (over 60 per month).  Running for over two years with no planning permission.  The veterinary practice (Oldfield Vets) is a visibly dirty caravan and not fit to perform operations.  The vet clinic is not a part of this application.  No planning permission has been granted for the vet clinic.  Veterinary practice is not registered and the applicant is not a vet.  This is not a charity but a profitable business selling dogs.  The kennels flood each year.  More staff at the site than claimed in the application – paid cash.  Highway safety concerns including traffic generation, potential collisions at the road junction.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 6 / 15 Page 26

Main reasons for Objection continued:  Site is overrun with rats.  No design and access statement submitted.  Lack of detail regarding the kennels, their design, capacity and their use  No quarantine kennels shown.  Current design of kennels is not suitable – rusty, damp, stable partitions, little natural light and inadequate water run off.  Advertised and licenced as a boarding establishment only.  Bills submitted with the application at for the unlawful vet practice not the rescue centre.  Concerns about the legality of the company and its operations.  Dogs have escaped from the site. Concern at risk to children and others in area.

Letters of Support: Lindsay Stoneham 2 Beadel Close Witham Essex Susan Flanders 8 Mill Cottages High Road Fobbing Stacey Sparks 44 Albert Road South Woodham Ferrers Essex James Marshall 80 Bramley Way Mayland Essex Ms Jennifer M Calleja 4 Meriadoc Drive South Woodham Ferrers Essex Sharon Kaye Oltamar 1C Calpe Alicante 03710 Sharon Nattrass 84 Broadoaks Grange Carlisle Cumbria Jan Bridge Rosedale The Street Little Totham Jean Yardley 9 Wordsworth Avenue Maldon Essex Lois Chalk 3 Garbutt Road Upminster Essex Susan Barnett 25 Goldhanger Road Heybridge Maldon Linda Hardisty 5 Beeston Courts Basildon Essex Maia Loughlin 5 Wordsworth Avenue Maldon Essex Anne Beale 8 Bower Close St. Leonards On Sea East Sussex Steve Andrews 86 Mill Lane Cressing Essex Paulene Calleja 9 Reynolds Gate South Woodham Ferrers Essex Mr & Mrs Weaver 104 Mapleford Sweep Basildon Essex Mark Hedgecock 5 Larch Walk Heybridge Maldon Mairead O'Connor 3 Park Anenue Eastwood Essex Lisa Stilwell 38 Finchland View South Woodham Ferrers CM3 5GA Ray Clifft 3 Sparrows Herne Basildon Essex Jemma Wakeley 10 Honeysuckle Path Springfield Essex Steven John Oneill 135 Little Cattins Harlow Essex Shelia Oneill 135 Little Cattins Harlow Essex Alan Stafford 25 Lyndhurst Drive Bicknacre CM3 4XL Helen Wojcik 16 Alma Close Hadleigh Essex Gary Harris 245 Bournemouth Park Road Southend On Sea Essex Rebecca Hirst 25 Queenborough Road Southminster Essex Joanna Dickson 11 Cairns Road Colchester Essex Alice Pitts 28 Overmead Drive South Woodham Ferrers Essex Amy Harris 245 Bournemouth Park Road Southend On Sea Essex M Wright 80 Bramley Way Mayland Essex Mrs P Saville 1 Meadow Mews South Woodham Ferrers Chelmsford Emma Gunary 26 Gosbecks Road Colchester CO2 9JR Jill Hermitage 49 Thundersley Grove Thundersley Essex Ms T Lingard 30 Macdonald Avenue Westcliff On Sea Southend Steven George 1 Little Fields Danbury CM3 4UR Agenda Item no. 6 Page 7 / 15 Page 27

Will Diggins Suite 4 Empire House Victoria Road Essex Ms Iona Stone 58 Juniper Road Colchester CO3 0RY Mrs H T Lunn 5 Mayflower Drive Maldon Essex Debbie Harris 254 Bournemouth Park Road Southend On Sea Essex Mrs A Braham 10 Douglas Grove Witham Essex Lavinia Carrington 83 Nipsells Chase Mayland Essex Karen Jones 27 Windfall Way Gloucester GL2 0RP India Lea 21 Dragon Close Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Sam Law 10 Davoll Court Marine Street London Louise Radford 52 Vicarage Road Mickleover Derby Karen Mobey 9 Victor New Close Wickford Essex Julie Tully 14 Pelham Place Stanford-Le-Hope Essex Glen Stafford 13 Ash Grove Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Pauline Greenwood 29 New Town Road Colchester CO1 2DH Rachel Crawford Helping Animals Almanzora Avenida Andalucia 1 La Alfoquia Clare Sedgbeer 520 Arterial Road Leigh On Sea Essex Samantha Tilley 23 Garden Close Althorne Essex Julian Raithby 2 Green Lane South Woodham Ferrers Essex Yvonne Baker 9 Crouch Park Poole's Lane Hullbridge Elian French 87 Wood Lane Kingsbury London Faye Baisden Longfield Mayes Lane Sandon Essex Peter Zear 4 Belchamps Way Hawkwell SS5 4NT Frances Simmonds 17 Maitland Road Wickford Essex Mrs Hayley Dean 24 Upway Rayleigh Essex Rachel Henderson-Cobb 54 Halcyon Close Witham Essex Graham Palmer Red Lyons Lodge Burnham Road Latchingdon Gilly & Chris Sandford 2 Church Cottages Church Road Frating Maxine Clarke The Wrekin The Chase Southminster Ashley Symeou 21 North Avenue Chelmsford Essex Catherine Graham 22 Ramsey Close Heybridge Maldon Joan Ann Perry 99 Peartree Walk Cheshunt Herts Lisa Walsh 5 Conyer Close Maldon Essex Jaimee Pattie 111A Maybank Road South Woodford London Mrs Tina Dobbins 16 Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts Craig Metson 183 South Street Braintree Essex Linda & Paul Darrington 34 Grantham Road Great Horkesley Colchester Joanne Atkins 6 Chatsworth Road West Mersea Colchester Meriel Kennedy 31 Hambro Hill Rayleigh Essex Miss Rebecca Pitts Flat 9 Tollington House 598-602 Holloway Road Mrs Ingrid J Pitts 28 Overmead Drive South Woodham Ferrers Essex Mrs Sally Lea 21 Dragon Close Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Pamala Richardson 28 Roberts Close Sittingbourne Kent Richard M Stylianou-Steed Carrer Cervantes 11 Villalonga 46720 Michael Tappenden 4 Meriadoc Drive South Woodham Ferrers Essex Sarah Woodcock 6 Overmead Drive South Woodham Ferrers Essex Samantha Becker 2 The Aspens Barley Meadow Southminster James Bridge 48 Glendale Road Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Emma Broadbent 20 Institute Road Coopers Ale Epping Victoria Cooke 3 Bakers Cottages Hyde Lane Danbury Pauline Corrie 14 Emanuel Road Langdon Hills Basildon Ann Field Naivasha Burses Way Hutton

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 8 / 15 Page 28

Lindsey Hare 72 Queensmere Benfleet Essex Kate Hofman Flat 10 Davoll Court Marine Street Mr Graham Lea 21 Dragon Close Burnham-On-Crouch Essex Eloise Newman 9A Broadmark Parade Rustington West Sussex Mr Duncan Bilney Woodstock Main Road Woodham Ferrers Mrs Gillian Shead 31 Dorset Gardens Rochford Essex Angela Moran 89C Hullbridge Road South Woodham Ferrers Essex Jason French 194A Purves Road London NW10 5TG Jenna Miller 33 White Elm Road Bicknacre CM3 4LU Katharine East Bankside Bramble Crescent Daws Heath S Lockington 1 Holkham Avenue South Woodham Ferrers Essex Megan Southern 2 Tanners Way South Woodham Ferrers Essex Karen Mansfield 3 Standen Avenue South Woodham Ferrers Essex Kerry Spence 34 Coronation Close Great Wakering Essex Mrs Jill Stubbington 20 Dalys Road Rochford Essex Lesley Morgan 18 Meadway River Dover Melanie Davies 37 Morton Crescent Bradwell Great Yarmouth Stephanie Ellis 24 Coast Road West Mersea Essex Christina Mitchell Tydings Esplanade Maylandsea Caswell Becker 2 The Aspens Barley Meadows Southminster Nerina O'Brien 64 Cliffsea Grove Leigh On Sea SS9 1NQ Wendy Atalay 11 Cherston Gardens Loughton Essex Iain MacLeod 11 South Crescent Southend-on-Sea SS2 6TB Nichola Russell 2 Rantree Fold Basildon Essex Les Rowe 18 Queens Ride Crowthorne Berkshire Mikala Pearce Flat 1, 19 Central Avenue Southend-on-Sea Essex Lynne Halvorsen 14 Derek Gardens Southend-on-Sea Essex Michael Sedgbeer 520 Arterial Road Leigh-on-Sea Essex Sara Clarke 34 The Westerings Hockley Essex Susan Johnson 61 Clyde Crescent Rayleigh Essex Helen Aiken 44 Trenchard Crescent Chelmsford Essex Belinda Inwood The Pines Coxford Down Micheldever S Coleman 59 Stambridge Road Rochford SS4 1DY Tracy Taylor Casa Bonita 26 Los Gibaos Urcal Annette Crittell Villa Tranquila Calle San Miguel 52 Zarzadilla De Totana Dawn Ashley 15 Hedge Lane Hadleigh Essex Hannah Bye 15 The Bight South Woodham Ferrers Essex Caroline Rhys-Lewis 31 Victoria Road Colchester CO3 3NT Thomas Crews Bramble Lodge 399A Baddow Road Chelmsford Kerry McGee 2 Maple Villas The Chase Burnham Road Joanna Langston 26 Northcote Road Gravesend Kent Debbie Barker Wheatsheaf House Fambridge Road Roundbush Kerry Quinn 53 Mountview Crescent St Lawrence Essex

Main reasons for Support:  Care and commitment shown to dogs at the centre.  Dedicated staff, professional and hard working team with commitment to animal care.  Supporting care of dogs from Spain.  Provide help to animals and also people who are looking for a companion.  Valuable service and benefits to the community.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 9 / 15 Page 29

Main reasons for Support continued:  Support the local community through educating young offenders and schools with weekly visits and programs.  Valuable interaction between dogs and children.  Excellent service to the animals including exercise and recuperation areas.  Success in finding dogs new homes.  Need to consider how many dogs lives have been saved by the site.  The rescue centre saves dogs and rehomes them.  Need for a rescue and rehoming centre in this part of the district.  Many volunteers for the centre.  Ideal location for the proposal.  Continued advice and support from AADR once dogs have been rehomed.  Great plans to improve the facilities provided at the rescue centre.  Clean and tidy facilities.  Dogs are given food and water and regular walks.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan The Maldon District Replacement Local Plan (RLP) was adopted in November 2005 and the ‘saved policies’ still form the statutory Development Plan for the District. However, as the RLP was prepared prior to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, due weight should only be given to relevant ‘saved policies’ according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.  S2 Development outside development boundaries.  CON5 Pollution Prevention.  CC6 Landscape Protection.  CC19 Rural Diversification.  E6 Protection of existing employment uses.  BE1 Design of new development and landscaping.  T1 Sustainable Transport and location of new development.  T2 Transport infrastructure in new developments.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

(ii) Maldon District Local Development Plan (LDP) The LDP was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public on 25 April 2014. The NPPF (paragraph 216) states that decision makers should give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans (such as the submitted Maldon District LDP), according to the stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections to relevant policies, and the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The more advanced the stage of preparation, the greater the weight that can be given.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 10 / 15 Page 30

The Secretary of State has now formally decided to call-in the Maldon District LDP under Section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has now appointed a project lead to project manage the process.

However, the Council has undertaken a full assessment of the Five Year Housing Land Supply in the District and it is concluded that the Council is able to demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for more than five years’ worth of housing against the Council’s identified housing requirements. According to the Council’s latest Five Year Land Supply Statement (July 2015), 2,468 dwellings are deemed to be deliverable over the next five years (including allowance for a 5% local slippage rate which has been applied to the total number of housing deemed deliverable in the next five years). This represents a total of 6.95 years’ worth of housing land supply against an identified housing target of 1,776 dwellings over the next five years (including allowance for a 5% buffer which has also been applied to the five year requirement in accordance with NPPF paragraph 47).

As a result, the Council maintains that significant material weight must be provided to relevant policies (with modifications) which have been subject to hearing sessions (with the exception of Policy H6), given that they are at such an advanced stage.

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:  S1 Sustainable Development.  S7 Prosperous Rural Communities.  S8 Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside.  D1 Design Quality and Built Environment.  D2 Climate Change and Environmental Impact of New Development.  E1 Employment.  E3 Community Services and Facilities.  E4 Agricultural and Rural Diversification.  N2 Natural Environment and Biodiversity.  T1 Sustainable Transport.  T2 Accessibility.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF supports a strong rural economy (Section 3) and para 123 requires that policies and decisions should avoid giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan (LDP) represents the most up to date policy position of the council and includes policies which are NPPF compliant. The LDP policies are afforded weighed given the advanced stage of plan preparation in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Policy S1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. The current development plan is the Replacement Local Plan. Agenda Item no. 6 Page 11 / 15 Page 31

8.1.2 The application site is located outside of a settlement as defined by these local policy documents. It is in a location where the principle of development unrelated to agriculture is generally unacceptable unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This includes the presumption on favour of sustainable development which is examined below.

8.1.3 The proposal, a retrospective change of use of a former equestrian site, may be acceptable if the requirements of policy CC19 and BE1 of the local plan and E4 of the LDP are met. These policies are examined below in addition to other relevant material considerations. .

8.2 Employment considerations – Rural Diversification

8.2.1 Policy CC19 of the local plan allows for the diversification of rural sites and businesses in certain circumstances. Part 1 of the policy lists 10 criteria that must be met. Comparable criteria are also included in policy E4 of the LDP.

8.2.2 The application seeks to regularise the existing use of the buildings, formerly stables and barns and land for the dog rescue centre in addition to the existing equestrian use of the site. There are also other structures at the site which are both permanent and temporary. Whilst it is understood that one of these may be used as a veterinary clinic / surgery, the submission does not indicate that this forms part of the proposal. There are also no plans to show this building or how it relates to the use of the site and barn and stable as a rescue centre. Furthermore, the clinic is understood to take place in a caravan rather than a former agricultural building which may well have been placed on the site specifically for the veterinary clinic. Therefore, this would fall outside of the ambit of policy CC19, as would the remaining outbuildings on the site. This is examined further below. The 10 criteria applicable to the use of the barn and stable can be examined as follows:

(a) The building to be used is of permanent, substantial and sound construction; The barn appears to be of a permanent and solid construction suitable for use for equestrian and dog rescue purposes. The additional structures linked to the barn and the stable block, all of which are currently in use as part of the dog rescue use of the site, also appear of solid and sound construction.

b) The building is of a suitable type and scale for re-use for employment purposes; The proposed use is a sui generis that is to say it does not fall within any of the general use classes and so would not be regarded as an employment use as such. However, the application does state that the use does offer some employment opportunities. Issues have been raised within letters of objection received regarding the status of the AA Dog Rescue as a business or charity. The legal status of the organisation running the rescue centre is not a material planning consideration however clearly the potential impacts of the use are.

(c) Any building work respects the building's historic or architectural importance or contribution to local character; There is no historic or architectural interest to the buildings which are being used as part of the dog rescue.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 12 / 15 Page 32

(d) The traffic to be generated by the new use can be safely accommodated by the site access and the local road system; The Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety. The access is down an unmade track which slows traffic and the site is some distance from the public highway.

(e) The proposed use will not harm the local environment through the creation of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, grit, vibration or any form of water, soil or air pollution; Local residents have expressed concerns regarding noise arising from barking dogs. This is considered in more detail below.

(f) There is sufficient room in the curtilage of the building to park any vehicles of those who will work or visit there and also to service its use, all without detriment to the visual amenity of the countryside; An area of car parking has been provided in front of the building (stated as being for 20 vehicles) but this could benefit from being formalised

(g) No storage of raw materials or finished goods is to take place outside the building if it would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area; Not applicable in this case although some materials such as old bedding are stored in skips. This could be resolved by condition.

(h) No new fences, walls or other structures associated with the use of the building or the definition of its curtilage or any sub-division of it will be erected if they would harm the visual amenity of the countryside; None proposed.

(i) The use of the building would not lead to the dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality of nearby towns or villages; Not applicable

(j) The visual impact of any proposals, including associated highway works required by the development, will be kept to a minimum. The use is supported by a mobile homes and caravan which are visually intrusive

8.3 Noise, Disturbance and Impact on Residential Amenity

8.3.1 The application has included a noise report which has been assessed by the Environmental Health service. It is considered that the background ambient duration measurement appears too brief to accurately show the background noise levels through the day. Too short a measurement will over-represent the noise levels. Therefore longer background measurement must be taken to give a correct representation.

8.3.2 Similarly the Leq parameter was used to measure the noise from the dogs. This will average the noise out over a period of time and under-represent the noise levels. Dog barking is high volume and very sporadic which can be as disturbing as a continuous level of noise. Therefore the level will occupy the top percentile of total noise at any one time. Because of this a suitable parameter such as Lmax should be used.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 13 / 15 Page 33

8.3.3 In addition, not enough time has been spent on site to fully establish all incidents of noise from the dogs. This would include other feeding times, when people visit and exercising, all of which is known to cause the dogs to bark. The applicant’s noise consultant has responded stating that he considers that whilst the period of measurement was limited it covered the worst case scenario when ambient background noise levels were at their lowest. The Environmental health service is considering this rebuttal and any further update will be given before or at the meeting.

8.3.4 The applicant has been asked whether she would accept a limit on the number of dogs that would be kept on site at any one time. She has indicated she would accept a limit of 80 dogs and 20 puppies together with 6 horses. This is what the site is said to accommodate at present and therefore any harm currently caused would continue. A number of complaints have been received from adjoining residents in relation to noise disturbance. Council officers, when visiting the site, have witnessed a demonstrable level of noise and disturbance from the dogs.

8.3.5 Due to the limited information submitted as part of the noise report it is considered that it is not possible frame and impose suitable conditions to protect the amenity of adjoining residents

8.4 Conclusion

8.4.1 The application follows an enforcement investigation into the establishment of a dog rescue centre following complaints of noise. The council has considered it expedient to serve a Planning Enforcement Notice and this is now the subject of an appeal. The development makes use of existing agricultural and equine buildings however due to the noise nuisance caused by the barking of dogs and general activity the policy requirements of policies CC19, BE1 and CON5 are not met. There would be no objection to the equestrian use.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reason: 1 The application relates to the continuation of the use of the land as a dog rescue centre. From the information provided the Council concludes that the use causes harm by way of noise and general disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties to the detriment of their standard of accommodation. Therefore, the development does not comply with the requirements of policies BE1, CC19 and CON5 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policies D1 and D2 of the submission Local Development Plan and para 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Other Considerations

An Enforcement notice has been served not only in respect of the change of use of the land (the subject of this application) but also in respect of a number of caravans and structures. This application does not relate to those alleged breaches of planning.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 14 / 15 Page 34

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant/Agent. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out, within its report, the steps necessary to remedy the harm identified within the reasons for refusal – which may lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Agenda Item no. 6 Page 15 / 15 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank CIRCULATED BEFORE THE MEETING

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

MEMBERS’ UPDATE

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6

Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00058 Location AA Dog Rescue Oldfield Lodge Burnham Road Latchingdon Proposal Change of use to include dog rescue and equestrian - sui generis Applicant Ms Charlene Nathan Agent Chris Tivey Associates Date Valid 1 July 2015 Target Date 26 August 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish LATCHINGDON

Further Representations

Letter of objection from Sue and Jim Graham: Arley Grange, Burnham Rd, Latchingdon;- strongly object. Further letters of objection from Mr and Mrs Whiffen: Treetops, Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Mrs Wells: Birs Lodge Lower Burnham Rd, Latchingdon and Mr and Mrs Ashworth, Rosedale Farm, Rectory Lane , Latchingdon. Additional points made:- • Dog “walkers” from recue centre leave dog excrement on ground outside house – health hazard. • Open skips of dog excrement and soiled bedding • Unauthorised fencing of paddocks • Application only relates to part of property, there are caravans and other development related to the centre not included • The additional traffic for visitors is damaging the private road. • There has been disregard for proper procedures. • Condition of site has deteriorated and is now ramshackle.

Letters of support from Joanna Dace: 22D Friary Fields, Maldon and Sarah Timms: 35 Markhams Close, Basildon:-- • Over 200 volunteers support this rescue centre which does a fantastic job. • It is in an isolated area so there is no noise problem.

Page 1 / 3 Page 37

• Helps people with disabilities or illness. • Dogs receive the best care. • It is tucked away and dogs can be walked without affecting other people

Consultation Replies

Latchingdon Parish Council The Parish Council made representations to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the Planning Enforcement appeal related to this proposal and they have requested that these be considered in respect of this application. To summarise, the Parish Council noted that since they had been consulted on the planning application in July 2015, they had received correspondence from local residents. In the light of this new information the Parish Council advised that it would continue to support the change of use described in the planning application but would strongly request noise levels be investigated as reports have been received that it a big problem. If the Planning Inspector agrees to grant planning permission then conditions should be imposed to ensure that there are soundproof kennels, dogs are vetted for behavioural problems before re-homing, a local vet is appointed to ensure the dogs are healthy and there is adequate fencing to prevent dogs escaping.

Further Update On 8 January 2016, planning and environmental health officers met the applicant on site and discussed the present position and noise mitigation measures. A full report will be given at the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13

Application Number OUT/MAL/15/01254 Location Land Adjacent 67 Queen Street Southminster Essex Proposal Erection of 2No. two bedroom properties with car parking and demolition of existing garage (resubmission) Applicant Mrs G Southern Agent Terence Wynn Date Valid 19 November 2015 Target Date 14 January 2016 Case Officer Kara Elliott, TEL: 01621 875860

Consultation Replies

Parish Council Southminster Parish Council – Object. Comments; a. Revised application does not address the reasons for refusal for the previous application; b. Overdevelopment of the site; c. Unneighbourly impact upon the occupiers of the new dwellings to the south; d. Entry and exit to the site is hazardous.

Internal Environmental Health – No comment

Conservation Officer (Archaeology) – Conditions required in respect of an archaeological assessment and programme of works (L1 & L2).

Page 2 / 3 Page 38

The application site is sited on the edge of the historic settlement of Southminster dating back to the Saxon period. Historic data shows that the proposed development directly overlaps a building shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1875. The site is also depicted as built-up on the 1777 Chapman and André map.

Essex Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. Officer comment: A condition has been suggested which ensures visibility splays of 90 metres are provided. Through assessment it has been established that visibility of 90 metres cannot be achieved to the east of the site due to the curvature of the highway. Visibility is approximately 7 metres short of the 90 metres. Due to the attributes of the location including its benefit of street lighting, its location within the existing built-up area and where traffic speeds are likely to be lower as approaching a roundabout, it is considered that a condition to provide visibility splays of 83 metres could be applied to any positive decision should the Member’s resolve to overturn the recommendation for refusal.

Page 3 / 3 Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number FUL/MAL/15/00175 Location Park Resorts Limited Waterside Holiday Park Main Road St Lawrence Proposal Variation of condition 3, 4 & 5 of approved application FUL/MAL/03/00112 to allow 5 caravans to be used all year as staff accommodation. Applicant Mr Alan Castledine Agent Mr Andrew Dowell, GVA Date Valid 4 November 2015 Target Date 3 February 2016 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish ST LAWRENCE

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 1 / 7 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 41

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reason as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application is presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee for determination as it is a major application and the Parish view is at variance with the officer recommendation.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application relates to an established holiday park which lies to the east of the village of St Lawrence and fronts the Blackwater Estuary. The site currently has consent for up to 318 mobile homes together with recreation and catering facilities. The park lies within a Special Landscape Area which is part of the Coastal Zone. The application itself relates to 5 mobile units located within the southern part of the site. A permissive footpath crosses the site.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is to vary the terms of conditions 3, 4 and 5 of planning permission Ref FUL/MAL/03/00112. This permission had allowed the occupancy of caravans/mobile homes for 9 months a year as a variation to earlier consents (0652/80 and 0532/86). The purpose of the application is to allow a relaxation of the condition which would allow up to 5 mobile home units to be occupied by employees of the park for 12 months of the year. The applicants have not identified specific caravan plots as they wish to have the flexibility to use plots that become vacant. However they have defined an area where the caravans will be located which is within Flood Zone 1.

4.2 In a supporting statement it is explained that it is essential to have a warden and staff on site 24/7 to provide a monitoring presence and security to prevent theft, damage and vandalism to customers’ caravans and property. It is considered that this is especially needed during the period that the park is closed (November- March) when it may be necessary to respond to heating malfunctions, burst pipes and wind damage. Also much of the annual maintenance programme is carried out during the closed season. The application is also accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and a Flood Evacuation Plan.

5. Relevant Planning History  MAL/532/86 Variation of pp ref MAL/652/80 to allow caravans to be stationed on the land all year round subject to the occupancy of the caravans to be prohibited between 1 November in any calendar year and 31 March in the following year: Approved 12/09/86.  FUL/MAL/94/0747 Change of use and alterations to existing reception/office/residential accommodation to form Beacon Hill owners club/residential unit. Approved:

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 2 / 7 Page 42

 FUL/MAL/00/00307 Retention of consent ref MAL/97/0636 without compliance with condition 9 - to allow permanent extension of occupancy period from 7 to 9 months: Refused 29/06/00.  FUL/MAL/00/ 00757: Retention of consent ref: FUL/MAL/97/0636 without compliance with condition 9 to allow an extra year to monitor the impact of the extended occupancy period on the nearby SSSI: Approved 04/09/00.  FUL/MAL/01/00631: Continuation of use without compliance with occupancy conditions attached to 652/80 and 532/86 to allow the occupancy of the caravans/mobile homes for 9 months per year. (Only to be occupied during the months of March to November inclusive) Refused 20/07/01.  FUL/MAL/03/00112 Continuation of use without compliance with occupancy conditions attached to 0652/80 and 0532/86 to allow the occupancy of the caravans/mobile homes. Approved 01/04/03.  FUL/MAL/03/00442 Retention of consent: FUL/MAL/03/00112 but without compliance with condition No. 3 attached, to allow the occupancy of 10 No. caravans for 12 months per year for residential staff accommodation. Refused 03/06/03.  FUL/MAL/05/00044 Use of 6 caravans for residential staff accommodation (Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission FUL/MAL/03/00112) Refused: 04/03/05.  FUL/MAL/05/01295 Non-compliance with condition 3 (Restriction on occupancy of caravans between 1 December to 28 February) of planning permission FUL/MAL/03/00112 to enable the use of 4 No. caravans for residential staff accommodation: Refused 12/01/15.  FUL/MAL/06/00190 Variation of condition 3 (FUL/MAL/03/00112) to allow use of 2 no. caravans for Wardens accommodation at the Waterside Leisure Park: Refused 10/04/06: Appeal Allowed 21/01/07.  ENF/14/00278 Caravans being occupied outside permitted period: Pending.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council St Lawrence Parish Council – Support.

External Environment Agency – No objections as the caravans are located within Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding.

Highway Authority – No response.

Natural England – No objection as the small number of caravans to be used for employee accommodation is unlikely to cause disturbance to wildlife. However if permitted would not want this to become a precedent for more widespread relaxation of the restriction on occupation during the winter months. It is noted that at an adjacent site (St Lawrence Caravan park) a temporary permission has been granted to allow the occupation of caravans during the month of December on the condition that bird surveys are undertaken to gauge impact.

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 3 / 7 Page 43

Internal Emergency Planning - As the 5 caravans in question are not within the area at flood risk and provided that the Flood Evacuation Plan is regularly updated have no objections

Environmental Health - The service has some concerns over the number of caravans used for permanent occupation by members of staff and their dependants. Historically the Council has discouraged the use of holiday sites for permanent residential use. It is noted that the site has an existing managers flat and permission was granted for 2 caravans to be used for residential purposes. The application does not appear to contain a justification for so many units to be occupied when the park is closed.

7. Letters of Representation

7.1 None received.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  S2 Development outside development boundaries.  H1 Location of new housing.  CC1 Development affecting internationally designated nature sites.  CC2 Development affecting nationally designated nature sites.  CC6 Landscape Protection.  CC7 Special landscape Area.  CC11 Coastal Zone.  BE1 Design of new development and landscaping.  REC20 Static and touring caravan sites and camping sites.  T1 Sustainable Transport and location of new development.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

The Secretary of State has now formally decided to call-in the Maldon District LDP under Section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 4 / 7 Page 44

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has now appointed a project lead to project manage the process.

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:  S1 Sustainable Development.  S7 Prosperous Rural Communities.  S8 Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside.  D1 Design Quality and Built Environment.  D2 Climate Change and Environmental Impact of New Development.  N2 Natural Environment and Biodiversity.  E5 Tourism.  T1 Sustainable Transport.  T2 Accessibility.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Para 28 supports economic growth in rural areas as well as the provision and expansion of tourism facilities.

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The Waterside Holiday Park is a well-established tourist facility on the south bank of the Blackwater. Like other caravan parks close to the coast the site is subject to restrictions on the use of the park accommodation during the winter months. The Council has in general rejected the general use of static caravans within caravan parks as permanent residential accommodation on such parks for the following reasons;-  The sites are located outside established settlements in generally unsustainable locations and would be contrary to the requirements of RLP policies S2 and H1.  The sites are often located in areas at risk from tidal flooding and the incidence of such events it considered to be higher during the winter months.

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 5 / 7 Page 45

 The sites are located adjacent to nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites which attract endangered species and overwintering birds and there is a need to reduce the potential for disturbance during this period.

8.1.2 RLP policy REC 20 and LDP policy E5 recognise the economic value of the tourism sector and holiday parks in particular and where necessary operational development to support them should be allowed subject to certain criteria. In this case it is argued that 5 employees (and their dependants) need to be located on site the whole year round. Clearly during the winter closure period (December to March) there are no customers staying in their caravans so there is no need for supervision or marshalling during a major incident when the public’s safety may be at risk. Instead it is argued that there is a need to protect property from theft and vandalism and storm damage.

8.1.3 The application makes no reference to the permission granted on appeal in 2007 for 2 mobile homes to be used as permanent residential accommodation by employees and their dependants or to the manager’s accommodation within the main reception building which is on the site. There are therefore already 3 units of residential accommodation that are permitted to be occupied 12 months a year. What is proposed is an additional 5 units giving a total of 8 residential units that may be occupied 12 months of the year. In the Planning Statement submitted with the application it is accepted that the existing occupancy condition is already being breached in the case of 5 units and this application seeks to regularise matters. There is a current planning enforcement investigation into this matter

8.1.4 The Council has been prepared to consider the provision of some essential employee accommodation on similar sites throughout the year. At Steeple Bay Caravan Park and Osea Leisure Park, planning permissions have been granted for the occupation of two caravans on each site for employees only throughout the year. In allowing the appeal against the refusal the planning inspector noted that there was at that time already one permanent unit of accommodation on site in the form of a manger’s flat. He accepted that there was sufficient justification to set aside the general restrictions which sought to restrict the establishment of new residential units outside the established settlement boundaries. However, what is now proposed would more than double the number of permanent units allowed at a time when the park is effectively closed down. Whilst this may be the time when maintenance work is carried out during the day there is no justification for the employees and their dependants to be located on the site 24 hours a day. The site is located in the vicinity of St Lawrence which is classed as a “smaller village” in LDP policy S8 which means that it can provide only a limited range of local facilities and that inevitably the occupiers of the units will have to use private vehicles to meet their day to day needs.

8.2 Flood Risk

8.2.1 The 5 mobile homes under consideration are all located within that part of the site that is above 4.45 metres AOD and so is in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding. The applicant has also provided a copy of the current Flood Evacuation Plan that covers the whole of the park and details how the park would be evacuated in the event of a flooding event.

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 6 / 7 Page 46

8.3 Ecology

8.3.1 The caravan park is located immediately adjacent to the Blackwater estuary which is subject to international and national nature conservation designations. These areas are particularly important for over-wintering wildfowl and the leisure sites have been restricted to use only outside the winter roosting period. Natural England has not raised an objection provided that this does not create a precedent for further more general relaxations.

8.4 Conclusion

8.4.1 There are no objections on flood risk or nature conservation grounds. It is accepted that there a need for some accommodation to provide essential monitoring and supervision of the site throughout the winter period. However, the park already has 3 units of permitted accommodation that are available for use by employees all year round. The site is not located within an established settlement and no satisfactory justification has been put forward to warrant the scale of the permanent accommodation that would result that would be contrary to the council’s adopted settlement policies.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons: 1 The application site currently benefits from the provision of 3 units of accommodation that are available for residential occupation for 12 months a year in order to provide essential supervision and monitoring of the holiday park site during the winter months. It is considered that insufficient justification has been given to warrant the provision of an additional 5 caravan units that may be occupied 12 months of the year that would otherwise be contrary to the Council’s settlement policies as set out in policies S2 and H1 of the Maldon District replacement Local Plan and policy S1 of the Maldon District Local development plan.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant/Agent. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out, within its report, the steps necessary to remedy the harm identified within the reasons for refusal – which may lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Agenda Item no. 7 Page 7 / 7 Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number HOUSE/MAL/15/00707 Location The Barn Whitegate Farm Vicarage Lane Mundon Proposal Conversion of adjacent storage building to residential annex and new single storey link for disabled person Applicant Mrs J Connett Agent Ann Nicolson Associates Date Valid 5 August 2015 Target Date 30 September 2015 Case Officer Kara Elliott, TEL: 01621 875860 Parish MUNDON

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 1 / 7 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 49

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reason as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application has been brought to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee as the item was deferred at a previous Committee meeting for further consideration following receipt of further information as to the requirement of the accommodation – please refer to paragraph 7.5.3

3. Site Description

3.1 The property is a converted barn located along a rural road in Mundon, outside of a development boundary, and is part of an old farm complex.

3.2 The barn is in the shape of a cross and has an existing lean-to single storey extension to the west elevation of the barn which is the subject of this application.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought to convert the single storey element of the building to annexe accommodation consisting of full residential facilities including two bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen/dining room and lounge area.

4.2 A single storey, lean-to glazed link is proposed to connect the main dwelling to the proposed annexe, creating a shared entrance hall.

5. Relevant Planning History  12/00230/HOUSE - New garden room to south elevation and 4no. glazed panels to north elevation – APPROVED 30.04.2012.  11/00801/HOUSE - Single storey side extension – APPROVED 06.12.2011.  95/00217/FUL - Change of use of redundant agricultural barn to residential – APPROVED 07.10.1996.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Mundon Parish Council – Support,

External Essex County Council Highways - No comment.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 2 / 7 Page 50

Internal Environmental Health – No objection. Recommends conditions in relation to surface and foul water drainage.

7. Letters of Representation

Letters of Objection: RS & SA Salt Cammas Farm Vicarage Lane Mundon

Main reasons for Objection:  Several alterations already made to property which was subject to 106 agreement.  Concerns to implications of development on sewerage system.  Dwelling could easily be used as a separate dwelling.  Note intention is for ‘disabled person’ - does building reflect this?

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  S2 Development outside Development Boundaries  BE1 Design of New Development and Landscaping.  H11 Special Family Needs.  CC6 Landscape Protection.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

(ii) Maldon District Local Development Plan The LDP was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public on 25 April 2014. The NPPF (paragraph 216) states that decision makers should give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans (such as the submitted Maldon District LDP), according to the stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections to relevant policies, and the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The more advanced the stage of preparation, the greater the weight that can be given.

Public hearing sessions for the housing and infrastructure related policies (LDP Policy S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, I1 and I2) took place between 20 January and 4 February 2015. With regard to paragraph 216 of the NPPF these policies (as amended) are at a very advanced stage in their preparation and should therefore carry substantial weight in determining development proposals. The policies have been informed by a comprehensive up to date evidence base, Sustainability Appraisal and extensive public consultation.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 3 / 7 Page 51

On the 8th May 2015 the Council received interim findings from the Inspector which suggested that the submission Local Development Plan be withdrawn on the basis of Policy H6 – Gypsy and Traveller Sites not being sound. The Council is strongly challenging the interim findings from the Inspector and has subsequently: 1) responded to the Planning Inspector in order to seek to identify and agree a way forward for the progression and completion of the Examination-in-Public; 2) made a request to the Secretary of State to call-in the Plan under Section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; and 3) sought legal advice in relation to a potential judicial review.

The Inspector made no comments in relation to the soundness or legal compliance of any other aspects of the Plan. As a result, the Council maintains that significant material weight must be provided to relevant policies (with modifications) which have been subject to hearing sessions (with the exception of Policy H6), given that they are at such an advanced stage.

The following Local Development Plan policies are considered relevant to the application;  S1 Sustainable Development.  S8 Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside.  D1 Design Quality and Built Environment.  T2 Accessibility.  H3 Accommodation for Specialist Needs.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The principle of extending the dwelling to provide facilities in association with residential accommodation is considered acceptable. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.

8.2 Relevant Planning History

8.2.1 Planning permission was granted in 1996 for the change of use of the redundant agricultural barn to residential accommodation. The current application proposes the formation of further residential accommodation in the form of an ‘annexe’ for a disabled person in the single storey element of the vacant barn on site, adjacent to the main dwelling.

8.3 Scale and Design and Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area

8.3.1 The planning system promotes high quality development through good inclusive design and layout, and the creation of safe, sustainable, livable and mixed communities. Good design should be indivisible from good planning. Recognised principles of good design should be sought to create a high quality built environment for all types of development.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 4 / 7 Page 52

8.3.2 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. The basis of emerging policy D1 of the Local Plan ensures that all development will not have a detrimental impact on its surrounding area and local context and will actively seek opportunities for enhancement in the built environment.

8.3.3 In determining an appropriate contextual relationship with surrounding development, factors such as height, scale, massing and siting are material considerations. Details such as architectural style, along with colour texture of materials, are also fundamental in ensuring the appearance of any new development is sympathetic to its surrounding and therefore wholly appropriate in its context.

8.3.4 The NPPF states that:

“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.

8.3.5 The successful integration of any new development, including extensions, is dependent upon the appropriate scale, height and massing in relation to the existing built fabric. The easiest option is to draw reference from the surrounding buildings and the original dwelling.

8.3.6 When viewed from the streetscene, the proposed development does not propose alterations which would detract from the rural appearance of the timber barn. Small windows would be introduced into the currently boarded-up opening in the barn, in the same positions as already observed, lessening the impact on the character and appearance of the sensitive countryside locality.

8.3.7 Furthermore, the subservient and sympathetic lean-to extension would not be seen from the public vista and is not considered to result in a demonstrable effect on the main dwelling, the single storey barn or the site as a whole. Appropriate materials would ensure this element of the development blends into the existing barn, creating a sympathetic linkage between the two structures.

8.4 Effect upon Neighbouring Properties

8.4.1 Policy BE6 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan seeks to ensure that extension and additions to residential dwellings are appropriate to the general character and appearance of the locality and are not detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 8.4.2 It is considered that the proposed development would not cause an undue impact upon neighbouring occupiers in relation to overshadowing, domination or loss of privacy as no built form will extend closer to the neighbouring dwelling and the application site is within a remote area where the only neighbouring dwelling is over 50 metres away.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 5 / 7 Page 53

8.5 Amenity Space

8.5.1 The Essex Design Guide advises a suitable garden size is commonly recognised as 100m².

8.5.2 The inclusion of the rear extension allows for an amenity area which still exceeds 100m², complying with the criteria as set out in the Essex Design Guide, and to meet the needs of the future occupiers.

8.6 Other Material Considerations

8.6.1 The converted barn would provide provision of a living area, two bedrooms, kitchen/dining area, lounge and bathroom of which are considered to become fully capable of providing a self-contained dwelling, separated only by the proposed entrance hall/lobby.

8.6.2 Considering the level of accommodation provided, it is appropriate to consider the proposed development alongside policy H11 of the adopted plan and H3 of the emerging plan which covers accommodation for Special Family Needs/Accommodation for Specialist Needs.

8.6.3 The applicants have submitted supporting documentation following the previous committee meeting to confirm that the proposed accommodation is for a proven need, as required by the adopted policy criteria. Specifically, the policy (H11) states that evidence must be supplied to demonstrate a clear and necessary requirement for the accommodation. Due to the confidential nature of the content, it is inappropriate to explore the particulars of the submitted documentation i.e. medical letters within this report.

8.6.4 However, whilst it is considered that medical reasoning has been established for an annex, and whilst the development would enable the family member to live close to relatives who could provide care 24 hours a day, the supporting letter explicitly states that the accommodation would enable “independent” living. It is clear that the accommodation would not rely on the main house and cannot be considered as annexe accommodation. Furthermore, the policy requires the minimal level of accommodation required and there is no evidence within this submission to suggest that a second bedroom is essential.

8.6.5 Policy H11 states that whilst applications for extensions to dwellings to provide for special family needs will be considered sympathetically, a separate dwelling unit must not be created.

8.6.6 Whilst it may not be the intention of the current occupiers, the facilities proposed would enable the development to operate independently of the existing dwelling with ease. Occupiers of the barn conversion could undergo day-to-day movements in full independence of the existing dwelling. Future occupiers would not find difficulty in creating a separate planning unit.

8.6.7 The proposed development is therefore considered to be in conflict with policy H11 of the adopted Local Plan and H3 of the emerging LDP.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 6 / 7 Page 54

8.7 Conclusion

8.7.1 The pre-amble to policy H11 of the Local Plan states that accommodation for special family needs should be the minimum required to satisfy the functional need of the prospective occupiers and can be satisfactorily used as part of the accommodation of the existing dwelling. In this instance the proposal is considered to form a separate dwelling unit due to provision of full residential facilities including two bedrooms, a dining room/kitchen, lounge area and bathroom. This would amount to the creation of a new, independent dwelling, able to be occupied without the reliance of the main dwelling.

Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reason: 1 The proposed development, due to its separate access and provision of full residential accommodation, is considered to provide a separate dwelling unit in contrary to adopted policy H11 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant/Agent the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to liaise with the Applicant/Agent to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Agenda Item no. 8 Page 7 / 7 Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number OUT/MAL/15/01120 Location Land Adjacent The Cloisters High Street Bradwell-On- Sea Essex Proposal Outline application for the erection of up to 9 dwellings with access from High Street, complete with related infrastructure Applicant Mr & Mrs C Baker Agent Chris Loon - Springfields Planning & Development Date Valid 27 October 2015 Target Date 22 December 2015 Case Officer Nigel Hebden, TEL: 01621 875741 Parish BRADWELL-ON-SEA

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 1 / 10 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 57

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reasons as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application is presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee for determination as it has been called in by Councillor R P F Dewick.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site of 0.6 ha is on the east side of the High Street a short distance beyond the settlement boundary for the western part of the village. The Cloisters is a single storey dwelling which is excluded from the application site although it is in the ownership of the applicants. To the rear is garden area and a paddock presently used for keeping horses.

3.2 Along the northern boundary there is a cartlodge used for garaging and some stables. To the south and on the east side of High Street is a detached house (Wheelwrights Cottage) and terraces of housing leading to the village centre. “Cloisters” and the site frontage and open land on the opposite side of the road form the northern extremity of the Bradwell on Sea Conservation Area. The village pump which is not listed is within the highway verge but is just outside the application site. To the south east is an open area of scrub and the rear gardens of properties fronting Kingswood Court. To the east is an area of trees whilst an open agricultural field lies to the north. There is open land on the opposite side of High Street. The site is within a Special Landscape Area and the Coastal Zone.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The application is in outline with access only for determination at this stage. It is proposed that there be 7 detached dwellings and a pair of semi-detached dwellings which would be affordable housing. The 9 dwellings would front onto a shared access way. No indication is given of dwelling size at this stage. “The Cloisters” will be retained with a reduced garden area and a double garage is indicated within the reconfigured garden. However these are not within the application site and so do not form part of this application. The existing garage, stables and other buildings would be demolished.

3.2 Access would be via the existing entry point into the site which would pass close to the northern end of” Cloisters”.

5. Relevant Planning History  HOUSE/MAL/15/00767: Retrospective application for a cartlodge: REFUSED 29/10/15.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 2 / 10 Page 58

 HOUSE/MAL/15/00768: Retrospective application for the erection of a post and rail fence, pedestrian gate and vehicular access gates, proposed new hedge in front of the fence. REFUSED 29/10/15.  ENF/15/00104/OPCOMP (i) Unauthorised replacement of fence enclosing village pump, in breach of the Article 4(2) Direction, (ii) Unauthorised erection of a garage. (iii) Unauthorised installation of a window to the side elevation of the property. PENDING.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Bradwell on Sea Parish Council - Object for the following reasons:-  Overdevelopment of an area next to conservation area.  Outside the development area.  Village services are already stretched.

External Anglian Water - No comments to make.

Essex County Council Highways Authority - Impact on the highway is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions being imposed.

Essex Fire and Rescue - Having reviewed the application consider that an additional fire hydrant will be required within the site.

Internal Archaeology - The site is close a number of known sites of archaeological interest; some are believed to be of medieval and others of pre-historic origin. Request condition requiring an archaeological assessment.

Conservation Officer - Object to the application. Bradwell on Sea is one of the best preserved village conservation areas in the District and is relatively unchanged from its appearance in the 19th century. The only 20th century expansion has been to the east along East End Road and the other historic boundaries of the village are intact and the open countryside forms an important aspect of the conservation area’s setting. Within the village there are the medieval church and a cluster of historic houses which retain their historic architectural detailing.

Following the publication of the “Bradwell on Sea Conservation Area Review and Character Appraisal” (2006), the boundary of the conservation area was extended to the north in 2007 to include the village water pump because it is a “locally significant feature” and road hedges and green spaces behind which “are significant to the setting of the conservation area”.

The setting of the pump has been harmed by the unauthorised replacement hedge and by a garage that has been erected behind it. “The Cloisters” itself is a modern bungalow with no heritage value however the dwellings further along the High Street,

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 3 / 10 Page 59

including Wheelwrights (unlisted) Forge Cottages and the Forge (both listed) have heritage value.

The proposed access way would be within the conservation area and would have to be engineered to the highway authority’s requirement which would introduce an urban element harming the setting of the pump. The development would be visible when approaching the village from the north particularly as the road bends at this point and would cause considerable harm to the rural setting of the village. It is also considered that that there will be some harm to the rural setting of the listed buildings in the High Street.

Environmental Health - No objections subject to conditions relating to foul and surface water drainage.

Strategic Housing - Supports the application. The scheme would provide two units; however the policy requirement is for an equivalent of 2.25 units. The scheme provides 2 units so a commuted sum is required to cover the 0.25 unit.

7. Letters of Representation

Letters of Objection: Lucy & Adam Kellingray 6 Kingswood Court Bradwell-On-Sea Essex The Occupier 9 Kingswood Court Bradwell-On-Sea Essex Mrs B Easton Baytree Cottage High Street Bradwell-On-Sea W Easton 2 Forge Cottages High Street Bradwell-On-Sea P. J Taylor Baytree House High Street Bradwell-On-Sea D Thorpe & R Huszak 1 Forge Cottages High Street Bradwell-On-Sea Mr & Mrs Shoesmith Wheelwrights Cottage High Street Bradwell-On-Sea Robert Cook The Old School House East End Road Bradwell On Sea

Main reasons for Objection:  The proposal will have a detrimental effect on village conservation area and the listed buildings within it.  The entrance to the site is adjacent to the village pump which although unlisted is a historic feature of the village.  The new development will clearly be seen from the conservation area and will detract from its character which has been preserved unchanged for many years.  The village and its surroundings is popular with visitors who enjoy it attractive and historic features; these will be lost if the development proceeds.  Inappropriate to the character of the village and the extra traffic will be impractical and dangerous given the nature of the local highway network.  The access will be on a blind corner and so dangerous; some of roads have no footpaths so pedestrians will be put at risk.  Is located at entrance to historic part of village and will be visually intrusive.  Site is outside the development plan, no need to build here.  Conservation appraisal document notes that Bradwell is a remarkably unspoilt conservation area and particularly notes that the north and western ends have changed little since the 18th century.  Privacy of our garden will be diminished by overlooking from new houses.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 4 / 10 Page 60

Main reasons for Objection continued:  No details of the housing to be built.  Adverse impact on wildlife.  Do not agree with statements about public transport service. Bus services are infrequent with the last bus back arriving at 6pm. People will have to use cars adding to congestion.  No information on design or appearance of development.  Do not consider that housing will be affordable.

Letters of Support: R Smith Limetrees Main Road Ford End

Main reasons for Support:  As a former resident feel would be a boost for the village and help young people get on the housing ladder.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  S2 Development outside development boundaries.  H1 Location of new housing.  H9 Affordable Housing.  BE1 Design of new development and landscaping.  BE13 Development in Conservation Areas.  CC6 Landscape protection.  CC7 Special Landscape Area.  C11 The Coastal Zone.  T1 Sustainable Transport and location of new development.  T2 Transport infrastructure in new developments.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 5 / 10 Page 61

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:  S1 Sustainable Development.  D1 Design Quality and Built Environment.  D3 Conservation and heritage assets.  H1 Affordable Housing.  T1 Sustainable Transport.  T2 Accessibility.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Seeks to boost the supply of high quality homes. Councils should ensure that there is an adequate supply of housing land for sustainable developments. The natural environment should be conserved and enhanced as should heritage assets.

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The site lies outside, but close to, the settlement boundary for Bradwell on Sea which is classed as a “smaller village” in LDP policy S8 where there are few local services, limited public transport facilities and limited or no employment facilities. However the village does have a village shop, a public house (presently being re-furbished), a primary school and a village hall which would be within walking distance of the site. There are 3 bus routes which connect to Maldon and Southminster railway station, however not all services stop in the village.

8.1.2 RLP policies S2 and H1 seek to direct new development including housing to within identified settlements and protect the rural landscape from inappropriate development. Clearly this proposal does not meet that requirement. However, the site is close to a limited range of community facilities and therefore might be regarded as being sustainable to a limited degree.

8.1.3 The application forms part of a larger area (Site Ref 4263e) which extends to the south and east that is identified in the Maldon District Strategic Housing Land

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 6 / 10 Page 62

Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (2012) as potential housing land. The larger site is identified as having a capacity of 50 units (by the then landowner) and potential delivery, subject to policy, of 6-10 years. It is also noted that there are landscape sensitivities. The configuration of the application site reflects the current land ownership and this would leave a semi-circle of undeveloped land to the south between the proposed development and properties fronting High Street, East End Road and Kingswood Court.

8.1.4 Up until recently the Council has not been able to demonstrate that there was a 5 year supply of housing land available and according to the NPPF less reliance could be given to policies that were not necessarily compliant with the framework. In July the Council published its 5 year supply statement and this has subsequently been tested on appeal and found to be valid by planning inspectors. This means that greater weight can be given to RLP policies S2 and H1 insofar as the Council can now show that sustainable sites are available within settlements or allocations and there is less need to accept less sustainable locations for new housing.

8.2 Design and Layout

8.2.1 This is an outline application with the layout and appearance reserved for future consideration. Nevertheless an indicative layout has been provided to demonstrate who the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on the site. 7 detached houses each with a detached double garage are shown informally arranged around a shared surface access that runs through the centre of the site. In addition there are a pair of semi-detached houses with parking bays to the front which are allocated as affordable housing. The houses are set in generous plots and the overall density of 14.3 dwellings per hectare is relatively low.

8.2.2 However, the overall character of the proposed development is of a suburban cul de sac leading off the High Street which is at odds with the general development grain and character of High Street that is characterised by frontage development close to the highway. The site is also poorly integrated with the rest of the village being neither part of nor entirely separate from it.

8.3 Impact on Heritage Assets

8.3.1 The Bradwell on Sea Conservation Area is recognised as one of the best preserved historic villages in the district with a fine collection of buildings (some listed) in the centre and its historic boundary around the northern, western and southern edges largely intact. The historic urban grain with buildings fronting the roads and backing onto open countryside has been retained.

8.3.2 Only the front 15-20 metres of the site is actually within the conservation area. It is proposed that a cul de sac will be formed from the High Street close to the village pump. Whilst the pump is not individually listed it is regarded as a heritage asset and the boundary of the conservation area was, in part, extended to afford it some protection. The formation of the bell mouth for the cul de sac will involve some widening and engineering works which would impinge on the setting of the pump which has already been compromised by the unauthorised works to the fencing around it.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 7 / 10 Page 63

8.3.3 The bulk of the site is not within the conservation area but it does fall within its setting. When approaching the village from the north the road bends and different vistas are opened up. Currently there is a fairly dramatic transition from open countryside into groupings of historic buildings located close to the road. The proposed development although set back from the road will be visible across open fields as the village is approached and would diminish the existing sense of arrival. The development will also be seen through gaps in the housing and so detract from the rural setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings in the High Street. As such it is concluded that the development would not enhance or preserve the character of the conservation area and so does not comply with RLP policy BE13. The conservation officer assesses the instances of harm as being “less than substantial” which might be set aside if there was some notable public benefit. In this case it is considered that the cumulative effect is significant and the resulting harm would not be offset by any benefits.

8.4 Landscape

8.4.1 The application site is located within a Special Landscape Area and the Coastal Zone; RLP policy CC7 seeks to preserve areas of high landscape quality in rural areas whereas policy CC11 is concerned with openness as a setting for the coastal areas. The proposal would erode the rural character of the area and introduce an urbanised form of development which would adversely affect the rural setting of the village and provide an inappropriate transition from the village to the adjacent landscape thereby adversely affecting its appearance and character.

8.5 Residential Amenity and Impact on Neighbours

8.5.1 Whilst the detailed layout and design would the subject of further consideration should consent be granted, given the density of development it is unlikely that there would be overshadowing or overlooking issues between dwellings within the development. The garden sizes are well in excess of the minimum required by the Essex Design Guide. Concerns have been raised by local residents that their residential amenity will be adversely affected. Setting aside the heritage concerns and given that the layout is reserved, it is unlikely that there would be any issues of overlooking or loss of light to neighbouring properties given the distances that can be achieved.

8.6 Affordable Housing

8.6.1 The development is above the threshold that triggers the requirement for affordable housing. By applying the percentage set out in LDP policy H1 the requirement in this case would be 2.25 dwellings. The applicant has indicated a pair of 2 bed semi- detached properties that would be designated as affordable and in addition has offered a commuted sum of £33,250 representing 0.25 dwelling. This figure has been agreed by the Strategic Housing Service having consulted with Registered Providers on housing costs. Subject to a Section 106 planning obligation being entered into the requirements of LDP policy H1 would therefore be met.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 8 / 10 Page 64

8.7 Highways and Access

8.7.1 The highway authority has not raised any objection to the proposed access arrangements subject to details being agreed neither is there considered to be any adverse impact on the local highway network.

8.8 Car Parking

8.8.1 The indicative layout makes provision for a minimum of 2 no. car parking spaces per dwelling. This is considered to be in accordance with the adopted vehicle parking standards. As the application is outline in nature the site area scale of the dwellings is not before the Council. However, taking into account the density of the scheme it is considered that the development could provide an acceptable level on site car parking.

8.9 Conclusion

8.9.1 The proposed development is located outside, but close to, the settlement boundary for the village which has only some of the day to day requirements of residents; it will also provide affordable housing in accordance with LDP policy H1. The application site is within walking distance of the range of facilities that are available however certain day to day needs will have to be met by travelling by car as the public transport services are limited in terms of availability. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal within the setting of the historic village will harm the significance of heritage assets as well as the character and appearance of the rural landscape that comprises the setting of the village.

8.9.2 The Council is now able to demonstrate that there is a 5 year supply of housing land in accordance with the requirements of para 47 of the NPPF and this means that greater weight can be given to RLP policies S2 and H1 and the Council is less reliant on unallocated or green field sites for meeting housing needs. Whilst the site might be regarded as having some degree of sustainability the harm that would result to landscape and heritage assets more than outweighs any benefits from the scheme.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons: 1 Policies S2 and H1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies S1 and S8 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan seek to provide control over new buildings in rural areas that are beyond defined settlement boundaries and to ensure that new residential developments are directed to appropriate and sustainable locations. In addition policies BE1, CC6, CC7 and CC11 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and policies D1 and N2 of the submitted Maldon District Local Development Plan require that new developments in rural locations do not adversely affect the character and appearance of the rural landscape. In this case the location, form and quantum of the proposal would result in an intrusive form of unsustainable development out of character with this rural location and the rural setting of the village contrary to the requirements of the above policies. 2 The proposed development is partly within the Bradwell on Sea Conservation Area and the remainder of the application site forms the rural setting for the historic village.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 9 / 10 Page 65

As such the proposal will would adversely affect the significance of heritage assets within the conservation area thereby failing to enhance or preserve its character. It addition the historic setting of the conservation area would be adversely affected by the location, character and scale of the proposal and so would fail to meet the requirements of policies BE13 off the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policy D3 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and paragraphs 131-141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 Policy H1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan requires that where a proposed housing development exceeds 5 dwellings there should be provision of affordable housing. No such provision has been delivered and so the requirements of the policy and para 47 of the NPPF are not met. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant/Agent. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out, within its report, the steps necessary to remedy the harm identified within the reasons for refusal – which may lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Agenda Item no. 9 Page 10 / 10 Page 66 Agenda Item 10

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number HOUSE/MAL/15/01144 Location 7 Mill Road Mayland Essex CM3 6EQ Proposal Single storey rear extension and three storey side and rear extension and replacement roof tiles to existing dwelling. Applicant Mr & Mrs Harris Date Valid 12 November 2015 Target Date 7 January 2016 Case Officer Emily Hall, TEL: 01621 875744 Parish MAYLAND

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 1 / 7 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 67

1. Recommendation

APPROVE subject to the conditions as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application is presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee as the officer recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site is located to the west of Mill Road within the parish boundary of Mayland, but outside of the settlement boundary, in a rural location.

3.2 The site is a regular shape, approximately 214 metres deep and 23 metres wide. The site currently comprises a semi-detached two storey dwelling, set back from the highway by approximately 10 metres. The dwelling adjoins No. 5 Mill Road to the south, which has been extended in the same manner as currently proposed.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey side and rear extension with internal alterations and to convert the loft to bedrooms, with associated rooflights.

4.2 The proposed side extension will project 7 metres from the north elevation and would have a depth of 10.3 metres. The ridge height will be 10.1 metres and the roof profile would be of a cat-slide design to match the existing.

4.3 The proposed rear extension would project from the rear elevation 4.3 metres and is finished with a flat roof, located adjacent to the boundary shared with No. 5 Mill Road.

4.4 Finish materials for both elements of the proposed development are to match the existing. The proposed replacement roof tiles will be replaced on a like-for-like basis.

5. Relevant Planning History  15/00514/HOUSE - Single storey rear extension and two storey side & rear extension. APPROVED 16 July 2015.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Mayland Parish Council – Object to the application.

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 2 / 7 Page 68

7. Letters of Representation

7.1 None received.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  BE1 Design of New development and Landscaping.  BE6 Extensions to Dwellings.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:  D1 Design Quality and Built Environment

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 3 / 7 Page 69

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The principle of altering and extending the dwelling to provide facilities in association with residential accommodation is considered acceptable, in compliance with BE6 of the RLP and H4 of the emerging LDP. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.

8.1.2 Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for an extension of an identical scale and design on the site which is extant and therefore the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

8.2 Scale, design and impact of the proposal

8.2.1 The proposed development comprises a number of elements including a two storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension and internal alterations as well as a loft conversion, with associated windows and rooflights and the replacement of the roof tiles on the existing dwelling. The application has been made following the granting of planning permission for all of the proposed extensions. However, it includes the loft conversion and re-roofing of the existing dwelling with tiles on a like-for-like basis. The loft conversion, including the provision of rooflights, and the replacement of the roof tiles could be undertaken within the remit of permitted development on its own rights. However because they are proposed to be undertaken whilst constructing the proposed extensions all elements require formal planning permission.

8.2.2 Mill Road is an un-adopted road with sporadic residential and agricultural development along it; within the immediate vicinity of the site is an area of limited architectural value.

8.2.3 No. 7 Mill Road is a semi-detached dwelling, adjoining No. 5 Mill Road to the south. No. 5 Mill Road has been substantially extended and the pair currently lacks the symmetry they would have once had. The proposed development reflects the design, scale and proportions of the extension built at No. 5 Mill Road. A search of the planning history has not identified formal planning permission for this extension; however it would appear that the development is of an age that would render it immune from enforcement action.

8.2.4 Whilst the proposed extension, given its substantial scale and increased ridge height, cannot be considered subservient in nature, it does reference architectural features present within the site and features of the locality, and the visual impact of the development is not considered to be so detrimental to the character and appearance of the area as to warrant a reason for refusal.

8.2.5 Furthermore, the design of the proposed development, which, whilst considered to be of limited architectural value, does not improve nor detract from the appearance of the locality.

8.2.6 In addition, given the substantial size of the plot the proposed development is not considered to be over-development of the site.

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 4 / 7 Page 70

8.2.7 The number of rooflights proposed is considered fussy, but the arrangement is fairly regular. The loft conversion could be undertaken within the remit of permitted development. Therefore, taking into account the fall-back position it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be sustained at appeal.

8.2.8 On balance, it is considered that the proposed extension, whilst being of limited architectural merit would not detract from the character of the area and is considered to accord with policy BE1 of the RLP and policy BE6 of the RLP which stipulates development will only be permitted which is not detrimental to the general character and appearance of the locality.

8.2.9 Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for an extension of an identical scale and design on the site which is extant and therefore the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

8.3 Impact on Residential Amenity

8.3.1 Policy BE6 of the RLP protects neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable development which results in a loss of amenity in relation to overlooking, overpowering or undue reduction of light to the main windows of the adjacent property. Policy D1 of the emerging LDP seeks to protect the amenity of surrounding areas and local context.

8.3.2 Windows are proposed on the flank elevation of the side extension at first and second floor level. The extension will finish 2.4 metres from the northern boundary of the site. To the north of the site is a collection of agricultural buildings. The proposed development is not considered to result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

8.3.3 In addition, the proposed development will not result in a loss of outlook, or reduce the level of light received by the primary sources of light to habitable spaces of the neighbouring dwellings, in accordance with the stipulations of BE1 of the RLP and D1 of the emerging LDP.

8.3.4 Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for an extension of an identical scale and design on the site which is extant and the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

8.4 Access, Parking and Highway Safety

8.4.1 Adopted Policy T8 of the RLP seeks to ensure that appropriate off-street parking is provided in conjunction with new development. Likewise, Policy D1 of the LDP seeks to ensure that safe and secure vehicle parking is provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted parking standards. The Parking Standards are expressed as maximum standards and Government guidance encourages the reduction in the reliance on the car and promoted methods of sustainable transport.

8.4.2 The proposed development will result in three additional bedrooms and will be a five bedroom dwelling. The Council’s adopted parking standards set out that a five bedroom dwelling should provide space to accommodate a maximum of three cars.

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 5 / 7 Page 71

8.4.3 The existing car parking arrangements are located to the front of the site. There is space to accommodate three cars within the front garden area and therefore there is no objection to the proposal in respect of car parking.

8.4.4 Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for an extension of an identical scale and design on the site which is extant and the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

8.5 Private Amenity Space

8.5.1 Policy BE1 of the RLP requires that amenity space is provided that is appropriate to the type of development. The Essex Design Guide advises a suitable garden size for dwellings with three or more bedrooms is 100m².

8.5.2 The existing garden on the site is in excess of the standard contained within the Essex Design Guide of 100m2, and although the proposed development will result in the loss of some of the garden, the remaining garden will still be in excess of the standard. Therefore, there is no objection to the proposal in relation to amenity space.

8.5.3 Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for an extension of an identical scale and design on the site which is extant and the principle of the development is considered acceptable.

8.6 Conclusions

8.6.1 There is an extant planning permission on the site for an extension of an identical scale and design, the only difference between that permission and the current application is that the proposal includes the re-roofing of the existing dwelling, which could be undertaken within the remit of permitted development on its own rights.

8.6.2 It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with policies BE1, BE6 and T8 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, D1 of the emerging Maldon District Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Recommendation

APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91(1) of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved drawings specifically referenced on this decision notice. REASON: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with policy BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and emerging policy D1 of the Submitted Local Development Plan. 3 The external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be constructed of materials and of a finish as detailed within the application.

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 6 / 7 Page 72

REASON: To protect the amenity and character of the area in accordance with BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and emerging policy D1 of the Submitted Local Development Plan.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

Agenda Item no. 10 Page 7 / 7 Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number HOUSE/MAL/15/01185 Location 24 New Moor Crescent Southminster Essex CM0 7DJ Proposal Provision of a two storey extension, comprising an annexe on the ground floor with a bedroom and en suite over serving the existing house Applicant Mr David Lloyd Agent George Traer-Clark - Traer Clark Architect Limited Date Valid 11 November 2015 Target Date 6 January 2016 Case Officer Emily Hall, TEL: 01621 875744 Parish SOUTHMINSTER

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 1 / 9 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 75

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reasons as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application is presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee as the officer recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site is located on the north side of New Moor Crescent in a residential setting within the settlement boundary of Southminster.

3.2 No. 24 New Moor Crescent is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. The dwelling occupies a triangle shaped corner plot with a frontage measuring 18 metres and a depth of 34 metres.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey side extension and a single storey front extension. The proposed development will provide accommodation in the form of an annexe at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and ensuite for the host dwelling at first floor.

4.2 The two storey extension is an irregular shape; at the front it will project from the flank elevation by 6.5 metres and will reduce in width to 2.6 metres at the rear. The first floor is approximately 1 metre narrower than the ground floor. The two storey element has a depth of 6.4 metres.

4.3 The single storey front extension will be 10.5 metres wide and will project a maximum of 3 metres from the principal elevation.

4.4 Materials are to match the existing dwelling.

5. Relevant Planning History  15/00872/HOUSE - Proposed two storey extension to side of dwelling with a single storey extension to the front to form a ground floor annexe with a new bedroom over. WITHDRAWN.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Southminster Parish Council – Support the application.

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 2 / 9 Page 76

7. Letters of Representation

7.1 None received.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  BE1 Design of New Development and Landscaping.  BE6 Extensions to Dwellings.  H11 Special Family Needs.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:  D1 Design Quality & Built Environment.  H4 Effective Use of Land.

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 3 / 9 Page 77

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The principle of altering and extending the dwelling to provide facilities in association with residential accommodation is considered acceptable, in compliance with BE1 of the RLP. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.

8.2 Special Family Needs

8.2.1 The Council recognises that there are times where special family needs require the provision of additional facilities through the alteration or extension of existing dwellings. Policy H11 of the RLP states that proposes or extensions to existing dwellings to provide for special family needs will be considered sympathetically, provided a separate dwelling unit is not created and the curtilage of the original dwelling is adequate to meet the increased residential use of the site and the pre-amble sets out a list of criteria which must be satisfied for an application to be determined favourably.

8.2.2 The proposal is for an annexe at ground floor level, the plans indicate that a bedroom with ensuite and living room will be provided for the annexe which will be accessed from the shared front door to the host dwelling. The agent has confirmed that the annexe is for the applicant’s parents; although it is possible that the applicant will occupy it at some point in the future. Evidence has been provided in respect of the circumstances of the applicant’s parents, who are losing their home. Evidence has also been provided in relation to the health conditions of the applicant who is a war veteran. The Council’s adopted policy seeks to provide accommodation for special family needs. However, it is not considered that the submitted evidence is sufficient justification for the necessity of the proposal as it is an accepted point of planning law that personal circumstances need to be “very special” and the evidence before the Council at this time cannot be deemed to fall within this. Furthermore, as the applicant currently resides in the dwelling, and the property could be extended to provide facilities for the occupier without the need for an annexe, this is considered to be of little weight.

8.2.3 The preamble to the policy sets out four criteria which must be satisfied in order for an application to be considered favourably, these will be considered in turn below.

8.2.4 The accommodation is the minimum required to satisfy the functional needs of the prospective occupier/occupiers. The accommodation proposed consists of a bedroom with ensuite and living room. The occupiers of the annexe would need to use the kitchen of the main dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed annexe complies with this criterion.

8.2.5 The proposed accommodation can be satisfactorily used as part of the accommodation to the existing dwelling house. It is considered that the additional rooms could be satisfactorily used as part of the accommodation to the existing dwelling house once the need for the annexe is no longer. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed annexe complies with this criterion. Agenda Item no. 11 Page 4 / 9 Page 78

8.2.6 There is a common main entrance to both the existing house and the proposed new accommodation. Access to the annexe is via a shared front door to the host dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed annexe complies with this criterion.

8.2.7 The extended property does not result in over-development of the curtilage. The proposed annexe will extend to the boundary of the site and extend the depth of the host dwelling. The flank wall, adjacent to the shared boundary will measure 7.6 metres long and more than 3.4 metres to the eaves. The scale and bulk of the proposed development are considered to result in over-development of the site, contrary to this criterion, but the detail of this will be discussed further in the next section of the report.

8.2.8 Notwithstanding the above assessment Policy H11 of the RLP sets out that extensions of this nature will need to have regard to the policies in the Built Environment, this will be discussed in the next section of the report.

8.3 Scale, Design and Impact of the Proposal

8.3.1 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the RLP, the proposal must be compatible with, or improve the surrounding location through its scale, height and choice of external materials. Similarly, the basis of policy D1 of the submitted LDP ensures that development will not have a detrimental impact on its surrounding area and local context and will actively seek opportunities for enhancement in the built environment.

8.3.2 In determining an appropriate contextual relationship with surrounding development, factors such as height, scale, massing and siting are material considerations. Details such as architectural style, along with colour texture of materials, are also fundamental in ensuring the appearance of any new development is sympathetic to its surrounding and therefore wholly appropriate in its context.

8.3.3 The NPPF states that:

“that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

8.3.4 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey side extension and a single storey front extension. The proposed development will provide accommodation in the form of an annexe at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and ensuite for the host dwelling at first floor.

8.3.5 The extension will take a wrap-around layout and will be single storey in its projection from the principal elevation and will be highly visible within the streetscene.

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 5 / 9 Page 79

8.3.6 The character of the streetscene in this part of New Moor Crescent is made up houses of a similar style and design with a regular pattern of development. Whilst a number of the dwellings have been extended in the locality, the additions, i.e. porches, front extensions or side extensions are of a significantly smaller scale and appear to have been constructed within the remit of permitted development.

8.3.7 The proposed extension will project 6.5 metres from the east elevation and will be deeper than the existing dwelling. The proposal, with a ridge height of 7.5 metres would fail to appear as a subservient addition to the main dwelling. In terms of the scale and bulk of the proposal, the extension would have an overall foot print of approximately 63m2, would measure almost the width of the existing dwelling, have a greater depth than the existing dwelling and a forward projection resulting in a bulky, dominant and contrived addition of limited architectural merit. The proposed development would result in a bulk of development that would fail to appear subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, it would appear contrived, unbalanced and out of proportion with the adjoining semi-detached property. It is considered that the proposed extension would not relate to the main dwelling in terms of scale and proportion and would appear as a dominant addition in the streetscene, to the detriment of the host dwelling and locality, contrary to the stipulations of policy BE1 of the RLP.

8.3.8 The design of the development is considered to have a number of unresolved design features, including the forward projection, the awkward relationship between the extension and the main dwelling, the blank eastern elevation, the step in at first floor level and the irregular design which has resulted from a want to accommodate the entire site. This is further exacerbated by the siting of the dwelling in a camber in the road which results in a visually open plot.

8.3.9 It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its design, scale, bulk and siting, conflicts with the stipulations of policy BE1 of the RLP which stipulates development will only be permitted which is not detrimental to the general character and appearance of the locality, as well as D1 of the submitted the LDP and guidance contained within the NPPF.

8.4 Impact on Residential Amenity

8.4.1 Policy BE6 of the RLP protects neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable development which results in a loss of amenity in relation to overlooking, overpowering or undue reduction of light to the main windows of the adjacent property. Policy D1 of the emerging LDP seeks to protect the amenity of surrounding areas and local context.

8.4.2 The application site is a triangular shaped corner plot. Neighbouring property No. 26 New Moor Crescent is set at 90̊ to No. 24 New Moor Crescent. At their closest the two dwellings are located 2.7 metres from the shared boundary (at their rears) and at their furthest they are 6.5 metres from the shared boundary (at their fronts). The areas to the side of the dwellings appear to be relatively unusable areas of private amenity space. The south, flank elevation of No. 26 New Moor Crescent has a window at first floor which appears to be the only source of light to the bedroom which it serves,

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 6 / 9 Page 80

there is also a small window at ground floor level but this is likely to serve a hallway which is not a habitable space.

8.4.3 The proposed extension will bring the built form closer to the flank elevation of No. 26 New Moor Crescent by 6.5 metres which will occupy the unusable area of private amenity space of No. 24 New Moor Crescent. The extension will be two storeys tall. The scale, siting and bulk of the proposed extension is considered to result in an overbearing and oppressive form of development to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

8.4.4 The agent has submitted a daylight diagram to demonstrate that the proposal will not impact the level of light received to the first floor window on the flank elevation of the neighbouring property. However, given the scale, bulk and siting of the development and its relationship with the neighbouring property the Council is not convinced that the proposal would not result in an unneighbourly and oppressive form of development to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring residents.

8.4.5 There are no windows proposed on the flank elevation of the proposed extension and it is not considered to give rise to issues regarding overlooking.

8.4.6 The proposed development is considered to result in an overbearing and oppressive form of development, which given its scale, bulk and siting is likely to reduce the level of light received by the first floor window of the neighbouring property which serves a habitable space and is such is contrary to the stipulations of BE6 of the RLP and D1 of the emerging LDP.

8.5 Access, Parking and Highway Safety

8.5.1 Adopted Policy T8 of the RLP seeks to ensure that appropriate off-street parking is provided in conjunction with new development. Likewise, Policy D1 of the LDP seeks to ensure that safe and secure vehicle parking is provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted parking standards. The Parking Standards are expressed as maximum standards and Government guidance encourages the reduction in the reliance on the car and promoted methods of sustainable transport.

8.5.2 The proposed development will result in two additional bedrooms, one for the host dwelling and one for the annexe and will be a five bedroom dwelling. The Council’s adopted parking standards set out that a five bedroom dwelling should provide space to accommodate a maximum of three cars.

8.5.3 In accordance with Council’s adopted parking standards the minimum bay size for cars is 4.8m x 2.4m. The existing car parking arrangements are located to the front of the site. Whilst the proposed development will come forward of the principal elevation, there is sufficient space to accommodate three parking spaces which satisfy the minimum bay size for cars and therefore there is no objection to the proposal in respect of car parking.

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 7 / 9 Page 81

8.6 Private Amenity Space

8.6.1 Policy BE1 of the RLP requires that amenity space is provided that is appropriate to the type of development. The Essex Design Guide advises a suitable garden size for dwellings with three or more bedrooms is 100m².

8.6.2 The dwelling has a single storey extension to the rear and the existing useable amenity space on the site is below the standard contained within the Essex Design Guide of 100m2. The propose development will be located to the side of the dwelling in an area of amenity space of limited value, the loss of this space is not objected to. However, it is considered that the site is unable to provide a level of amenity space that is sufficient to meet the needs of future occupiers proposed development.

8.6.1 In this instance the level of amenity space and increase in number of bedrooms is considered to demonstrate that the proposed works will lead to a cramped and contrived form of development which is beyond the capacity of the site. This is contrary to Policy BE1 of the RLP, D1 of the submitted LDP and guidance within the NPPF, notably paragraph 17.

8.7 Conclusions

8.7.1 The Council considers proposals for special family needs sympathetically, so long as the proposals satisfy the built environment policies. In this instance, the scale and bulk of the proposed development are considered to result in over-development of the site, contrary to policy H11, BE1 and BE6 of the RLP and D1 and H4 of the LDP. In addition, the design is considered to conflict with the stipulations of policy BE1 of the RLP which stipulates development will only be permitted which is not detrimental to the general character and appearance of the locality, as well as D1 of the submitted the LDP and guidance contained within the NPPF. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to result in an overbearing and oppressive form of development, which given its scale, bulk and siting is likely to reduce the level of light received by the first floor window of the neighbouring property which serves a habitable space and is such is contrary to the stipulations of BE6 of the RLP and D1 of the emerging LDP.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale, bulk and siting, would result in a contrived, dominant and bulky form of development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area contrary to policy BE1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 2 The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic design, lack of amenity space and unneighbourly impact on the adjoining residents, is considered to result in overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the character of the area, the future occupiers and the adjoining residents contrary to policy BE1, BE6 and H8 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 8 / 9 Page 82

Development Plan, as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 The proposed development due to the lack of evident need is considered contrary to adopted policy H11 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing with the Applicant/Agent. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Agenda Item no. 11 Page 9 / 9 Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Application Number HOUSE/MAL/15/01222 Location The Old Farm House 1 Brickwall Close Burnham-On- Crouch Essex Proposal Two storey side extension Applicant Mr & Mrs R Martin Agent Mr Greg Wiffen - Planman Date Valid 4 December 2015 Target Date 29 January 2016 Case Officer Emily Hall, TEL: 01621 875744 Parish BURNHAM SOUTH

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 1 / 6 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 85

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reason as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 This application is presented to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee as the officer recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site is located to the west of Brickwall Close in a residential setting within the settlement boundary of Burnham-on-Crouch.

3.2 The Old Farm House, 1 Brickwall Close is a two storey detached dwelling which is visible from Station Road.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey side extension at the west elevation. The extension will measure 3.4 metres deep, 3.7 metres wide and 4.8 metres to the flat roof.

4.2 Materials are to match the existing dwelling.

5. Relevant Planning History

5.1 None.

6. Consultation Replies

Town Council Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council – Support the application.

7. Letters of Representation

7.1 None received.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 2 / 6 Page 86

Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  BE1 Design of New Development and Landscaping.  BE6 Extensions to Dwellings.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

The following policies are considered relevant to this application:  D1 Design Quality & Built Environment.  H4 Effective Use of Land.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The principle of altering and extending the dwelling to provide facilities in association with residential accommodation is considered acceptable, in compliance with BE1 of the RLP. Other material planning considerations are discussed below.

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 3 / 6 Page 87

8.2 Scale, Design and Impact of the Proposal

8.2.1 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the RLP, the proposal must be compatible with, or improve the surrounding location through its scale, height and choice of external materials. Similarly, the basis of policy D1 of the submitted LDP ensures that development will not have a detrimental impact on its surrounding area and local context and will actively seek opportunities for enhancement in the built environment.

8.2.2 In determining an appropriate contextual relationship with surrounding development, factors such as height, scale, massing and siting are material considerations. Details such as architectural style, along with colour texture of materials, are also fundamental in ensuring the appearance of any new development is sympathetic to its surrounding and therefore wholly appropriate in its context.

8.2.3 The NPPF states that:

“that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

8.2.4 Planning permission is sought to erect a two storey side extension on the west elevation; it will measure 3.7 metres wide and 3.4 metres deep.

8.2.5 The existing flat roof extension is considered to detract from the character and appearance of the property at this time due to its limited architectural merit. The proposed development would exacerbate this rudimentary feature and further detract from the original dwelling as the proposal would increase the size of the flat roof extension and would therefore amplify the detrimental impact of the flat roof element upon the character and appearance of the property and which is unacceptable and contrary to policy BE1 of the RLP and D1 of the LDP.

8.2.6 In addition, the use of a flat roof and the height of the proposed extension is considered to appear squat and inelegant in relation to the host dwelling, and whilst it is accepted that there is an existing flat roof, the scale and proportion of the existing extension is subservient to that of the host dwelling and relates satisfactorily to the visual cues of the dwelling. The proposed addition would appear out of proportion with the original dwelling and result in a contrived addition to the dwelling.

8.2.7 Furthermore, the proposed extension will be visible from the wider area, including views taken from Brickwall Close to the southeast and Station Road to the west, and its design is considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider streetscene.

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 4 / 6 Page 88

8.2.8 It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its design and scale, conflicts with the stipulations of policy BE1 of the RLP which stipulates development will only be permitted which is not detrimental to the general character and appearance of the locality, as well as D1 of the submitted the LDP and guidance contained within the NPPF.

8.3 Impact on Residential Amenity

8.3.2 The proposed development will be located 2.7 metres from the western boundary of the site; beyond this boundary is the rear of a Tesco’s Express. The proposed development will be located 18 metres from the southern boundary of the site; beyond the southern boundary of the site are residential properties fronting Brickwall Close and the rear of the Rio Cinema.

8.3.3 The proposed development will not give rise to issues of overlooking of residential properties and given that the adjacent land uses are commercial and back on to the application site the proposed development is not considered to result in demonstrable harm or have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupants in relation to overlooking, overshadowing or domination, in accordance with policy BE6 of the RLP and policy D1 of the submitted LDP.

8.4 Access, Parking and Highway Safety

8.4.2 The proposed development will provide one additional bedroom, resulting in a four bedroom dwelling. The Council’s adopted parking standards set out that a four bedroom dwelling should provide space to accommodate a maximum of three cars.

8.4.3 In accordance with Council’s adopted parking standards the minimum bay size for cars is 4.8m x 2.4m. The existing car parking arrangements are located to the north and east of the site. The proposed development will not impact the existing car parking arrangements which can accommodate at least three vehicles, which satisfies the Council’s adopted parking standards and therefore there is no objection to the proposal in respect of car parking.

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 5 / 6 Page 89

8.5 Private Amenity Space

8.5.2 The existing garden on the site is in excess of the standard contained within the Essex Design Guide, and although the proposed development will result in a loss of some of the garden the garden will still be larger than the standard and therefore, there is no objection to the proposal in relation to amenity space.

8.6 Conclusions

8.6.1 It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its design, scale and bulk, conflicts with the stipulations of policy BE1 of the RLP which stipulates development will only be permitted which is not detrimental to the general character and appearance of the locality, as well as D1 of the submitted the LDP and guidance contained within the NPPF.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reason: 1 The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale and bulk, would result in a contrived, dominant and bulky form of development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area contrary to policy BE1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

Agenda Item no. 12 Page 6 / 6 Page 90 Agenda Item 13

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 1 / 8 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 91

1. Recommendation

REFUSE for the reasons as detailed in Section 9 of this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 The application is referred to the South Eastern Area Planning Committee for determination as the application is a resubmission of application 15/00627/OUT previously refused by the Committee.

3. Site Description

3.1 The application site measuring 0.45Ha is located on the southern side of Queen Street. The site comprises an area of hardstanding used for the parking of vehicles in association with 67 Queen Street. A single pitched roof garage is observed on site and is proposed to be demolished as part of the development.

4. The Proposal

4.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of 2 no. two bedroomed dwellinghouses. All matters are reserved at this stage except for access and layout and therefore no specific details are submitted for consideration in relation to scale, appearance and landscaping.

4.2 Access is to be taken from Queen Street at the north of the site.

4.3 The only difference of this application to the previously refused application is the indicative, sporadic placement of trees alongside the boundaries of the site as seen on the proposed block plan (drawing number: 1177/1.A).

5. Relevant Planning History  15/00627/OUT - Outline planning permission for 2no. dwellinghouses- REFUSED 23.09.2015.  14/00938/OUT - Outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the proposed erection of 3 no. two bedroom starter homes. WITHDRAWN 20.11.2014.

6. Consultation Replies

Parish Council Southminster Parish Council – No response at the time of writing.

External Essex County Council Highways – No response at the time of writing.

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 2 / 8 Page 92

Internal Conservation Officer (Archaeology) – No response at time of writing.

Environmental Health – No response at time of writing.

7. Letters of Representation

7.1 None received.

8. Assessment of Proposal

Policy Issues

(i) Relevant Development Plan Policies Adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan  S1 Development Boundaries and New Development.  BE1 Design of New Development and Landscaping.  H1 Location of New Housing.  T1 Sustainable Transport and Location of New Development.  T2 Transport Infrastructure in New Developments.  T8 Vehicle Parking Standards.

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 3 / 8 Page 93

The following emerging policies are considered relevant to this application:

 D1 Design Quality and Built Environment.  T1 Sustainable Transport.  T2 Accessibility.  S1 Sustainable Development.  S2 Strategic Growth.  H4 Effective Use of Land.

(iii) Government Guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 The Council is required to determine planning applications in accordance with its adopted Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA1990)).

8.1.2 Policy S1 of the current Local Plan provides the strategic position for the District through defined development boundaries for villages/urban areas within the District and seeks to protect areas outside of defined development boundaries from new development in the interests of protecting the countryside and coastal landscapes of the District. Any proposal should be assessed in accordance with policy BE1 where the compatibility of a scheme to its surroundings and neighbouring residents is imperative to the acceptability of a development in any location.

8.1.3 The LDP, as submitted, has been produced in light of the NPPF’s emphasis on sustainable development and preferred policy S1 promotes the principles of sustainable development encompassing the three dimensions identified in the NPPF.

8.1.4 The Council has recently undertaken a full assessment of the Five Year Housing Land Supply in the District which forms a material consideration of considerable weight and it is concluded that the Council is able to demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for more than five years’ worth of housing against the Council’s identified housing requirements.

8.1.5 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out a core planning principle as part of its overriding sustainability agenda, stating that planning should “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”. This is reflected in policy T1 of the Local Plan. The proposal would comply with this requirement.

8.1.6 The principle of a dwelling in this location is in accordance with policies S1 and S2 of the adopted Local Plan and S1 and S8 of the emerging Local Development Plan as the

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 4 / 8 Page 94

site lies within a defined settlement boundary. It is also in accordance with the core principles of the NPPF which directs new dwellings to the defined development boundaries in order to protect the countryside.

8.2 Housing Land Supply and Need

8.2.1 The Council has undertaken a full assessment of the Five Year Housing Land Supply in the District and is concluded that the Council is able to demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for more than five years’ worth of housing against the Council’s identified housing requirements.

8.2.2 The proposal would provide a 2 no. two bedroomed dwellings.

8.2.3 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies that there is a need for a higher proportion of two bedroom units to create better housing offer and address the increasing need for smaller properties due to demographic and household formation change.

8.2.4 Policy H2 of Local Development Plan (LDP) contains a policy and preamble (paragraph 5.2.2) which read alongside the evidence base from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) shows an unbalanced high number of dwellings of three or more bedrooms, with less than half the national average for one and two bedroom units, with around 71% of all owner occupied properties having three or more bedrooms.

8.2.5 The Council is therefore encouraged in the emerging policy H2 to provide a greater proportion of smaller units to meet the identified needs and demands in which this minor development would carry some weight in assisting towards.

8.3 Design of New Development, Layout, Character and Appearance

8.3.1 Policy BE1 of the adopted Local Plan states that development proposals will be permitted if they are a) compatible with their surroundings in terms of factors including i) layout, iv) scale/bulk/height, v) external materials, vi) visual impact and vii) effect on the safety and or amenity of neighbouring properties or the occupiers therein, and b) make a positive contribution to the landscape and open countryside.

8.3.2 Furthermore, paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that decisions should aim to ensure that developments, amongst other considerations;

 function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation and;  are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping

8.3.3 This part of Queen Street, at the western end of the settlement boundary, is characterised by modest residential properties of detached and semi-detached cottages. To the south of the site, adjacent to the proposed dwellings, a housing

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 5 / 8 Page 95

development of 117 dwellings is nearing completion. The host dwelling, no.67, is the last dwelling on the south side of Queen Street where it leads to a roundabout. Whilst appearance and design are matters reserved for future consideration, the proposed dwellings would introduce built form into a currently open space, changing the character of the immediate landscape. However, the presence of the newly built development to the rear of the site and the existing dwellings to the north of Queen Street lessen the impact of the proposed built form development;

8.3.4 Paragraph 64 of the NPPF advises that development that fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area should be refused. The NPPG also states that new development should look to respond appropriately to the existing layout of buildings, streets and spaces to ensure that adjacent buildings relate to each other, streets are connected, and spaces complement one another. In terms of the proposed layout of the development, it is considered that the constricted site area would fail to appropriately accommodate two dwellings. The resulting contrived layout and plot sizes would be in conflict with the pattern of development and urban form observed in the immediate and local area and would result in a development that would detract from the character and appearance of the area.

8.3.5 The proposal also includes the removal of the large conifers which provide soft landscaping to the edge of the side adjacent to the highway. This type of boundary treatment is observes further along Queen Street. The removal of the trees and the introduction of the proposed dwellings would fail to improve the character of the streetscene from the shift in appearance to a more urbanised character. This would be further exacerbated by the level of hard standing proposed to serve both dwellings. This revised application introduces an indicative, sporadic arrangement of trees alongside the boundaries of the site. No further details have been provided, for example their intended species or placement and purpose. It is considered that the assumed attempt to provide an element of green/soft screening to the site is not sufficient in overcoming the demonstrable harm expressed above.

8.4 Effect on Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers

8.4.1 Adopted policy BE1 seeks to protect neighbouring occupiers from development which would be detrimental to their amenities by reason of overlooking, overpowering and loss of light. 8.4.2 The proposed dwellings would be neighboured by the host dwelling 67 Queen Street, a detached dwelling (no.30 Queen Street) north of the site and newly constructed dwellings south of the site at the new housing estate. Distances from existing properties to the development are similar and range between 12.5 metres from the host property to the proposed dwelling at the east of the site (referred to as plot A hereafter for the purposes of this report), and approximately 12 metres from dwellings rear of the site to the proposed dwelling at the west of the site (referred to as plot B hereafter for the purposes of this report).

8.4.3 Whilst design is a reserved matter at this stage, indicative plans have been provided that accord with the layout which does form a matter for consideration. Therefore, it is sensible to give limited weight to the indicative plans. Particularly as layout is a consideration and the application states that they will be houses. At the indicated 7.7m height (plot A) and 7.5m height (plot B) with distances less than 15 metres between properties, concerns are raised towards the detrimental effect on the

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 6 / 8 Page 96

occupiers of the newly built dwellings to the rear of the site which face the development as a result of overshadowing, dominance and the potential for loss of privacy.

8.4.4 Furthermore, due to the orientation of the proposals and the distances between properties, there are opportunities for overseeing from the first floor windows of the surrounding properties into the amenity areas of the proposed dwellings, compromising privacy. The attempt to provide a handful of trees to the boundaries of the site would not provide an adequate solution to the issues of actual and perceived overlooking as a result of the development.

8.5 Private Amenity Space

8.5.1 Essex Design Guide advises a suitable rear amenity space should be around 100m². It may be acceptable for one or two bedroomed dwellings to provide a smaller garden area of around 50m². However, this is commonly acceptable within urban areas and the 100m² guidance size is the applied standard for the large majority of residential proposals within the District.

8.5.2 The proposed dwellings would be considered to be unextendable on the basis of their already small, below-average garden size. In line with the Essex Design Guide, unextendable houses should have their permitted development rights removed.

8.5.3 Within the immediate locality, at Queen Street, small dwellings of limited plot sizes with small garden areas are uncommon and the proposal represents development which is unsympathetic to its surroundings. Plot A proposes a rear amenity space of 73.35m². Plot B proposes a rear amenity space of 57.78m². The proposed private amenity areas are considered to result in unacceptable development. Whilst it is noted that the plans are indicative due to the restrictive nature of the site it is not considered that this could be overcome at the time of the reserved matters.

8.6 Access and Parking

8.6.1 The site is considered to be capable of providing vehicular access that would not be to the detriment of highway safety or the free flow of traffic.

8.6.2 Furthermore, Essex County Highways have not raised an objection to the application.

8.6.3 In terms of parking, in order to comply with Policy T8, for a 2 bedroom dwelling a maximum of 2 spaces is required.

8.6.4 The proposal differs from that of the previous application in that it previously lacked information in terms of the location of parking spaces for the prospective occupiers. The revised application now shows 2 no. parking spaces for each property located centrally within the application site. It is accepted that the site could accommodate two parking spaces per dwelling to meet the adopted standards. However, some concern is raised to how this may appear in the streetscene.

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 7 / 8 Page 97

8.7 Conclusions

8.7.1 Whilst the principle of development of the site is not objected to, the cumulative effect of the proposed development, by reason of its contrived layout and restrictive plot size resulting in unacceptable private amenity areas and opportunities for a loss of outlook and privacy on the future occupiers and neighbouring dwellings, is considered to result in overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the character of the area contrary to Polices BE1 of the Local Plan, D1 of the Maldon Local Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reason: 1 The proposed development is considered to result in overdevelopment of the site due to the cramped and contrived plots in contrast to the prevailing character of the area, the impact on the character of the area, the unneighbourly impact on the occupiers of the new dwellings to the south of the application site and the unacceptable amenity space for the new dwellings. The proposal therefore has a demonstrable impact on the character and appearance of the area, the standard accommodation of the future occupiers and the living conditions of the occupiers to the south of the site contrary to policies BE1 of the adopted Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, D1 of the emerging Local Plan and core planning principles and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework..

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 - Positive and Proactive Statement:

Agenda Item no. 13 Page 8 / 8 Page 98 CIRCULATED BEFORE THE MEETING

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

MEMBERS’ UPDATE

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6

Further Representations

Page 1 / 3 Page 99

• Helps people with disabilities or illness. • Dogs receive the best care. • It is tucked away and dogs can be walked without affecting other people

Consultation Replies

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13

Consultation Replies

Internal Environmental Health – No comment

Conservation Officer (Archaeology) – Conditions required in respect of an archaeological assessment and programme of works (L1 & L2).

Page 2 / 3 Page 100

Page 3 / 3 Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14

REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 2016

OTHER AREA PLANNING AND RELATED MATTERS

PAGE 2: ITEM 1 APPEALS LODGED

PAGE 4 ITEM 2 APPEAL DECISIONS

Agenda Item no. 14 Page 1 / 5 Our Vision: Working in Partnership to make the Maldon District a better place to live, work and enjoy Page 103

ITEM 1 APPEALS LODGED

Notification has been received from the Planning Inspectorate of the following appeals lodged:

Appeal Start Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: FUL/MAL/15/00706 (APP/X1545/W/15/3139455) Site: Land South East Of Down Hall - Downhall Road - Bradwell On Sea Proposal: Construction of single storey dwelling Appeal by: Mr S Watts Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Written Representations

Appeal Start Date: 15/12/2015 Application Number: OUT/MAL/15/00179 (APP/X1545/W/15/3139154) Site: Nipsells Farm Lodge - Nipsells Chase - Mayland Proposal: Outline planning permission for a residential development comprising up to 150 residential dwellings (Including 30% affordable housing), structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and childrens play area, surface water attenuation and associated ancillary works, with all matters reserved for future determination with the exception of access. Appeal by: Gladman Developments Ltd Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Public Inquiry

Appeal Start Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: HOUSE/MAL/15/00933 (APP/X1545/D/15/3139783) Site: 17 Kings Farm Meadow - Tillingham Proposal: All windows and doors to be replaced with like for like to three storey dwelling. Appeal by: Mrs Kerry Taylor Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Householder Appeals Service (HAS)

Appeal Start Date: 18/12/2015 Application Number: FUL/MAL/15/00256 (APP/X1545/W/15/3136671) Site: Land Adjacent Whispering Trees Mayland Green Mayland Proposal: Construction of a detached two storey dwelling, together with associated parking and landscaping Appeal by: Miss Tessa Ford Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Written representations

Agenda Item no. 14 Page 2 / 5 Page 104

Appeal Start Date: 18/12/2015 Application Number: FUL/MAL/15/00279 (APP/X1545/W/15/3136630) Site: Land Adjacent To 17 Brickwall Close Burnham-On-Crouch Proposal: New dwelling house Appeal by: Mr & Mrs J Thornton Appeal against: Refusal Appeal procedure requested: Written representations

Agenda Item no. 14 Page 3 / 5 Page 105 ITEM 2 APPEAL DECISIONS

Notification has been received from the Planning Inspectorate of the following appeal decisions.

Appeals A & B 14/00242 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/C/15/3027374 & APP/X1545/C/15/3027386) Bradwell Wick Leisure Plots – Maldon Road – Bradwell On Sea Appeal against Enforcement Notice: Without planning permission, the unauthorised erection of a gate. APPEAL DISMISSED AND THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE IS UPHELD 9 December 2015

Appeals C & D 14/00242 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/C/15/3027380 & APP/X1545/C/15/3027392) Bradwell Wick Leisure Plots – Maldon Road – Bradwell On Sea Appeal against Enforcement Notice: Without planning permission, the unauthorised creation of a hardstanding, involving disused bricks and other rubbles APPEAL DISMISSED AND THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE IS UPHELD 9 December 2015

FUL/MAL/14/00536 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3133783) Proposal: A biomass boiler housed in a wooden shed in the car park Address: Swan Care Residential Home - 29 North Street - Tillingham APPEAL ALLOWED– 10 December 2015 PARTIAL COSTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL – REFUSED COSTS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS - REFUSED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

HOUSE/MAL/15/00466 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/D/15/3133699) Proposal: New front garden wall and new access from road. Address APPEAL ALLOWED – 10 December 2015 DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

OUT/MAL/14/01227 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3027426) Proposal: Outline planning application with all matters reserved for residential development Address: Land To East Of Burnham Road - Latchingdon APPEAL ALLOWED & COSTS REFUSED – 23 December 2015 DECISION LEVEL: Committee (as per Officer recommendation)

Agenda Item no. 14 Page 4 / 5 Page 106

FUL/MAL/15/00404 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/15/3131017) Proposal: Re-siting of an agricultural workers dwelling following approved planning permission FUL/MAL/14/01008 Address: Land North West Of Stitches Farm - Lower Chase - Althorne APPEAL DISMISSED – 29 December 2015 DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Agenda Item no. 14 Page 5 / 5 Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank