Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Chairman advised Members that in line with the Council’s public participation scheme a submission had been received from three Objectors to the application, Sue Seabrook, John Watson and Gillian Smith.  In accordance with the scheme’s criteria he had reviewed the submission and then read it aloud to the Committee.

 .

The Chairman moved the recommendation as set out in the Officer report and reminded Members that only those attending the site visit could vote on the application. This was seconded by Councillor Swain.

At this point Councillor Morris declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he knew the applicant.

The Chairman then invited comment on the application. Councillor Mayes said she supported the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Swain concurred and said that there would be difficulty accommodating additional vehicles and a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation of refusal to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the application was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1                 The proposed side and rear extension, by reason of its scale and design, is considered to be a large and bulky addition, which would result in a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Furthermore, the design would result in an awkward and contrived roofline to the front. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2                 The proposed side and rear extension, due to its bulk and depth, is considered to have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring site to the east, No.54 Viking Road. The proposal would therefore result in an unneighbourly form of development, which would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of this neighbour and therefore the proposed extension would be contrary to policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.