Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone present and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

There were none.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 July 2022 (copy enclosed).

RESOLVED by assent that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 July 2022 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable interests and Non-Registrable Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraph 9 and Appendix B 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).

There were none.

Prior to starting the presentations the Chairman advised that she intended, with the agreement of the Committee, to consider Agenda Item 6 first followed by Agenda Item 5, these applications were interrelated. She advised that both applications had the potential to be refused or approved and that reversing the applications on the agenda was the best approach in order to proceed appropriately. This was agreed by assent.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation the Chairman opened the discussion.

A debate ensued where a number of Members raised concerns regarding the size of the proposed extension and the proximity to the neighboring property, whilst some felt that the scale and design was acceptable. The Lead Specialist: Development Management said that in addition to the adverse visual impact the structure as a whole had an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.

Councillor Lagan felt that the reason for refusal was very clear as the extension would be overbearing and was not in keeping with the streetscene. Councillor Heard proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Edwards.

There being no further discussion the Chairman put the recommendation to refuse the application to the Committee and it was unanimously agreed by assent.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.     The proposed extension, due to its siting, bulk, height, and excessive depth, is considered an unneighbourly development likely to have a domineering and  overbearing impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

Following the Officer’s presentation the Chairman opened the discussion.

A debate ensued where issues were raised around the evidence of a functional link with the main dwelling, the use of mitigating circumstances and the existing back gate.

In response the Lead Specialist: Development Management advised that the functional link was notional as the annexe did not have to be physically attached to the main dwelling. In this example there were shared facilities together with a caring element due to a level of disability. This meant that there was a reliance on the main house, whilst maintaining a level of independence. The key factor was the annexe as proposed was integral to the main dwelling, not separated by fencing.

With reference to the mitigating circumstances he advised that this was in accordance with the Planning SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) and that there had been examples of these types of extenuating circumstances across other committees. It was noted that the issue of the gate was a matter for enforcement and that the existing conditions were robust.

Councillor Edwards proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Heard.

There being no further debate the Chairman put the recommendation to approve to the Committee and it was agreed by assent.

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 and retained in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Design and Access Statement, 1 Proposed & Existing Block Plan and Roof Plan, 2 Elevations, 3 Proposed Floor Plans

3          The materials used in the construction of the development hereby approved shall be as set out within the application form/plans hereby approved.

4          The outbuilding hereby approved shall only be used for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as 27 Mundon Road, Maldon and  shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit.

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

A Members’ Update had been circulated prior to the meeting that detailed comments from the Strategy Team who were internal consultees. A further verbal update was provided by the Case Officer that a consultation response from ECC Ecology had been received which raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed. Following the Officer’s presentation the Chairman opened the discussion.

At this point Councillor Spenceley declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business.

A debate ensued where the consensus was that there was not sufficient information to come to a decision on the application.  Other concerns were raised around potential adverse impacts on the climate change strategy, the character and appearance of the area, failure to enhance the historic environment and the lack of a long-term management plan.

The Chairman proposed that the application be deferred to come back to the Central Area Planning Committee with further information on the Promenade Park management plan together with a well thought through strategy for the development. This was seconded by Councillor Nunn. She then put the proposal to defer the application to the Committee and it was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide further information.