Agenda item

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

A Members’ Update was submitted summarising two letters of support. Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Michael Lewis, addressed the Committee.

A debate ensued regarding the ongoing issue of curtilage. Councillor Stamp, having called in the application said she was disappointed that this issue had not been resolved prior to Committee.

The Lead Specialist Place drew Members’ attention to paragraph 5.1.4 and the case law on curtilage. He said that in respect of this application it was a large amount of land that did not have an intimate relationship with the property, therefore, could not be defined as residential curtilage.

The debate continued as Members were still unclear as to what did or did not constitute residential curtilage. The Lead Specialist Place reminded the Committee that this application had been before the Committee on two previous occasions and had been refused on the basis that the application was not within the residential curtilage. He said that there was a need for consistency going forward and that it would be dangerous to disagree with case law.

Councillor Helm believed that the application was within the residential curtilage and proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and this was seconded.  

Councillor Fluker referred to paragraph 3.1.8 in the Officer’s report that stated the application would have an unacceptable visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition, he said that no new material planning information had come forward since the application was last refused and proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman put the first proposal by Councillor Helm, duly seconded, to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken the recommendation was refused.

The Chairman then put the second proposal from Councillor Fluker to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, to the Committee. Following a vote and there being an equality of votes the Chairman exercised his casting vote and the application was refused.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          The proposed outbuilding, as a result of its siting, scale, bulk and design

would be unduly detached from the host dwelling and would have a substantial and unacceptable visual impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.  This would be exacerbated by the substantial increase in built form and the fact the development is located outside of Mangapp Manor’s residential curtilage resulting in the urbanisation of the countryside.  The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, policy HO.8 of the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.