Agenda item

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

Councillor Mrs P A Channer raised the earlier disclosure of a pecuniary interest in this application by Councillor A S Fluker and whether in light of this she should also declare a pecuniary interest.  Following some discussion Councillor Mrs Channer confirmed that her earlier disclosure of a non-pecuniary interest in this application was correct but that she may not vote and would take the matter up with the Monitoring Officer for clarification outside of the meeting. 

Councillor A L Hull disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in this application.

Following the Officers’ presentation, the Chairman advised Members that under the Council’s public participation scheme two submissions had been received, one from Parish Councillor R Pratt on behalf of Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council and the other from the Applicant Mrs Owers.  In accordance with the scheme he had reviewed the submission and proceeded to read them out. 

The Chairman then moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.  This was not seconded.

Councillor V J Bell, a Ward Member, referred to the location of the dwelling, advising the Committee how in her view the proposal made changes to enable the applicant to remain in her accommodation and overall she supported the application.  Councillor Bell proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officers recommendation.  This was duly seconded.

Councillor W Stamp, another Ward Members, commented how the application, if approved, would make improvements to the applicants living conditions, would not cause any detrimental harm, would not be detrimental to the character and was not contrary to policies.  She agreed with and seconded the proposed approval of the application.

In response, the Lead Specialist Place highlighted the following points:

·               each application had to be considered on its own merit and assumption should not be given to approving a householder application because it was not harmful in comparison to another scheme.

·               In planning terms a cart lodge was a permanent structure and therefore required planning permission.

·               he cautioned on giving too much weight to personal circumstances and that case law was clear it needed to very special circumstance and the weight should reflect this.

The Chairman advised that he had earlier moved the Officers recommendation of refusal and this had not been seconded.  He then reminded the Committee of the proposed approval of the application, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, in the name of Councillor Bell, duly seconded and requested reasons for approval of the application.

In response to a question regarding a consultation response from Essex County Council Highways, the Lead Specialist Place advised that no response had been received and explained the type of applications on which Highways would provide a consultation response.

Following some discussion regarding reasons for approval it was agreed that the reasons should relate to the application not being detrimental to policies, not causing any harm to the surrounding area or being detrimental to the conservation area.  In addition it was felt that the proposal would not impact on-street parking.

The Chairman put the proposal of approval, contrary to the Officers recommendation, for the reasons outlined above to the Committee.  The Lead Specialist Place outlined several conditions which should be applied to the application should Members be mindful to approve it.  These were noted.  Upon a vote being taken the application was approved.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to conditions delegated to Officers.

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) The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2          The development herby permitted shall be carried out and retained in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Location Plan L1 and 01E.

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

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

REASON: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy D1 and D3 of the approved Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4          The materials used in the construction of the proposed cart lodge hereby approved shall be as set out within the application form/plans hereby approved.

REASON: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy D1 of the approved Local Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5          The cart lodge shall not be used other than for the accommodation of private motor vehicles and shall not at any time be converted or used as habitable space / living accommodation or for storage.

REASON: To ensure that the garage remains incidental to the occupancy of the dwelling and to retain off street parking provisions in accordance with policies S1, S8, H4 D1 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

6          No development shall commence on the cart lodge until a construction design and method statement has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The statement should demonstrate that the roots of the protected Maple Tree and the soil conditions will not be adversely impacted upon during the construction of the approved carport and the base of the carport will have no long term effects on the health of the tree.  The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

REASON: To ensure the Maple Tree, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order, is not negatively impacted due to the proposed development in order to protect the visual amity of the site and surrounding conservation area, in accordance with the policy D1 and D3 of the LDP.