Agenda item

20/01010/HOUSE - 98 Washington Road, Maldon, CM9 6AR

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


Application Number



98 Washington Road, Maldon, CM9 6AR


Amendments to application APP/X1545/D/16/3164272 allowed on appeal: Single storey front extension to garage and porch. Omit 2nd storey front and rear aspect windows. Flat roof dormer to rear. Rooflights. S73A application for side aspect gable window to 2nd storey bedroom. Form hip to gable roof to the existing single storey rear extension. Alternation of ridge height to western side gable projection.


Mrs Karen Wiseman


Mr Richard Bailey

Target Decision Date


Case Officer

Sophie Mardon



Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In – Councillor Shaughnessy – Reason for Call in: Contrary to policy H4 and D1 of the LDP.



Members’ attention was drawn to the Members’ Update which had been circulated prior to the meeting. Following the Officers presentation an Objector, Mr Giles, and the Applicant, Ms Wiseman, addressed the Committee.


The Chairman then moved the recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as detailed in section 8 of the report. This was seconded by Councillor C Mayes.


At this point Councillor Heard wished to make it clear that his non-pecuniary declaration of interest was in respect of this item of business. He had a telephone conversation with an objector but did not express an opinion.


Councillor Shaughnessy also wished to make it known that she had not expressed an opinion in her email exchanges on this item of business.


A long debate ensued on the differences between the changes agreed at appeal and the subsequent amendments to that plan. Members raised concerns about the number of windows, the raised roof height, the imbalance in the street scene, parking space and potential overlooking. The issue of a site visit was also raised.


Councillor Swain proposed that the application be rejected due to the proliferation of windows. It was noted that there already was a duly seconded motion on the table.


The Lead Specialist Place responded by advising that what the Committee needed to demonstrate was the extent of the harm due to the proposed changes. Officers had assessed the differences between what was approved and what was planned and determined that the quantum of development could be contained onsite, and that with appropriate conditioning there was no demonstrable harm. He reminded Members that a lot of the work such as windows and fanlights could be carried out under permitted development and that there was no overall uniformity of development in Washington Road.


On the issue of the site visit he advised that in order for this to be undertaken properly it required all Members attendance as part of the decision-making process. At the moment this was not permissible due to COVID-19.


Councillor Swain then raised a point of order regarding his motion on the table. In response, both Councillors Heard and Nunn reminded the Committee that there already was a duly seconded motion on the table that needed to be addressed first.


The Chairman put the Officer’s recommendation of approval to the Committee and upon a vote being taken it was lost.


Councillor Heard then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of a number of design flaws. This was seconded by Councillor Swain. The Lead Specialist Place suggested that due to the number of unresolved design elements raised the detailed reasons for refusal be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members.


The Chairman then put the proposal to refuse the application with reasons delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members. Upon a vote being taken it was refused.


RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for reasons to be determined as outlined above.



Supporting documents: