Agenda item

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

It was noted from the Members’ Update that since the agenda had been published a response had been received from the Council’s Arboricultural Consultant.

Following the Officer’s presentation, the Agent, Mr Blaine addressed the Committee. The Chairperson then opened the floor for debate.

Councillor S White proposed to refuse the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation and this was duly seconded.

Following a brief debate around reason for refusal 3, the Chairperson put Councillor White’s proposal to refuse the application to the Committee and upon a vote being taken it was agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.               The proposed development is located outside of a defined settlement boundary and is in open countryside. The site is not considered to be in an accessible location and does not promote sustainable travel. Furthermore, by virtue of the domestication and urbanisation of the site, and loss of an open and punctuated rural gap, the proposed development is considered to appear as an incongruous form of development that is out of keeping and would erode the intrinsic character and beauty of the open countryside. The principle of development has, therefore, been found to be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S1, S2, S8, D1, D2, H4, T1, T2, N1 and N2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the Maldon District Design Guide (2017), and the policies and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

2.               The proposed development has not considered the context within which it would sit and would not respect the established pattern of ribbon development found at this section of Latchingdon Road. With its associated residential curtilage, paraphernalia and domestic characteristics, the development has been found to urbanise the site and would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the rural area. The development has not taken design cues from the immediate area and would also appear as visually intrusive when viewed at the street scene. The dwellings proposed are excessive in height and the pastiche design lacks a coherent sense of place. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the Maldon District Design Guide (2017), and the policies and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

3.         A window and balcony are proposed along the first floor side elevation fronting the neighbouring dwelling, Eastholm and would provide overlooking into the neighbouring site. This would cause harm to the residential amenity of this neighbour and would be contrary to Policies S1 and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017), the Maldon District Design Guide (2017), and the policies and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).