Agenda item

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Interim Head of Planning Services (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officer’s presentation of the report, during which she drew Members’ attention to the Members’ Update, Mr John Salisbury, an Objector, of 4 Hill House Mews, Maldon, addressed the Committee.

The Officer then advised Members that MDC was aware of the dispute in relation to the boundary wall and advised that the onus was on the Applicant to ensure that the boundary was safe and met legislative requirements.

For the sake of clarity, the Chairman confirmed to the Committee that all three sheds that were currently in place, would be removed.

Members debated this application in some detail and raised concerns regarding the following matters:

·               The condition of the wall and any possible further damage that may occur;

·               Ownership of the wall;

·               Disabled access and the provision of a disabled parking bay;

·               Lack of  access to the land at the rear of the property and concerns about rubbish, vermin etc. in that location;

·               Possible damage from the roots of the tree at the back of the property.

The Interim Head of Planning Services advised Members:

·               that the concern about the retaining wall was not a material consideration, but that it was possible to request that building control investigates;

·               that when the previous planning application was made in 2008, the owner certified that they were the owner of the land and, by implication, the owner of the wall;

·               the provision of the disabled parking space could be dealt with by a condition, if Members were minded to approve this application.

In response to a question regarding reinstatement of the land following removal of the three sheds, the Chairman proposed that Members accept the Officers’ recommendation to approve this application, subject to an additional condition to ensure that the land was reinstated following the removal of the sheds.  He further proposed a condition for the provision of the disabled car parking space as included on the drawing submitted. 

Councillor Rev. A E J Shrimpton then proposed refusal of this application on the grounds of overdevelopment.

The proposal to approve this application was then duly seconded, and upon a vote, the motion failed.

Following this, the motion to refuse this application was seconded and upon a vote, the motion was carried, with Councillor Shrimpton nominated to represent the Council at any appeal with any appeal statement being sent to him.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          The development proposal would result in overdevelopment of site contrary to policy BE1 of the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, policy D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan, and Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.