Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Apologies were received from Councillors Lemon and Lodge.

Councillor Davey declared a non-pecuniary interest because he was familiar with the firm carrying out the work on application UTT/17/3662/FUL.

Councillors Fairhurst and Freeman declared non-pecuniary interests as members of Saffron Walden Town Council’s Planning Committee.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 January 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2018 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To consider application UTT/17/3038/DFO.

The applicant sought approval of the reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, following a grant of outline planning permission (including the matter of access) for a residential development of up to 49 dwellings (UTT/16/1444/OP). This application proposed 35 dwellings.

In response to a Member question, the Planning Officer showed the spread of affordable units across the proposed development. Councillor Ryles said it was disappointing that there was not an even dispersal of affordable units throughout the estate. He added it would be helpful if affordable/market properties were colour-coded on site plan illustrations in future.

Councillor Wells proposed to approve the application. Councillor Chambers seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

To consider application UTT/17/1896/FUL.

The applicant had requested planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of a brownfield site with the construction of seven new dwellings, car parking bays, visitor parking provision and associated landscaping.

Members discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the site, with particular regard to its accessibility and sustainability. On balance, the majority of Members felt the regeneration of a brownfield site supported by local residents was a good development.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed approval subject to additional conditions to be agreed at the next meeting.

Councillor Davey seconded the motion.         

The Development Manager said the committee would be presented with a set of conditions to determine at the next meeting.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the approval of conditions at the next meeting.

W Brazier and T Dodkins spoke in support of this application.

To consider application UTT/17/3662/FUL.

The application sought planning permission to demolish the police houses, erect four semi-detached houses and change the use of the police station to three houses. The converted building would be extended and altered, and the existing boundary wall would be extended.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed rejecting the application on the basis the development was in a conservation area.

Councillor Freeman seconded the motion.

The motion was defeated.

The Chairman proposed the approval of the application. Councillor Hicks seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

I Abram spoke in support of this application.

To consider application UTT/17/3663/LB.

The application was for listed building consent to make various internal and external alterations to the police station to facilitate its conversion to three dwellings.

Members expressed disappointment that there was no official comment from the Conservation Officer, particularly as the application sought to alter a listed building.

Councillor Gerard proposed deferring the application to allow formal comment from the Conservation Officer.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to defer the application to allow formal comment from the      Conservation Officer.

To consider application UTT/17/3078/FUL.

The application proposed involved the change of use of the site from a retail (Class A1) use, to a mixed use restaurant/takeaway (Class A3/A5); and the installation of extraction/ventilation equipment and a new door opening.

Members were informed that the applicant had requested deferral until the completion of a transport study.

Councillor Chambers proposed to defer the application.

Councillor Gerard seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to defer the application to allow the completion of the transport study.

To consider application UTT/17/2903/FUL.

The application sought the sub-division of an existing travellers’ pitch at Tandans towards the front of the site, to be used to accommodate an additional traveller pitch.

The Development Manager responded to the public speakers who had objected to the application. He said he understood their frustration as the site had a planning history going back to 2008 and he would have preferred if the application presented before Members had been submitted in the first instance. He said it was an acceptable application with no sound planning reasons for refusal. Instead the applicant had left himself open to the accusation of planning ‘by stealth’ as the site had been developed incrementally.

Members discussed the density of the development, the availability of traveller sites across Uttlesford and the site history.

Councillor Loughlin proposed approval of the application.

Councillor Hicks seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

Cllr K Artus, J Kellerman and J Jewell spoke against this application.

R Perrin spoke in support of this application.

To consider application UTT/17/2807/FUL.

The meeting was adjourned at 4.07pm and reconvened at 4.14pm.

The applicant sought the proposed demolition of the existing bungalow and garage on site and the erection of two detached four bedroom dwellings. The dwellings would be two storey and would include associated access and parking to the front of the site.

In response to a Member question, the Development Manager said a Construction Management Plan could be conditioned as there were concerns that the development was on a private road and residents would be accountable for any damage incurred by the developer.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed approval of the application.

Councillor Freeman seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report and the following additional condition:

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

The Statement shall provide for:

(a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

(d) the control of noise from construction including the hours of working

(e) wheel washing facilities

(f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

REASON: The use of such pre commencement condition is required to protect the amenity of surrounding residential premises in accordance with Policies GEN1, GEN2, and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

To consider application UTT/17/2429/OP.

The outline application with all matters reserved sought the construction of one two-bed bungalow for private sale with associated external works and parking.

Councillor Fairhurst said he was concerned there was a potential conflict of interest as the applicant was Uttlesford District Council.

The Legal Officer said Regulations 2 and 3 of the Town and Country General Regulations 1992 made under statute allowed a Local Authority to determine applications made in respect of property owned by it. The text of the Regulations was read out in full.

The Development Manager indicated that because the Council was authorised under statute to determine its own planning applications, those applications were always brought before the Committee, as were those of individual members and staff, in the interests of transparency.

Councillor Fairhurst said he opposed back-land development and was disappointed that this could set a precedent, particularly as UDC was the applicant.

Councillor Davey proposed approval of the application.

Councillor Hicks seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

D Malins spoke in support of the application.

To consider application UTT/17/2822/FUL.

The applicant sought the removal of two planning conditions imposed on the approved application UTT/0406/08/FUL which related to the code for sustainable homes (C.8.29) and renewable or low carbon technologies (C.8.32). The applicant also sought the variation of a planning condition imposed on the same said permission relating to occupier accessibility (C.28.1).

The Development Manager said Conditions C.8.29 and C.8.32 were outdated due to the advancements in energy efficiency and renewable housing regulations since the original conditions were imposed.

The committee discussed the removal of Condition 28.1 which would result in a development above two storeys without a lift.

Members expressed concern that the developer was attempting to remove a condition imposed on the original application for commercial reasons, which would result in a number of flats being inaccessible to potential tenants who had mobility problems.

The Planning Officer said the housing provider would seek to allocate the flats on the third storey to those who did not require a lift to access the properties. If a tenant’s circumstances changed and they could no longer access the third floor, they would be prioritised and allocated an accessible property elsewhere.

 Members agreed it was unacceptable for the application to be varied on the grounds that the premises would not be readily used by people with physical disabilities in accordance with national and local planning policies.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed to refuse the application.

Councillor Ryles seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reason:

Reason: The development would not ensure equal access to housing on upper floors contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN2 and SPD “Accessible Homes and Playspace” (adopted 2005).

To consider application UTT/17/3111/FUL.

The application sought the remodelling of the existing building on site, which involved various extensions and alterations but would result in a building of approximately the same height and footprint. The surrounding car park would also be reorganised and enlarged from 39 spaces to 111. Two bin stores would be provided within the car park, and land between the main building and the pond would be regraded. A new underground reservoir would be formed adjacent to the research park’s entrance off Walden Road.

The application had been brought before Members as UDC had invested in Chesterford Park.

In response to Member comments relating to the potential conflict of interests, the Development Manager said this application had to be judged on planning merits alone.

Councillor Davey proposed approval of the application, subject to the submission of a travel plan to minimise traffic through Little Chesterford.

Councillor Hicks seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report and the following additional condition:

Prior to occupation of the building, a travel plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan must contain measureable targets for the management of travel demand, and must be consistent with the submitted Park Wide Travel Plan (Peter Brett Associates, July 2016). The development must thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved travel plan.

REASON: To minimise the number of car journeys associated with the development and maximise the use of sustainable transport modes, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

F Wilkinson spoke against the application. M Brewer spoke in support of the application.

The meeting ended at 5.30pm.