Issue - meetings

To consider the Chief Officer’s Report.

The Development Manager presented the report in relation to the reasons for the refusal of application UTT/16/3565/OP from the Planning Committee Meeting of 24 July 2019.

The recommendation was that the Planning Committee confirms the resolution from Committee of 24 July 2019 to REFUSE planning application reference UTT/16/3565/OP for the following reasons:

1.    The proposals would result in the urbanisation of the rural area resulting in an adverse harm to the openness, character and intrinsic beauty of the countryside, and the countryside hinterland behind the defined Countryside Protection Zone. This includes the breaching of the Flitch Way to the south, which is considered a defensible boundary, in terms of landscape character. The harm arising from the proposals would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits from the scheme. As such the proposals are contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policies S7 and S8 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposal constitutes further development in the vicinity of the busy Four Ashes junction and would in negative residual cumulative impacts on the road network contrary to Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

3.      There is no mechanism to secure the following measures that would be required if planning permission were to be granted:

(i) Provision of 40% affordable housing

(ii) Provision of education financial contribution

(iii) Transfer of 2.1ha site for education purposes

(iv) Provision of financial contribution for health (£108,507 index linked)

(v) Provision of financial contribution of £37,000 (index linked) for works to the Flitch Way

(vi) Provision of MOVA at the signalised junction of the B1256/B183, known as the Four Ashes

(vii) Provision of appropriate surfacing and drainage to relevant sections of footpath 23/5 and footpath 48/22

(viii) Provision of financial contribution of £40,740 for mitigation works at Hatfield Forest

(ix) Provision and transfer of dog walking circuit, including a fenced off green area of 1.35ha including a pond and picnic area

(x) Provision and transfer of open space, MUGA and trim trail

(xi) Provision and transfer of neighbourhood building and car park

(xii) Ensure adequate ongoing maintenance of SUDS system.

As such the proposals are contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN6, H9, GEN7, ENV7 and GEN1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In response to a member question the Legal Officer confirmed that if the applicant was to appeal that the ‘Gladman Decision’ would be referred to. However, it would be regarded as being of persuasive value only; there is no doctrine of binding precedent in planning matters.

The Development Manager concurred with the Legal Officer and stated that there was no need to refer to the ‘Gladman appeal’ in the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Bagnall proposed the motion to approve the reasons for refusal for application UTT/16/3565/OP.

Councillor Gerard seconded the motion for approval of the conditions.

RESOLVED: to accept the recommendations on the refusal reasons for application UTT/16/3565/OP.