Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/19/1802/OP.

The Development Management Team Leader gave a summary of the report, which recommended refusal of outline planning permission for up to 115 dwellings with all

matters reserved except for access.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed refusal of the application.

Councillor LeCount seconded this motion.

                        RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal would result in the introduction of new built form at a rural fringe location situated outside the defined development limits. It would represent a separate physical area of considerable urban development within the countryside. The proposal would represent a form of development that does not need to take place and is not appropriate to this particular rural area. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to protect or enhance the character of the countryside within which it is set and no special reasons have been put forward as to why the development in the form proposed needs to take place there. The proposal is therefore contrary to ULP Policy S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005), and Policies DS1 and LSC1 of the Great Dunmow Neighbourhood Plan. In view of this, the proposal would fail to amount to a presumption in favour of sustainable development as the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal, including the supply of new housing in the tilted planning balance under paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)    The proposal would result in the urbanisation of the rural area which makes a significant contribution to the setting of the Church End (Great Dunmow) Conservation Area, and the site provides a setting to and views of the Grade I listed Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, and the grade II listed Crouches Farmhouse. The proposals would consequently result in adverse harm to heritage assets whereby the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm. The proposal would therefore be contrary to paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ULP Policy ENV2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

3)    The proposal does not provide any mechanism to secure the infrastructure requirements arising from the development, including the need for financial contributions towards additional healthcare facilities, early years and childcare, and primary education requirements, the delivery of 40% affordable housing, the provision of open space and the subsequent maintenance of these areas, or improvements to sustainable transport options. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and ULP Policies GEN1 and GEN6 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).