Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/19/1585/FUL.

The Senior Planning Officer said that the application related to the redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of the existing structures including Almont House and Westwinds and the construction of a 75- bedroom care home across two and

a half storeys (plus part of the lower ground floor). The application also included upgrades to the site entrance from High Lane, additional planting , associated car

parking and provision of site infrastructure.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions subject to a S106

Legal Obligation.

Members expressed various concerns:

·         that the size and scale of the building were out of keeping in what was a residential area,

·         that a number of properties would be overlooked,

·         that there would be a significant impact on local GP surgeries. It was highlighted that the proposed care home would not have an ECG machine,

·         that the level of energy consumption would be too high,

·         that neighbouring properties would be affected by noise pollution,

·         that noise emitted from the building was likely to cause a material nuisance to neighbours.

·         that the proposed number of electric vehicle charging points was inadequate.

Councillor Reeve said that the additional employment that would be provided at the home would be a positive factor.

Councillor Sutton proposed to refuse the proposed application on the grounds of Policies GEN 2, GEN 4 and GEN 6 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Bagnall seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         Contrary to Policy GEN 2, the scale, form and layout and appearance of the proposed development was not compatible with the surrounding buildings and would have harmful impact to the residential character of the site and its surroundings.

·         Contrary to Policy GEN 2, the scale and layout of the proposed development would have a materially adverse impact to the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of neighbouring residential properties as a result of loss of privacy and overbearing impacts.

·         Contrary to Policy GEN 4, the operational use of the proposed development would result in noise that would have a material disturbance and nuisance of surrounding residential properties.

·         Contrary to Policy GEN 6, the application did not include a mechanism such as a S106 legal agreement to secure;

                                             i.            Payment of contributions £11,822 towards healthcare provision

                                           ii.            Arrangements for the provision of a drop kerb crossing of High Lane

                                          iii.            Arrangement for the provision of enhancements to the northbound bus stop on Cambridge Road

                                         iv.            Travel Plan and associated monitoring fee of £6,000

                                           v.            Resurfacing of footpath 13 from High Lane to Normans Way

                                         vi.            Resurfacing of Normans Way

                                        vii.            Pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs

                                      viii.            Pay the Council’s monitoring fee.

R Clifford, P Hill, M Johnson, A Russell and A Wallberg spoke on the application.

The Committee adjourned at 6.10 pm and reconvened at 6.20 pm.