Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/19/1744/OP.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the application was a hybrid application consisting of full details for the development of 30 dwellings utilising existing access, re-provision of swimming pool with new changing rooms, artificial grass pitches, sports pavilion, multi-use games area (MUGA), local equipped area for play (LEAP), local area for play (LAP), associated parking and demolition of gym building. The remainder was in outline for up to 70 dwellings with associated

infrastructure, public open space, forest school and perimeter path.

He said there were a number of amendments to the report:-

• The scheme would provide 40% affordable housing across the whole scheme.
• Essex County Council Highways no longer objected to the application subject to mitigation outlined in the addendum.
• DS1 and GA3 within the planning policy did not apply to this application.

These amendments did not change the recommendation of the report to refuse the application.

The 30 dwellings proposed include for 12 x 2 bedroom apartments in one block at the entrance to the site and 18 x 3 bedroom houses in the remaining 4 blocks.

The application does not include the former school buildings although they are owned by the applicant.

The scheme was recommended for refusal.

In response to a Member’s question, the Development Manager clarified that approval could not only be given to one part of the application but that it had to be for the whole scheme.

Although Members agreed there were some good points to the application they expressed the following concerns:-

• It was a highly controversial site that needed careful consideration.
• Questions were raised about the sustainability and whether it was in keeping with the local area.
• There had been insufficient consultation with the Town Council and the local community.
• Inefficient use of land.
• Air quality issues.
• Significant burden on the NHS and schools.
• The utilitarian nature of the buildings and the flat roof of black felt were raised as issues.  Councillor Freeman said the roofs should either be green or reflective to enable better energy performance.
• The increase in traffic out of a small turning.
• There had been insufficient attention and sympathy to the historic background of the school.
• The fact that the school buildings had not been included in the application. Members agreed there should be a masterplan for the whole site.

Members asked that in future Officers always looked for an education provision and it was suggested that a hybrid scheme would always throw up too many issues and should not be put forward.

Councillor Sutton proposed that the application be refused on the basis of the 8 recommendations in the report and a note made that there should be consultation and engagement with the Town Council and Local Community.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

A Ward (applicant) spoke in support of the application

C Ewing and J Dwyer spoke against the application