Issue - meetings

To consider application number UTT/18/3293/FUL

The Planning Officer delivered the application for planning permission to demolish the existing bungalow and erect two dwellings and associated garages. The two existing access points off Whiteditch Lane would be utilised. The proposal was a revised scheme to that approved in May 2016, which included the re-use of the existing bungalow rather than its demolition and replacement (UTT/16/0280/FUL).

The application was recommended for conditional approval subject to S106 legal obligation.

In response to a Member question the Planning Officer confirmed that the site already has planning permission for two dwellings on the paddock to the rear of Branksome.

Councillor Gerard pointed out to the Committee that with the application before them the site would increase to 4 dwellings, replacing the one bungalow that was in existence.

Councillor Gerard drew the Committee’s attention to Part C; Transport, paragraph 11.3 of the officer’s report and spoke about the cumulative impact on the area and he said that the access to the site was by means of a by-way and spoke about the serious issues that this area have with traffic safety and that development on this site was not sustainable. 

In response to a Member question the Development Manager said that Essex County Council Highways department have a responsibility to maintain the access as a ‘by-way’ but that this was a lower level of maintenance than that of a road.

Councillor Gerard spoke about the pending transport assessment and said that he would like to wait for the outcome of that assessment.  He said that there was a serious issue with what was happening along Whiteditch Lane.  He read an excerpt of a letter from Kemi Badenoch MP which stated that demands on infrastructure were a material consideration for planning applications and case officers would consider this on a case by case basis.  Insofar as its material factor a local planning authority can consider the cumulative impact of development in reaching a decision on the planning application. 

Councillor Bagnall also cited paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and said that he felt that this didn’t fit well with paragraph 11.3 in the report. He also highlighted serious safety issues along the by-way. 

Councillor Bagnall said that he felt that there was certainly over development of that area if not that site alone.

Councillor Loughlin referred to the NPPF Paragraph 102 (d) and (e) and stated that Whiteditch lane had failed to meet these criteria. Therefore contrary to the NPPF.

Councillor Gerard said there fundamental safety issues on both Whiteditch and Burywater Lane, with the Joyce Frankland Academy and the frequent student crossing activity.

Councillor Gerard proposed refusal of the application and felt that refusal should be on Highways issues.

The Development Manager advised the committee that historically Highways issues have been hard to defend and said that this would likely be overturned on appeal and could be very costly and that the contribution offered in mitigation could fall away. He said that he didn’t know what the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6