Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/18/3369/FUL

The Planning Officer presented the application for planning permission to erect 13 dwellings, with associated garaging, parking areas, private gardens, open space and landscaping. A new access off Stortford Road would lead to a new road serving the development.

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

Councillor Fairhurst said that he didn’t like that the affordable housing was clustered together.

In response to a Member Question The Planning Officer said that there were 6 ‘affordable homes’; 2 shared ownership and 4 affordable rent.

The Planning Development Manager said that the site had been identified as a development site on the emerging local plan and that the biggest material consideration was that the application was approved on appeal in 2014 when Uttlesford had a five-year land supply, the difference was that in 2019 Uttlesford did not have a five-year land supply. 

Councillor Storah said that he endorsed The Planning Development Manager’s comments and he felt that there was a high chance of the decision being overturned on appeal without a five-year land supply.

Councillor Gerard stated that the application was clearly contrary to policy S7.

Councillor Storah proposed the motion to approve the application in line with the recommendations.

Councillor LeCount Seconded the motion for approval.

The motion for approval was defeated.

Councillor Gerard proposed the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Bagnall seconded the motion for refusal.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in the urbanisation of open countryside, thereby causing substantial harm to the rural character of the area in conflict with Policy S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In the context of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, this adverse effect would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

2. The application does not include a mechanism, such as a S106 legal agreement, to secure sufficient affordable housing, equating to 40% of the total number of dwellings. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy H9 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

P. Robinson spoke on the application.