Public Speaking: To register your intention to speak at a Council, Cabinet or Committee meeting, please contact Democratic Services on email@example.com or 01799 510410 or 510548. Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings do not generally permit public speaking. Please refer to a specific meeting's pdf agenda pack for further information and registration deadlines.
Live Broadcast: For Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings the audio player will appear on this page a few minutes before the meeting is due to begin. Please note that Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings are not generally broadcast on the website.
Venue: Zoom - https://zoom.us/. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services 01799 510430
Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest
To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lemon.
Councillor Bagnall declared a non-pecuniary interest for Agenda Item 4 as a member of Takeley Parish Council.
Councillor Le Count declared a non-pecuniary interest for Agenda Item 5 as a member of Henham Parish Council.
Councillor Freeman was appointed as Vice-Chair for the meeting.
To consider the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 June.
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed and would be signed by the Chair as an accurate record at the next opportunity.
To consider planning application UTT/19/2900/DFO.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that this application considered the reserved matters following outline application UTT/16/1290/OP in respect of details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 11 dwellings. He outlined the site history and summarised the representations made. Newport Parish Council had indicated that they were broadly supportive of the plan in principle but had concerns about several changes within the application.
The application was recommended for approval with conditions.
The Committee adjourned at 2.40 pm and reconvened at 2.46 pm.
Members discussed the proposed housing layout, the frontage, the building line at the rear of the properties, landscaping, screening arrangements and provision of affordable housing.
The Development Manager confirmed that the outline planning permission had not lapsed but that the matter would fall if the application was refused but would remain live if deferred.
The Solicitor advised that a S106 agreement is a contract enforceable by action by either party and that therefore the Council was contractually obliged to accept the two affordable homes under the existing S106 agreement.
Members considered that the views of the Parish Council and that of the applicant were not that far apart and that note should also be taken of Newport’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
Councillor Pavitt proposed a motion for the item to be deferred and for Planning Officers to facilitate a meeting between the applicant and the Parish Council for further discussions.
Councillor Storah seconded the motion.
RESOLVED to defer and for Planning Officers to host a meeting between the applicant and the Parish Council for further discussions.
J Emanuel, Councillor Hargreaves and P Stocking spoke on the application.
The Committee adjourned at 3.18 pm and reconvened at 3.26 pm.
To consider planning application UTT/20/0386/FUL.
The Planning Officer presented a proposal for the demolition of the existing B&B bungalow and the erection of a block of flats creating 8 planning units. The proposed development would be two storeys high, with windows to all elevations, with rendered walls and a slate roof. Each flat would have two bedrooms and two parking spaces and there would be two visitor parking spaces provided. The density would be 60 dwellings per hectare. Access would be from Dunmow Road. The existing landscaping to the frontage would remain and a 2m hedge would be planted along the rear boundary. Revised plans had been submitted to increase the shared amenity space, increase the parking provision, to remove the connection to the Flitch Way and to increase the width of the access to measure 5.5m to a depth of 6m.
The Planning Officer said that the buildings would be 6.9 metres high as compared to the current height of 6.8 metres and that of properties on the other side of the road at 8.9 metres. She said that the proposal complied with the Essex Design Guide.
The application was recommended for conditional approval.
Members discussed the possible visible impact from the Flitch Way, whether the proposal was in keeping with the street scene, visitors’ car parking arrangements and the increased access width. The Planning Officer said that the proposals complied with parking standards.
Councillor Loughlin stated that she had visited the site and could find no reason to refuse permission for planning reasons. The Planning Officer showed the Committee the current aerial view as to the impact on the Flitch Way.
Councillor Bagnall suggested that two additional conditions be added in respect of screening at the rear of the site being of sufficient height and that there be a management plan for building works in place to control highways issues. A suggestion was made that the screening could perhaps be a large prickly hedge.
Councillor Le Count proposed a motion for approval with the two additional conditions.
Councillor Loughlin seconded the motion.
RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and the two following additional conditions:
11. No development shall take place, including any ground works or demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The plan shall provide for:
i. safe access into the site;
ii. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials
iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
iv. wheel and underbody washing facilities.
REASON: To ensure that on-street parking of these vehicles in the adjoining streets does not occur and to ensure that loose materials and spoil are not brought out onto the highway in the interests of highway safety.
12. Before development commences full details of the landscape works to the rear boundary ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To consider planning application UTT/19/2692/OP.
The Planning Officer presented an outline application for the erection of up to 6 dwellings with all matters reserved except access and scale with associated works. Indicative drawings had been submitted which showed how up to six dwellings with detached garages, hardstandings and shared service road from Old Mead Road could be accommodated at the site and showed the type of dwellings envisaged. It was further stated on an indicative basis that the dwellings would be externally clad in brick, render and cladding although appearance was a reserved matter. A wildflower meadow was shown on the drawings but did not form part of the application.
The Planning Officer said that the proposals were acceptable to the Highway Authority and there had been no objections from the Parish Council.
The application was recommended for approval with conditions.
Members discussed whether they could seek affordable housing through S106 as outline planning permission had previously been given for up to 9 houses and a further permission of up to 6 houses granted to the same landowner would make a grand total of up to 15 and therefore possibly would attract a contribution of affordable housing.
There was debate about whether this was one or two separate schemes and it was explained that there was actually an established property, owned by a different person, situate between the two proposed sites. It was noted that the outline permission for 9 properties had been approved on 15 April 2019.
Members discussed pedestrian safety measures insofar as there is no footpath on either side of the road from the proposed site towards Elsenham Station. Councillor Freeman referred to a major proposal for the area having previously been rejected on appeal by an Inspector because of poor road facilities.
Further discussion took place about a) whether the site was considered brownfield land and b) with regard to the traffic survey undertaken on behalf of the applicant. Mention was also made of the question of vacant building credits.
Councillor Fairhurst proposed a motion to defer the item pending clarification of the brownfield issue together with possible S106 contributions in respect of affordable housing and possible highway links.
Councillor Freeman seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED to defer the application pending consideration of potential S106 contributions.
J Salmon spoke on the application.
Meeting Closed 5:10pm
Date of Next Meeting agreed as 22 July 2020.