Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Freeman.

Councillor Fairhurst declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Saffron Walden Town Council.

Councillor Reeve declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Items 8 and 9 as a volunteer at Gardens of Easton Lodge.

The Chair also announced that Agenda Item 7 had been withdrawn and removed from the Agenda.

To consider the minutes of the previous meetings held on 22 July 2020 and 17 January, re-convening on  24 January 2020 (Stansted Airport application).

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 July 2020 were agreed and would be signed by the Chair as an accurate record at the next opportunity.

The minutes of the previous meetings held on 17 January 2020, re-convened on 24 January 2020 (Stansted Airport application) were considered. After all of the Committee members had contributed to the debate, Councillor Fairhurst proposed to defer the decision and this was seconded by Councillor Lemon. This proposal was approved with 6 Members in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.

To consider application UTT/18/2574/FUL.

The Development Manager stated that the hybrid application sought outline planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and development of up to 332 dwellings, including affordable housing, a Health Centre and new access from roundabout on B1256 Stortford Road together with provision of open space incorporating SuDS and other associated works. Full planning permission was sought for demolition of existing buildings and development of Phase 1 to comprise 108 dwellings, including affordable housing, a new access from roundabout on B1256 Stortford Road, internal circulation roads and car parking, open space incorporating SuDS and play space and associated landscaping, infrastructure and other works.

The Development Manager said that the scheme had been plan led, there was no overcluster and affordable housing was mixed into the development. The application was recommended for approval with conditions subject to S106 legal obligation.

Members welcomed the exemplary level of collaboration between all parties. Comments were made in respect of the infrastructure around the capacity of the A120, water provision, funding and management arrangements, involving the Town Council and education and health provision.

The Development Manager confirmed that the Friends of Flitch Way were happy with the proposals and had been working with the developer. He also said that it would be possible to add a condition relating to school access and safeguarding.

Councillor Fairhurst congratulated the Planning Department and proposed approval of the application with conditions.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application, subject to S106 legal obligation.

Councillor P Lavelle (on behalf of Great Dunmow Town Council) and E Ledwidge spoke on the application.

The Committee adjourned at 11.33 am and reconvened at 11.43 am.

To consider application UTT/19/1219/FUL.

The Development Manager said that this planning application had been reported to Planning Committee on 20 May 2020 and that on the advice from officers, members, whilst resolving to approve planning permission, requested that the suggested conditions and heads of terms of any S106 Obligation be brought back to the Committee for consideration. He said that officers had been working with the applicant’s agent and Great Dunmow Town Council with regards the Conditions and Heads of Terms.

The Development Manager highlighted that the Secretary of State had been approached to call the matter in for his determination and his offices had requested that no decision notice would be issued until the Secretary of State had confirmed that a decision could be released. He indicated that this was not the usual process and that this had been as a result of an approach from a third party.

The application was recommended for approval with Conditions subject to S106 Legal Obligation.

Members raised concerns about the possible intervention by the Secretary of State, the urgent need for the depot to relocate and that it was essential that dialogue continued with the Town Council in respect of the future of the footbridge and the pathway.

Councillor LeCount proposed approval of the application.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application with Conditions subject to S106 Legal Obligation.

Councillor P Lavelle (on behalf of Great Dunmow Town Council) spoke on the application.

To consider application UTT/19/2900/DFO.

The Development Manager presented an application that considered the reserved matters following outline application UTT/16/1290/OP. The application had been deferred by the Planning Committee on 1 July 2020 for negotiations between the applicant and the Parish Council. Revised plans had been submitted. The Development Manager indicated that the negotiations between the applicant and the Parish Council had produced a softer approach to the village and that the Parish Council now supported the application.

The application was recommended for approval with Conditions.

Councillor Hargreaves, public speaker, confirmed the support of the Parish Council and also referred to the possibility of the removal of Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) for Plots 1- 4 and Plots 8 -11.

In light of one of the public speakers no longer being in the meeting, the Committee adjourned at 12.28 pm and reconvened at 12.32 pm, whilst the speaker was contacted.

The Development Manager confirmed that he had spoken to the applicant and there had been an IT problem, connecting to the meeting. The applicant had however emphasised the strong collaboration arrangements in place with the Parish Council. He also explained the benefits of a 10 year landscaping commitment.

Members discussed the possibility of moving road speed signs with the developer paying the costs. The Development Manager said that this was covered by Condition 14.

Members debated the possibility of including a condition to remove the PDRs on Plots 1- 4 and Plots 8- 11. It was recognised that Plots 1- 4 were at the front of the development and Plots 8- 11 were towards the rear and that there was a significant difference between the two areas.

Councillor Reeve proposed approval of the application with the additional condition of removal of PDRs on Plots 1- 4.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application with the additional condition of removal of PDRs on Plots 1- 4 (detailed below)

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without subsequent modification), no development within Classes A to F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall take place on plot 1- 4 without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

REASON: To prevent the site becoming overdeveloped due to the small scale of the site and limited amenity area in accordance with ULP Policies S7 and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

Councillor N Hargreaves spoke on the application and P Stocking joined the meeting but did not speak, although he had passed on his views to the Development Manager.

The Committee adjourned at 12.55 pm and reconvened at 2.00 pm

To consider application UTT/20/1032/HHF.

The Planning Officer said that the application was for planning permission for proposed single front extension, remodelling of existing two-storey side extension, erection of two storey and single storey rear extension and replacement and remodelling of existing single storey rear extension. It also proposed alterations to roof including provision of roof lights to front elevation and dormer window to rear elevation and associated landscape works.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Concerns were expressed by Members about the possible loss of daylight levels but it was noted that no representation had been made by the neighbours. Members considered that a site visit would enable them to better assess the proposals.

The Chair proposed to defer the item, pending a site visit.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion

RESOLVED to defer the application, pending a site visit. 

Councillor R Jones spoke on the application

To consider application UTT/20/0336/DFO.

Item withdrawn from the agenda by officers.

To consider application UTT/19/3124/FUL.

Agenda Items 8 and 9 related to the same property and were discussed together with recorded votes being taken separately on each item.

The Senior Planning Officer presented a proposal to demolish existing outbuildings and the conversion and extension of the existing stables complex to form 9 separate dwelling units together with private rear gardens, a green private community space to the front of the building and associated communal resident parking area to the side with an existing paddock area. The 9 dwelling units consisted of 7x two bedroom properties and 2x three bedroom properties.

He said that the application represented a revised application following previous submissions for 11 dwelling units. He referred to the Parish Council and ECC Place Services (Heritage) objections that had been submitted. He said that the outbuildings had previously been an active livery yard but that the current tenants had to look elsewhere as facilities were not modern enough. He said that residential use was the only viable option for restoration of the building.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Two public speakers then spoke on the two agenda items.

The Committee adjourned at 3.19 pm and reconvened at 3.22 pm.

Members expressed concerns as to whether this was possibly a “manufactured situation” in that there remained a demand for a livery. The applicant had indicated that there was no future demand for stables and that a change of use was the only way forward. Members referred to ULP Policy H6 that stated that the conversion of rural buildings to dwellings would be permitted provided that the criteria contained within the policy was complied with. Various Members commented that the current outbuildings appeared to be an impressive structure.

Councillor Sutton said that the stables had previously been full to capacity and they were seen as “a safe place”.

Councillor Lemon said that employment opportunities should not be lost and asked how many staff had been employed at the livery.

Councillor Sutton said that there had been six staff employed together with weekend staff.

Councillor Bagnall and Councillor Loughlin both commented on the role of Strutt and Parker in their production of a Financial viability study, whilst also acting as the agent.

Several Members considered the location to be unsustainable. Councillor LeCount said that the buildings were 3.3k away from the nearest bus stop.

Following a full debate, Councillor Merifield proposed refusal of the application on the basis of sustainability, ULP Policy S7- The Countryside, ULP Policy ENV2- Development affecting Listed Buildings and ULP Policy H6- Conversion of rural buildings to residential use.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application. 

A Dodsley and A Sherry spoke on the two applications.

To consider application UTT/19/3125/LB.

This listed building application related to the works to convert and extend the existing stables complex to form 9 separate dwelling units. The Development Manager said that this fell within ULP Policy ENV2 Development affecting Listed Buildings.

In light of the previous Agenda item decision, Councillor Merifield proposed refusal of the application.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application. 

To consider application UTT/20/1685/TCA.

The Development Manager said that the application related to the proposed pruning of overhanging branches of a damson tree. The applicant was a current District Councillor.

The report recommended that there was no objection to the proposed tree works.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the recommendation.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that there was no objection to the proposed tree works.

To consider application UTT/20/1529/TPO

The Development Manager said that the application related to the proposed crown lifting of 7 yew trees and he explained the process. The applicant was a former District Councillor.

The application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed approval of the application.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

Meeting Closed 4:15pm