Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chambers, Freeman and Lodge.

Councillor Lemon declared a non – pecuniary interest in item 5 as the District Councillor and Parish Councillor for Hatfield Heath.

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

Councillor Gerard declared a non – pecuniary interest in Item 9 as a member of Newport Parish Council.

In response to a query from Councillor Lemon the Chairman said that there was no prejudiciary interest to be declared by Councillor Farthing in relation to item 5.

Councillor LeCount declared a non – pecuniary interest in item number 6 as a member of Henham Parish Council.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved and signed as an accurate record.

To consider application UTT/18/1256/OP

Councillor Fairhurst raised a point of order and stated that he objected to the tabling of the amended conditions for this application. 

The Development Manager apologised and said that the report had incorrect conditions and that the matter needed resolving.

All were in agreement and the Chairman suggested a 24 hour deadline on additions for committee and advised he would take the matter up with the Development Manager outside of the meeting.

The application is an outline application for up to 31dwellings with all matters except access reserved. Demolition of 'Poppies' and alterations to access onto Stortford Road to create access road. Provision of 38 parking spaces for visitors to adjacent school. Extension of school playing field and creation of sports pitch. Provision of open space and play areas, balancing pond and associated infrastructure.

The Development Management Team Leader delivered the report to the Committee.

Members agreed that the location of this development was unsuitable and that the benefits did not outweigh the harm on the countryside.  They also discussed the increase in traffic and that the local amenities would be affected negatively.  However it was deemed that whilst the design and intention was good the location was not appropriate.

Councillor Gerard proposed the motion to reject the application.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED to reject the application for the reasons laid out in the decision notice:

1.    The proposal constitutes development outside of the defined development limits of Clavering. The site lies in open countryside which should be protected for its own sake, and developments should be confined to those that need to take place in the countryside. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development needs to take place in the open countryside and protect against the harm which the scheme is likely to have on the countryside, such as light pollution. As such, the development is contrary to Policies GEN5, S3 and S7 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

2.    The design of the proposal taking into account the needs of other road users would create conflict to the detriment of pedestrian and highways safety contrary to Policy GEN1 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

3.    The development hereby permitted would increase the pressure on the local infrastructure within the district, not covering the issues as listed within the schedule of Heads of Terms of the report presented to the 10th April 2019 Planning Committee (page 28), including education contribution, Traffic Regulation Order, and Residential Travel Plan. In the absence of any legal agreement to address this, the application fails to fully mitigate the impacts of the development contrary to Policy GEN6 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

J Woodhouse, F Woods, M Carter, Mr Swells, S Gill and B Bampton spoke on the application.

To consider application UTT/18/2600/FUL

The planning officer presented the proposal for the demolition of 12 bungalows and their replacement with 16 dwellings.

Councillor Gerard said that in principal that this was a good plan, he had concerns about the grade 2 listed buildings which were adjacent and about the green at the front of the development and wished to keep this protected from parking.

In response to Councillor Gerard’s concerns about the requirements for flats the Chairman said that the make-up of the dwellings was based on the survey of housing need of the district.

The Chairman asked for an increase in the bell mouth and an additional provision for car parking from the blocking of the second exit point on the plan.

The Development Manager said that the application could be conditioned to provide an amended plan taking in the aforementioned changes prior to starting any work.

Councillor Gerard also asked that a construction management plan be included.

Councillor Farthing proposed a motion for approval of the application.

Councillor Ryles seconded the motion for approval.

            RESOLVED to approve the application with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

J Snares Spoke on the application.   

To consider application UTT/19/0140/FUL

The Development Manager presented the report for the proposal of the erection of eight detached dwellings with associated access from Friars Lane and the introduction of a new community orchard.

Councillor Farthing said that he had called this in as it was not a cynical application, and he felt that it was a philanthropic application for development seeking to give back to the community.

Councillor Farthing proposed a motion to approve the application.

The Chairman advised he would return to the motion once the debate had ceased.

The Members spoke in agreement that the greenbelt needed to be retained and protected.

The Chairman asked for a seconder for the proposal put forward by Councillor Farthing and there was none.

Councillor Lemon proposed a motion for refusal of the proposal.

Councillor LeCount seconded the motion for refusal.

RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds laid out in the decision notice;

1.    The site is within the area identified in the Uttlesford District Local Plan as Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposal to construct 8 dwellings and associated service road is defined as being an inappropriate development and by definition would be harmful within the Green Belt. In addition the substantial built form proposed and its presence on the site would have a greater material impact that would diminish and result in an unacceptable reduction in the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The benefits and mitigation put forward by the applicant in support of the proposal do not individually or cumulatively amount to very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the level of intrinsic harm which would be caused to justify the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to ULP Policy S6 of the Uttlesford District Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework

C Martin, T Eldridge, P Brown, N Robley, M Wood and D Worrell spoke on the application

To consider application UTT/18/3370/OP

The Planning Officer presented the proposal for the erection of up to nine dwellings and associated development involving the demolition of the aforementioned poultry buildings and stables together with new vehicular access from Old Mead Lane with all matters reserved except access.

In addition the proposal included the demolition of all of the other former poultry farm buildings prior to occupation. This would result in greater environmental gains and the applicant was in agreement of this condition.

The Chairman and Councillor Ryles asked that the dwellings be kept to one and a half storeys.

Councillor Wells proposed a motion to approve the application including the demolition of all remaining poultry farm buildings.

Councillor LeCount seconded the motion for approval of the application including the demolition of all remaining poultry farm buildings.

            RESOLVED to approve the application with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

J Salmon spoke on the application

To consider application UTT/18/2268/FUL

The Development Management Team Leader presented the proposal for the erection of one and half storey three 4/5 bed two detached dwellings with integral garage. A new vehicular access from High Lane is proposed with private amenity space around each of the proposed dwellings.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed a motion for refusal of the application in line with the recommendation.

Councillor Ryles seconded the motion for refusal.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the grounds laid out in the decision notice.

1.    The proposed development involving the erection of 2 x one and half storey dwellinghouse with associated integral garage, parking areas amenity space, landscaping and new access would be out of character and introduce an urbanised appearance to the rural vernacular which would cause significant harm to the open and rural character of this part of the open countryside and thus a harder transition between the settlement and the countryside. The proposal would therefore detract rather than protect or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the countryside in which it is set. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 79 of the NPPF, and polices S7 and GEN2 of the adopted (2005) Uttlesford District Local Plan.

P James spoke on the application.

To consider application UTT/19/0025/FUL

The Planning officer presented the application for planning permission to erect a detached house and garage. An existing vehicular access off Field Gate Lane would be utilised.

Councillor Farthing said that the application before them could not be judged by applications in other areas and he proposed a motion for the approval of the application. 

The Chairman advised he would allow the Committee to debate before seeking a seconder.

The members discussed the need for the development and that it was unnecessary development in the countryside.

The Chairman sought a seconder for Councillor Farthing’s motion for approval, there was no seconder.

Councillor Wells proposed a motion for refusal                   .

Councillor Hicks seconded that motion.

            RESOLVED to reject the application for the reasons laid out in the decision notice:

1.    The proposed development would harm the rural character of the area through the encroachment of housing into the surrounding countryside, in conflict with Policy S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework. This adverse effect would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

S Moore spoke on the application

To consider application UTT/19/0004/FUL

The Planning Officer presented the application for planning permission to demolish the existing bungalows and replace with two houses, each with a separate driveway, garage and rear garden.

Councillor Ryles declared that the architect was known to him in a professional capacity having previously contracted his services.

Councillor Gerard said that this site was the first thing that was visible on entering the village.  He proposed a motion to defer pending site visit.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the application is for the replacement of two dwellings in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and that there was a risk of losing at appeal should the Committee be minded to refuse.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion to defer pending a site visit.

            RESOLVED to defer the application pending a committee site visit.

P Purkiss spoke on the application.

To consider application UTT/18/3395/FUL

The Development Manager presented the application which was requesting planning permission to construct a single storey detached dwelling (with a separate garage) to the south of Greenhill Cottage.

The Development Manager made clear that this application was called in due to the applicant being related to a member of staff not a District Councillor.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that this was classic in-fill development.

Councillor Gerard proposed a motion to approve the application.

The Chairman seconded the proposal.

            RESOLVED to approve the application with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

To consider application UTT/19/0043/FUL

The Planning Officer presented the proposal for the erection of a single detached dwelling and access. The dwelling will be two storeys and will have a width of 10.5m and overall ridge height of 7m. The proposal amends the previously approved scheme UTT/16/1691/FUL incorporating a reduced roof height and revised design.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the motion to approve the application.

The Chairman seconded the motion.

            RESOLVED to approve the application in line with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

To consider application UTT/19/0154/HHF

Referred to Committee due to applicant being related to a Councillor.

The Development Manager presented the proposal for the erection of a single storey rear extension and to replace a window with French doors. Rooflights are proposed to the existing extension and the proposed.

Councillor Gerard proposed a motion for approval.

The Chairman seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

To consider application UTT/19/0155/LB

Referred to Committee due to applicant being related to a Councillor.

The Development Manager advised that this was the listed building consent for the previously heard application;

The proposal related to the erection of a single storey rear extension and to replace

a window with French doors. Rooflights are proposed to the existing extension and

the proposed.

Councillor Gerard proposed the motion for the approval of the application.

The Chairman seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application for listed building consent.

To consider application UTT/19/0032/AV

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application relating to proposed signage to be situated above the lift areas to advertise the Marketing Suite that is situated in Rose and Crown Walk. The sign would have dimensions of 4.4m x 0.55m.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed a motion for refusal of the application.

Councillor Gerard seconded the motion.

            RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds laid out in the decision notice:

1.    The proposed signage, by way of its scale, size, position, siting and design is unacceptable and unnecessary within the context of its location. The sign will result in the introduction of a bulky, visually intrusive and dominant feature which is harmful by definition to the character of the site, and surrounding area and will detract from the visually simplistic street scene. As such the application is contrary to The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan and the NPPF.

To consider application UTT/19/0347/NMA

The Planning Officer presented the proposal for non-material amendments to planning application UTT/17/3111/FUL - Changes to hard standing area for parking spaces and road ways, relocation of cycle parking spaces, removal of chiller enclosure, re-grading of the landscaping and removal of the retaining wall and external seating, re-pitching of the roof profile and enlargement of turrets, enlargement/addition of doors and windows and changes to material of cladding of north elevation.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed a motion to approve the application.

Councillor Farthing seconded the motion.

            RESOLEVD to approve the application.

To consider The Chief Officer’s Report on application UTT/18/0386/FUL

The Development Manager presented the report which was a recommendation to amend the minutes of the Planning Committee on 26 September 2018 in relation to application UTT/18/0386/FUL  to reflect the Heads of Terms of a S106 agreement that were discussed with greater emphasis and clarity than reflected.

The Committee confirmed that they were in agreement.

To consider The Chief Officer’s Report on UTT/19/0572/TCA

The Development Manager advised the Committee that the item was a notification of intent to carry out works to trees in a conservation area.  The proposed works are deemed appropriate for the management of the trees.

The Chairman proposed motion for approval.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application.

To consider The Chief Officer’s Development Management Validation Checklists  Report

The Development Manager advised the Committee that Local Authorities have to review their local requirements every two years.  There is a set procedure where the Council reviews the checklists to ensure compliance with legislation and policies. Following an internal review there was a six week consultation process. Consultation commenced on 6 December 2018 and finished on 31 January 2019.

The recommendation being that the amended Development Management Local Validation Checklists and association document be adopted for Development Management validation purposes.

The Chairman proposed approval.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded for approval.

            RESOLVED to agree the recommendation for adoption.

The Development Manager thanked Councillor Hicks for his contribution which was noted and he wished him well in his retirement.

The Committee thanked the Chairman and the officers for their contribution in the last municipal year.

The Meeting ended at 5:30pm