Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bagnall.

Councillors Fairhurst and Freeman declared non – pecuniary interests as members of Saffron Walden Town Council.

Councillor Reeve declared a non-pecuniary interest in that items 10 and 11 were in his ward.

Councillor LeCount declared a non-pecuniary as a member of Henham Parish Council, and advised that he would recuse himself and leave the room at Item 6, in which he had a personal non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant well.

Councillor Loughlin said she would be speaking on behalf of neighbours of the applicant on Item 14 and would therefore recuse herself and leave the room when the item was discussed.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October were approved and signed as a correct record.

To consider application UTT/19/1054/OP.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions for permission of the outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 2 detached dwellings and related infrastructure.

Members expressed concern that the application would have a negative impact on the countryside contrary to policy S7, and that the design of the application was contrary to policy GEN2.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed refusal of the application. Councillor Storah seconded this motion.

                        RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reason:

The proposed development in the form of two dwellings will result in the introduction of significant built form to the site and as such will result in a significant harm to the open characteristics of the rural countryside setting and the chracter of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to ULP Policies S7, GEN2 and the aims of the NPPF.

B Lindsell and C Loone spoke on this item.

To consider application UTT/19/1463/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended refusal of the application for demolition of existing dwelling, garage and stables and erection of

replacement dwelling complete with infrastructure and access.

Councillor Storah recommended an additional reason for refusal in that the application was contrary to paragraphs 5 and 12 of the Supplementary Planning Document – Replacement Dwellings.

Councillor Freeman proposed to refuse the application. Councillor Storah seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reason:

The proposal; by virtue of by reason of the introduction of a substantial built form with a character and positioning which would be at odds with that of neighbouring residential development to the southeast; would have a significant adverse effect on the streetscene and character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Page 2 of 4 Policies S7, GEN2 and H7 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan and also Policies TXLSC1, TXLSC2, TXLSC4 and TXHD1 of the made Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan, be contrary to paragraphs 5 and 12 of Supplementary Planning Document – Replacement Dwellings (adopted September 2006) and contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework to add to the overall quality of an area.

K Westlake spoke on this item.

To consider application UTT/19/0462/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval of the application comprising a residential development for 130 dwellings (including affordable housing); the provision of open space; play areas; car parking; new pedestrian linkages; landscaping and ancillary works, with access off Hall Road, and the change of use of 0.371ha of agricultural land for educational use, subject to a s106 legal obligation.

Members commended the way the developer and the parish council had collaborated together to improve the application for residents of the area.

Councillor Loughlin proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of harm to the Countryside Protection Zone. Councillor Fairhurst seconded this motion.

A vote was taken. Members voted not to refuse the application.

Members asked to attach additional conditions monitoring air pollution, provision of at least one electric car charging point per dwelling, and renewable energy solutions, and notes on the application about the cumulative impact of development on Elsenham and the need for a new drop-off location at the school.

Councillor Reeve proposed approval of the application on the basis that, on balance, the positive impact of the application would outweigh the negative impact. Councillor Storah seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report, the additional conditions which cover the prior submission of matters related to electric charging points; renewable energy solutions and the provision of air quality monitoring equipment, and a s.106 agreement being put in place.

G Mott and J Lieberman spoke on this item.

To consider application UTT/19/0437/OP.

Councillor LeCount left the room for the discussion of this item.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions of an outline application for the erection of up to 40 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access subject to a s106 agreement.

Members expressed concern that the application would have a negative impact on the protection of the countryside and the Countryside Protection Zone, and would therefore be contrary to policies S7 and S8. On balance the negative impact of the application would be greater than the positive impact.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed refusal of the application. Councillor Reeve seconded this motion.

                        RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of the site's location lying outside development limits within the countryside and also the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) would be harmful to the particular character of the countryside in which the site is set and harmful to the openness of the Countryside Protection Zone. As such, the development would be contrary to ULP Policies S7 and S8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) whereby the adverse environmental effects arising from this rural harm and loss of openness would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any identified benefits of the submitted scheme, including the site's sustainable location relative to local services and public transport provision and the inclusion of affordable housing when assessed against the policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) taken as a whole.

Councillor Lees, A Hathaway, G Easton and F Hickling spoke on this application.

To consider application UTT/19/1932/FUL.

Councillor LeCount returned to the room.

The Development Management Team Leader gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions of an amendment to planning permission of UTT/16/3549/FUL in order to substitute the erection of two dwellings with cart lodges to two pairs of three bedroomed semi-detached properties with associated landscaping and cart lodges.

Councillor Caton proposed to approve the application. Councillor Lemon seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report and to a s.106 agreement being put in place.

To consider application UTT/18/3399/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions of the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7 no. residential units.

Councillor Freeman proposed to approve the application. Councillor LeCount seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

To consider application UTT/19/1301/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions of the construction of 9 new dwellings, vehicular access and associated parking and landscaping. He noted three conditions would be removed from those listed in the officers’ report: a Construction Management Plan, and Environmental Management Plan and a Biodiversity Enhancement Layout.

Members commended the application as a good example of how parish councils and agents could work together to improve an application.

Councillor Fairhurst recommended approval of the application. Councillor Pavitt seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report.

Councillor Hargreaves, S Kitcat and M Calder spoke on the report.

To consider application UTT/19/1527/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions for the subdivision of an existing detached dwelling and the erection of new single storey side extension to create 1 no. four bedroom and 1 no. three bedroom dwellings and change of use/conversion of existing coach house/outbuilding to create 1 no. two bedroom dwelling

Members expressed concern that the development was contrary to policy GEN2, because it was overdevelopment, out of character with the surrounding area, and would have a negative impact on traffic.

Councillor Fairhurst recommended refusal of the application. Councillor LeCount seconded this motion.

                        RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site, and would result in development incompatible with the appearance and character of the area. The development is therefore contrary to Policy GEN 2 of the Adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

2)    The proposal would constitute the further consolidation of the development of this site resulting in harm to matters of traffic flow and would compromise the safety of other road users, contrary to Policy GEN1 of the Adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

Councillor Driscoll, J Walker, A Walker, M Dowell, S Kushel, K Artus and P Cavill spoke on this application.

To consider application UTT/19/1524/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report, which recommended approval with conditions of the erection of a detached three bedroom chalet bungalow.

Members expressed concern that the application would be backland development and over development, and would have a negative impact on traffic. It would therefore be contrary to policies GEN1, GEN2 and H4.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed to refuse the application. Councillor Caton seconded this motion.

                        RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site, and would result in development incompatible with the appearance and character of the area. Due to the form of access to the site passing close to existing residential properties the proposal would constitute unacceptable backland development. The development is therefore contrary to Policy GEN 2 and H4 of the Adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

2)    The proposal would constitute the further consolidation of the development of this site resulting in harm to matters of traffic flow and would compromise the safety of other road users, contrary to Policy GEN1 of the Adopted Uttlesford Local Plan 2005.

Councillor Driscoll, J Walker, A Walker, M Dowell, S Kushel, K Artus and P Cavill spoke on this application.

To consider application UTT/19/1823/FUL.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report which recommended approval with conditions of the creation of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with associated features including: fencing and entrance gates, pitch barrier with entrance gates, fenced enclosure, hard-standing areas, vehicular maintenance and emergency access, 15m high floodlight system, maintenance equipment store, football car park, grassed mound and replacement planting.

Members asked for additional conditions to be attached to ensure like for like planting of trees which were to be destroyed, and the inclusion of at least 10 electric car charging points.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed approval of this application. Councillor Storah seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the applications subject to the conditions in the report and the following additional conditions:

1)    10 x electric vehicle charging points shall be installed within the proposed car park area. These shall be provided, fully wired and connected, ready to use before the use of the development.

REASON: The requirement of the charging points are required to mitigate the harm for poor air quality due to the increase in vehicle movement and being within the designated air quality management area and in accordance with ULP Policy ENV13, Emerging Local Plan Policy TA2 and the NPPF.

2)    The floodlights hereby approved will be angled to direct light downwards and fitted with louvre baffles to minimise overspill.

REASON: To balance illuminating the development for the maximum use and benefit to sport with the interest of amenity and to accord with ULP Policy GEN4.

To consider application UTT/18/1027/FUL.

The Development Manager gave a summary of the report which recommended refusal of a proposal for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of 4 no. detached dwellings with associated amenity space and parking. The application was being heard by the Committee after a High Court decision to quash the original decision notice, which had wrongly approved the application.

Councillor Caton proposed refusal of the application. Councillor Storah seconded this motion.

                        RESOVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal would exacerbate further the cumulative impact of development in Whiteditch Lane and Bury Water Lane resulting in significant detrimental harm upon matters of highway safety and harm to the rural countryside setting of the area contrary to Policies GEN1 and S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 and Paragraphs 109 &180 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

2)    The dwellings have an unsatisfactory blocky appearance failing to respect the local vernacular resulting in an incongruous development harmful to this rural countryside setting contrary to Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 and Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019

3)    No contributions have been proposed to secure appropriate affordable housing and infrastructure provision contrary to Policies H9, GEN6 and GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

4)    The proposed development fails to address the housing mix requirements of the District and would therefore have an adverse effect on the community contrary to Policy H10 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

J Hamalli spoke on this application.

To consider application UTT/19/2340/HHF.

Councillor Loughlin left the room for the discussion of this item, after having made a statement to the Committee.

Councillor Pavitt left the meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader gave a summary of the report, which recommended approval with conditions of a Section 73A Retrospective application for the erection of a summer house in rear garden.

Members asked for an additional condition to be included so that the summer house could only be used as a dwelling for a further 6 months.

Councillor Storah recommended approval of the application. Councillor Sutton seconded this motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report and the following additional condition:

1)    The current ancillary accommodation shall cease within six months of the date of this permission. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), the structure shall not be used for any residential use (including ancillary accommodation) without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interest of the visual and residential amenity of the Metropolitan Green Belt and neighbouring properties in accordance with Uttlesford Local Plan Policies S6 and GEN2.

Councillor Loughlin spoke on this item.

The meeting closed at 8.00.