Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Loughlin and Fairhurst. Substitutes were Councillors Caton and Light.

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

Councillor Reeve declared a non-pecuniary interest as Ward Member for Hatfield Broad Oak on Agenda Item 7.

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

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as Ward Member for Felsted on Agenda Item 6.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 September 2021 were approved.

To consider application UTT/21/1708/OP.

The Principal Planning Officer presented an outline application for the development of between 1,000 and 1,200 dwellings. He said that the recommendation was for refusal of the application, and he read out Paragraphs 10.38 to 10.43 of his report that summarised the Planning Balance.

Members complimented officers on the new format for reports and commended the contribution to this that had been made by the late Councillor Alan Storah.

Members expressed concerns about:

·         the lack of detail in the application,

·         the failure to detail provision of business premises,

·         the unsustainable potential movement of 300 lorries per day until 2029,

·         only one point of access being considered unacceptable,

·         the development being unsustainable and in the wrong place.

Councillor Pavitt proposed refusal of the application for the reasons outlined in the report. Councillor Reeve seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor L Pepper, V Thompson, Councillor A Armstrong (as a resident), A Clarke and Councillor K Rodwell (on behalf of Little Easton PC) all spoke against the application.

To consider application UTT/21/1495/FUL.

The Planning Officer presented an application for the erection of 44 residential units and 3 commercial units with the inclusion of 3 additional plots for self-build homes; together with associated access, carparking and landscaping. She said that a correction needed to be made to her report in that it was the cottage that was listed and not the public house.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions with S106.

Comments were raised in respect of:

·         The scale of the proposed development being clustered rather than linear as per the rest of the village.

·         The right sort of development but in the wrong place.

·         The unsustainability of the development.

·         The positioning of the 18 affordable units in one area of the development.

·         The sustainability and possible size of three affordable commercial units.

·         The intention to meet Passivhaus standards.

·         Possible flooding in the area, specifically relating to significant water lying on the road.

·         Condition 15 relating to SuDS.

·         Amenity concerns, particularly relating to the impact from the Sewage pumping station being 15 metres from each dwelling.

·         Loss of valued landscape.

·         Access to the site and traffic implications.

·         Lack of information given to residents.

·         Lack of local amenities and public transport.

·         Due consideration of the tilted balance.

Councillor Caton proposed that the application be approved. This was seconded by the Chair.

The motion was lost.

Councillor Lemon proposed that the item be deferred in order to obtain a clearer picture in respect of the flooding on the road and to get further information in respect of the commercial units.

RESOLVED to defer the application in order to obtain a clearer picture in respect of the flooding on the road and to get further information in respect of the commercial units.

Councillor M Tayler, O Armes, E Wells, J Sihota, G Wassell, Councillor L Pepper (as a resident) and Councillor S Sidgwick (on behalf of Little Easton PC) all spoke against the application. N Bennett (Agent) spoke in support.

The Meeting adjourned at 12.20 pm and reconvened at 1.20 pm.

To consider application UTT/20/2007/FUL.

The Principal Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a discount food store, a 70-bed care home and 49 retirement living apartments with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer addressed the specific representation that had been made by Tesco’s.

The application was recommended for approval subject to Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

Comments were expressed about:

·         The limited amount of car parking.

·         Communal spaces.

·         Landscaping, particularly trees, acoustic barrier and a buffer zone.

·         Whether there was further need for a care home.

·         602 solar panels and provision of electric charging points.

·         Rainwater harvesting.

·         NHS contributions- the Principal Planning Officer confirmed a figure of £26,940.

·         The significant amount of dialogue taking place between all parties.

·         The need for no offsite parking to be available for contractors’ vehicles.

Councillor Lemon proposed that the application be approved with additional conditions; no offsite parking for contractors’ vehicles, renewable details including implementation, all developments should be in line with space standards and thereafter retained.

This was seconded by Councillor Reeve.

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to Section 106 Agreement and additional conditions.

D Jenkins (Developer) spoke in support of the application.

To consider application UTT/21/1755/DFO.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an application for the erection of up to 30 dwellings with associated roads and infrastructure.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Comments were made in respect of:

·         The market housing mix being too heavy with large houses.

·         Landscaping around the scattered and curved plots being inefficient.

·         Provision for additional tree screening and soft planting.

·         Single point of access.

·         Renewables and rainwater harvesting.

·         Access to the Village Hall.

·         Access via Jolly Boys Lane by construction traffic.

The Chair proposed that the application be approved with additional conditions; a construction management plan to include no parking on Parish Land or the Parish Council’s car park or access via Jolly Boys Lane by construction traffic without consent of the Parish Council, details of rainwater harvesting and renewables and a ten-year planting requirement whereby anything that dies within 10 years has to be replaced.

This was seconded by Councillor Pavitt.

RESOLVED to approve the application with additional conditions.

Councillor R F Freeman (on behalf of Felsted PC) spoke against the application. N Tedder (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The meeting adjourned at 3.20 pm and reconvened at 4.20 pm.

To consider application UTT/21/1685/FUL.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an application that proposed demolition of existing outbuildings, erection of a garage to serve the existing dwelling and erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated private gardens and garages with an access road from the existing public highway.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Blind corners access safety concerns were expressed. Questions were raised about the lack of revised elevations, street scene and sight lines and that the proposed houses were different and had a revised layout.

The Chair proposed that the item be deferred in order that a site visit could take place. Councillor Sutton seconded the proposal.

            RESOLVED to defer the item pending a site visit.

Councillor G Driscoll, A Barnett and Councillor S Smith (on behalf of Hatfield Broad Oak PC) spoke against the application. The submission in support of the application from J Durbin (Agent) was read out to the Committee.

To consider application UTT/21/1994/FUL.

The Principal Planning Officer presented an application that proposed removal of existing barns and erection of a dwelling.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

References were made to:

·         The strong design of a barn structure on a Brownfield site with no evidence of overlooking

·         The increase in height and whether the planned development fitted into the surroundings

·         Comments made by Place Services

·         Footpath concerns- clarification that there was a public right of way

·         Renewables and rainwater harvesting

·         The impact on the non-use of agricultural field

·         The call-in that had been made by Councillor Gregory that had suggested that the case officer’s report was fair and balanced.

Councillor Reeve proposed that the item be approved with conditions. Councillor Sutton seconded the proposal.

            RESOLVED to approve the application with conditions.

A Gray, Dr D Melford, C Woodhouse and M Rose spoke against the application. M Vanoli (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The meeting adjourned at 6.05 pm and reconvened at 6.10 pm.

To receive and consider the report.

The Development Manager presented the EELGA report. He said that this had been approved by both Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet  and had been referred to the Committee to be noted.

Reference was made to the Planning Committee Working Group meeting on 4 November 2021. The Development Manager indicated that the intention was to formalise the Working Group through Council in December 2021.

The Chair confirmed that substitutes would be involved in any training.

The report was noted.

The meeting adjourned for the day at 6.15 pm.

The meeting reconvened at 10.00 am on Wednesday 3 November with Councillor Lemon in the Chair and Councillor Freeman as Vice-Chair, with apologies from Councillors Merifield, Emanuel, Loughlin and Sutton. Councillor Gregory substituted for Councillor Pavitt.

To consider application UTT/21/2629/FUL.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an application that proposed conversion of an existing restaurant to provide two dwellings, including part-demolition of single storey rear elements and erection of three detached dwellings to the rear of the site, utilising existing access off Thaxted Road, with associated parking and hard and soft landscaping. He said that since the report had been published he had received one further objection and one letter of support. He confirmed that the property was not an Asset of Community Value.

He said that a previous delegated decision had been taken to refuse the application on biodiversity grounds in that bats were at the location. He said that subsequent testing had found no bats and that the applicant had confirmed that the previous appeal would be withdrawn in the event of this application being successful.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Members made various comments:

·         Objections were expressed in line with the response from Saffron Walden Town Council in Paragraph 6.1 on pages 470 and 471. Members focussed on the loss of a community facility, the conflict with paragraph 93a of the NPPF, retention of community facilities and the conflict with UDC local plan policy RS3 and the fact that the Gate was the only hospitality business in the east of Saffron Walden.

·         The proposed development was not linear, unlike the rest of the streetscene in that area.

·         This was an overdevelopment of a site. Two of the proposed dwellings did not meet the Essex design garden space standards- 70 sq metres and 82 sq metres as against the recommended 100 sq metres.

·         No Construction Management Plan had been detailed in the report; this needed to be robust given the volume of traffic in the area.

·         Comparisons were made with the Railway Arms public house that was seen to be exemplar.

·         The current facility was considered to support healthy living.

Officers clarified that a Construction Management Plan could be conditioned. The Development Manager said that UDC had not adopted the Essex design garden standards and the proposal was not contrary to policy.

Councillor Light proposed that the item be refused on the grounds of

·         Loss of a community facility, in conflict with paragraph 93a of the NPPF and in conflict with UDC local plan policy RS3

·         Overdevelopment contrary to section ULP Policy GEN2 and not meeting the Essex design garden space standards.

Councillor Reeve seconded the motion.

            RESOLVED to refuse the application as detailed above.

J Russell (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

To consider application UTT/21/2273/HHF.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an application for a replacement roof and alterations to allow rooms in loft space, two storey rear extension and enlargement of raised terrace. He said that there had been no objections from the Town Council.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Bagnall said that in view of the fact that there were no measurements shown on the drawings and that the word “approximate” for measurements had been used and also in light of the photographs shown and the representations made that he proposed deferral of the item, pending a site visit.

Councillor LeCount seconded the motion.

            RESOLVED to defer the application, pending a site visit.

K Heath and S Hughes spoke against the application. P Purkiss (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The meeting ended at 11.15 am.