Agenda item

To consider application UTT/20/2724/OP.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an outline application for the erection of up to 124 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Members discussed:

·         Flooding concerns, including raw sewage problems.

·         Lost landscape.

·         Footpath issues; narrow paths with a pinch point at Church Street.

·         Access concerns.

·         Clarification of the site boundary of the developable area; no evidence of an indicative site plan.

·         Sustainability.

·         Conservation; nature corridors.

·         Car dependant site.

·         The possibility of a bridge being unrealistic.

·         Highways issues; concerns at the letter from Highways Essex not being on the public portal but only on the internal system. 

·         Potentially dangerous junctions; consideration of a roundabout being built instead.

·         High density potential crowding of the development, particularly when compared with the development across the road.

·         Biodiversity.

·         Lack of an adequate 5-year land supply.

·         Apparent lack of consideration of the harms within the tilted balance.

·         Consideration that this was a “whitewash”.

·         Schooling implications.

·         The possibility of a Grampian style condition to be included for the sewage works; the Development Manager advised that this would be an unreasonable condition and the Solicitor advised that this should not be included.

Councillor Emanuel proposed deferring the item as there was no indicative site plan, the Highways Essex letter had not been shared, Essex CC were not seeking secondary education contributions,  and because of flood risk.

The Development Manager responded that he was concerned that there would be an appeal if this application was not approved. He said that an indicative plan did not have to be supplied at this point and that the Highways letter could have been requested. He said that a secondary education contribution had not been requested   but would have been  if there was a need,  and that the flood risk had been addressed by the statutory consultees who had said there was no risk. He emphasised that the Environment Agency had been consulted as well as Essex County Council.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the proposal to defer. This proposal was lost.

Councillor Bagnall proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of S7, Tilted balance, ENV 1, 2 and 8 and Highways GEN 1.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the proposal for refusal. This proposal was lost.

The Chair raised the possibility of archaeology matters being taken forward and also asked that the construction management condition detailed in conditions 14 and 25 identify a named Clerk of Works with contact details. Various other possible conditions were put forward but advised against by the Development Manager.

Councillor Light had previously indicated during the course of the discussion that with a very heavy heart she might be driven to approve this application. She had said that it was a sad day for democracy. She said that she had been driven to  this position and proposed approval of the application with the additional information as requested in conditions 14 and 25 above. An additional condition was added by Councillor Emanuel that a density condition be imposed specifying that the development would not exceed 35 dwellings per hectare. Both the Development Manager and the Agent agreed that this would be acceptable.

Councillor Lemon seconded the motion.

At this point Councillor Pavitt stated that in light of the way that this application had come forward and was being pushed through on the basis that the tilted balance and 5-year land supply were the only things that mattered, he was resigning from the Committee and did not wish to vote on this item, and he would not waste his time.

Councillor Light said that she supported Councillor Pavitt’s stance; and that he was right to resign, that it was a travesty and undemocratic, but that as a substitute she was not in a position to resign.

Councillor Pavitt left the meeting at 12.41 pm.

RESOLVED to approve the application with additional information required in conditions 14 and 25 and also the density condition as specified.

Councillor N Gregory, C Day, P Whalley, F Palmer, Councillor J Redfern (on behalf of Little Chesterford PC) and Councillor D Hall (Great Chesterford PC) spoke against the application.

C Houston (Agent) spoke in support.

The meeting adjourned and then reconvened at 1.50 pm.