Agenda item

To consider application S62A/22/0000007 (UTT/22/2174).

The Interim Team Leader presented an application for the residential development comprising 130 dwellings, together with a new vehicular access from Henham Road, public open space, landscaping and associated highways, drainage and other infrastructure works (all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from the primary means of access, on land to the south of Henham Road, Elsenham)

The report was in relation to a major planning application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for determination, with the Council having the status of consultee.

The report recommended that the Director of Planning and Building Control be authorised to advise the Planning Inspectorate that Uttlesford District Council make the following observations on this application:

• No objection to the grant of outline planning permission subject to appropriate conditions/matters being addressed:
• Provision of 40% affordable housing
• 5% of the scheme to be delivered as fully wheelchair accessible units
• £310,000.00 towards community hall in Elsenham
• Securing appropriate education, health and transport contributions

In response to questions from Members the Interim Team Leader said:

• There was not evidence of any pre-application discussions with Essex Highways
• There were at least seven listed buildings impacted by the proposed development
• The criteria for the Environmental Statement were set out in the Environmental Impact Regulations 2017 and were based on the size of the site. The determining authority considered amongst other things traffic and air pollution
• Land was being provided for the community hall elsewhere
• There was only one access being provided to the site

The Development Manager said that the screening opinion was shared with Members and was the decision of the Secretary of State and would have taken into consideration the cumulative effect of the development.

Councillor Fairhurst said that Members were supposed to reflect residents’ views and that the absence of sight of these views as part of the S62a process distorted democracy, and rendered the Committee`s response an incomplete submission.

The Solicitor – Litigation said that members of the public were able to make their own representation to the Planning Inspectorate.

The Chair said that all Members shared the frustration of the designation but were required to respond to the Planning Inspectorate.

Members discussed:

• Thirteen listed buildings would be impacted by this application for 130 dwellings and whether the application should therefore be recommended for refusal on heritage grounds
• The S62a regulations stated that Members could make a recommendation, not that they must
• Concerns were raised about the single access point and the location of it
• The need for an assessment of the cumulative impact of neighbouring developments, including in relation to highways
• The importance of the timing of the Inspector`s site visit ie peak school traffic times, to demonstrate existing highways issues
• The need to raise concerns to the Planning Inspectorate despite the absence of Parish Council or resident views

The Development Manager said that Officers were adjusting and adapting to this new way of working as a statutory consultee to the Planning Inspectorate. He said that future S62a items would not include a recommendation, but would raise concerns, although he acknowledged that this was not what the Planning Inspectorate had requested.

The Development Manager summarised the list of Members concerns:

• Members did not agree with the Officers’ recommendation of no objection
• Serious concerns were raised relating to the impact of the proposed development on the listed assets in the area
• Concerns were raised regarding the single point of access and the location of the access
• The need for the Inspector`s site visit to be undertaken at 3:30pm on a school day to be able to demonstrate existing highways issues
• The lack of information available to Members to enable them to make an informed decision

Councillor Fairhurst proposed that a letter to the Planning Inspectorate be drafted by the case officer detailing the list of members concerns as outlined by the Development Manager and Legal Services. The letter would be reviewed by the Chair prior to despatch to the Planning Inspectorate.

This was seconded by Councillor Bagnall.

RESOLVED to submit a letter to the Planning Inspectorate detailing the list of Members concerns as outlined by the Development Manager.

The meeting was adjourned for a comfort break at 11:00 and reconvened at 11:05.