Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/2744/FUL.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report seeking full planning permission for the construction of 4 industrial/flexible employment buildings with associated landscaping and parking.

He recommended that theDirector of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 17 of the report.

In response to questions from Members, officers:

• Said that talks were on-going with the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG).
• Explained the layout of the 4 blocks.
• Said that Condition 40 stated that usage would be for light industrial warehouse units.
• Explained the vehicular access to parking areas.
• Said that Condition 38 covered green issues relating to solar panels.

Members discussed:

• The benefits of further employment opportunities.
• Concerns about traffic, particularly HGV’s.
• The potential for a Medical Centre and whether or not it would actually be built.
• That the site would be well-contained and very enclosed.
• The fact that it was further erosion of the CPZ and would be on agricultural land, with an adverse impact on landscape and views.
• Planning balance considerations.
• Highways concerns and an on-going accident investigation which could not be discussed. The Strategic Development Engineer- Essex CC said that the 4 Ashes junction had been assessed and included the cumulative impact. She said that there would be a roundabout and the speed limit further north should slow down traffic. Cycleways would also connect. The possibility of signage being put in Parsonage Road would be considered.
• Concerns that the layout was dense and crammed and needed better design.

The Head of Development Management and Enforcement said that he needed to put things in context. He said that the CPZ was not green belt and that although S8 said that it should be preserved, this was given less weight. Green belt is statutory and the legislation and case law regarding it is clear. The CPZ does not have that status. He said it would be difficult to rely on the land being agricultural or CPZ in terms of possible refusal given the comments of the Inspector in their entirety.. The buffer issue had been resolved and he accepted that progress in respect of a Medical Centre would be slow, and that perhaps a 5 year option should be put in place but that the Health Authority were currently engaged in the process and that deferral would be an option in order to progress any outstanding matters.

Councillor Pavitt said that he was conscious that this was not an easy matter to resolve and, in light of that, he proposed deferral in order that

·        further clarification could be sought from the Highways Authority,

·        the proposed site layout could be revisited, and

·        further investigation into the proposed Medical Centre could take place.

This was seconded by the Chair.

The proposal was lost.

Councillor Emanuel said that it was unclear exactly what information was wanted from the Highways Authority and proposed approval of the application with the consideration and consultation period for the Health Centre to be increased from one year to five years.

This did not find a seconder.

Councillor Loughlin proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of S7, S8 and GEN4.

The Head of Development Management and Enforcement expressed concern that these reasons would not be defensible on appeal, and that the potential harm must be particularised  and that there had been no objections from statutory consultees.

He said that he was obliged to  seriously warn Members not to go down this route.

Following further discussions, Councillor Lemon seconded the proposal.

The Head of Development Management and Enforcement repeated that he seriously suggested advising deferral. However, there was a proposal on the table and therefore Members would have to move to a vote.

RESOLVED that the Director of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development as detailed in the above motion.

Cllr J Cheetham (Takeley PC) spoke against the application and a statement was also read out from M Peachey against the application.

D Poole (Applicant) spoke in support.