Agenda item

To consider application UTT/23/1731/OP.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for the development of 6 no. self-build homes with a new village green, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

He recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in section 17 of the report (as amended in the Late list).

In response to questions from Members, officers clarified the following:

• Paragraph 14.3.16 mistakenly stated that the site covers an area of 14.5 hectares (whereas it covers 1.45 hectares) and the proposal would give a housing density of 0.4 dwellings per hectare (whereas it gives 4 dwellings per hectare).
• As shown in the most recent progress report on self-build and custom housebuilding, there is a surplus of planning permissions granted for serviced plots in Uttlesford which meant that the proposed six self-build units would comprise a limited benefit of the scheme.
• As outlined in Footnote 55 of the NPPF, proposals in Flood Zone 1 require a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) when the site is one hectare or more. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) raised an objection on the grounds of insufficient information as an FRA or drainage strategy have not been submitted with the application. The LLFA objection means that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on the site or elsewhere.
• Whilst the reason for refusal around flood risk was a technical issue which could be addressed through the submissions of the appropriate evidence, there were five other reasons for refusal, including the principle of the development, that would not be addressed if the flood risk concerns were resolved.
• The 40% affordable housing contribution could be triggered despite the exemption under paragraph 65 of the NPPF.
• The proposed development would harm the rural character and appearance of the area.
• The proposed density would represent an inefficient use of the land.
• The ‘less than substantial harm’ caused by the proposal to the significance of the heritage assets was weighed against the public benefits of the proposal and the heritage balance was against the scheme.
• The adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Members discussed:

• Objections had been raised on the grounds of harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, as well as to the nearby designated heritage assets.
• The proposal would coalesce two distinct parts of Clavering (Hill Green and Stickling Green) which would have detrimental impact on the openness of the countryside.
• There was no means of sustainable transport in which to access the site or everyday services and facilities. Footways are not appropriate for walking to these services and facilities.
• No FRA or drainage strategy had been submitted; thus the application had not yet demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on the site or elsewhere.
• The location of the site was away from the most sustainable part of Clavering village.

Councillor Haynes proposed that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the development for the reasons set out in section 17 of the report (as amended in the Late list).

This was seconded by Councillor Lemon.

RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the development for the reasons set out in section 17 of the report (as amended in the Late list).

F Woods, G Stainer, Lisa Sivyer and P Walters spoke against the application.

A statement from Councillor S Gill (Clavering Parish Council) against the application was also read out.

M Carpenter (Agent) and A Balaam (Applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

The meeting adjourned from 12:50 and 14:00

Councillor Lemon recused himself at 14:00