Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/2997/OP.

The Principal Planning Officer presented an Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for means of access from Walden Road and Newmarket Road for residential development of up to 350 dwellings, including a Heritage Park, up to 50sqm of shop and café floorspace, sustainable urban drainage system and associated infrastructure.

He recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in section 17 of the report.

There was a comfort break between 11.15 am and 11.25 am.

In response to questions from Members, officers:

• Clarified the position outlined in paragraph 1.5 relating to the adverse impacts of development.
• Explained the need to have reason 3 for refusal (page 149) in the report as there was currently no S106 in place.
• Referred to the advice offered by Historic England relating to protection of assets below ground.
• Said that the site had no landscape designation, however it had been valued in the Neighbourhood Plan as being a sensitive site.
• Said that due weight had to be given to the recently approved Neighbourhood Plan and that the policies included were significant considerations.

Members discussed:

• The benefits of 350 new dwellings, including 140 affordable dwellings.
• The heritage views and significance of roman history in respect of assets below the ground.
• Landscape concerns and poor footpaths.
• Recognition of the significance of the Neighbourhood Plan against the NPPF. The development did not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan.
• Water supply and sewerage concerns.
• The impact on education facilities and local employment.
• Loss of agricultural land
• Whether or not the location was sustainable, particularly regarding the impact on Great Chesterford.
• Attention could not be given to the Regulation 18 Local Plan.
• A brochure from the land promoter that had been circulated to Members ahead of the meeting had outlined the proposed building types. A view was put forward that this was exactly the type of development needed in Uttlesford.
• Whether or not the £9m of Planning gain was considered high enough to provide sufficient mitigation.

The Planning Lawyer and the Head of Development Management and Enforcement made it very clear to Members that if they were minded to approve the application they would have to give specific reasons as to why the recommendation from the Planning Officer was being rejected, particularly with regard to the Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Lawyer said that this would also open up Judicial Review options.

Councillor Emmanuel proposed refusal of the application in line with the officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Pavitt.

The motion was lost.

Officers explained the options still available to Members. After significant discussion the Chair proposed that the matter be deferred, in order that Members could fully acquaint themselves with the Neighbourhood Plan and various policies included in order that clear reasons for a future decision could be addressed. In addition the opportunity would also be taken to upload the brochure from the land promoter onto the Planning portal as it had only previously been shared with Members.

This proposal was seconded by Councillor Haynes.

RESOLVED that the matter be deferred in line with the above motion.

Councillor N Gregory, J Francis and Councillor T Newcombe (Great Chesterford PC) spoke against the application.

D Morris and S Rawlings spoke for the applicant in support.

The Committee adjourned for lunch from 12.45 pm to 1.30 pm.