Agenda item

To consider application UTT/23/0878/DFO.

The Senior Planning Officer presented a reserved matters planning application with the details of access, layout, scale, landscaping and appearance, following outline application UTT/20/0264/OP for the erection of 25 private and affordable dwellings. The application proposed 10 affordable units a public open space to the front of the site.

He outlined amendments to condition 10 in section 17 of the officer’s report which should read:

Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a 2-metre wide footway (with localised adjustments as and where necessary) shall be provided along the western side of Thaxted Road to extend from the approved access to the south until it meets the existing footpath as shown in the Proposed Footpath Link drawing hereby approved (reference PL43). The footway shall include a pedestrian crossing point to connect to the existing footway on the eastern side of Thaxted Road. Thereafter, the footway and crossing point shall be retained as such at all times.

REASON: In the interest of highway safety and accessibility, in accordance with the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN1, GEN8, the adopted Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards (2013), the adopted Essex County Council Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

He also proposed an additional condition to those in section 17 of the officer’s report:

Notwithstanding any drawings or information hereby approved indicating otherwise, the layout of the development hereby approved shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved Revised Site Plan drawing (reference number PL13 Rev D).

REASON: For clarity purposes, in accordance with policies S7, GEN1, GEN2, GEN8 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan (2005), and the NPPF.

The officer reported a typo in paragraph 14.3.2 of the officer’s report, as the 5-Year Housing Land Supply should read 5.14 years.

He recommended that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to the conditions set out in section 17 of the report.

In response to questions from Members, officers:

• Clarified the recommended changes to Condition 10.
• Said that the revision to access related to the visibility splays as previously approved at the outline stage and other revisions requested by the Highway Authority (as shown in their consultation responses).
• Said that although the Uttlesford Design Guide was going through the consultation process, no reference could be made to it, particularly in relation to tandem parking matters, as tandem parking was allowed by the current Essex County Council Parking Standards (2009).
• Said that the level of detail submitted regarding drainage and flood risk had been considered to be appropriate by the Lead Local Flood Authority.
• Confirmed the proposed housing density as 23.8 dwellings per hectare.

Members discussed:

• Concerns that this was a gateway development to the village and general dissatisfaction with proposed triple tandem parking arrangements and the overall layout of the development.
• The fact that the proposed housing was imposing and wrong for the village of Debden by reason of its design, scale and layout.
• Concerns about the development feeling too dense, with a lack of appropriate boundary treatments in relation to the existing housing in the area.
• Design concerns, particularly at the edges of the development and that it was considered more of an urban aesthetic development.
• Concerns over the proximity of the flats to the neighbouring properties to the north.
• The clear need to involve the Parish Council and the local community in discussions with the developer.
• The need for a site visit.

Councillor Bagnall proposed deferral of the application, in order to resolve the issues raised during the discussion above. This was seconded by Councillor Sutton.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred, in order to resolve issues raised.

J Collins, C Griffin and P Sando spoke against the application.

Councillor A Gardner (Debden PC) spoke neither in support or against the application.

The meeting adjourned from 4.25 pm to 4.30 pm.