Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/2997/OP.

The District Wide Team Leader 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 (Use Class E/F), sustainable urban drainage system and associated infrastructure.

The application had been deferred from November’s Planning Committee meeting, to allow for additional time for members to review the Great and Little Chesterford Neighbourhood Plan. It was confirmed that there were no material changes to the application since the previous meeting, however the implications of the recent changes to the NPPF had been outlined in the Late List.

The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in section 17 of the officer’s report.

The meeting was adjourned between 11:28 to 11:36

Following the end of the Public Speaking session, the Principal Inspector for Historic England was introduced, and members were invited to ask questions.

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

·         The negative environmental effect of the development would be limited to the local environment of the site and surrounding area and would be unlikely to result in significant effects on the wider environment.

·         The development would have a negative impact to the short-term views of the local landscape, rather than the longer views of the countryside. 

·         Due to recent changes in the NPPF, full weight was given to the Great and Little Chesterford Neighbourhood Plan when considering the proposed development. However, the Neighbourhood Plan was part of the larger suite of documents which made up the development framework, in which a Local Plan held greater authority.

·         The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlined that where there was conflict between policies within the documentation of the development framework, the newer document would take precedent. In this case, this would be the Neighbourhood Plan, rather than the adopted Local Plan.

·         The Great and Little Chesterford Neighbourhood Plan had allocated three sites for housing, but there were no allocations in the emerging Local Plan due to their unsuitability or withdrawal from the Land Owner.

·         A recent Secretary of State's decision at Cholsey in Oxfordshire found that there would be an adverse impact of allowing development that conflicted with a neighbourhood plan and this would be likely to significantly outweigh the benefits. It was noted that members should base their decision on the information before them; however the appeal was of relevance.

·         The Environment Agency had raised no objection to the proposed development.

·         Historically, the site was located in a very open, agricultural landscape. It was a strategic point for settlement due to the valley location, crossing points with both the River Cam and ancient Icknield Way and situated at the gateway to the Fens.

·         Both scheduled monuments were of national importance and afforded the highest level of protection due to the rarity of their proximity to each other and the close relationship in which they share in the same historic landscape.

·         There was evidence of a pre-Roman temple and Anglo-Saxon burials near the site, which indicated earlier settlements in the vicinity.

·         Part of the application site was under consideration for a scheduling extension, based on the results of previous archaeological evaluation.

·         Should the application be approved, there would be a condition for archaeological investigation.

·         When considering paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, officers were of the view that the development would cause severe harm to adjoining designated heritage assets but this was not seen as significant enough in itself for refusal and the titled balance was still engaged.

Members discussed:

·         The development would cause significant harm to the setting and experience of the two nationally important scheduled monuments.

·         The proposal would create a separate block of development which was not cohesive with the existing spatial strategy of the area and did not coalesce with Great Chesterford.

·         The development would create up to 140 affordable homes to contribute towards the identified local housing needs. This would be determined at the reserve matter stage if outline consent was granted.

·         Recent changes to the NPPF meant that the Great and Little Chesterford Neighbourhood Plan held full weight for up to 5 years.

·         There were a number of concerns around sewage including the sewage treatment plant being at capacity, the impact of untreated phosphorus in the waterways and the lack of response from Cambridgeshire, given they had a shared water supply with North Essex.

·         Essex County Council had confirmed within the Neighbourhood Plan that there were no plans for additional schooling provision, so children may need to be sent to schools elsewhere, detaching them from the community.

·         Great Chesterford, like other areas of the district, had seen major growth and had increased by over a third in size. Further development was likely; however, this should not be damaging or speculative.

·         The proposed Heritage Park would create a dedicated space in which to observe history and regard it as a location in which to view and explore, rather than continuing as fields. However, historical views would be lost.

·         Only 3 objections had been raised by the statutory consultees.

·         The site was not sustainable in relation to the existing community as it was located over a kilometre away from the village centre.

·         There were unresolved questions as to what history was on the development site which had yet to be uncovered.

·         The titled balance was still required in members considerations, due to the out-of-date Local Plan and a lack of a 5 year land supply that included a 20% buffer.

Councillor Emanuel proposed that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Section 17 of the Officer’s report.

This was seconded by Councillor Pavitt.

RESOLVED: That the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse the application for the reasons set out in section 17.

Cllr N Gregory, Cllr J Moran, H Rolfe, D Hall, J Francis, Cllr J Redfern and Cllr T Newcombe (Great Chesterford Parish Council) spoke against the application.

D Morris and S Rawlings spoke in favour of the application.

The meeting was adjourned between 12:40 and 13:35.

Councillor Haynes returned to the meeting at 13:35.