Agenda item

To consider application number UTT/18/3293/FUL

The Planning Officer delivered the application for planning permission to demolish the existing bungalow and erect two dwellings and associated garages. The two existing access points off Whiteditch Lane would be utilised. The proposal was a revised scheme to that approved in May 2016, which included the re-use of the existing bungalow rather than its demolition and replacement (UTT/16/0280/FUL).

The application was recommended for conditional approval subject to S106 legal obligation.

In response to a Member question the Planning Officer confirmed that the site already has planning permission for two dwellings on the paddock to the rear of Branksome.

Councillor Gerard pointed out to the Committee that with the application before them the site would increase to 4 dwellings, replacing the one bungalow that was in existence.

Councillor Gerard drew the Committee’s attention to Part C; Transport, paragraph 11.3 of the officer’s report and spoke about the cumulative impact on the area and he said that the access to the site was by means of a by-way and spoke about the serious issues that this area have with traffic safety and that development on this site was not sustainable. 

In response to a Member question the Development Manager said that Essex County Council Highways department have a responsibility to maintain the access as a ‘by-way’ but that this was a lower level of maintenance than that of a road.

Councillor Gerard spoke about the pending transport assessment and said that he would like to wait for the outcome of that assessment.  He said that there was a serious issue with what was happening along Whiteditch Lane.  He read an excerpt of a letter from Kemi Badenoch MP which stated that demands on infrastructure were a material consideration for planning applications and case officers would consider this on a case by case basis.  Insofar as its material factor a local planning authority can consider the cumulative impact of development in reaching a decision on the planning application. 

Councillor Bagnall also cited paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and said that he felt that this didn’t fit well with paragraph 11.3 in the report. He also highlighted serious safety issues along the by-way. 

Councillor Bagnall said that he felt that there was certainly over development of that area if not that site alone.

Councillor Loughlin referred to the NPPF Paragraph 102 (d) and (e) and stated that Whiteditch lane had failed to meet these criteria. Therefore contrary to the NPPF.

Councillor Gerard said there fundamental safety issues on both Whiteditch and Burywater Lane, with the Joyce Frankland Academy and the frequent student crossing activity.

Councillor Gerard proposed refusal of the application and felt that refusal should be on Highways issues.

The Development Manager advised the committee that historically Highways issues have been hard to defend and said that this would likely be overturned on appeal and could be very costly and that the contribution offered in mitigation could fall away. He said that he didn’t know what the success would be based on a refusal on the grounds of cumulative impact.

Councillor Gerard said that he would like to propose refusal Highways grounds, cumulative impact.

The Development Manager clarified that this was GEN1 with cumulative impacts and the NPPF paragraphs that had been cited by Members.

The Planning Officer asked if it was refused on Highway Safety or if it was broader issues; Councillor Gerard confirmed that it was broader issues and that NPPF paragraph 109 was the main one.

Councillor Freeman gave additional reasons for refusal in congestion, safety of children walking to and from school.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that they could cite character of the area, plus the cumulative impact on the environment.

Councillor Fairhurst seconded Councillor Gerard’s motion for refusal.

The Development Manager said that he was mindful not to put forward refusal reasons in haste without the checking mechanisms and that he would bring the refusal reasons back to Committee for ownership.

Councillor Storah asked when the study was likely to be produced.

Councillor Gerard advised that it would start in June and Councillor Hargreaves said that it would take about a week.

            RESOLVED to refuse the application with the technicalities of the reasons for refusal to be brought back to the next committee meeting for Committee agreement.

Cllr Hargreaves, J Emanuel and Mr Bampton spoke on the application.