Agenda item

To consider application UTT/20/1937/FUL.

The Planning Officer said that the proposal was seeking Section 73A Retrospective application for the demolition of the existing property and planning permission for proposed erection of new dwelling. The proposals were for the construction of a new 3 bedroom, 1.5 storey dwelling with associated off street parking. The site was elongated in shape and was approximately 820m2. The site plan demonstrated adequate space for turning and parking with spaces

to meet the Uttlesford District Council Adopted Parking Standards. There would be a car charging point provided in line with planning policy requirements. The dwelling would be 2.7m in height to the eaves, it would have a maximum

height of 6.2m to the ridge the highest point would be the top of the chimney stack which would be 8.4m at its highest point. External materials would consist of red faced brick plinth, white rendered walls, clay tiles for the roof, white painter timber windows/doors and black fascia boards/rainwater goods.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Various Members expressed their concerns that the existing property had been demolished even though it had been on the Local Heritage List and that no sanctions could be taken.

The Development Manager confirmed that no sanctions could be taken and that the follow-up position to a property being put on the Local Heritage List was to add Restricted Permitted Development: Article 4.

 Members expressed concerns that the new property was larger than the demolished property, that it did not replicate the previous property, that there were access concerns in respect of Highways safety, that there was parking concerns and  that the street scene would be affected.

Councillor Reeve said that he was pleased that the views of the Parish Council were being listened to.

Councillor Freeman referred to the potentially damaging effects that there could be on the walnut tree and that if this was to be approved then a condition was needed to protect roots and preserve the tree.

Discussion took place as to whether the application could be split into two parts, the retrospective part and the looking forward part. There was some debate as to whether the matter should be deferred or refused.

The Development Manager said that the building had been designed to move things forward. He recognised that there was much “bad blood” in the village but suggested that there was an opportunity for the new agent to work with the Parish Council to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. He said that the matter could be deferred and brought back to the February Planning Committee. The Chair of the Parish Council and the agent agreed that they would be willing to discuss this further alongside the Council.

Councillor Loughlin proposed that the matter be deferred to give the Parish Council the opportunity to have their say on the matter.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the motion.

This motion was lost.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed refusal of the application on the basis of street scene in a Conservation area, on the basis of parking and the basis of scale. After seeking guidance from the Development Manager he agreed to only make reference to Policies ENV1 (Conservation area) and GEN2 (Design).

Councillor Sell seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds of Policies ENV1 (Conservation area) and GEN2 (Design).

Councillor R Lodge (High Easter PC) spoke against the application. Julian Williams (agent) spoke in support.