Agenda item

To consider application UTT-17-2334-FUL.

The application was to vary conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission

UTT/14/0174/FUL, which were worded as follows:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as set out in the Schedule below.

14. Prior to occupation of the development, the provision and implementation of

section 1.2 (opposite Granta Close to station approach) of the Great Chesterford to Little Chesterford Cycle Route (Phase 1) 2 metre wide shared footway/cycleway.

The proposed variation to Condition 2 was to substitute revised drawings, which would allow for minor alterations to the design of the development and the insertion of an additional three apartments in the roof spaces of the approved apartment buildings.

The proposed variation to Condition 14 would amend the condition to read as

follows:

The 2 m wide footway shown on Drawing Nos. C-100 Rev C1, C-101 Rev C1 and C-102 Rev C1 must be constructed prior to occupation of any dwelling.

Members expressed concern that the building would be now be three stories instead of two, but would not have a lift, that the additional flats would put pressure on parking spaces, that the cycle path originally proposed would now be a footway, and that a number of gardens would be reduced in size from the original application.

Matt Bradley, of Highways - Essex County Council, was invited to address the Committee, specifically with regards to the cycle-path. He told Members that a feasibility study was carried out in 2014 when the application was approved, which was then followed by a more detailed study. During the more detailed study it was decided that two meters was deemed too narrow for a cycle-path. He said Essex Highways still suggested that the work was carried out but instead of being labelled a ‘cycleway’ it be called a ‘footway’.

Councillor Lodge said this was unsatisfactory as Essex County Council had made a mistake by labelling it a ‘cycleway/footway’ in the first place and they were required to rectify it. 

RESOLVED that the following application be refused

Reasons:

1. The proposed variation of Condition 14 would prevent the formation of a necessary section of a strategic cycle route, in conflict with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed variation of Condition 2 would result in the formation of three third-storey apartments without lift access, in conflict with the accessibility standards required by Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005), the SPD entitled 'Accessible Homes and Playspace', the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

3. The proposed variation of Condition 2 would result in an unsuitable three-vehicle tandem parking layout at Plot 5, which would likely cause on-street parking in conflict with Policy GEN1 and Policy GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The proposed variation of Condition 2 would provide the occupants of Plots 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15-20b, 25, 26, 29 and 32 with an inadequate amount of private amenity space, in conflict with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005), The Essex Design Guide (2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Cllr J Redfern and J Francis spoke against the application. The agent, P Stocking, spoke in favour of the application.