Agenda item

UTT/20/0264/OP - Land to the West of Thaxted Road, DEBDEN

To consider application UTT/20/0264/OP.


The Senior Planning Officer said that the application was for outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of 25 dwellings with 40% affordable housing included.


The Design and Access Statement envisaged a mix of dwellings for 1 bed/2 person, up to 4-bed/6 person houses with a mixture of tenure. Affordable housing would be provided as part of the dwelling mix, and in line with local requirements there would be a 30:70% mix of shared ownership and affordable rented accommodation.


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


Councillor Light did not take place in the debate or the vote as she was not in attendance for the full Planning Officer’s report.


In response to a question from Councillor Pavitt, the Development Manager said that this application had changed from the previous rejected application.  It was half the size, and the number of planned dwellings had been reduced.  The reason for refusal of the previous application had been due to the harm the urbanisation it represented could potentially cause, and this had been resolved with the reduction in the size and number of dwellings. 


Councillor Pavitt said the application was only reduced by 11 dwellings and they were in a slightly smaller area; he said the houses would be extremely visible and have a similar impact as previously, and, he questioned the sustainability of the site.


In response to a question from Councillor Coote, Mr Kratz said that the developer was local and buyers here did tend to be local.  He said that the affordable housing would definitely be for local people.


Councillor Coote also raised why there had been no consultation with the Parish Council.


Councillor Loughlin said the housing estate seemed to be out of keeping with the linear nature of the current village. 


The Chair commented that she was surprised that there were no Parish Council members speaking at the meeting in view of the level of feeling against the development.


In response to a comment made by Councillor Bagnall, the Development Manager agreed that the provision of 40% affordable housing needed to be clarified in the paperwork.


In response to a question from Councillor Caton, the Development Manager said this site had been part of a draft allocation of the local plan but this had not been adopted and it was therefore not an allocated site.


Councillor Bagnall requested that the Developer made a contribution to the building of the new Village Hall.


The Development Manager said this was possible as long as it was CIL compliant.  It would need to be proportionate to the size of the development and would be unlikely to be a substantial sum. 


There was further discussion about the outline permission as Members were concerned about approving the application when they did not know what size, mix and type of housing would then be proposed. 


The Development Manager confirmed, following a question from Councillor Reeve, that Members were being asked to agree the principle of development, everything else was still within the Committee’s control.  He also said that if this application was refused the Inspector would look at the appeal as an outline application, and would consider whether it was suitable for the area.  They would not consider the type of housing, access etc.


Further to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer said that nothing had been mentioned about manorial rights with regards to the verge and he therefore assumed that there was no issue, although he said the Parish Council had expressed concern.


Councillor Caton proposed that the application be approved with a condition added that a contribution be made to the Village Hall appropriate to the scale of the site. 


Councillor Le Count seconded the motion.


RESOLVED to approve the application with conditions as above.


I Carter, D Scott, T Knight, J Collins (statement read; not in attendance), and C Griffin spoke against the application


Councillor S Luck (statement read; not in attendance), P Kratz (solicitor for the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.




Supporting documents: