Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1760/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to paragraph 5.17 of the report submitted and stated this should have read 3FE in respect of Mandeville School.  He referred to the master planning process and the adoption of the master plan for this area in July 2018.

Members were advised of the proposed layout and design of the application and were also advised that the Strategic Housing sites work had attached positive weight to this site.  The planning balance was in favour of a sustainable form of development and this application had demonstrated a good standard of design and was judged to be sustainable.  The Service Manager summarised the recommendation as detailed in the report submitted. 

Mr Brudenell addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Mr Bowran addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of Sawbridgeworth Town Council.  Councillors A Alder and E Buckmaster addressed the Committee in objection to the application as local ward Members.

Councillor J Jones commented on the level of pepper potting of the social housing being less than he considered to be desirable.  He expressed concerns about the incomplete highways mitigation and was also concerned about the narrow access via West Street.

Councillor P Boylan made reference to the clear level of concern amongst Town Council Members, local Members and Local Residents.  He sought clarification with regard to whether there was a Neighbourhood Plan in preparation for the area.  He also expressed concerns in respect of access for emergency vehicles.

Councillor T Stowe referred to paragraph 8.28 and the Section 278 agreement.  He questioned whether conditions could control the use of the garage spaces on this site.  Councillor M Casey commented on whether bungalows could be insisted upon as part of this application.

The Head referred to the master planning process and advised that the output of this process was more generic than planning application proposals.  Members were advised that Officers had to judge the extent to which schemes were sufficiently aligned to the requirements of master plans.  Members were also advised that West Road was the only viable option for vehicle access to this site.

The Service Manager stated that the proposed highways mitigation and the Section 278 agreement and the suggested highways junction had all been designed to the satisfaction and preference of the highway authority.  This was all covered by different legislation to other mitigation conditions and legal agreements.

Members were also advised of the hybrid situation in respect of forms of entry for schools.  The Service Manager referred to the modelling of strategic sites being carried out by the education authority.   He stated that the social housing would be pepper potted around the site and all of the houses would be of a uniform design.  The social housing would therefore be indistinguishable from the market housing and the housing Officer was satisfied with this approach.

The Head summarised conditions 15 and 16 and stated that the site had been configured with emergency vehicles in mind in that the site had been designed to accommodate refuse vehicles which were about the same size as a fire engine.  Members were also advised that all developers involved with Sawb 2 and 3 were committed to providing high speed fibre optic broadband.

Councillor D Andrews emphasised that fibre provision should mean to every household and not just a street cabinet.  He commented on the illegal and dangerous practice of driving on the footway.  He sought clarity in respect of electric vehicle charging points and the conditions and commented on the discharge of surface water.

Councillor J Jones expressed concerns that the NHS Section 106 contribution had not identified any specific project for the suggested contributions.  The Head commented that the local NHS authority simply did not indicate specific local projects when requesting Section 106 contributions.

The Service Manager detailed the intended operation of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Solution (SUDS).  The Head responded in detail to a query form Councillor Andrews in respect of the bullet points on page 8.30 on page 252 of the report submitted.  The Head referred in particular to conditions that could be amended to be clearer in respect the provision of car charging points.

Members were advised that the suggested drainage scheme stipulated that all surface water drainage would be absorbed on site except in cases of a 1 in 100 year flood event resulting in a discharge into the wider water system.  The Service Manager referred to a number of flood attenuation measures included as part of the application.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/1760/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/18/1760/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted; and

(B)   the Head of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.

At this point (9.53 pm), the Committee passed a resolution that the meeting should continue until the completion of the remaining business on the agenda.