(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 16/10/2019

Public Document Pack

Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday, 16th October, 2019 Time: 2.00 pm Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 4ER

Chair: Councillor S Merifield Members: Councillors G Bagnall, M Caton, P Fairhurst, R Freeman, A Gerard, G LeCount, M Lemon (Vice-Chair), J Loughlin, R Pavitt, A Storah and M Sutton

Substitutes: Councillors S Barker, N Gregory, E Oliver, N Reeve, G Sell, M Tayler and J De Vries

Public Speaking

At the start of each agenda item there will be an opportunity for members of the public to make statements to the Committee subject to having given notice by 2pm on the day before the meeting. Please refer to further information overleaf.

AGENDA PART 1

Open to Public and Press

1 Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

2 Minutes of the Previous Meeting 5 - 10

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting.

3 Public Speaking Arrangements

To provide a verbal update on the outcome of the public speaking pilot. 4 UTT/19/1583/FUL Land to the South of School Lane, Molehill 11 - 26 Green, Takeley

To consider application UTT/19/1583/FUL

5 UTT/19/1725/FUL Land at Acre Croft, High Street, Great 27 - 36 Chesterford

To consider application UTT/19/1725/FUL

6 UTT/18/2820/FUL Land at Thaxted Road, Saffron Walden 37 - 60

To consider application UTT/19/2820/FUL

7 UTT/19/1411/FUL Endeavour, Littlebury Green Road, 61 - 72 Littlebury

To consider application UTT/19/1411/FUL

8 UTT/19/1054/OP Land North Of Henham Road, Debden 73 - 80

To consider application UTT/19/1054/OP

9 UTT/19/0761/FUL Railway Arms, Station Road, Saffron Walden 81 - 94

To consider application UTT/19/0761/FUL

10 UTT/19/1995/FUL Saffron Walden Castle, Museum Street, 95 - 104 Saffron Walden

To consider application UTT/19/1995/FUL

11 UTT/19/1253/FUL Millway Stationery Ltd, Chapel Hill, Stansted 105 - 112

To consider application UTT/19/1253/FIL

12 UTT/19/1463/FUL Land At Robels, Cutlers Green, Cutlers 113 - 122 Green Lane, Thaxted

To consider application UTT/19/1463/FUL

13 UTT/19/1869/HHF 33 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron 123 - 130 Walden

To consider application UTT/19/1869/FUL 14 UTT/19/1870/HHF 35 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron 131 - 138 Walden

To consider application UTT/19/1870/FUL

15 Chief Officer's Report UTT/19/2398/TCA; Land at 2 Barley Hall 139 - 146 Cottages, Parsonage Downs, GREAT DUNMOW

To consider the Chief Officer’s report

16 Chief Officer's Report UTT/19/2451/TCA Land at Council 147 - 150 Offices, London Road, SAFFRON WALDEN

To consider the Chief Officer’s report MEETINGS AND THE PUBLIC

Members of the public are welcome to attend any of the Council’s Cabinet or Committee meetings and listen to the debate. All agendas, reports and minutes can be viewed on the Council’s website www.uttlesford.gov.uk. For background papers in relation to this meeting please contact [email protected] or phone 01799 510548/369.

Members of the public and representatives of parish and town councils are permitted to speak at this meeting. You will need to register with Democratic Services by 2pm on the day before the meeting.

The agenda is split into two parts. Most of the business is dealt with in Part I which is open to the public. Part II includes items which may be discussed in the absence of the press or public, as they deal with information which is personal or sensitive for some other reason. You will be asked to leave the meeting before Part II items are discussed.

Agenda and Minutes are available in alternative formats and/or languages. For more information please call 01799 510510.

Facilities for people with disabilities The Council Offices has facilities for wheelchair users, including lifts and toilets. The Council Chamber has an induction loop so that those who have hearing difficulties can hear the debate.

If you are deaf or have impaired hearing and would like a signer available at a meeting, please contact [email protected] or phone 01799 510548/369 as soon as possible prior to the meeting.

Fire/emergency evacuation procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest designated fire exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by a designated officer. It is vital you follow their instructions.

For information about this meeting please contact Democratic Services Telephone: 01799 510369 or 510548 Email: [email protected]

General Enquiries Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 4ER Telephone: 01799 510510 Fax: 01799 510550 Email: [email protected] Website: www.uttlesford.gov.uk Agenda Item 2

PLANNING COMMITTEE held at COUNCIL CHAMBER - COUNCIL OFFICES, LONDON ROAD, SAFFRON WALDEN, CB11 4ER, on WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2019 at 2.00 pm

Present: Councillor S Merifield (Chair) Councillors G Bagnall, M Caton, P Fairhurst, R Freeman, A Gerard, G LeCount, M Lemon, J Loughlin, R Pavitt, A Storah and M Sutton

Officers in N Brown (Development Manager), A Mawson (Democratic attendance: Services Officer), L Mills (Planning Officer), M Shoesmith (Development Management Team Leader), E Smith (Solicitor) and C Tyler (Planning Officer)

PC43 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Fairhurst declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member of Saffron Walden Town Council, and Portfolio Holder for Business, Economy, Jobs, Investment and Strategy; Youth Services.

Councillor Gerard declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member of Newport Parish Council, the Newport, Quendon and Rickling Neighbourhood Plan Steering group, Cabinet Member and Portfolio Holder for Residents and Community Partnerships; Police and Emergency Services; and as a member of the 100 Parishes Society.

Councillor Freeman declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member of Saffron Walden Town Council.

Councillor LeCount declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member of Henham Parish Council.

Councillor Loughlin declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member of the 100 Parishes Society.

Councillor Bagnall declared a non – pecuniary interest as a member as a member of Takeley Parish Council.

Councillor Storah declared a non – pecuniary interest as he said that he was the planning consultant for item number three, and he had formally objected to item five, therefore would recuse himself.

The Legal Officer advised the Committee that for future reference the declaration of membership of 100 Parishes Society was only required if there was an application that was brought to Committee that had a direct connection to the Society. Otherwise including it on the Member’s individual declarations of interest would suffice.

Page 5 PC44 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The Chair advised that Item Number Six (UTT/19/1583/FUL) and item Number Seven (UTT/19/1458/FUL) had been withdrawn from the Committee Agenda.

PC45 UTT/18/2959/DFO LAND EAST OF LITTLE WALDEN ROAD, SAFFRON WALDEN

Councillor Storah left the room and did not participate in the discussion or the vote.

The Planning Officer presented the application which was for the approval of reserved matters following a grant of outline planning permission via an appeal on 21 August 2017 (UTT/16/2210/OP). The outline permission included the approval of access, with the current application seeking the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Freeman said that he supported the Parish Council’s objections. He said that there was a loss of open space in comparison to the approved scheme; a reduction of 2000m2 and that the balancing pond couldn’t be considered as publically accessible open space as it would fill with water. Councillor Freeman also said that the relocation of the playground to a secluded area where it wasn’t overlooked by the houses raised safety concerns.

Councillors Bagnall and Gerard said the original scheme was acceptable however the new application was not.

The Committee discussed the application’s disregard of the national standards, and it was noted that Uttlesford District Council had not yet adopted the national standards.

Councillor Freeman proposed the motion to refuse the application. Councillor Gerard seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application; the Development Manager would bring the reasons for refusal back to committee for finalisation based on the Committee’s objections.

P Gadd and J Brindley spoke on the application

Page 6 PC46 UTT/18/1827/FUL BRICKETTS, LONDON ROAD, NEWPORT

Councillor Storah returned to the room

The Planning Officer presented the application for planning permission to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect 20 dwellings, 8 of which would be affordable homes. The existing access off London Road would be remodelled.

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

In response to a Member question the Legal Officer said that site visits were not mandatory and that a Committee member failing to go on a site visit or a site not being visited would not preclude anyone from the decision making.

The Committee discussed the volume of new developments that Newport had accepted. The Committee said that the original application for 11 dwellings hadn’t been started and that was an approved application. It was felt that whilst the new application would provide more affordable housing for the district it was not what Newport needed. It was felt that the new application was too dense despite the benefits.

Councillor Gerard proposed the motion to refuse the application. Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its incompatible scale and density compared with surrounding development, conflict with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005), the emerging Uttlesford Local Plan, the emerging Newport Quendon and Rickling Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Cllr N Hargreaves, J Emanuel and P Stocking spoke on the application.

PC47 UTT/18/2297/OP LAND TO THE NORTH OF DE VIGIER AVENUE, SAFFRON WALDEN

The Planning Officer presented the proposal for outline planning with all matters reserved except access was for the proposed erection of up to 12 dwellings. The proposed access would be provided at two points from the Ridgeon’s residential development to the south of the site.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions and a S106 legal obligation.

Councillor Storah spoke on the application as an individual objector and then withdrew from the Committee to sit in the Public Gallery.

Page 7 Councillor Freeman referred to the parish council comments and noted that both he and Councillor Fairhurst had recused themselves from the parish council meeting.

In response to a member question the Legal Officer said that a covenant was a private law matter, rather than planning, and may be released on agreement.

The Committee discussed that there was a duty to the environment as well as to people and that it was recognised that this parcel of land had ecological value.

Councillor Pavitt said that a 30 year old habitat cannot be recreated in replacement.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the motion to refuse the application. Councillor Sutton seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development of 12 dwellings does not outweigh the harmful impact to protected species, priority species, wildlife, habitat and biodiversity. Although the proposal includes biodiversity mitigation this will not outweigh the permanent harm cause by the development, in accordance with ULP Policy GEN7 and the NPPF.

Cllr A Storah, P Stock, P Gadd and P Belton spoke on the application.

PC48 UTT/19/1725/FUL LAND AT ACRE CROFT, HIGH STREET, GREAT CHESTERFORD

Councillor Storah returned to the Committee.

The Planning Officer presented the proposal for three new dwellings with associated garages from new access at land rear of Acre Croft (re-submission of previously approved scheme under references UTT/15/1424/OP and UTT/16/0328/DFO).

The application was recommended for conditional approval

The Committee discussed the application and came to the conclusion that they would like to see the site.

Councillor Merifield proposed the motion to defer the application pending a visit to the site. Councillor Lemon seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to defer the application pending a site visit.

Cllr N Gregory spoke on the application.

Page 8 PC49 UTT/19/0899/FUL PARSONAGE FARM, CHURCH END, CHURCH STREET, HENHAM

The Development Control Manager presented the report for the application for Section 73 retrospective planning application for change of use of barn to gym, (alternative to that approved under UTT/16/2801/FUL), to include construction of external ramps, raised decking and training equipment on agricultural land, retention of air conditioning units, increase in opening hours, and provision of part-time beauty room and hairdressers. Change of use of part of brewery to additional gym space and part-time physiotherapy room to include small single storey link between the two buildings.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Pavitt left the room for a short period while the applicant spoke and returned prior to the members’ discussion.

Following the Committee discussion, it was agreed to include the following in the approval conditions;

 On Sundays and Bank Holidays, the usage of the external exercise area including the decking shall be confined to 9am to 2pm.  No amplification to be used outside the gym building.  Within 3 months of the date of the decision, details of screening along the South-Eastern boundary shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the motion to approve the application with conditions. Councillor Pavitt seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

S Lee and O Emsden spoke on the application.

PC50 UTT/19/0900/LB PARSONAGE FARM, CHURCH END, CHURCH STREET, HENHAM

The Development Control Manager presented the report for listed building consent for the conversion of part of brewery building to additional gym space and physiotherapy practice room. Single storey link extension between existing gym building and brewery building.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the motion to approve the application. Councillor Sutton seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application as per the recommendation.

Page 9 PC51 UTT/19/1490/HHF WOODVIEW HOUSE, WOODVIEW DRIVE, RICKLING GREEN, SAFFRON WALDEN

The Development Management Team Leader delivered the proposal for the retrospective application for an open covered area to the rear of the property with a flat roof with 3. No skylights

The application was recommended for unconditional approval.

Councillor LeCount was absent for the presentation and therefore did not vote.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed the motion to approve the application. Councillor Gerard seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to approve the application as per the recommendation.

The meeting ended at 5:35pm

Page 10 Agenda Item 4

The item below was deferred at the meeting of 18th September 2019 so that the comment of Takeley Parish Council could be reported on the agenda. Paragraph 8.1 of the report below has been amended accordingly.

UTT/19/1583/FUL (TAKELEY)

(More than five dwellings elsewhere than Great Dunmow, Saffron Walden or Stansted)

PROPOSAL: Erection of 8 no. 3 Bedroom Dwellings

LOCATION: Land to the South of School Lane, Molehill Green, Takeley

APPLICANT: Sole Concepts LTD

AGENT: Sole Concepts Limited

EXPIRY DATE: 4 September 2019 (Extension of time granted to 23 September 2019)

CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Doe

1. NOTATION

1.1 Countryside Protection Zone Outside Development Limits

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site comprises a rectangular parcel of land on the southern side of School Lane, close to the junction with Broxted Road, the main road leading through Molehill Green.

2.2 The site has a frontage of some 70m and an average depth of some 40m. At the time of the officer’s site visit the site had been cleared and temporary fencing had been erected along the frontage of the site.

2.3 On the opposite side of the road, to the north, are semi-detached houses and a village hall at the junction of School Lane with Broxted Road. A substantial one-and- a-half storey dwelling, Blossoms Cottage, is to the west of the site and a bungalow, Sunny View, is to the east.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Erection of 8 no. 3 Bedroom Dwellings.

3.2 The houses would be set out generally in a line of four pairs of semi-detached houses facing the road. However, the detailed positioning of the semi-detached pairs of houses would be such that the faces of the houses would be slightly splayed, not perfectly parallel with the line of School Lane and the front elevations of each pair would not be level with each other but rather set out in a subtle saw tooth type arrangement. The appearance to the design is discussed below.

3.3 Parking would be provided on driveways running to the side of each semi-detached house. Two parking spaces, one behind the other, would be provided to each

Page 11 house. Parking spaces would be set back from the carriageway edge a sufficient distance, the length of the drives would be long enough such that causal parking for a third car could be accommodated in front of the parking spaces to the side of each house. Parking provision and the aspect of parking spaces relating to the overall appearance of the design is discussed below.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment): The proposal is not a Schedule 1 development, nor does it exceed the threshold criteria of Schedule 2, and therefore an Environmental Assessment is not required.

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The applicant’s agent has submitted the ecology report submitted with the outline planning application; a transport statement; and, a planning statement.

5.2 The planning statement makes a case that the design within the current application gives an appearance to the design with a more relaxed, “cottagey” style with appropriate separation distances of six metres. The current design has, however, retained the lower eaves height to the front elevations. This is said to give openness to the proposed appearance across the site with a character of a “less developed” street scene.

5.3 A landscaping also forms part of the application documentation. This shows a line of shrubs set out to form a hedge with openings between shrubs set back 3m from the carriageway edge. A line of shrubs would also be set along the side boundaries of front gardens. Driveways would have a gravel surface (although the highway authority would require that the first 6m of the drive’s 19m length be of an alternative, bound surface). Landscaping proposals also relate to the rear gardens.

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 Outline planning permission was granted by the Council in 2018 with all matters reserved except for access, layout and scale for the erection of 4 no. pairs of semi- detached dwellings at Land South of School Lane, Mole Hill Green, Takeley (UTT/18/0527/OP - date of decision 10 July 2018).

6.2 The Officer's report to the Council's Planning Committee for the proposed development summarised the main reasons for the approval recommendation as follows:

A The principle of the development is deemed to be appropriate in that it would be of a sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. B The scale and layout are broadly acceptable. C The proposal would not adversely affect the biodiversity on site subject to mitigation measures. D The proposed development would not compromise the safety of the highway. E Development should not commence until an archaeological investigation has been completed. F The development should be acceptable in terms of minimising aircraft noise subject to acceptable mitigation measures.

6.3 The principle of building in this part of the Countryside Protection Zone was

Page 12 considered on balance to be appropriate; the Committee report stated at paragraph 11.2 that: "The site's location is some distance from Stansted Airport and so the development would not merge into the Airport's environs. The development would obviously create a built form in an open area and so would impact on the countryside; however this negative consideration must be balanced against the NPPF's emphasis on sustainable development".

6.4 Paragraph 11.8 added that: "To summarise, the proposal must be assessed primarily against the NPPF as well as the Local Plan. The current lack of a five year supply of housing means that a development must be approved if the proposal meets the three tests of sustainability and its benefits outweigh any harm. The proposal would satisfy the economic and social criteria and, on balance, the environmental role as well, although there would be some negative impact in this respect. Providing the proposal creates a net benefit in planning terms by complying with all other relevant policies, the principle of the development on the site is acceptable".

6.5 In terms of consideration of scale, the report noted at paragraph 11.11 that; "A proposal should relate to its immediate area and be generally sympathetic to nearby buildings without overly dominating the street scene in terms of scale or mass. Dwellings in the area are characterised by generously sized plots. The development would follow this theme, and provide each house with sufficient private amenity space to meet the LPA's guidelines. The properties' staggered building line follows the building line between the existing dwellings to the east and west of the site and corresponds to the lane. Like the semi-detached dwellings that face the site, the development would be set back from the road".

6.6 More recently, a planning application seeking full planning permission, UTT/19/0571/FUL, was refused. The single reason for refusal related essentially to design. The reason for refusal was: “The development in the form proposed would lead to material harm to the openness and permanence of the Countryside Protection Zone at this site location and additionally would lead to overdevelopment of the site due to the excessive scale of the dwellings as shown for this 8 no. three bedroomed housing scheme which would give rise to a cramped appearance across the site and an overly urbanised streetscene detrimental to the rural amenities of the immediate area contrary to ULP Policies S8, S7 and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and would as a result fail to represent a presumption in favour of sustainable development contrary to the NPPF (as revised) because of the degree of environmental harm which would be caused by the development.”

7. POLICIES

Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

S7 - The Countryside S8 - The Countryside Protection Zone GEN1 - Access GEN2 - Design GEN7 - Nature Conservation GEN8 - Vehicle Parking Standards ENV10 - Noise Sensitive Development and Disturbance from Aircraft

Emerging Local Plan

Page 13 SP 1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP 3 - The Scale and Distribution of Housing Development SP 10 - Protection of the Countryside H 10 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes TA 3 - Vehicle Parking Standards D 1 - High Quality Design D 2 - Car Parking Design EN 17 - Noise Sensitive Development

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

Accessible Homes and Play Space

National Policies

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF) (February 2019)

Other Material Considerations

ECC Parking Standards UDC Parking Standards Essex Design Guide (2018 version)

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 Takeley Parish Council respectively request that outline permission is re-obtained for UTT/19/1583/FUL – MOLEHILL GREEN TAKELEY and that the Molehill Green planning application be removed from the next Uttlesford Agenda on the 18th September. It had previously been obtained under UTT/18/527/OP The first reason is that it is a separate planning application to the outline planning application agreed in 2018 and as changes have been made it should be treated as a separate re-application. Temporary Case officer Mr Doe reports under 11.3 of his report to the planning committee states:- An assessment of the design begins with the fact that the placing of built form on the site has been deemed acceptable by outline planning permission UTT/18/0527/OP. The indicative design for that proposal shows a proposal very similar to that of the current application. The significant difference is that the outline design was for two- bedroomed houses, rather than the currently proposed three bedrooms, with the houses being less deep than that as now proposed. The layout, of a staggered line, and the streetscene, of houses with eyebrow dormers separated by double widths of driveways, was the same as now proposed. It is, however, the case that appearance was a reserved matter The Council is now under new administration and may make decision in accordance with how it deems relevant process. The second reason why outline permission needs to be re-applied is that there was an inaccuracy in the former Temporary Case Officers Report in 2018. Peter McEvoy made no reference to the supplementary guidance on the Countryside Protection Zone (Luc report) previously adopted by Uttlesford District Council. The overlooked guidance is significant as treating the area as Green Belt, as per the recommendations of the adopted report underpins the Principal that Development should not occur. In 2018 Case Officer Peter McEvoy made reference to the assumptions that do not align to the area being treated as Green Belt and treated the application as open

Page 14 countryside making indirect reference instead to policy S7. However it should have been highlighted the area falls under the full weight of Green Belt Protection as outlined in the national planning policy framework as the Countryside Protection supplementary guidance indicates the area should be treated as Green Belt. Temporary Case officer Peter McEvoy previously wrote:- Planning permission will be granted if the development is required to be in the CPZ or else is appropriate for a rural area, but in both cases, the development must not adversely affect the open characteristics of the zone Clearly the NPPF holds significant weight to Green Belt Policy and as mentioned aligns with the recommendations of how the countryside protection zone should be treated. It is understandable that as a temporary officer he may not have had opportunity to review the supplementary guidance that the CPZ should be treated like Green Belt. Notably mistakes have been made by Uttlesford and we see no reason for the applicant to unnecessarily pay another planning fee, however do see every reason for this to be assessed in light of full knowledge of the supplementary guidance and the stringent weight given in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, the Countryside Protection Zone is a restrictive policy and it is defined within Uttlesford’s adopted supplementary planning guidance (LUC Report) that the CPZ should be treated as Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework is clearly weighted in support of protecting Green Belt. I have summarized in black the pertinent points of the national planning framework PROTECTING GREEN BELT below:- (paragraph 133 to 147) as it clearly interrelates to the CPZ. The positioning of the CPZ has also been endorsed by inspectors in recent planning appeals as detailed further down. NPPF para 133. The government attaches great importance to Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. NPPF para 134 Green belt serves to • check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; The hamlet of Molehill Green is not a large built up area and has already been assessed by Uttlesford, as an area that is part of the countryside protection zone and is currently made up of low density housing and is noted as being outside development limits. Reassessment of its Green Wedge status would set a precedent for ongoing piecemeal erosion of the CPZ, as the boundary edges will keep on being built upon. Whilst this development is small in scope to other developments, in this case the precedent would be extremely damaging and would not fall in line with previous Planning Inspectors recommendations to treat the CPZ as the Green-belt (ref: gladmans appeal). (Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/18/3213251) - 2019 Notably it will set a precedent for the application for UTT/19/2036/FUL – for a further 9.dwellings in Molehill Green, just in and further applications being put forward ongoing in what has previously been assessed as a protected zone. The common concept following on what could possibly differentiate the CPZ other than completing emergence with the airport. The substantive benefit is not evident as no Section 106 monies would be derived from the cumulative effect of both developments as both are just below the thresholds in both cases and are by different developers. The impact on the identified protected zone would be eroded and the precedent set for more building in a rural area and whilst not resulting in immediate coalescence would act as a catalyst, as there would be nothing to define the settlement from further encroachment. The mentioned area is in the countryside protection zone and has already been assessed so the area is “protected” Potentially the whole area could

Page 15 eventually be subject to adverse effect which means that the cumulative effect would later result in coalescence with the airport. Clearly there would be direct and material changes to the character and appearance of the site itself, it is also necessary to consider the implications of the development of this land beyond the immediate context. NPFF para 138. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport Molehill Green is not well served by public transport and does not have good transport links. Transport links are limited with no suitable bus stop. The current lack of a bus stop is currently identified by both Takeley Parish council and Essex County Council as dangerous and land to provide a suitable bus stop has not currently been committed by the airport. This scheme would not generate S106 monies for a suitable bus stop or further ECC services, including schooling and healthcare, but would set a precedent for further homes. In addition the proposal would not deliver any affordable housing. The policy of the CPZ as aligned to Green Belt policy should not be eroded in cases where no material benefit is identified and this also contravenes policy in the emerging local development plan. Policy EN8 in the emerging local Plan States:- Development proposals will not be permitted which will harm the character of or lead to the partial or cumulative or total loss of protected and non-traditional spaces. Unless:- 1. The open space uses can be satisfactorily replaced in terms of quality, quantity and access with an equal or better standard than that which is proposed to be lost, and 2. The re-provision is located within a short walk (400m of the original site). Notably there is no school or shops in the hamlet of Molehill Green and so would not comply with policy Gen 1 in respect of limiting car journeys. Whilst the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply, the emerging local plan has not considered a strategy based on compromising the CPZ, which is continued through in policy. This view was reflected by the Inspector in the recent Gladmans Appeal 2019. “It is clear that the emerging local plan does not require compromising the CPZ, which is continued through in policies. For this reason a deviation from policy to build in the CPZ should not be considered, as is contrary to the national planning policy framework.” NPFF para140. If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt. Molehill Green is a hamlet that has already been identified as being part of the Countryside Protection Zone and as such has been assessed in the overall strategy. NPPF para 139. When defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should: (d) make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes the

Page 16 development; (e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period; and (f) define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. In light of the key points outlined in yellow and the site was not includ-ed as an update in the local plan coupled with the fact the temporary case officers do not appear fully conversant to the unique status of Countryside Protection Zone. Takeley Parish Council would like to recommend that the Molehill Ap-plication is removed from the forthcoming September UDC Planning Committee, list as the outline permission was subject to previous Administration error in that full weight of the NPFF regarding protected land that falls within existing local plans was not considered. Takeley Parish Council would like confirmation that the Molehill Green application has been removed from the UDC Planning Committee Agenda.

9. CONSULTATIONS

Highway Authority (Essex County Council)

9.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to measures regarding a sight splay; ensuring provision of parking areas; no unbound material; and, unloading and storage of construction materials clear of highway.

Ecological Consultant, Essex County Council, Place Services

9.2 No objection subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures.

Environmental Health

9.3 The proposal site is located in an area which will be subject to noticeable aircraft noise. This has been addressed by a condition on UTT/18/0527/OP.

9.4 NPPF 2018 supports provision of measures to minimise the impact of development on air quality by encouraging non car travel and providing infrastructure to support use of low emission vehicles. A condition requiring charging points for electric vehicles is requested.

9.5 There are residential properties adjacent to this site. A construction method statement is required to ensure compliance with the Uttlesford Code of Development Practice to minimise loss of amenity to neighbours during construction.

9.6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Provide an electric vehicle charge point at any garage or allocated parking space associated with a dwelling. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall specify the provisions to be made for the control of noise and dust emanating from the site and shall be consistent with the best practicable means as set out in the Uttlesford Code of Development Practice. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding locality residential/business

Page 17 premises in accordance with Policies GEN1, GEN2, and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

Essex Police, Crime Prevention

9.7 Whilst there are no apparent concerns with the layout however to comment further we would require the finer detail such as the proposed lighting, boundary treatments and physical security measures.

9.8 We would welcome the opportunity to consult on this development to assist the developer with their obligation under this policy and to assist with compliance of Approved Document "Q" at the same time as achieving a Secured by Design award. From experience pre-planning consultation is always preferable in order that security, landscaping and lighting considerations for the benefit of the intended residents and those neighbouring the development are agreed prior to a planning application.

National Air Traffic Services

9.9 No safeguarding objection.

Safeguarding Authority for Stansted Airport

9.10 No objection. Informative suggested regarding any crane, minimise dust or smoke, deter birds feeding on exposed ground.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 A site notice was posted. 24 letters were sent to occupiers of neighbouring properties. No written response has been received.

11. APPRAISAL

The principal issue to consider is whether the design in this current application has been sufficiently amended to overcome the reason for refusal to the previous application. The principle of development has been established by the extant outline planning permission. Nevertheless, in order that all considerations are addressed, the issues to consider in the determination of this application are the same as with the previous application, being:

A Principle of development (NPPF, ULP Policies S7 and S8); B Design, including whether the scale and form of the proposed development would be compatible with existing built form / garden amenity standards (ULP Policy GEN2); C Access considerations (ULP Policy GEN1); D Whether parking arrangements would be acceptable (ULP Policy GEN8); E Impact on residential amenity (ULP Policy GEN2); F Impact upon priority and protected species (ULP Policy GEN7); G Noise sensitive development (Stansted Airport) (ULP Policy ENV10).

A Principle of development (NPPF, ULP Policies S7 and S8);

11.1 The principle of residential development of this "greenfield" site situated outside development limits falling within the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) as defined on the Proposals Map for the Council's adopted Local Plan has already been accepted under approved and still extant outline application ref; UTT/18/0527/OP for

Page 18 the erection of 4 no. pairs of 2 bedroomed two storey semi-detached dwellings with all matters reserved except for access, layout and scale.

11.2 The current revised housing proposal for the erection of 4 no. pairs of 3 bedroomed two storey semi-detached dwellings remains acceptable in principle, especially with regard to the sustainability of the site, in the light of this Council decision.

B Design, including whether the scale and form of the proposed development would be compatible with existing built form / garden amenity standards (ULP Policy GEN2);

11.3 An assessment of the design begins with the fact that the placing of built form on the site has been deemed acceptable by outline planning permission UTT/18/0527/OP. The indicative design for that proposal shows a proposal very similar to that of the current application. The significant difference is that the outline design was for two- bedroomed houses, rather than the currently proposed three-bedrooms, with the houses being less deep than that as now proposed. The layout, of a staggered line, and the streetscene, of houses with eyebrow dormers separated by double widths of driveways, was the same as now proposed. It is, however, the case that appearance was a reserved matter.

11.4 The essential effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the site is an appropriate location for new housing development, having regard to the principles for sustainable development (two issues predominating in Inspectors’ recent decisions for proposals outside the defined development limits) have been established by the granting of the outline planning permission.

11.5 This current planning application is effectively a re-submission of one recently refused, UTT/19/0571/FUL. That was refused only on design grounds. The principle issue is therefore whether the current design has sufficiently overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

11.6 The previous design filled the width of the site with houses except where paths lead down the sides of the semi-detached pairs. Parking spaces were to be provided side by side hard on the highway; it would not have been too far from an exaggeration to have said that the front gardens consisted of car parking spaces. As a consequence of the filling up of the streetscene with the hard form of houses and the extent of hardsurfacing of parking spaces it was considered that the previous proposal represented overdevelopment of the site.

11.7 The current design has more spacing between houses by running driveways between the semi-detached pairs of houses. The frontages of the plots would be front gardens albeit with driveways. A landscaping plan forms part of the current application documentation. This shows a grassed highway verge adjoining the carriageway and an open hedge/spacing of shrubs at the fronts and the sides of the front gardens. This could be ensured to be implemented by condition.

11.8 A cottage style appearance has been retained in the current application with eaves dormers to six of the eight houses. Some visual variation and interest is provided to the sweep of view to the proposed houses by those at the ends, to the right hand side of the site and the left hand side of the site, having gables. The design of the houses is such that heights have been minimised. The maximum height of the houses would be 7.4m. The height to the eaves would be 5.1m. An alternation of open gable and sloping roofed canopies above entrance doors would provide interest and pattern to the appearance of the fronts of the houses.

Page 19 11.9 It is therefore considered that the scale, form, layout and appearance of the houses as a result of the changes now shown are appropriate for this site and accordingly the proposal is now acceptable with regard to Policy GEN2.

11.10 All the properties would have rear amenity spaces exceeding 100 sq m, acceptable with regard to an Essex Design Guide standard. The rear gardens would face south and have good proportions in terms of depths and widths. Garden amenity standards are acceptable.

C Access considerations (ULP Policy GEN1);

11.11 The local highway authority, Essex County Council, has raised no objection to the proposed vehicular accesses. ECC Highways has recommended a condition regarding implementation of a sight splay to the vehicular accesses to its standards. Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy GEN1.

D Whether parking arrangements would be acceptable (ULP Policy GEN8);

11.12 The number of parking spaces afforded to each unit would be compliant with locally adopted parking standards for a 3 bedroomed dwelling. The parking arrangement would be capable of providing visitor parking due to the generous lengths of the driveways. The proposal would accord with adopted parking standards and is considered acceptable with regard to Policy GEN8.

E Impact on residential amenity (ULP Policy GEN2);

11.13 The proposed dwellings would be generally linear in nature to continue the linear theme along School Lane and no residential amenity issues would arise as a result of the proposed development (ULP Policy GEN2).

F Impact upon priority and protected species (ULP Policy GEN7);

11.14 The application documentation includes an ecological impact assessment report to which the ECC Ecologist has no objection subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures. It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GEN7.

G Noise sensitive development (Stansted Airport) (ULP Policy ENV10).

11.15 Any grant of permission would need to carry an appropriate pre-commencement sound insulation condition to protect future residents of the proposed development from external noise from aircraft given the proximity of the site to Stansted Airport. Environmental Health has referred to such a condition.

12. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The principle of the development has been established by an outline planning permission and this has been reinforced by a full application similar to this current application being refused only on the ground of design. B The design of the current proposal provides spacing between the semi-detached pairs of houses by the width of two driveways. Other design features are incorporated within the current design to mitigate creating a “built up” character to

Page 20 the site.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt as to the nature of the development hereby permitted, to ensure development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details, to ensure that the development is carried out with the minimum harm to the local environment, in accordance with the Policies of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) as shown in the Schedule of Policies

3. All of the dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2) of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.

REASON : To ensure compliance with Policy GEN2 (c) of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 and the subsequent SPD on Accessible Homes and Playspace

4. Prior to first occupation of a house hereby approved, an electric car charging facility shall be installed in the side elevation of that house and retained as such unless the written consent of the local planning authority is given to any alteration.

REASON: In the interest of sustainable development and in accordance with Policy GEN2 of the adopted Local Plan; Policies TA 2 and TA 3 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan; and, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. There shall be no obstruction above ground level within a 2.4m wide parallel band visibility splay as measured from and along the nearside edge of the carriageway across the entire site frontage. Such vehicular visibility splay shall be provided before the accesses are first used by vehicular traffic and retained free of any obstruction at all times.

REASON: To provide adequate inter-visibility between pedestrians and users of the accesses and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of the users of the highway and accesses having regard to safety in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the adopted Local Plan.

6. Prior to the first occupation of the development the access arrangements and vehicle parking areas as indicated on drawing no. 3032-19A1-103 Rev. C (July 2019), shall be provided. The access and parking areas shall be retained at all times for their intended purpose.

REASON: To ensure that appropriate access and parking is provided in accordance

Page 21 with Policies GEN1 and GEN8 of the adopted Local Plan.

7. Notwithstanding any indication to the contrary on the plans hereby approved, no unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of any vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary.

REASON: To avoid displacement of loose material onto the highway in the interest of highway safety.

8. Prior to first occupation of the development the areas within the site identified for the purpose of loading/unloading/reception and storage of materials shall be provided clear of the highway and retained at all times for that sole purpose.

REASON: To ensure that appropriate loading / unloading facilities are available in the interest of highway safety.

9. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, all ecological mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the EcIA (Hybrid Ecology Ltd., August 2019) as submitted with the planning application.

REASON: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the local planning authority to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) and s17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and to accord with Policy GEN7 of the adopted Local Plan.

10. Prior to construction above ground level a Biodiversity Enhancement Layout, providing the finalised details and locations of the enhancement measures contained within the EcIA (Hybrid Ecology Ltd., August 2019), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The enhancement measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any house hereby permitted in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

11. Prior to first occupation of any house hereby permitted a lighting design scheme for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.

REASON: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the local planning authority to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations,

Page 22 the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) and s17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and to accord with Policies GEN5 and GEN7 of the adopted Local Plan.

12. No construction above ground level shall be undertaken until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall specify the provisions to be made for the control of noise and dust emanating from the site and shall be consistent with the best practicable means as set out in the Uttlesford Code of Development Practice. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding locality residential/business premises in accordance with Policies GEN1, GEN2, and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

13. No construction above ground level shall be undertaken until a scheme of noise mitigation has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall be included in the scheme of the design, layout and acoustic noise insulation performance specification of the external building envelope, having regard to the building fabric, glazing and ventilation. The scheme shall be based on insulation calculations provided in British Standard 8233:2014 and shall be designed to achieve the following noise targets: Bedrooms (23.00-07.00 hrs) 30 dB LAeq and 45 dB LAmax. Living Rooms (07.00-23.00 hrs) 35 dB LAeq The scheme as approved shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of the residential units and shall be retained thereafter and not altered without prior approval.

REASON: In the interest of the residential amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the adopted Local Plan.

14. No preliminary groundworks shall be installed until a programme of archaeological trial trenching and excavation has been secured and undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which will have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON: To ensure that the development will not cause harm to a site of archaeological importance in accordance with Policy ENV4 of the adopted Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. An archaeological post-excavation assessment shall be submitted within three months of the completion of fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the local planning authority. This will result in the completion of post-excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.

16. The soft landscaping scheme, as shown on approved plan 3032-19A1-103 revision C, shall be implemented within the first planting season following first occupation of any house hereby approved and retained as such thereafter unless the prior written consent of the local planning authority is granted for any alteration. The boundary fencing scheme, as shown on approved plan 3032-19A1-103 revision C, shall be

Page 23 implemented and retained as such prior to first occupation of any house hereby approved.

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity and good quality to the design in accordance with Policy GEN2 of the adopted Local Plan.

Page 24 Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

UTT/19/1725/FUL (GREAT CHESTERFORD)

(Referred to Committee by Cllr Gregory. Reason: Overdevelopment of the site and access) Application was deferred from the September Committee following a request for a site visit.

PROPOSAL: 3 new dwellings with associated garages from new access at land rear of Acre Croft (re-submission of previously approved scheme under references UTT/15/1424/OP and UTT/16/0328/DFO).

LOCATION: Land at Acre Croft, High Street, Great Chesterford

APPLICANT: Mr Clark

AGENT: Mr Ryan Alborne, BBR Architects

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2019

CASE OFFICER: Robert Davis

1. NOTATION

1.1 Countryside (main part of the site); Within Development Limits (front part); Conservation Area (front part).

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site is located on the south side of High Street on the south-west side of The Plough Public House (Grade II listed) and associated car park and comprises the long rear garden and tennis court of Acre Croft, a modern detached dwelling which fronts onto High Street at the north-east end of a continuous row of dwellings of varied character and age of construction which extend up the street frontage from the village centre. The site is relatively flat and is enclosed to the flank boundaries by trees and single storey curtilage buildings, whilst the rear boundary is enclosed by a more substantial tree screen onto the Thorpe Lea site. The site has an area of approximately 0.36 ha.

2.2 Two recently constructed detached dwellings of considerable size and proportions known as Ashbee House and Webb House border the site to the south west. To the rear of the site is a new residential development of 31 dwellings at Thorpe Lea.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of three detached dwelling houses on land to the rear of Acre Croft following the insertion of a new access to the side of the dwelling. Plot 1 would have three bedrooms. Plots 2 and 3 are shown to have five bedrooms at first floor level and a further two bedrooms and a study (potentially an eighth bedroom) at second floor level contained within the roofspace. Each dwelling would be provided with a detached double garage.

4. APPLICANT'S CASE

Page 27 4.1 The application includes the following documents: - Design & Access Statement - Heritage Statement - Archaeological evaluation report - Arboricultural Assessment - Biodiversity Validation Checklist - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - Ecological Impact Appraisal Update - Transport Statement

5. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

5.1 UTT/15/1424/OP Outline application for the erection of 3 no. Dwellings and garages with all matters reserved except access and scale. Approved.

UTT/16/0328/DFO Details following outline application UTT/15/1424/OP for the erection of 3 no. dwellings - details of appearance and layout. Approved. The above approval was for three identical dwellings. These dwellings are the same as now sought within this application for Plots 2 and 3. This development was required to be commenced within two years of the decision dated 21st October 2016. As such the consent has lapsed.

5.2 UTT/16/0341/FUL Removal of condition number 10 of UTT/15/1424/OP (The three dwellings shown in indicative form for the development hereby permitted by this outline permission shall have a combined gross internal floorspace not exceeding 1,000sqm for any reserved matters application that may be submitted to the local planning authority for subsequent approval) to allow floor area in excess of 1000m2 with no change to design footprints or scale. Approved.

Since the granting of the outline application, there had been a change in government policy as set out in updated NPPG advice in respect of tariff style financial contributions relating to affordable housing affecting the quantum of dwellings which are now subject to financial contributions. Given this change in government policy advice and whether the Council ought still to be reliant upon its adopted Developers Contributions SPD document in relation to tariff style contributions (where otherwise it would rely on ULP Policy H9 of the adopted local plan for 40% affordable housing provision for 15 or more dwellings or sites of 0.5ha or more where neither of these circumstances apply to the application proposal for Acre Croft), it is considered that there was no justified policy basis as to why condition 10 of the outline permission should not be removed given the condition was imposed solely to prevent a trigger for affordable housing contributions under the Council's SPD document for any subsequent reserved matters application for the proposed development and not in respect of the planning merits of the development itself.

5.3 UTT/19/0436/FUL 3 new dwellings with associated garages from new access at land rear of Acre Croft (re-submission of previously approved scheme under references UTT/15/1424/OP and UTT/16/0328/DFO). This was refused for the following reason:

The proposed development fails to address the housing mix requirements of the District and would therefore have an adverse effect on the community, in conflict with Policy H10 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 28 This application was a resubmission of the previously approved, but time lapsed, scheme.

6. POLICIES

6.1 National Policies - National Planning Policy Framework - Planning Practice Guidance

6.2 Uttlesford District Local Plan 2005 - S3 Other Development limits - S7 The Countryside - GEN1 Access - GEN2 Design - GEN3 Flooding - GEN6 Infrastructure - GEN7 Nature Conservation - GEN8 Vehicle Parking Standards - ENV1 Design of Development within Conservation Areas - ENV2 Development affecting Listed Buildings - ENV4 Ancient Monuments and Sites of Archaeological Importance - H3 New Houses within Development Limits - H4 Backland Development - H9 Affordable Housing - H10 Housing Mix - SPD Lifetime Homes - SPD Parking

6.3 Uttlesford District Regulation 19 Local Plan - SP9 Development within Development Limits

6.4 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2017

7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

7.1 Great Chesterford Parish Council objects to this application as the Council considers it over development of the site. The proposal overlooks neighbouring properties (PP Gen 2) and includes material change from the approved scheme due to the significant increase in size of two of the properties. The Council continues to have strong reservations regarding the limited width access (PP Gen 1) and is not convinced that sufficient parking spaces are provided (PP Gen 8.)

7.2 The Council also notes concerns relating to the accuracy of the plans and written documents, including the locations of trees within the plans. The Council has requested that District Cllr Gregory calls this application in to Planning Committee and notes that should the application be approved despite the Council`s objections, then the Council would request S106 funds towards recreational facilities

8. CONSULTATIONS

Essex County Council Highways

8.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority, subject to recommended conditions.

Page 29 Essex County Council Ecology

8.2 We have reviewed the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenwillows Associates Ltd., November 2014) and Update (Greenwillows Associates Ltd., June 2017) relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, protected species and priority species / habitats. We are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available for determination. This provides certainty for the LPA of the likely impacts on Protected and Priority species/habitats and, with appropriate mitigation measures secured, the development can be made acceptable.

8.3 The mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenwillows Associates Ltd., November 2014) should be secured and implemented in full. This is necessary to conserve and enhance Protected and Priority Species.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Two representations received in objection which in the main raise the following concerns: - Sets inappropriate precedent and overdevelopment of garden plots - Plots 01 and 02 still overbearing - Garage on Plot 01 under tree canopy - Landscape proposal should be provided - Does not demonstrate safe vehicular access and exit in regard to the construction phase, general household traffic movements, refuse collection and emergency services. - Extremely narrow access point - Correct plot size and scale of development should be examined - Does not address housing mix by reducing one dwelling - Unreasonable to live with continued threat of village development - Potential damage from construction vehicles on High Street and required turning circle - Village location unsuitable in size for 2 x 8-bed dwellings over 3 floors & 1 x 3-bed dwelling.

10. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A Location of housing (S3, S7, H3, H4, NPPF) B Character, appearance and heritage (S3, S7, GEN2, ENV1, ENV2, NPPF) C Transport (GEN1, GEN8, NPPF) D Accessibility (GEN2) E Amenity (GEN2, NPPF) F Flooding (GEN3, NPPF, PPG) G Infrastructure (GEN6) H Biodiversity (GEN7, NPPF) I Archaeology (ENV4) J Affordable housing (H9) K Housing mix (H10, SHMA)

A Location of housing (S3, S7, H3, H4, NPPF)

10.1 The 2005 Local Plan places part of the site beyond the Development Limits for Great Chesterford, and therefore in a countryside location that is inconsistent with

Page 30 policies on the location of housing.

10.2 Notwithstanding the above conflict with development plan policies, the proposal accords with the more up-to-date national policy in the NPPF. Paragraphs 78-79 take a less restrictive approach compared with the Local Plan, supporting the growth of existing settlements while preventing isolated homes that could lead to sporadic development in the countryside. The site's location adjacent the built-up area of the village ensures its consistency with paragraphs 78-79. This has been evidenced by the previous planning consent on the site. It is further noted that the Regulation 19 Local Plan expands the development limits to incorporate the site and the Thorpe Lea development beyond.

10.3 Paragraphs 11 and 73 of the NPPF describe the importance of maintaining a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites. As identified in the most recent housing trajectory document, 'NPPF 2019 - Five Year Housing Land Supply update (March 2019)', the Council's housing land supply is currently 3.29 years. Therefore, contributions towards housing land supply must be regarded as a positive effect.

B Character, appearance and heritage (S3, S7, GEN2, ENV1, ENV2, NPPF)

10.4 Notwithstanding the scale of the dwellings the backland location of the proposed houses ensures that they would not be prominent in the street scene, and that there would be no significant impact on the conservation area or the setting of nearby listed buildings. Furthermore, their traditional designs are considered compatible with the varied architecture in the surrounding area. It is therefore concluded that the proposal accords with the above policies insofar as they relate to character, appearance and heritage.

C Transport (GEN1, GEN8, NPPF)

10.5 The site's location within a relatively large village ensures that the occupants of the proposed dwellings would have access to a small range of services and facilities, and to a train station with regular services to Cambridge and London. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the sustainable transport objectives of Policy GEN1 and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

10.6 Taking into account the comments of the highway authority, it is considered that there would be no adverse effects on road safety or efficiency. The access would have a minimum width of 4m thus exceeding the minimum 3m width required for a shared driveway serving up to 5 dwellings. Furthermore, while the parking bays in the proposed double garages would be shorter than required by the Council's minimum standards, there would be space for one vehicle and the ample driveways ensure that the total parking provision would be compliant.

D Accessibility (GEN2)

10.7 Policy GEN2 and the SPD entitled 'Accessible Homes and Playspace' require compliance with the Lifetime Homes standards. However, these standards have effectively been superseded by the optional requirements at Part M of the Building Regulations, as explained in the PPG. Compliance with these requirements could be secured using a condition.

E Amenity (GEN2, NPPF)

10.8 Taking into account The Essex Design Guide, which constitutes non-adopted but

Page 31 useful guidance, it is considered that the proposed rear gardens would be of a suitable size, and that there would be no significant adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring premises with respect to daylight, privacy or overbearing impacts. It is therefore concluded that the proposal accords with the above policies insofar as they relate to amenity.

F Flooding (GEN3, NPPF, PPG)

10.9 Policy GEN3 contains the Local Plan policy for flooding, although this has effectively been superseded by the more detailed and up-to-date flood risk policies in the NPPF and the accompanying PPG. The site is not in an area at risk of flooding and, as the proposal is not a 'major development', national policy does not require the use of a sustainable drainage system. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would not give rise to any significant adverse effects with respect to flood risk, such that it accords with the policies in the NPPF and PPG.

G Infrastructure (GEN6)

10.10 It is noted that Great Chesterford Parish Council have requested a financial contribution towards the provision of recreational facilities. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all the following tests: a. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b. Directly related to the development , and c. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 10.11 Taking into account the nature and scale of a residential development of three dwellings, it is considered that there would be no requirement for any financial contribution to provide off-site infrastructure as this does not fulfil the above tests as outlined in the CIL Regulations.

H Biodiversity (GEN7, NPPF)

10.12 The tree survey report concludes that the proposed development should be possible to be carried out without the need to remove or disturb the majority of the boundary trees subject to a suitable arboricultural method statement being produced. As before Plot 3 is proposed to have a garage which would be located under part of the tree canopy for an Ash tree (T3). A condition is recommended to ensure suitable foundations are provided given that trench type foundations can hinder the extent of rooting systems.

10.13 In recognising the comments of the Council's ecological consultant, it is considered unlikely that the development would have significant adverse effects on any protected species or valuable habitats. The proposed biodiversity enhancements, as sought by Paragraph 170d of the NPPF should be secured as a condition of any consent. It is therefore concluded that the proposal accords with the above policies.

I Archaeology (ENV4)

10.14 Suitable archaeological investigation was carried out in connection with conditions 6 and 7 of planning permission UTT/15/1424/OP. It is therefore concluded that the proposal accords with the above policies insofar as they relate to archaeology.

J Affordable housing (H9)

Page 32 10.15 Local Plan Policy H9 seeks an element of affordable housing on a site by site basis. This has been effectively superseded by paragraph 63 of the NPPF which states that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments which are not major developments. The proposal qualifies as a small scale (minor) development of 10-units or less and there are no other material circumstances that indicate that it would be justifiable to seek a contribution for affordable housing.

K Housing mix (H10, SHMA)

10.16 Policy H10 requires that small market housing comprises a significant proportion of the total number of units, while the SHMA confirms that the greatest need is for three-bedroom plus properties. While 'significant proportion' is not defined in the policy, the SHMA indicates that the need for three-bedroom properties is approximately 44% of the total. In the analysis of the previous application, ref. UTT/19/0436/FUL, it was considered that at least one of the three dwellings should have no more than three bedrooms to comply with the policy. This has now been achieved with the dwelling on Plot 1. A condition removing permitted development rights for extensions and roof alterations is nevertheless recommended to enable the Council to have control over future development in order to maintain the integrity of the housing mix.

11. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A. The planning consents UTT/15/1424/OP and UTT/16/0328/DFO, although lapsed, have accepted that the site would be suitable for the erection of three large detached dwellings.

B. The dwellings on Plots 2 and 3 are identical to that previously approved.

C. The provision of a dwelling with three bedrooms on Plot 1 ensures that the development reasonably complies with Policy H10 – Housing Mix, the sole reason for the refusal of application ref. UTT/19/0436/FUL.

RECOMMENDATION – CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 year from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

Page 33 3. The external finishing materials shall be as specified on the submitted plans and application form. Where alternative materials be sought the details of such materials shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site. The works approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to secure a high quality of design and appearance in accordance with Policy GEN2.

4. All of the dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2) of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.

REASON: To ensure compliance with Policy GEN2 (c) of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 and the subsequent SPD on Accessible Homes and Playspace.

5. All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenwillows Associates Ltd., November 2014) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.

REASON: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

6. Prior to occupation of the development the shared vehicular access shall be constructed at right angles to the highway boundary and to the existing carriageway. The width of the access at its junction with the highway shall be not less than 5m, shall be retained at that width for 6 metres within the site and shall be provided with an appropriate vehicular crossing of the highway verge.

REASON: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the highway in a controlled manner in the interest of highway safety, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

7. No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary of the site.

REASON: To avoid displacement of loose material onto the highway in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

8. The first floor bedroom en-suite/dressing room windows shown for the south-west elevation of the dwelling approved for Plot 3 on approved plans PL05 shall be obscure glazed with glass of obscuration level 4 or 5 of the range of glass manufactured by Pilkington plc at the date of this permission or of an equivalent standard agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Glazing of that obscuration level shall thereafter be retained in those windows.

REASON: To avoid overlooking of adjacent residential properties in the interests of

Page 34 residential amenity in accordance with ULP Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

9. No trench foundations for the garage shall be used within the root protection of the Ash Tree (T3) as detailed within the Arboricultural Assessment.

REASON: In the interests of protecting the root system to ensure the longevity of the tree in accordance with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Scedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions and/or roof alterations shall be erected on any elevations of the dwellings hereby permitted

REASON: In the interests of protecting the character and amenities of the locality, including the provision of a mix of housing sizes, in accordance with Policies GEN2 and H10 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

UTT/19/1725/FUL

Page 35 Page 36 Agenda Item 6

UTT/18/2820/FUL SAFFRON WALDEN

(THIS APPLICATION IS REPORTED TO COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICANT IS UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL)

PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of 14 dwellings comprising of 7 no. one bed flats, 3 no. 2 bed flats, 2 no. three bed houses and 2 no. 4 bed houses including associated external works with all dwellings provided as affordable housing.

LOCATION: Land at Thaxted Road, Saffron Walden

APPLICANT: Uttlesford District Council

AGENT: Mr P Dunthorne – The Design Partnership

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2018

CASE OFFICER: Robert Davis

______

1. NOTATION

1.1 Outside Development Limits, Within Development Limits (SOUTHGATES), Contaminated Land Historic Land Use Area

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site is located approximately 1.5km south east of the town centre of Saffron Walden on the north-eastern side of the B184 Thaxted Road, between a recent residential development of 10 dwellings located on Tiptoft Lane and an ALDI supermarket. Vehicle access is achieved to and from the north-eastern corner of the site via a roadway constructed as part of the redevelopment at the adjacent Granite Park commercial development.

2.2 The site has a maximum width of 52m attained on the Thaxted Road frontage reducing to 22m at the rear and a depth of approximately 75m along its central axis. The site area contained within the red line is 0.31ha, including the access road, although the main part of the site where the residential development would take place is 0.26ha.

2.3 The site is in an elevated position above Thaxted Road and consists of gently sloping land with a flatter area within the middle. Its present appearance is that of scrubland, with some wooded areas and the remains of a small derelict building. Banks exist around the southern and western side edges. There is also a bank to the west up to a close boarded fence with a passageway and the rear elevation of the Aldi supermarket beyond.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal is for a development of 14 dwellings consisting of a two detached houses, a pair of semi-detached houses and ten apartments contained within two blocks. An external parking area would be provided within the central part of the site.

Page 37 In addition Plots 3 and 4 would be provided with a four space car port and Plots 11 to 14 would have undercroft parking below the building.

3.2 The flats would also be provided with communal garden areas. The area associated with Plots 5-10 would have an area of 235m². Plots 11-14 would be provided with a terraced area of 30m² to one side of the block and a communal garden of 105m².

3.3 The proposal represents a density of 54 dwellings per hectare.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 The proposal is not a Schedule 1 development, nor does it exceed the threshold criteria of Schedule 2, and therefore an Environmental Assessment is not required.

5. APPLICANT'S CASE

5.1 The application includes the following documents: - Design & Access Statement - Site Investigation report - Transport Note - Air Quality Assessment - Acoustic Report - Flood Risk assessment - Ecology Report

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 There is no relevant planning history.

7. POLICIES

7.1 National Policies - National Planning Policy Framework - Planning Practice Guidance

7.2 Uttlesford District Local Plan 2005 - S7- The Countryside - GEN 1 – Access - GEN 2 – Design - GEN 3 – Flood Protection - GEN 7 – Nature Conservation - GEN 8 – Vehicle Parking Standards - ENV 4 – Ancient Monuments and Sites of Archaeological Importance - ENV 10 – Noise Sensitive Development and Disturbance from Aircraft - ENV 12 – Protection of Water Resources - ENV 13 – Exposure to Poor Air Quality - H1 – Housing Development - H9 – Affordable Housing - H10 – Housing Mix

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance - ` SPD – Accessible Homes and Playspace (2005) - The Essex Design Guide - Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009) - Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards (2013)

Page 38 7.3 - West Essex and East Hertfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016) - Uttlesford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2016) - NPPF 2019 – Five Year Housing Land Supply update (March 2019) - Emerging Local Plan

8. SAFFRON WALDEN TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 Object to this application as proposed on the following grounds: (a) Application does not meet UDCs own requirements for affordable housing (b) The scheme lacks green space (c) The footpath access track (just outside the development but included in site map0 is not suitable for wheelchair users (d) Change of use from retail employment land to residential

And that objection would be withdrawn subject to the following amendments. (a) Provision of 40% or more affordable housing as per UDC obligations (b) Parking to be located at the front of the building and amenity greenspace (for example a community garden square) to be located at the centre of the development (c) The footpath access track be resurfaced/paved as a planning obligation to ensure that it is accessible to all users.

9. CONSULTATIONS

Affinity Water

9.1 Be aware that the proposed development site is located within an Environment Agency defined groundwater Source Protection Zone (GPZ) corresponding to Debden Pumping Station. This is a public water supply, comprising a number of Chalk abstraction boreholes, operated by Affinity Water Ltd.

9.2 The construction works and operation of the proposed development site should be done in accordance with relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly reducing the groundwater pollution risk. It should be noted that the construction works may exacerbate any existing pollution. If any pollution is found at the site then the appropriate monitoring and remediation methods will need to be undertaken.

Anglian Water

9.3 No objection subject to recommended condition.

9.4 No assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within the development site boundary. The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Saffron Walden Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. The developer will need to confirm a connecting manhole and discharge regime including pump rate if applicable. The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system with connection to sewer seen as the last option.

Cadent Gas

Page 39 9.5 Proposal as currently specified is in proximity to Cadent and/or National grid apparatus.

Environment Agency

9.6 No objection subject to recommended conditions.

9.7 No objections to the proposal provided that recommended conditions on groundwater and contaminated land are included should permission be granted. The site is located above a principal chalk aquifer, situated within the WFD Cam and Ely Ouse Chalk groundwater body. The site is also located within an SPZ2, however groundwater is considered to be at a significant depth. The site is considered to be contaminative. The site is also considered to be of a high sensitivity and could present potential pollutant/contaminant linkages to controlled waters.

Environmental Health

9.8 No objection subject to recommended conditions. Note– following an initial holding objection the applicant submitted additional information in the form of an Acoustic Report and the holding objection was removed.

Land Quality

9.9 Historically the site was a chalk quarry with rail/tramway to the nearby cement works, later used for landfill and more recently as a waste transfer station. A land quality investigation and risk assessment has been prepared Harrison Geotechnical Engineering. The findings confirm the site lies above a principle chalk aquifer, with groundwater at least 35m bgl, and made ground to a depth of 6.2m.

9.10 Within the made ground and natural surrounding material, a number of substances exceeding available assessment criteria were found. In addition, asbestos and asbestos containing material was identified in 50% of soil samples, indicating that their presence within the fill is widespread in multiple forms.

9.11 Due to the proposed limited available garden space for the dwellings, a future land use scenario of residential without home grown produce has been adopted.

9.12 The risk of inhalation of asbestos fibres is greatly increased once airborne during ground disturbance, and an acceptable method of remediation is provision of a suitable cover system, provided measures are taken to protect the health and safety of site workers during development. A cover system would also provide acceptable remediation of other substances, taking account of the magnitude of exceedances. Leachable levels of one PAH substance, anthracene, was identified, however the Environment Agency have not raised concern due to the depth of ground water and the proposal to provide capping as a means of reducing the potential for mobilisation.

9.13 Monitoring for ground gas generated by the fill and underlying chalk was carried out, and identified moderate flow of carbon dioxide. It is recommended that migration of ground gas is investigated further once development is underway, to determine whether gas protection measures to the dwellings is necessary and the nature of those measures.

9.14 An unidentified brick structure amongst dense vegetation and was noted and it is possible that below ground features will be identified during site clearance and preparation.

Page 40 9.15 Undiscovered contamination should be reported and a scheme for remediation submitted if necessary.

9.16 Conditions to address contamination are therefore recommended in the interests of safety, residential amenity and proper planning of the area, in accordance with Policies GEN2, GEN4 and ENV14 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

Noise

9.17 The site is subject to noise from traffic on Thaxted Road and the adjacent Aldi supermarket. An assessment of noise sources and mitigation has been prepared by Acoustic Associates and concludes that suitable living conditions can be provided for future residents.

9.18 Noise levels at the outdoor balconies serving plots 5-11 were assessed to be 53 dB LAeq 16hr, slightly exceeding the guidance of 50 dB LAeq 16hr in outdoor living areas set by WHO above which moderate annoyance is likely to occur. Residents would however have access to the communal garden area to seek outdoor space below this level.

9.19 Acceptable internal noise levels can be achieved by provision of double glazing and mechanical ventilation to a suitable standard, and by locating living rooms and bedrooms, or at least one window within the rooms, in the acoustic shadow. It is proposed that a boundary fence is provided which will assist in reducing noise levels. Conditions to address noise are therefore recommended in the interests of residential amenity of the future occupiers of the properties, in accordance with Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN2 and ENV11 (adopted 2005) and the NPPF.

Air Quality

9.20 Traffic generated by the proposal will impact on Saffron Walden Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Assessment has been prepared by Aether, and has used a conservative estimate of 54 additional vehicles per day accessing the local road network. It has assumed an opening year of 2021, and predicts an increase in nitrogen dioxide of max 0.1g m-3 with negligible impact on air quality. Nevertheless, in accordance with national planning guidance, measures should be provided to reduce emissions to a minimum. Measures proposed include the provision of cycle storage, and it is noted that only 2 spaces are provided for the 10 flats proposed and this should be increased where possible. The site is within acceptable cycling/walking distance to amenities.

Essex County Council - Archaeological

9.21 The Historic Environment Record shows that the proposed development lies within an area of known sensitive archaeological deposits. The development lies within a historic lime and cement production site known to contain post- medieval lime kilns marked as ‘Cement Works’ on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1897. Within the proposed site, on the Third Edition OS Map there is identified a circular feature which may represent a further lime kiln.

9.22 Recommendation for a condition for an archaeological programme of trial trenching followed by open area excavation.

Page 41 Essex County Council – Ecology

9.23 We have reviewed the Ecological Report (Wild Frontier Ecology, June 2019) relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, protected species and Priority Species. We also support the proposed reasonable biodiversity enhancements, which has been recommended to secure measurable net gains for biodiversity, as outlined under Paragraph 170d of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

Essex County Council – Highways

9.24 No objection subject to recommended conditions. Note – following an initial holding objection the applicant submitted additional information and the holding objection was removed.

Essex County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority

9.25 No objection subject to recommended conditions. Note – following an initial holding objection the applicant submitted additional information and the holding objection was removed.

9.26 Having reviewed the Flood Risk assessment and the associated documents which accompanied the planning application, we do not object to the granting of planning permission based on the recommended conditions.

Essex County Council - Minerals and Waste

9.27 No objection. Note - following an initial holding objection the applicant submitted additional information and the holding objection was removed.

Waste

9.28 The application site is within a Waste Consultation Area associated with the Saffron Walden Civic Amenity site and subject to Policy 2 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan 2017. Policy 2 seeks to ensure that existing and allocated waste sites and infrastructure are protected from inappropriate neighbouring developments. Policy 2 defines Waste Consultation Areas as extending up to 250m from most types of waste facility.

9.29 Planning applications made within a WCA are advised to include evidence addressing the following issues:

a. The overall compatibility of the development with the existing or proposed waste management development; b. The distance to the development from the site subject to the WCA at its closest point, to include the facility and any access routes; c. The presence of any existing buildings or other features which naturally screen the proposed development from the site subject to the WCA;

Page 42 d. Evidence addressing the ability of waste vehicle traffic to access, operate within and vacate the waste development in line with extant planning permission. If the waste facility is not yet operating, it will need to be shown how the proposed non-waste development would not impact on future waste development; e. Demonstrate that the non-waste development would not adversely impact upon the operation of the existing/permitted waste development eg. As a result of noise, dust, odour, traffic, light etc. Where there is potential for adverse impact upon the waste development the new non-waste development should propose mitigation to address these adverse impacts.

Reference is also made to paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

9.30 Provided that your authority accepts the applicant’s conclusion that there would be no adverse impacts on the waste recycling centre the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority removes its holding objection

Minerals

9.31 It is noted that whilst the application site falls with an MSA associated with Chalk it is below the 3ha threshold that requires a MRA to support the application and there are not considered to be any mineral policy implications.

Essex Police

9.32 Whist there are no major concerns with the layout to comment further we would require the finer detail such as the proposed lighting, boundary treatments and physical security measures. Being tucked away behind Aldi careful consideration will need to be given to security aspects of the design.

London Stansted Airport

9.33 No safeguarding objections.

UK Power Networks

9.34 Enclosed copy of records which show the electrical lines/ and/or electrical plant. Should the excavation affect our Extra High Voltage equipment please contact us to obtain a copy of the primary route drawings and associated cross sections.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 The application was

11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

Page 43 A Principle of and quantum of development (Policies S7, H11, NPPF) B Design and Layout (Policy GEN2)

C Access and Parking (Policy GEN1, GEN8) D Accessibility (GEN2) E Affordable Housing and Housing Mix (Policy H9, H10)) F SuDs and Flood Risk (Policy GEN3) G Environmental Health (Policies GEN2,ENV10, NPPF) H Biodiversity (Policy GEN7) I Archaeology (Policy ENV4)

A Principle of and quantum of development (Policies S7, H11, NPPF)

11.1 The 2005 Proposals Map shows the site as being outside of the development limits but bordering a parcel of land within limits, but detached from the Saffron Walden town boundary, containing the site of The Old Cement Kilns and a Depot. The emerging Local Plan includes the site as part of the boundary extension of the town reflecting recent development and extant planning permissions. Within this plan Policy SAF6 allocates this land for the development of approximately 13 dwellings.

11.2 At present the site where the residential development would take place remains outside development limits and thus within the area defined to be within the countryside and subject to Policy S7. Planning permission within the countryside will only be granted for development that needs to be take there, or is appropriate to a rural area and the policy specifically states that this includes infilling. As the site is bordered by housing and commercial development it could reasonably be considered to represent a form of infill development enabled by Policy S7. Regardless of this Policy H11 is also applicable and this allows for affordable housing development on a site where housing would not normally be permitted, if it would meet all the following criteria: a, 100% of the dwellings are to be affordable and provided through a Registered Social Landlord; b, The development will meet a particular local need that cannot be met in any other way; c, The development is of a scale appropriate to the size, facilities and character of the settlement; and d, The site adjoins the settlement.

11.3 It is considered that the proposed development would satisfy the generic requirements of this policy. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF would also provide policy support for the development as it allows, as an exception, limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan (including policies for rural exception sites).

11.4 The NPPF indicates that applications for housing development should be considered in the context of sustainable development. The Council are currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with shortfall being around 3.29 years. In such circumstances Paragraph 11d, within the

Page 44 Achieving Sustainable Development section, states that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The site is not considered to be affected by any such assets and thus the presumption in favour of sustainable development would support the grant of planning permission given that the site is considered to meet the social, economic and environmental role of sustainable development.

B Design and Layout (Policy GEN2)

11.5 Both national and local policy expect developments to be constructed to a high standard of design. Local Plan Policy GEN2 seeks to promote good design requiring that development should meet with the criteria set out in that policy. Regard should be had to the scale form, layout and appearance of the development and to safeguarding important environmental features in its setting to reduce the visual impact of the new buildings where appropriate. The guidance set out in Paragraph 127 of the NPPF stipulates that proposed development should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

11.6 A summary of the proposed development is provided below:

Plot(s) Dwelling Type Bedrooms Internal Area Garden Size 1 Detached 3 95.9 m² 192 m² 2 Detached 3 95.2 m² 147 m² 3 Semi-detached 3 120.8 m² 87 m² 4 Semi-detached 3 120.8 m² 84 m² 5-10 Ground Floor Flat 2 78.9 m² 7 m² Terraces 5-10 Ground Floor Flat 1 50.65 m² 7 m² Terraces 5-10 First Floor Flat 2 78.9 m² 5 m² Balcony 5-10 First Floor Flat 1 50.65 m² 5 m² Balcony 5-10 Second Floor Flat 2 78.9 m² 5 m² Balcony 5-10 Second Floor Flat 1 50.65 m² 5 m² Balcony 11-14 First Floor Flat 1 66.4 m² 5 m² Balcony 11-14 First Floor Flat 1 66.4 m² 5 m² Balcony 11-14 Second Floor Flat 1 58.9 m ² 5 m² Balcony 11-14 Second Floor Flat 1 58.9 m ² 5 m² Balcony

11.7 Plots 1 and 2 are both 3 bedroom dwellings located close to the site entrance. Plot 1 provides a wide frontage to follow the access road line and Plot 2 is rotated to from a corner turn and provide interest both from within the site and to provide interest when viewed from the entrance. These plots hold an elevated position with gardens towards the byway.

11.8 Plots 3 and 4 re both semi-detached dwellings in the western corner of the site. Parking would be provided across the drive in an open fronted garage adjacent the rear garden of Plot 2. This garage would also perform a retaining structural use as the ground levels change with this extending into a retaining

Page 45 wall and steps leading to the byway. Gardens would be provided to the rear in a southerly position and raised above the highway with an intervening landscaped bank providing usable private space.

11.9 Plots 5 to 10 are a mix of one and two bedroom flats in a 2½ storey building broadly parallel with Thaxted Road. The building features a variety of architectural features to provide a contrast to the block building of the adjacent supermarket. The building has glazed balconies offering far reaching southerly views across open farmland, a combination of brickwork and weatherboarded finish to the walls and projecting gables with pitched roof dormers to the uppermost floor. Each flat would be provide with a private balcony or terrace in addition to the use of a communal garden area.

11.10 Plots 11 to 14 are one bedroom flats also in a 2½ storey block with the lower floor providing an undercroft parking area. This building runs parallel to the back of the supermarket masking its blank elevation and providing a buttress to the bank between the two buildings. Each flat would be provided with a private balcony within the side gable ends as well as access to communal space. The roofscape also benefits from the introduction of inserted gables to the long elevation to add both visual interest and break up the building mass.

11.11 Policy GEN2(i) requires developments to not create an unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers in terms of shadowing, visual dominance or loss of privacy. The front elevations of the townhouses on Tiptoft Mews face towards the application site. The only two dwellings on the application site that have their rear elevations facing towards the existing dwellings are the two storey dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 and there would be a minimum separation of 38m between the existing and proposed dwellings. The separation distance to the flats on Plots 11-14 would be 60m. Plot 3 would be the closest dwelling to Tiptoft Mews towards which it would present its side elevation. This elevation features a small first floor bathroom window and one side door at ground level with a separation distance of 26m to the existing dwellings. Given the degree of separation between dwellings on the site it is not considered that there would be any impact on amenity in terms of shadowing, visual dominance or loss of privacy.

C Access and Parking (Policy GEN1, GEN8)

11.12 Applicants are required to show that their development would not compromise the safety of the highway by ensuring that any additional traffic generated by the development can be easily and safely accommodated within the existing highway network (Policy GEN1). Using standard ‘TRICS’ trip rate information for 14 dwellings this would equate to approximately 4 departures and 1-2 arrivals in the generic AM peak hour, reversed in the PM peak. This quantum o trip generation is relatively small and would not have an impact on highway capacity. A shared pedestrian/cycle path leads from outside the site along Thaxted Road to the junction with Peaslands Road.

11.13 The access to the site would be via a roadway running alongside the Aldi store to the site edge. This is 6.2m wide with a 2m wide footpath. At the entrance to

Page 46 the site there would be a ramped access rising upwards at a 1:15 gradient to the shared driveway and parking court. This would be constructed of permeable block paving as part of the developments surface water drainage strategy.

11.14 Parking provision across the site would be accommodated by means of car ports, undercroft parking and uncovered spaces. The ECC Parking Standards treat flats and houses the same and requires a minimum of 1 space per dwelling for one bedroom properties and 2 spaces for properties with 2 or more bedrooms. In addition visitor parking is required at the ratio of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. The detached houses on plots 1 and 2 (3 bedrooms) would be provided with 2 spaces in tandem which, as they would be located within the curtilage of the dwelling, are accepted by the Standards. The semi- detached houses on Plots 3 and 4 (3 bedroom) would be provided with 2 spaces each and side by side within a car port positioned 9m forward of their front elevation. The two bedroom flats (Plots 5-7) would be provided with 2 uncovered spaces each. The remaining flats (Plots 8-14) would each be provided with a single space either in the open area or within an undercroft. 4 visitor spaces would be provided. All spaces would be of the preferred 5.5m x 2.9m bay size. Accordingly the development would be in accordance with the vehicle parking space requirements.

11.15 The houses would be provided with sheds to accommodate bicycle storage. Occupiers of the flats would have access to an enclosed cycle storage facility adjacent the undercroft vehicle parking area.

11.16 A pedestrian access to Tiptoft Lane would also be provided reducing the walking distance into Saffron Walden.

11.17 Taking into account the comments of the Local Highways Authority, it is considered that there would be no adverse effects on road safety, capacity or efficiency. The site is also in a location that meets the sustainable transport objectives of Policy GEN 1 and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

D Accessibility (Policy GEN2)

11.18 Policy GEN 2 and the SPD entitled ‘Accessible Homes and Playspace’ require compliance with the lifetime Homes standards. However these standards have effectively been superseded by the requirements of Part M of the Building regulations. Compliance with these requirements could be secured by condition.

E Affordable Housing and Housing Mix (Policy H9, H10))

11.19 Local Plan Policy H9 seeks an element of affordable housing on a site by site basis. This has been effectively superseded by paragraph 63 of the NPPF which states that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments which are not major developments. A development of 14 dwellings constitutes major residential development.

Page 47 11.20 The 2017 SHMA identified that the affordable housing need of the district as being 2,600 homes for the period from 2011-2033 of which 477 had been completed by the end of 2016. All the dwellings would be provided as affordable housing making a positive contribution to this housing need. The SHMA identified the tenure split requirement of 71% affordable rent and 29% intermediate affordable housing. Details of the tenure types, however, have not been specified for the development.

11.21 The development would provide 4 three bedroom houses, 3 two bedroom flats and 7 one bedroom flats. This would satisfy the housing mix requirement of Policy H10 although this policy is directed at providing a significant proportion of market housing comprising smaller properties.

F SuDs and Flood Risk (Policy GEN3)

11.22 The site is contained within Flood Zone 1 as defined by the Environment Agency, land zoned as having the lowest level of flood risk from rivers or the sea. The Uttlesford District SFRA confirms the site is at ‘very low’ risk of surface water flooding. An open culvert is situated at the Thaxted Road frontage that conveys surface water run off to the Thaxted Road Slade. The site has underlying chalk designated as a principal aquifer providing a source of groundwater supplying the district however this is at a significant depth below the site.

11.23 The NPPF requires that sustainable drainage systems for the management of run off are put in place on major residential developments.

11.24 The access road and parking spaces would be constructed of permeable block paving. This would be a Type C system with no infiltration into the subsoil, given the risk of ground instability and the potential for ground contamination, and a series perforated pipes conveying rainfall to the receiving drainage system,. Roof water run off will be directed to the receiving drainage system. Rainwater butts would be provided to the rear of the houses. The receiving drainage system will discharge to the off-site watercourse via an attenuation tank of dimensions 2m x 16 m x 1.2m depth and flow control device.

11.25 The Environment Agency and Essex County Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority, have been consulted and have no objection to the application subject to recommended conditions.

G Environmental Health (Policies GEN2,ENV10, NPPF)

11.26 Policy GEN2 requires development to provide an environment, which meets the reasonable needs of all potential users.

Noise 11.27 Policy ENV10 states that housing and other noise sensitive development will not be permitted if the occupants would experience significant noise disturbance. The site is adjacent the Thaxted Road and susceptible to traffic

Page 48 noise. Commercial operations at the Aldi supermarket are also a source for potential noise.

11.28 Paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health and living conditions etc.

11.29 Paragraph 182 requires new development to be integrated effectively with existing businesses and that such businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the applicant should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

11.30 The applicant has submitted an Environmental Noise Assessment which included attended and unattended noise monitoring, predictive noise modelling, and assessment of the results and consideration of noise mitigation measures specifically glazing and ventilation to all plots.

11.31 The proposed outdoor garden areas of all plots are shown to be exposed to acceptable noise levels below the threshold for “moderate annoyance, daytime and evening” given in the WHO guidelines

11.32 The assessment carried out shows the noise impact on the proposed development is likely to be at a level where an “Observed Adverse Effect” could occur. It is recommended that mitigation measures proposed within the report are implemented as part of the development, as this would result in an unacceptable noise situation. It is not considered that the development itself would have an impact on other noise receptors other than during the short term construction period.

Contamination

11.33 Where a site is known or strongly suspected to be contaminated, and this is causing or may cause significant harm, or pollution of controlled waters Policy ENV4 requires a site investigation, risk assessment, proposals and timetable for remediation. Paragraph 178 of the Framework states that planning decisions should ensure the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. Paragraph 179 states that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

11.34 The historic land use of the site is associated with chalk extraction from the late 1800s, evidence by a chalk pit shown on OS mapping, and as a refuse tip from the 1960s with the site not used for any known purpose since the 1980s. The applicant has submitted a site investigation report focusing on geotechnical and contamination issues which involved drilling boreholes, excavating trial pits and ground gas monitoring. The investigation found the

Page 49 site to be made ground across the vast majority of the site underlain by chalk bedrock. The made ground was found to be of a general depth of 1.0m and 1.2m, and 6.2m within a former chalk pit, and comprised variable waste including brick, concrete, glass, clinker, metal, wood, bone, and miscellaneous waste.

11.34 The monitoring of ground gases found these to represent low hazard potential. Contaminants were found on the site including materials containing asbestos and heavy metals. Elevated levels of lead were identified in three samples over five times higher than the screening values and two samples of elemental mercury marginally higher than screening values. Recorded levels of leachable Anthracene were six times higher than screening levels. The Environment Agency has not raised concern the risk to the aquifer may be mitigated by its significant depth in excess of 35m below ground level and the development providing a built cap to the majority of the site.

11.35 A piled foundation has been recommended and suitable reinforced concrete floor slabs are considered necessary for land stability. Continuous Flight Auger piles are considered suitable in order not to aid leaching of substances into the underlying aquifer.

11.36 The report identified that the risk posed to future residents on the site to be considered unacceptably high if remediation is not completed. Remediation in the form of a soil cover system underlain by a geotechnical membrane is recommended with a depth of 60mm required for garden areas and 450mm for public open spaces. Upgraded water supply pipes are also recommended due to the presence of contaminants in the made ground.

11.37 The risk posed to site workers from asbestos during construction works was found to be medium, and contractors should undertake their own risk assessment given the circumstances.

Air Quality

11.38 It is expected that traffic generated by the proposal will impact on the Saffron Walden Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Assessment has been prepared using a conservative estimate of 54 additional vehicles per day accessing the local road network. The assessment has assumed an opening year of 2021, and predicts an increase in nitrogen dioxide of max 0.1µg m-3 with negligible impact on air quality. Each dwelling will be provided with access to cycle storage and the site is within a reasonable cycling/walking distance to most amenities such that there would not be an over reliance on private motor vehicles. Given the increased use of electric and hybrid vehicles a condition requiring a suitable provision of electric charging points is recommended.

Waste Facility

11.39 The application site is within a Waste Consultation Area associated with the Saffron Walden Civic Amenity site and subject to Policy 2 of the Essex and

Page 50 Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan 2017. Policy 2 seeks to ensure that existing and allocated waste sites and infrastructure are protected from inappropriate neighbouring developments.

Following an initial holding objection from the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA) the applicant has drawn attention to the significant intervening large commercial buildings between the proposed development site and the waste recycling centre. Reference is also made to a transport note and further supporting information which argues that the highways impact of the new development will be negligible in its wider context, such that traffic to and from the existing waste facility would not be impeded. Provided that the LPA accepts this conclusion the MWPA removes its holding objection. There is a separation distance of 175m, between the site and the recycling facility, at its closest point and given the intervening built form and the limited traffic likely arising from the proposed development it is not considered that there would be any conflict of interests between the use of the two sites.

H Biodiversity (Policy GEN7)

11.40 The overarching policy guidance for biodiversity is included within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF4). Section 15 of this document (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) outlines the approach that Local Authorities should adopt when considering ecological issues within the planning framework, including the principles of the Mitigation Hierarchy. This espouses that in addressing impacts on valued features, avoidance should be the first option considered, followed by mitigation (minimising negative impacts). Where avoidance and mitigation are not possible, compensation for loss of features can be used as a last resort. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF gives policy support to the provision of measurable net gains in biodiversity.

11.41 The applicant has submitted an ecology assessment including a desk study, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a reptile survey, which were completed between April and May 2019. There are no statutory designated sites within the vicinity and the closest Local Wildlife Site is Pounce Wood 1,420m to the north east of the site. The closest protected roadside verge is at Roos Hill 970m the south-west. At these distances no impacts would be expected form a development of this proposed scale.

11.42 The habitat has a varied structure and forms part of a wider network of habitat to the north, however, it is heavily disturbed by noise and light from nearby roads, residences and commercial buildings so its value for nesting birds, mammals and reptiles is limited and not uncommon on brownfield or disturbed sites. The development would require clearance of ruderal vegetation across the site likely to have some impact on biodiversity at the local scale. The reptile survey recorded no species on the site so no impact to reptiles is predicted. No water bodies and no amphibians were recorded on site during the survey. There are no features within the proposed development site with realistic potential to support roosting bats. Most other protected and valued species are predicted to experience no more than minor negative impacts as a

Page 51 result of the proposed development. The site provides suitable habitat for nesting birds, so mitigation and enhancement measures are advised to address predicted impacts.

I Archaeology (Policy ENV4)

11.43 The Historic Environment Record shows that the proposed development lies within an area of known sensitive archaeological deposits. The development lies within a historic lime and cement production site known to contain post- medieval lime kilns marked as ‘Cement Works’ on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1897. Within the proposed site, on the Third Edition OS Map there is identified a circular feature which may represent a further lime kiln. In consideration of this the County Historic Environment Adviser has made a recommendation for a condition for an archaeological programme of trial trenching followed by open area excavation.

11.44 Notwithstanding this recommended condition Officers consider that account must be taken of the 1960s and later use as a site for depositing waste material. The Site Investigation Report (Harrison Geotechnical Engineering March 2017) found the site mostly comprised of made ground with deposits of waste material to a general depth of 1.0m to 1.2m, and 6.2m within a former chalk pit, and furthermore it contained contaminants including asbestos products. As such, and in consideration of the recommendation of the Historic Environment Adviser, on balance it is not considered prudent to require a programme of archaeological investigation.

12 CONCLUSION

12.1 The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The principle of the development is deemed to be appropriate in that it would be a sustainable development in accordance with local and national planning policies.

B The proposal would provide fourteen affordable housing units to the benefit of the local community.

C Subject to appropriate mitigation measures the proposal would make the best use of a tainted site and provide a good quality living environment for future occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION – Approval subject to the conditions and Section 106 Agreement

(I) The applicant be informed that the Planning Committee would be minded to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph (III) unless the freehold owner enters into a binding obligation to cover the matters set out below under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, in a form to be prepared by the Head of Legal

Page 52 Services, in which case he shall be authorised to conclude such an obligation to secure the following:

(i) On-site provision of 14 affordable homes (ii) Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal costs (iii) Payment of a monitoring fee

(II) In the event of such an obligation being made, the Assistant Director Planning shall be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions set out below

(III) If the freehold owner shall fail to enter into an obligation by 17th October 2019, the Assistant Director Planning shall be authorised to refuse permission in his discretion anytime thereafter for the following reasons:

(i) Inadequate affordable housing provision

Conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans specified in the schedule.

3 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors b) loading and unloading of plant and materials c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development e) wheel and underbody cleaning facilities f) protection of the byway 18 (Saffron Walden)

Page 53 REASON: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding residential and business premises and highway safety in accordance with Policies GEN1, GEN2, and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005). Justification: This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure the appropriate environmental mitigation measures are secured prior to works commencing.

4 Prior to first occupation of the development the access and vehicle parking provision as shown on submitted drawing number UDC.730.P02B shall be provided and retained for that use thereafter.

REASON: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

5 Prior to first occupation cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with EPOA Parking Standards. The approved facility shall be secure, convenient, covered and provided prior to first occupation and retained for that use thereafter.

REASON: To ensure appropriate cycle parking is provided in the interest of encouraging movement by means other than driving a car in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

6 Prior to first occupation the pedestrian access onto public right of way byway 18 (Saffron Walden) as shown in principle on drawing number UDC.730.P02B shall be provided. The access to include a ‘wheeling ramp’ adjacent to the steps to allow cycles to be wheeled down and access the bridleway.

REASON: In the interest of encouraging movement by means other than driving a car in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

7 No development shall take place until a comprehensive condition survey of public right of way byway 18 (Saffron Walden) from its junction with Thaxted Road to at the north eastern boundary of the site has been completed and submitted to and approved by the highway authority.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and retaining the amenity of the byway, should the construction of the development impact on it, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005). Justification: This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the condition of the byway is fully understood prior to works commencing.

8 Following completion of the construction of the development, a further comprehensive survey of public right of way byway 18 (Saffron Walden) from

Page 54 its junction with Thaxted Road to at the north eastern boundary of the site shall be complete. The results of the survey and any identified damage/repair work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any repair works identified in the ‘after’ survey shall be carried out within 3 months of the completion of the construction of the dwellings to a programme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

9 Prior to any works above slab level, details of the following external finishes (including samples and/or photographs as appropriate) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: - Walls - Roof - Windows - Doors The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure compatibility with the character of the area, in accordance with Policy ENV1 and Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 Prior to first occupation of any dwelling, details of the following hard and soft landscaping works must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: - Retained features - New planting - Hard surfaces - Boundary treatment All hard and soft landscape works must be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure compatibility with the character of the area, in accordance with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 All planting, seeding or turfing and soil preparation comprised in the above details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, the completion of the development, or in agreed phases whichever is the sooner, and any plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. All landscape

Page 55 works must be carried out in accordance with the guidance contained in British Standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON: To ensure compatibility with the character of the area, in accordance with Policy ENV1 and Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

12 The dwellings hereby permitted must be built in accordance with Requirement M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.

REASON: To ensure a high standard of accessibility, in accordance with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005), the SPD entitled 'Accessible Homes and Playspace' and the Planning Practice Guidance.

13 Prior to the construction above damp proof course, a scheme for on-site foul water drainage works, including connection point and discharge rate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any phase, the foul water drainage works relating to that phase must have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme.

REASON: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding in accordance with Policy GEN3 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

14 No works shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme should include but not be limited to: • Limiting discharge rates to 1l/s for all storm events up to an including the 1 in 100 year rate plus 40% allowance for climate change. • Final modelling and calculations for all areas of the drainage system. • Detailed engineering drawings of each component of the drainage scheme. • A written report summarising the final strategy and highlighting any minor changes to the approved strategy. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to occupation.

REASON: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site, to ensure the effective operation of SuDS features over the lifetime of the development, and to provide mitigation of any environmental harm which may be caused to the local water environment, in accordance with Policy GEN3 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the NPPF. Justification: Failure to provide the above required information before commencement of works may result in a system being installed that is not

Page 56 sufficient to deal with surface water occurring during rainfall events and may lead to increased flood risk and pollution hazard from the site.

15 No works shall take place until a scheme to minimise the risk of offsite flooding caused by surface water run-off and groundwater during construction works and prevent pollution has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented as approved.

REASON: In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 163 and paragraph 170 which state that local planning authorities should ensure development does not increase flood risk elsewhere and does not contribute to water pollution. Justification: Construction may lead to excess water being discharged from the site. If dewatering takes place to allow for construction to take place below groundwater level, this will cause additional water to be discharged. Furthermore the removal of topsoils during construction may limit the ability of the site to intercept rainfall and may lead to increased runoff rates. To mitigate increased flood risk to the surrounding area during construction there needs to be satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water and groundwater which needs to be agreed before commencement of the development. Construction may also lead to polluted water being allowed to leave the site. Methods for preventing or mitigating this should be proposed.

16 Prior to occupation a maintenance plan detailing the maintenance arrangements including who is responsible for different elements of the surface water drainage system and the maintenance activities/frequencies, has been submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Should any part be maintainable by a maintenance company, details of long term funding arrangements should be provided.

REASON: To ensure appropriate maintenance arrangements are put in place to enable the surface water drainage system to function as intended to ensure mitigation against flood risk, in accordance with Policy GEN3 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

17 No development, including groundworks other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, shall take place until an assessment of the nature and risks of ground gas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess the risks of any ground gasses impacting on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. Depending on the outcome, details of the nature of gas protection measures to be provided to dwellings and justification for their use shall be included.

REASON: To ensure that the development is in the interests of safety, residential amenity and proper planning of the area, in accordance with Policies GEN2, GEN4 and ENV14 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005)

Page 57 Justification: Failure to provide the above required information before commencement of works This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure any risks due to gas emissions are fully understood prior to works commencing.

18 Following profiling to final soil levels, clean soil cover to a minimum depth of 450mm in public soft landscaping areas and 600mm in gardens shall be provided, underlain by a geotextile warning membrane.

19 Following completion of remediation measures, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include proof of depth and quality of clean cover.

20 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared detailing how the contamination will be dealt with, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

21 The windows and external doors to dwellings shall be provided with double glazing and trickle ventilation to achieve the ambient noise levels in British Standard 8233:2014.

REASON: To ensure the development is in the interests of residential amenity of the future occupiers of the properties, in accordance with Policies GEN2 and ENV11 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

22 Outdoor amenity areas shall be surrounded by a 1.8m high close boarded fence with interlocking joints and density of at least 10kg/m² or other barrier of the same or higher acoustic specification.

Page 58 REASON: To ensure the development is in the interests of residential amenity of the future occupiers of the properties, in accordance with Policies GEN2 and ENV11 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

23 Prior to first occupation an electric vehicle charge point shall be provided within each garage or at one or more of the allocated parking spaces associated with each dwelling.

REASON: In the interests of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

24 All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Ecological Report (Wild Frontier Ecology, June 2019) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. This shall include the reasonable biodiversity enhancements outlined in the Ecological Report, including the provision of hedgehog-friendly fencing and the installation of at least 12 bird nest boxes and at least two bat roost boxes, should also be implemented.

REASON: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species in accordance with Policy GEN7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council Department: Planning Date: 30th September 2019

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

UTT/19/1411FUL - LITTLEBURY (Called in by CLLR Gregory if recommended for approval due to over development of the site and only suitable for one dwelling, impact on neighbours, out of character with the area)

PROPOSAL: Section 73A Retrospective application for the demolition of the existing garage. Proposed erection of 2 no. detached dwellings

LOCATION: Endeavour, Littlebury Green Road, Littlebury

APPLICANT: Mr Gary Mullins

AGENT: Mr Randolphe Palmer

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2019

CASE OFFICER: Chris Tyler

1. NOTATION

1.1 Outside Development Limits,

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The application site relates to a detached bungalow property and it curtilage located to the south of Littlebury Green Road in Littlebury. The site is accessed from the main highway by private driveway, to the rear of the site is large rear garden.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 This application is for the retrospective demolition of garage and proposed demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of two dwellings. One dwelling is proposed to the front of the site and a second within the rear garden area. The existing access will serve the dwelling and off street parking will be provided.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

And Human Rights Act considerations: There may be implications under Article 1 and Article 8 of the First Protocol regarding the right of respect for a person’s private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; however, these issues have been taken into account in the determination of this application

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

Page 61 Also included in the application: Ecological appraisal Transport assessment Tree survey

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 UTT/18/3081/FUL- Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no. Dwellings. REFUSED- 15/5/2019

Refused due to the scale and design of the development and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

7. POLICIES

7.1 National Policies

7.2 National Planning Policy Framework

7.3 Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

Policy S7 –The Countryside Policy GEN2 – Design Policy H4- Backland Development Policy GEN1- Access Policy GEN8- Parking Standards Policy GEN7 - Nature Conservation Policy H9- Affordable Housing

7.4 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards (2013) Supplementary Planning Document- Accessible homes and play space homes Essex Design Guide

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 1. House B is detrimental to the visual amenity and open character of Littlebury Green. It extends the built area of the village into surrounding countryside and consolidates existing development, therefore adversely affects the character and appearance of the site and surroundings.

2. The development overshadows adjoining properties, mainly Farthings and Rosemary Cottage which were restricted to single storey on appeal. Additional traffic noise will be caused, disturbing the privacy of residents. Rosemary Cottage is still not on the plans and the development has a serious impact on Rosemary Cottage.

3. Back land development and therefore not acceptable as an infill plot, which encourages applications of similar development elsewhere in the vicinity which could result in a gradual change to the character and appearance of the village. All other applications at the rear of properties in Littlebury Green have been refused at appeal.

Page 62 4. The biodiversity report did not mention the nature reserve around St. Peters Church, owned by the PC and the impact of the effluent.

5. House A: The depth and proximity to Briarwood and Churchside is overbearing causing a loss of light and the design is poor.

6. House B has been repositioned and the height has been reduced, the repositioning impacts on the neighbouring properties and the reduction of height doesn’t change the impact on the neighbouring properties. The orangery has increased in size which will overlook Farthings, Rosemary Cottage and Churchside.

7. The replacement of one dwelling to two larger dwellings is contrary to policy S7and Policy GEN2 of the UDC Local Plan.

8. If the Planning Officer is minded to approve the application the PC has asked Cllrs Gregory and Pavitt to call in the application to be discussed at committee and to include a site visit.

9.0 CONSULTATIONS

The Highways Authority

9.1 No objections or further recommendations made

ECC Ecology

9.2 No objection subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures

We have reviewed the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenlight Environmental Consultancy, Nov. 2018) relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, protected species and Priority species and habitats. We are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available for determination.

This provides certainty for the LPA of the likely impacts on Protected and Priority species/habitats and, with appropriate mitigation measures secured, the development can be made acceptable. The mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenlight Environmental Consultancy, Nov. 2018) should be secured and implemented in full. This is necessary to conserve and enhance Protected and Priority Species.

We also support the proposed reasonable biodiversity enhancements, identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenlight Environmental Consultancy, Nov. 2018), which have been recommended to secure measurable net gains for biodiversity, as outlined under Paragraph 170d of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The reasonable biodiversity enhancement measures should be detailed within a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy and should be secured as a condition of any consent.

This will enable LPA to demonstrate its compliance with its statutory duties including its biodiversity duty under s40 NERC Act 2006. Impacts will be minimised such that the proposal is acceptable subject to the conditions below based on BS42020:2013. Submission for approval and implementation of the details below should be a

Page 63 condition of any planning consent. Recommended conditions:

ACTION REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS “All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenlight Environmental Consultancy, Nov. 2018) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.

This may include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW,) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details.” Reason: To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

PRIOR TO SLAB LEVEL: BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY “A Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for Protected and Priority species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following: 1. Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; 2. detailed designs to achieve stated objectives; 3. locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans; 4. persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; 5. details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant). The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.” Reason: To enhance Protected and Priority Species/habitats and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

10 REPRESENTATIONS

21 objections received, see the following summary:

10.1 Comment Received Case Officer comments The development has already The description of the development has commenced been amended accordingly Overdevelopment of the plot This will be considered in the following report This is back land development This will be considered in the following report Loss of privacy to neighbouring This will be considered in the following properties report The site is unsustainable This will be considered in the following report Foul water solution should be included This is not a material consideration

Page 64 Insufficient consultation All neighbours surrounding the site have been consulted by letter. Removal of trees and pond in garden The removal of trees prior to the submission of the application is not a material consideration The revised application does not This will be considered in the following resolve the previous refusal reasons report Out of character with the site and This will be considered in the following surroundings report There are no other back land This will be considered in the following developments within the village report Insufficient parking This will be considered in the following report This will result in planning precedent All planning application are considered by their own merits The plans are misleading The plans are considered sufficient to assess the proposal Impact to wildlife This will be considered in the following report

11 APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A The principle of the development of this site, design (ULP Policies S7, H4 GEN2, NPPF, SPD Accessible Homes and Playspace); B Whether the development would result in harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing effects (ULP Policies GEN2, GEN4, H4 Essex Design Guide and the NPPF) C Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1); D Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policy GEN8 and ECC Parking Standards); E Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7) F Affordable Housing (ULP Policy H9) G Any other material considerations

A The principle of the development of this site, design (ULP Policies S7, H4 GEN2, NPPF, SPD Accessible Homes and Playspace);

11.1 The site is outside of the development limits (ULP Policy S7). ULP Policy S7 states that the countryside will be protected for its own sake and that planning permission will only be given for development that needs to take place there or is appropriate to the rural area, with development only being permitted if its appearance protects or enhances the particular character of the part of the countryside within which it is set or there are special reasons why the development in the form proposed needs to be there.

11.2 Furthermore ULP Policy H4 considers back land development and advises that the development of a parcel of land that does not have a road frontage will be permitted, if all the following criteria are met:

a)There is significant under use of the land and development would make more effective use of it

b) There would be no material overlooking or overshadowing of nearby properties.

Page 65 c)Development would not have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties

d) Access would not cause disturbance to nearby properties.

11.3 In regards to ULP Policy H4 the development is will make good use of the site; however its impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and loss of privacy will be assessed in part B of this report. Furthermore sufficient garden space has been provided, in accordance with the aims of the Essex Design Guide.

11.4 Although it could be argued the proposal due to the introduction of new built form would fail to comply with Local Plan Policy S7, it is also recognised that the NPPF sets out applicable national planning policy in relation to sustainable development and housing in rural areas. It has also been found that Local Plan Policy S7 is partly consistent with the NPPF, due to its protective approach. The following paragraph sets out the assessment of the principle of the development in regards to the NPPF. The proposal is outside of the development limits in the countryside, however due to the fact that the development will be within the existing curtilage of the site and the line of development along Thomas Walk, it is not considered the proposal would result in a dominating or harmful encroachment into the open countryside.

11.5 The site is tacked on to the existing hamlet of Littlebury Green and although outside of the development limits I do not consider the site to be isolated, this is supported by recent case law Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ. 610 which considers the definition of an isolated dwelling, and gives further clarification to its definition. That being said the proposal should also accord with the sustainable elements of the NPPF as set out in the following paragraphs.

11.6 As identified in the most recent housing trajectory document (March 2019), the Council's housing land supply is of 3.29 years, with a delivery rate of 147%. For the present time, the Council is therefore unable to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land.

11.7 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF considers the presumption of sustainable development, this includes where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date (this includes where five year housing supply cannot be delivered). This means that applications for sustainable development outside development limits may need to continue to be granted where appropriate to ensure the level of housing supply is robust and provides a continuous delivery of housing. Moreover the proposal should be considered against the three strands of sustainable development including economic, social and environmental

11.8 Economic: The NPPF identifies this as contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, supporting growth and innovation and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure. The development will deliver a small economic role by the creation of a small amount of employment during the construction phase and the occupiers of the house would contribute to the local economy in the long term, as such there would be some, but limited, positive economic benefit.

11.9 Social:

Page 66 The NPPF identifies this as supplying required housing and creating high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. In terms of the proposed development and in relation to the social aspect of sustainable development, the site is within reasonable walking distance of the village, this would be served by other villages and settlements within close proximity. Due to the location of the application site it is considered not be socially isolated and that the proposed development would be able to perform a social role and meet the social strand of sustainability in this regard.

11.10 Environmental: The landscape performs the function of clearly defining and containing the extent of built form. The proposed external materials to be used in the development are considered acceptable in this location. The proposed dwelling to the front of the site (Plot A) is considered to be an appropriate scale, design form and siting. It includes a traditional form that will not be out of place with the character of the street form or surrounding area.

11.11 Plot B will be to the rear of the site and includes a one a half storey dwelling. This low level design is included to mitigate the impact the harm to the character of the area. The revised design of the dwelling includes an appropriate scale and siting that is not considered to be harmful to the character of the site and surrounding area.

11.12 The design of the dwellings include a traditional form, appropriate scale and siting that will be compatible with the surrounding area. A condition should be included for the submission of details of materials. The dwellings will include sufficient private amenity space in accordance with the aims of the Essex Design Guide. The council’s landscape officer has been consulted, no objections or further recommendation have been made.

11.13 The proposed development will not result in a significant harmful encroachment to the outlying rural countryside area or have a dominating or intrusive impact to the site. As such it is considered the revised scheme is in accordance with ULP Policies S7, H4, GEN2 and the sustainable strand of development as outlined in the NPPF.

B Whether the development would result in harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing effects (ULP Policies GEN2, GEN4, H4 Essex Design Guide and the NPPF)

11.14 Policy GEN2 of the Local Plan states that new development should not have any materially adverse effect on the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of a residential property as a result of loss of privacy, loss of daylight, overbearing impact or overshadowing.

11.15 Policy GEN4 considers the impact to neighbouring properties in regards to noise and disturbance.

11.16 The siting and scale of the proposed dwellings the development will not result in any material loss of light that will result in any significant harm to neighbouring properties, furthermore the siting of the dwelling will unlikely result in any overbearing impacts that will be harmful to neighbouring properties.

Page 67 11.17 The siting of the dwellings within the application site will provide a back to back distance between properties of 25m and is in accordance with the aims of the Essex Design Guide and the protection of private amenity area. Due to the separation distance of the properties, this would also be consistent with the distances between plot B and the neighbouring properties along of Church side and Briarwood

11.18 To the rear of the site are the two bungalows, Farthings and Rosemary Cottage. Due to the siting of the dwellings I do not consider the proposal to result in any significant level of overlooking or loss of privacy that will have a harmful impact to neighbouring properties. The siting and orientation of the proposed dwelling (B) will ensure there is little overlooking of Farthings. In regards to the neighbouring property Rosemary Cottage, the rear elevation of plot B will be10m from the rear boundary. The Essex design guide advises that back of houses at more than 30 degrees to one another the separation distance can be reduced to 15m. Furthermore to the rear of the site there is a public right of way that passes the neighbouring property. From the case officer visit it is clear that there is already some overlooking of the garden area of Rosemary Cottage from the public right of way. As such taking into consideration the above points although the proposal will result in some material overlooking it is not of a level that a significant harmful impact. That being said a condition for mature planting and screening should be included to help mitigate this further.

C Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1)

11.19 The dwelling would be served by an existing access from Littlebury Green Road. Essex County Council Highways have been consulted and have not made any objections or further recommendations. The proposal will include a net increase of open dwelling; this is not considered of a significant increase of vehicular movement that will have a harmful impact to highway safety. The proposal complies with ULP Policy GEN1.

D Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policy GEN8 and ECC Parking Standards);

11.20 In order to comply with locally adopted parking standards, for dwellings of three bedrooms, two parking spaces should be provided per dwelling off-road. These need to accord with the size dimensions as outlined in adopted Vehicle Parking Standards (2009) of 5.5m in depth and 2.9m in width. Three parking spaces and turning area have been shown on the proposed block plan for both plots and Essex County Council Highways specialist has been consulted and no objections have been made. As such it is considered the proposal complies with ULP Policy GEN8 and the Uttlesford Neighbourhood Parking Standards (2013).

E Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7)

11.21 Policy GEN7 of the Local Plan states that development that would have a harmful effect on wildlife will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the importance of the feature of nature conservation. Where the site includes protected species, measures to mitigate and/or compensate for the potential impacts of development must be secured.

An ecology appraisal report has been submitted with the application and Essex

Page 68 County Council Ecologists have been consulted, no objections have been made subject to the imposition of a condition regarding mitigation measures. It is therefore unlikely the proposed development will have harmful impact to adverse impact on protected species caused and therefore complies with Policy GEN7.

F Affordable Housing (ULP Policy H9)

11.22 The proposal would not give rise to a requirement for a contribution towards affordable housing provision. I advise that recent changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) means that affordable housing contributions will no longer be imposed on development schemes of 10 or less dwellings, unless the floor-space of the proposed development is 1000sqm of more.

G Any other material considerations

11.23 The following policies are included in the emerging local plan and therefore have been considered in the assessment of the application, these policies hold some limited weight.

SP10 Protection of countryside D1- High quality design TA4- Vehicle parking standards TA1-Accessible development EN8- Protecting the natural environment H6- Affordable Housing

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 In conclusion the development will represent an acceptable form of sustainable development in terms of countryside impact, design, layout, and amenity, access, parking arrangements. The proposal would comply with national and relevant local plan policy and is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL , SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The dwellings hereby permitted must be built in accordance with Optional Requirement M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.

REASON: To ensure compliance with Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 and the SPD on Accessible Homes and Playspace.

3 Prior to commencement of works above slab level a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for Protected and Priority species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following: i. Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement

Page 69 measures; ii. detailed designs to achieve stated objectives; iii. locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans; iv. persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; v. details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant).

The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

REASON: To enhance Protected and Priority Species/habitats and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) and in accordance with ULP Policy GEN7 (adopted 2005).

4 Prior to commencement of the development, details of all hard and soft landscaping (including planting, hard surfaces and boundary treatment) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. This should include boundary treatment between the site and neighbouring property.

All planting, seeding or turfing and soil preparation comprised in the above details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, the completion of the development, or in agreed phases whichever is the sooner, and any plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the guidance contained in British Standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON: To ensure compatibility with the character of the area in accordance with ULP Policies S7 and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005)

5 All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Greenlight Environmental Consultancy, Nov. 2018) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.

REASON To conserve and enhance Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species) and in accordance with ULP Policy GEN7 (adopted 2005).

6 The eaves and ridge heights of the permitted dwellings relative to Churchside and Briarwood must be as shown on Drawing No. M&H/07A/2 (Street scene).

Page 70 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compatibility with the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy S7, Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework

7 Prior to commencement of works above slab level, details of the following external finishes (including samples and/or photographs as appropriate) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

- Walls - Roof - Windows - Doors

The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure compatibility with the character of the area, in accordance with Policy S7 and Policy GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework. This condition is to ensure that the development is only carried out in accordance with the above details.

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 27 September 2019

Page 71

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 02 June 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

UTT/19/1054/OP - DEBDEN (Applicant Relative of UDC Staff Member)

PROPOSAL: Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 2 no. detached dwellings and relates infrastructure.

LOCATION: Land North Of Henham Road, Debden

APPLICANT: Ms Barbara Bonham

AGENT: Springfields Planning and Development

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2019

CASE OFFICER: Chris Tyler

1. NOTATION

1.1 Outside Development Limits,

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The application site relates to a plot of land to then north of Henham Road in Debden Green. To the south and east of the site are a number of dwellings, to the north of the site is open agricultural land.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for the erection or two detached dwellings and associate infrastructure.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

And

Human Rights Act considerations: There may be implications under Article 1 and Article 8 of the First Protocol regarding the right of respect for a person’s private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; however, these issues have been taken into account in the determination of this application

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The applicant has provided a planning statement in support of the planning application to illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal and to explain and justify the proposal in a structured way. The proposal includes self-build dwellings, however the development will assessed against the appropriate planning policies as set out in paragraph 7.3 of the report.

Page 73 Also submitted with the application is a completed biodiversity checklist.

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 There are no planning applications linked to this proposal.

7. POLICIES

7.1 National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

7.2 Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

Policy S7 –The Countryside Policy GEN2 – Design Policy GEN1- Access Policy GEN7 - Nature Conservation Policy H9- Affordable Housing

7.3 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

Accessible Homes and Playspace

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 A section 106 agreement should be placed on the paddock restricting further development (the owner attended a Parish Council meeting and confirmed that she would be happy with this, if it is legally possible. She would not like to see other houses built on the paddock).

The Parish Council raised a concern on the quality and time to build self-build projects (the second plot being sold for a self-build development) as evidenced on the site 200 yards down the lane in Debden Green.

The proposal will add extra traffic.

There is a fear of sporadic development at Debden Green without any planning oversight by UDC post planning permission gained by developers.

9.0 CONSULTATIONS

The Highways Authority

9.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority, subject to the following measures:

1. Prior to occupation of the development the visibility splays, as shown on DWG no. DR1 (dated 31/07/2019), shall be provided and retained free of any obstruction in perpetuity. Reason: To provide adequate inter-visibility between vehicles using the access and those in the existing public highway in the interest of highway safety.

2. Prior to the occupation of any of the proposed dwellings, the proposed private drive shall be constructed to a width of 5.5 metres for at least the first 6 metres from the back of carriageway and provided with an appropriate vehicular crossing of the

Page 74 verge. Reason: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the highway in a controlled manner and to ensure that opposing vehicles can pass clear of the limits of the highway, in the interests of highway safety.

3. No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary. Reason: To avoid displacement of loose material onto the highway in the interests of highway safety.

The above conditions are required to ensure that the development accords with the Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies, adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February 2011 and Uttlesford Local Plan Policy GEN1.

ECC Ecology

9.2 No objections made or further recommendations made

National Grid

9.3 No Objections

10 REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 3 Objections received, comments include: Loss of green space Many houses within the area have been significantly extended Impact to highway safety Loss of paddock land The proposal will change the character of the village The proposal will result in a precedent for future development The application should include a Section 106 legal agreement to restrict further development

All material planning considerations will be made in the following report, Planning precedent is not a material consideration. The use of a Section 106 agreement to restrict further development of the site will not be appropriate, further development of the site would be assessed through the submission of a planning application.

11 APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A The principle of the development of this site, design (ULP Policies S7,GEN2, NPPF, SPD Accessible Homes and Playspace); B Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1); C Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7) D Affordable Housing (ULP Policy H9) E Any other material considerations

A The principle of the development of this site, design (ULP Policies S7,GEN2, NPPF, SPD Accessible Homes and Playspace);

11.1 The site is outside of the development limits (ULP Policy S7). ULP Policy S7 states that the countryside will be protected for its own sake and that planning permission

Page 75 will only be given for development that needs to take place there or is appropriate to the rural area, with development only being permitted if its appearance protects or enhances the particular character of the part of the countryside within which it is set or there are special reasons why the development in the form proposed needs to be there.

11.2 Although it could be argued the proposal by virtue would fail to comply with Local Plan Policy S7, it is also recognised that the NPPF sets out applicable national planning policy in relation to sustainable development and housing in rural areas. It has also been found that Local Plan Policy S7 is partly consistent with the NPPF, due to its protective approach, the following paragraph sets out the assessment of the principle of the development in regards to the NPPF. Recent appeal decisions have found that this policy merits moderate weight when assessing the planning balance.

11.3 The site is with Debden Green and although outside of the development limits I do not consider the site to be isolated. This is supported by recent case law Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ. 610 which considers the definition of an isolated dwelling, and gives further clarification to its definition. That being said the proposal should also accord with the sustainable elements of the NPPF as set out in the following paragraphs.

11.4 As identified in the most recent housing trajectory document (March 2019), the Council's housing land supply is of 3.29 years, with a 147% delivery rate. For the present time, the Council is therefore unable to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land.

11.5 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF considers the presumption of sustainable development, this includes where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date (this includes where five year housing supply cannot be delivered). This means that applications for sustainable development outside development limits may need to continue to be granted where appropriate to ensure the level of housing supply is robust and provides a continuous delivery of housing. Moreover the proposal should be considered against the three strands of sustainable development including; economic, social and environmental.

11.6 Economic: The NPPF identifies this as contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, supporting growth and innovation and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure. The development will deliver a small economic role by the creation of a small amount of employment during the construction phase and the occupiers of the house would contribute to the local economy in the long term, as such there would be some, but limited, positive economic benefit.

11.7 Social The NPPF identifies this as supplying required housing and creating high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. In terms of the proposed development and in relation to the social aspect of sustainable development, the site is within reasonable walking distance of the village, this would be served by other villages and settlements within close proximity. Due to the location of the application site it is considered not be socially isolated and that the proposed development would be able to perform a social role and meet the social strand of

Page 76 sustainability in this regard.

11.8 Environmental: Paragraph 170 (b) of the NPPF advises planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, as such the following paragraphs make due consideration to this.

11.9 The application site is included in the cluster of dwellings at the junction of Henham Road. This character is considered to significantly contribute to the rural appearance of the area and its surroundings. As such it is considered the introduction of two dwelling at this point would form part of the cluster of dwellings and built form found at this part of Debden Green. The dwellings would sit adjacent the property of Barnards Cottage and although would include some built form into the countryside this would be marginal and will not result in significant encroachment or impact to the open rural character of the site or land beyond the application site.

11.10 From the rear of the neighbouring property (Bannock) to the west of the application site and the neighbouring property to the east of the site (The Firs) the land north of the highway has an open rural appearance for approximately 0.25miles. However the introduction of the dwellings will be tacked onto the small cluster of dwellings and the open rural appearance to the north of Henham Road will remain. Furthermore, to the east of the application planning permission has been recently approved for two dwellings (UTT/19/1626/FUL), the siting of the approved application and this currently application clearly demonstrates the development will not infill this open plot/ area to the north of Henham Road.

11.11 Therefore this residential development and introduction of dwellings on the site, will not result in a harmful intensification of use or detrimentally erode the open and rural character of the surrounding countryside. The proposal will include an access drive from the existing highway access point. Although this will be sited to the north of Henham Road the driveway will set behind the current highway vegetation, as such the access and drive will have minimal impact to the character of the site and street scene.

11.12 The scale, design, appearance and landscaping of the dwelling are reserved matters and as such an assessment cannot be made in this outline application. That being said if this outline application is approved due consideration should be made to ensure the reserved matter details are compatible with the character and setting of the site.

11.13 For the detailed and specific reasons set out above, the development proposed and in the context paragraph 7 of the Framework is sustainable in regards to the social, economic and environmental objectives. Due to the lack of a 5 year housing supply due weight should be given in the determination of the development, advised in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Although the introduction of two dwellings is not a significant contribution to a 5 year housing supply the harm to the site and its surrounding is not considered harmful and therefore concluded to be a positive contribution.

11.14 As such from the above assessment it can therefore be concluded that the principle of the development is will not be harmful to the character of this part of the open rural countryside therefore not contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF and Policies

Page 77 S7 and GEN2 of the adopted Local Plan (2005).

B Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1)

11.15 The proposal will be served by the existing access to the site. The Highways Authority have been consulted no objections or further recommendations have been raised. As such it is considered the development accords with ULP Policy GEN1.

C Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7)

11.16 ULP Policy GEN7 of the Local Plan states that development that would have a harmful effect on wildlife will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the importance of the feature of nature conservation. Where the site includes protected species, measures to mitigate and/or compensate for the potential impacts of development must be secured.

The application includes a completed biodiversity checklist, this has been checked during the case officer’s site visit. The checklist does not give rise to the requirement of further ecology surveys or reports.

Essex county Council Ecology has been consulted no objections or further recommendations have been made have been made. It is therefore unlikely the proposed development will have harmful impact to adverse impact on protected species caused and therefore complies with Policy GEN7

D Affordable Housing (ULP Policy H9)

11.17 The proposal would not give rise to a requirement for a contribution towards affordable housing provision as set out under local plan policy H9, furthermore due to recent changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) affordable housing contributions will no longer be imposed on development schemes of 10 or less dwellings, unless the floor-space of the proposed development is 1000sqm of more.

E Any other material considerations

11.18 Any other material considerations The following policies are included in the emerging Local Plan submission and therefore have been considered in the assessment of the application; these policies hold some limited weight.

D1- High Quality Design SP10 Protection of the countryside TA1- Accessible Development EN8- Protecting the natural environment

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 The application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved accept access accords with the development plan, NPPF. It is therefore recommended that permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION- APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

Page 78 Conditions

1. Approval of the details of appearance, layout, landscaping and scale (hereafter called "the Reserved Matters") must be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before development commences and the development must be carried out as approved.

REASON: In accordance with Article 5 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 Application for approval of the Reserved Matters must be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 The development hereby permitted must be begun no later than the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be approved.

REASON: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4 The dwellings hereby permitted must be built in accordance with Requirement M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.

5 Prior to occupation of the development the visibility splays, as shown on DWG no. DR1 (dated 31/07/2019), shall be provided and retained free of any obstruction in perpetuity.

REASON To provide adequate inter-visibility between vehicles using the access and those in the existing public highway in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with ULP Policy GEN1.

6 Prior to the occupation of any of the proposed dwellings, the proposed private drive shall be constructed to a width of 5.5 metres for at least the first 6 metres from the back of carriageway and provided with an appropriate vehicular crossing of the verge.

REASON: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the highway in a controlled manner and to ensure that opposing vehicles can pass clear of the limits of the highway, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with ULP Policy GEN1.

Page 79 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 0100018688

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 25 September 2019

Page 80

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 02 June 2017 Agenda Item 9

UTT/19/0761/FUL (SAFFRON WALDEN)

(Referred to Committee by Cllr Light Reason: no difference from the previous application refused, insufficient parking, not advertised, impact negatively on the fabric of the main building, garden crucial to ACV )

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension to create new access and accessible WC. Internal alterations to layout of public house. Relocation of external fire escape from side elevation to rear elevation. Landscaping works including raised decking area with pergola and new gates.

LOCATION: Railway Arms, Station Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 3HQ

APPLICANT: Charles Wells

AGENT: Melling Ridgeway and Partners Limited

EXPIRY DATE: 31 May 2019 EoT 26.07.2019

CASE OFFICER: Maria Shoesmith

1. NOTATION

1.1 Asset of Community Value, Locally Listed, Within Development limits

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The application site is located on the corner of Station Road and Station Street. It is a rundown closed Public House which is locally listed and an Asset of Community Value.

The description of the local listing states; "Built c.1865, The Railway Arms is a two-storey pubic house associated with the Saffron Walden Railway. It forms part of a wider complex of buildings which include stables, a hayloft, cart shed and workshops that were associated with the function of the public house historically, and form a rare surviving example of the type locally. Located in a prominent position on the corner of Station Road and Station Street, the main structure is constructed of gault brick in Flemish bond, with a slate roof and brick stacks. The south-west corner is chamfered and features quality brick detailing with rusticated quoins, a projecting string course and plinth and overhanging eaves. Similar detailing can be found on the adjacent station building, now converted to residential use. Windows are timber, sash units with 4-pane detail under flat brick arches with keystone detail. The outbuildings to rear form a contemporary complex with original features and constructed of a mix of gault brick and timber weatherboarding under slate roofs. The assets are considered worthy of inclusion by reason of their rarity, vernacular style which reflects the character of the locality and its group value as a surviving complex which enjoys a highly prominent position along the street and aesthetic value by reason of materials and detailing. The grouping serves a communal function and is evidential of the presence of the railway in the town. It is one of only a very few structures related to the railway, that survive today, and is understood to be associated with the Gibson family and other individuals of note. Criteria: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H Value: Individual and Group"

Page 81 3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Single storey rear extension to create new access and accessible WC. Internal alterations to layout of public house. Relocation of external fire escape from side elevation to rear elevation. Landscaping works including raised decking area with pergola and new gates.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 Various documents have been submitted.

Revision of the scheme has seen the following;

1. The fire escape has been retained as existing with just the bottom section turned through 90 degrees to accommodate the access to the garden. This as you point out is required for Building Regulations and is also an existing element of the elevations.

Page 82 2. We have received a report on deliveries from the logistic department of the brewery, who confirm that the dray delivery is from the roadside using the area immediately outside the gates on the side access designated as deliveries on the attached plan. The dray is a 26 tonne lorry and would not be able to enter the site due to the tight turning and the parking bays on the street also. This has always been the arrangement on this site. The deliveries are moved by hand to the side access and beer drop.

3. The width of the area between the main building and the outbuilding is 10m wide at the widest part and diminishing to 9.5m wide by the existing fire escape stair. Therefore, as you will know, is not wide enough for a standard parking bay and turning space, being 4.8m and 6m respectively. The site would not at present be able to accommodate compliant car parking on site.

4. We have removed the proposed free standing seating bays in the courtyard area to allow an unhindered view of the outbuilding ranges.

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 UTT/18/2454/FUL - Demolition of existing rear toilet block and erection of new rear toilet block extension. Reconfiguration of existing steel fire escape to new layout and external landscaping works – Withdrawn

6.2 UTT/18/2898/AV - Erection of 2 no. externally illuminated fascia signs, 2 no. externally illuminated hanging signs, 2 no. externally illuminated hoarding signs, 3 no. non-illuminated hoarding signs, 2 no. internally illuminated metal lanterns and 8 no. internally illuminated LED floodlights – Approved 5.04.2019

7. POLICIES

Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

- S1 Development Limits for the Main Urban Areas - GEN1 Access - GEN2 Design - GEN4 Good Neighbourliness - GEN7 Nature Conservation - GEN8 Vehicle Parking Standards - ENV2 Development Affecting Listed Buildings

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance Essex Parking Standards (2009)

National Policies

- National Planning Policy Framework

8. TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 The Committee had concerns about structural harm to the building, impact on setting, loss of off road parking, loss of green space. Increase in size of fire escape would be detrimental to the form and building line of the building and to the setting. Loss of benefits to local heritage listing.

Page 83 8.2 Application has been called into Planning Committee if recommended for approval

9. CONSULTATIONS

9.1 Previous Place Services comments

The application is for the demolition of existing rear toilet block and erection of new rear toilet block extension. Reconfiguration of existing steel fire escape to new layout and external landscaping works

A locally listed building, The Railway Arms is an important asset to the local area and located between, not within, the Saffron Walden 1 and 2 Conservation Areas. Closed since early 2017, the plans seek to renovate the building for continued use as a public house. As well as the main/host building, there are associated stables and outbuildings which form part of the property’s local heritage listing. The property sits in isolation from its neighbours due to its earlier construction date and style, and retains a stylistic and material link to the former station building, located further down the road. The station is constructed in the same gault brick, and also features rusticated quoins and decorative brick bands. Due to its conversion to residential use, the former station’s character has already been greatly compromised, making The Railway Arms hold further significance due to its retention of its original form and function. The outbuildings and their arrangement reinforce the connection to the former railway, with the cart shed, stables and haylofts all providing culturally significant references to the necessary elements which kept the railway and inn functioning.

The proposed toilet block is extremely large and out of keeping with the existing floorplan and site. Although it is understood that a fire escape is required for the first floor residential unit, a far more sympathetic method could be sought which is in keeping in character and not intrusive to the building’s appearance from the side elevation. As the pub is located on a corner, the two street facing elevations are incredibly significant to the streetscape and the proposed extension would greatly alter this view, obscuring the outbuilding to the rear and creating a closed appearance to what would have been a part-public, lively yard area.

Externally, the building benefits from its symmetrical appearance and the use of decorative brickwork to all corners is a particularly interesting architectural feature which should be maintained. The proposed quoins to the extension are clunky in comparison and would detract significantly from the existing brickwork, over powering it due to the proposed brickwork’s larger scale and blockier appearance. The resultant first floor changes required for the extension (converting a window to a door) will disrupt the symmetry of the building and result in the loss of historic fabric which would harm the building’s character. The suggested use of steel for the fire escape is a further potential for harm – specification of the colour and texture would be needed should the council be minded to approve the application. Converting the window to a door on the ground floor of the rear, courtyard facing elevation, would also result in harm to the building’s fabric. As the right hand bay has already been altered to include 3 windows, a reconfiguring of the fire escape and movement of the door into this location would be more sympathetic to the building fabric, which has been altered in this section previously. Alteration of original windows would ideally be justified by a supporting heritage statement. Regarding the proposed external landscaping, clarification needs to be provided about the seating booths, and how they will relate to the outbuildings. For example are they to be lean-tos attached to the outbuildings or free standing, permanent or temporary? Clarification regarding the desire to create ‘Privacy for the manager’

Page 84 should also be provided, is this relating to the flat above or are there additional plans to alter the use of the outbuildings?

The installation of the gate on the Station Road entrance, whist not objectionable in principle, would hopefully be in reference to historical documentation which shows a gate within this position. As the opening onto Station Street also does not feature a gate at present, strong historical precedence would be needed to justify the potential gate and the harm it could cause to the existing boundary wall. It is recommended that the proposed plans are not granted planning permission. They will cause considerable harm to a non-designated heritage asset, in contravention of NPPF paragraph 197. Additionally, no heritage statement has been provided, in contravention of paragraph 189. Should the applicant wish to continue with their redevelopment plans, it is recommended that the applicant seeks pre-application advice.

9.2 UDC Place Services (31.05.2019)

The above concerns The Railway Arms, a locally listed building and a non- designated heritage asset. As well as the main/host building, there are associated stables and outbuildings which form part of the property’s local heritage listing. The description notes:

Built c.1865, The Railway Arms is a two-storey pubic house associated with the Saffron Walden Railway. It forms part of a wider complex of buildings which include stables, a hayloft, cart shed and workshops that were associated with the function of the public house historically, and form a rare surviving example of the type locally. Located in a prominent position on the corner of Station Road and Station Street, the main structure is constructed of gault brick in Flemish bond, with a slate roof and brick stacks. The south-west corner is chamfered and features quality brick detailing with rusticated quoins, a projecting string course and plinth and overhanging eaves. Similar detailing can be found on the adjacent station building, now converted to residential use. Windows are timber, sash units with 4- pane detail under flat brick arches with keystone detail. The outbuildings to rear form a contemporary complex with original features and constructed of a mix of gault brick and timber weatherboarding under slate roofs. The assets are considered worthy of inclusion by reason of their rarity, vernacular style which reflects the character of the locality and its group value as a surviving complex which enjoys a highly prominent position along the street and aesthetic value by reason of materials and detailing. The grouping serves a communal function and is evidential of the presence of the railway in the town. It is one of only a very few structures related to the railway, that survive today, and is understood to be associated with the Gibson family and other individuals of note.

Whilst the proposed extension is not of substantial scale, the associated alterations including the removal of 2 historic windows (on the rear and side elevations) are considered unsympathetic to the significance of The Railway Arms due to the loss of historic fabric. Further to this, the erection of a pergola obscuring a considerable section of the side elevation would cause further detriment to the manner in which the architectural merits of the building may be appreciated and experienced.

Regarding the proposed external landscaping, the erection of a tall fence obstructing the side elevation of an outbuilding (including the obstruction of doors and windows) is considered inappropriate, hindering the appreciation of historic

Page 85 features. With regards to the outside covered area and store located in outbuilding to the rear, the proposed changes remain unclear.

9.3 UDC Conservation Officer Comments on current application (31.05.2019)

Place Services comments were not too far off the mark.

My comments are on the 2019 scheme are as follows:

I note there has been no submission of a Heritage Statement. This should include the proposals for the outbuildings if any which make a strong positive contribution to the overall significance of the site. The site should be dealt with as a whole to avoid piecemeal and harmful development.

The scheme has been reduced to mitigate views through to the associate outbuildings that make a positive contribution are still visible from the public domain. It will allow for a part open space and retain a lively space to the rear. However, no further encroachment will be supported.

The proposed reduced rear extension (toilet block) should omit the decorative quoins and the new extension should replicate the detailing that is on the existing rear extension and be subservient both in mass, detailing etc. As per Place Services comments on the additional railings on the rear elevation should be omitted and another means of providing a fire exit for the upper floor residential units designed. The reason being that this elevation although to the rear and like all elevation is visible from the public domain. The new railings in combination with the other proposed alterations begin to clutter this elevation obscuring and comprising this elevation further.

All the existing fenestration should remain and not altered as this is removal of historic fabric and as already commented contributes significantly the symmetrical appearance of the main dwelling and reflects a legible architectural language that ties in with the station building further up Station Road.

The installation of the gate to the front elevation is supportable so long as it sympathetic to the overall aesthetic and is made of high quality materials and as commented previously a strong historical case made if it is to be supported.

Landscaping – further details will be required as per Place Services original comments. Further detail is required of the pergola and lighting proposed.

9.4 Comments following Revision: (29.07.2019) This is an improvement. I presume they are not going to put in French doors to the rear? If that is the case I have no objections.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

Page 86 10.1 Neighbouring residential occupiers have also been consulted of the application. As a result the following points have been raised:

1) Nothing has changed since last application; 2) Beer garden not forming part of application, to be sold off separate? 3) Barns / Cart Sheds not on plans; 4) Without parking and open space this business is not viable 5) Site to be sold off for housing? 6) Loss of car park 7) Pub Garden is overgrown 8) Application continues to show a solid barrier cutting off the pub-garden from the main property. This affects the pub's heritage status and community value by: - ignoring and deleting the open space pub garden - failing effectively to use the heritage outbuildings - adding to the local traffic problems, including consequential pollution 9) On street parking 10) Building will not be enhanced 11) Lost custom by closing 12) 8 parking spaces currently no parking for staff and visitors 13) Loss of ACV 14) reduction in the scale of the new toilet block addresses some of the concerns raised by Essex County Council Historic Building and Conservation advice 15) views across the area to the stables/cartshed range which were cited as important by ECC will still be interrupted as the fire escape will have to be relocated to the north to accommodate raised decking and a timber pergola 16) No Heritage Statement (para 189, NPPF) provided 17) Object to the type of pub it will be 18) Ecology 19) Errors in planning application 20) Any development which does not include a comprehensive plan for the entire plot should be refused. 21) new toilet block in this application is welcome & addresses some of the concerns raised 22) Impact upon elevations of the building

Revised plans comments - No material change - original objections must stand - garden is divided off - the revised application continues to deny the existence of the ACV registered beer garden and private garden, which are an integral part of the site - the future use of these gardens is likely to be compromised by this omission - the application again misrepresents the parking problem - there is currently adequate parking within the pub yard; - no adequate Heritage Statement has been provided in respect of the impact upon this locally listed building, as the National Planning Policy Framework surely requires - welcome retention of free escape in its location - planners need to be satisfied regarding deliveries - parking still an issue

Page 87 11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A Principle of development B Design & Heritage C Amenity D Highways E Other material considerations

A Principle of development

11.1 The Draft Local Plan is still at an early stage and has some but limited weight. At the present time the adopted Local Plan policies are still in force. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material planning consideration and this has a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development.

11.2 Emerging Draft Local Plan Policy SP2 states that development will be distributed primarily to the major towns such as Saffron Walden, then towards the key villages. This is also reflected in adopted Local Plan Policy S1 which states;

“The development limits of the existing main urban areas and proposed urban extensions for Great Dunmow, Saffron Walden and Stansted Mountfitchet are defined on the Proposals Map. The following development will be permitted within these boundaries:  Major urban extensions, if in accordance with this Plan;  Development within the existing built up areas, if compatible with the character of the settlement and, in addition, for sites on the edge of the built up area, its countryside setting.”

11.3 The proposal is for works to a closed public house in Saffron Walden in order to renovate the building and to bring this back into a viable use and to today’s standards. Whilst there have been objections by consultations response regarding the omission of the outbuildings and the garden in the application, the garden and the outbuilding form part of the redline of the planning application, therefore defining these areas as falling within the ‘planning unit’ as defined by planning legislation. Also, the application purely relates to works to the main public house and no other parts of the site, and therefore it is these works which form part of the planning assessment.

11.4 The principle of works to the building which is within development limits in a sustainable town in order to bring the public house back into use is acceptable in principle and accords with the thrust of the NPPF in terms of promoting sustainable economic development. Therefore the development in principle is acceptable subject to other considerations.

B Design & Heritage

11.5 With regards to the proposed design of the scheme the NPPF and Local Plan Policy GEN2 seeks for quality design, ensuring that development is compatible in scale, form, layout, appearance and materials. The policies aim to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole seeking high quality design.

11.6 Local Plan Policy ENV2 for Listed Buildings states the following;

Page 88 “Development affecting a listed building should be in keeping with its scale, character and surroundings. Demolition of a listed building, or development proposals that adversely affect the setting, and alterations that impair the special characteristics of a listed building will not be permitted. In cases where planning permission might not normally be granted for the conversion of listed buildings to alternative uses, favourable consideration may be accorded to schemes which incorporate works that represent the most practical way of preserving the building and its architectural and historic characteristics and its setting”

11.7 The application building is locally listed therefore does not bear the same level of protection as statutory Listed Buildings. Therefore, reference should be made to the NPPF as there is no other relevant adopted policy.

11.8 Paragraph 185 of the NPPF states “Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.”

11.9 Paragraph 197 states “The effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non- designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

11.10 Planning Practice Guidance highlights that “Non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan- making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets.

A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage significance to merit identification as non-designated heritage assets.”

11.11 Due to the reduced level of protection afforded to locally listed buildings a Heritage Statement is not required even though one has been requested.

11.12 In terms of what is being proposed a fire escape, accessible toilet facility, and accessible ramps are required to comply with Building Regulations; this also complies with Policies GEN2 and GEN1; and the pergola serves as a smoking shelter in compliance with the Smokefree Regulations 2007. These works are required by other legislation and in order to bring the building back into use.

Page 89 11.13 In terms of the harm that is likely to result from the proposed works. The internal works are acceptable and technically do not require planning permission. The proposed external works have been amended particularly to take account of Conservation Officer’s comments which have been made as discussed above in Section 9. As a result the courtyard seating area has been omitted and the fire escape has been reconfigured to minimise the impact upon the locally listed building. Following this no objections has been raised by the Conservation Officer subject to the omission of the French doors proposed onto the decking area.

11.14 The Applicant has stated “We would still like to consider the French doors, within the existing window aperture facing the courtyard. This elevation has already been altered by the existing toilet windows and it is not felt that the proposal is significantly detrimental. The rear elevations are already asymmetrical with only the primary roadside elevations retaining their original symmetry.”

11.15 In consideration of the use of the building and its level of heritage protection, the need to bring the building back into its lawful use in terms of public benefit, this is considered to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the French doors in accordance with paragraph 195 should the building be designated, thereby also in accordance with the principle of Policy ENV2. Should planning permission be granted details regarding soft and hard landscaping, including details of the gates, should be conditioned as resin bonding is not considered to be acceptable in protecting and preserving the setting of the building.

C Amenity

11.16 In terms of impact upon local amenity, little is considered to change as the use of the building is lawful, but comings and goings, noise and disturbance would be more noticeable since the break in use. The premises would be licenced therefore the amenity issue around on-street parking would be managed through opening hours together with the current on-street parking restrictions in the area. The proposed development therefore accords with Policy GEN2 and GEN4 which seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

D Highways

11.17 Local plan policy GEN1 states “development will only be permitted if it meets all of the following criteria; a) Access to the main road network must be capable of carrying the traffic generated by the development safely. b) The traffic generated by the development must be capable of being accommodated on the surrounding transport network. c) The design of the site must not compromise road safety and must take account of the needs of cyclists, pedestrians, public transport users, horse riders and people whose mobility is impaired. d) It must be designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities if it is development to which the general public expects to have access. e) The development encourages movement by means other than driving a car.”

11.18 Local Plan Policy GEN1 seeks sustainable modes of transport which is reflected within National Planning Policy Framework.

11.19 Due to the lawful nature of the use no highway network implication is considered to arise, in accordance with Local Plan Policy GEN1.

Page 90 11.20 However, in terms of off street parking, no parking is proposed to be provided on site despite being asking to provide spaces. The Essex Parking Standards (2009) seeks a maximum of 19 spaces plus disabled parking bays. The Applicant confirmed that “The width of the area between the main building and the outbuilding is 10m wide at the widest part and diminishing to 9.5m wide by the existing fire escape stair. Therefore, as you will know, is not wide enough for a standard parking bay and turning space, being 4.8m and 6m respectively. The site would not at present be able to accommodate compliant car parking on site.”

11.21 It is considered that some parking should be provided on site at the very least 3 disabled parking bays to accordance with the minimum requirement within the Essex Parking Standards. In terms of the location many Public Houses have limited parking onsite and it is considered that based on the sustainable location of the site and the parking restrictions on the local roads would discourage on-street parking and the use of vehicles. This approach is supported within the Essex Parking Standards which states “A lower provision of vehicle parking may be appropriate in urban areas (including town centre locations) where there is good access to alternative forms of transport and existing car parking facilities. In all cases adequate provision shall be made for the parking and turning of service vehicles serving the site, off the highway.”

11.22 Due to the size of the delivery vehicles and the constrained size of the site it is agreed that delivery by hand from the road.

11.23 In consideration of the above the application is considered to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring the provision of disabled parking bays should planning permission be granted, in accordance with Local Plan Policies GEN1 and GEN8.

E Other material considerations

11.24 Due to the nature of the works no impact is considered upon ecology in accordance with Policy GEN7.

12. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The principle of the development and bring the building back into its lawful use accords with Policy S1 and the NPPF.

B In consideration of the use of the building and its level of heritage protection, the need to bring the building back into its lawful use in terms of public benefit, this is considered to outweigh the harm that would be caused in accordance with paragraph 195 should the building be statutory designated, thereby also in accordance with the principle of Policy ENV2. Should planning permission be granted details regarding soft and hard landscaping, including details of the gates, should be conditioned as resin bonding is not considered to be acceptable in protecting and preserving the setting of the building.

C The proposed development would cause minimal harm to local residential amenity therefore accords with Policy GEN2 and GEN4 which seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Page 91 D In consideration of the above the application is considered to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring the provision of disabled parking bays should planning permission be granted, in accordance with Local Plan Policies GEN1 and GEN8.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include:- i. proposed finished levels or contours; ii. means of enclosure including the wrought Iron gates; iii. car parking layouts shall include a minimum of 3 disabled parking bays; iv. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; v. hard surfacing materials;

Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme.

REASON: The landscaping of this site is required in order to protect and enhance the existing visual character of the area and to reduce the visual and environmental impacts of the development hereby permitted, in accordance with Policies GEN2, and GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the materials to be used in the construction of the extension shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Subsequently, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved materials, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

REASON: In the interests of good design and to secure an appropriate form of development, in accordance with Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN2 and (adopted 2005) and the NPPF.

Page 92 Page 93 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

UTT/19/1995/FUL (Saffron Walden) (Called in by CLLR Freeman, impact on street scene and conservation area and impact to listed buildings)

PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of the existing extension and non-historic elements and erection of single storey extension and alterations to the gallery building and boundary wall.

LOCATION: Saffron Walden Castle, Museum Street, Saffron Walden

APPLICANT: The Fry Art Gallery

AGENT: Wilby and Burnett

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2019

CASE OFFICER: Chris Tyler

1. NOTATION

1.1 Within Development Limits Conservation Area Local heritage List

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site relates to the Fry Art Gallery to the north of Castle street in Saffron Walden

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 This application is for the demolition of existing extension and non-historic elements and erection of single storey extension. Alterations include proposed new fire exit and rebuild of boundary wall.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The applicant has provided a detailed heritage, design and access statement in support of the planning application to illustrate the process that has led to the

Page 95 development proposal and to explain and justify the proposal in a structured way. The proposal will include the improved access and disabilities access. Currently, volunteers have to manipulate a heavy folding ramp into position. This entails some health and safety risk of back injury to volunteers and provides a somewhat undignified access for the wheelchair user and families with a pushchair. The operation takes a little time during which the main entrance/exit route is blocked for general use and on a number of occasions, wheelchair users have declined to use this ramp as it is unavoidably steep.

Introduction of new fire exit The essential alternative means of escape route in case of fire currently goes through the gallery’s outside space, via a gate into and through the garden of 21 Castle Street (the adjoining property) and then through a further gate to reach a place of safety (see drawing 3273/PD03). This is a poor arrangement which is difficult to manage and has the potential to compromise the security of 21 Castle Street

Extension to the building to provide workspace The existing building provides no dedicated workspace. This means that essential access on, Collection management and research work associated with the expanding Collection can only be carried out when the gallery is closed and restricts the hours during which the gallery can be open to the public.

Improved Storage The existing storage spaces are too small and inefficient for the Collection as it grows through the provision of grants and the generosity of private individuals. Cramped storage inhibits the further promotion and development of the Collection and hinders its conservation and display to the exemplary curatorial standards to which the Gallery aspires.

Without Accreditation from Arts Council England the Gallery would be unable to apply for grants or borrow from other national museums. This also reduces the attraction and opportunity for showing the Collection to a wider society, increasing diversity, and the demographic of visitors. Museums must observe relevant Codes of Conduct, legal requirements and obligations, including those relating to health and safety, employment and contract law, and international agreements.

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 There are no previous planning applications linked to this proposal.

7. POLICIES

7.1 National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

7.2 Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

Policy S1 – Development limits for Main Urban Areas Policy ENV1- Design of development within the conservation area Policy ENV2- Development affecting Listed Buildings Policy LC2 - Access to Leisure and Cultural Facilities Policy GEN2 – Design Policy GEN4- Good Neighbourliness

Page 96 Policy GEN7 - Nature Conservation Policy GEN1- Access Policy GEN8 - Vehicle Parking Standards Policy ENV4 - Ancient Monuments and sites of Archaeological Importance

7.3 Supplementary Documents

Uttlesford Local Heritage List (2018)

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 No objections of comments received

9.0 CONSULTATIONS

The Highways Authority

9.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the Highway Authority has no objections to make on this proposal.

Due to the constraints with the site, the unloading/loading and that associated with the construction period is best dealt with by the developer liaising with Essex Highways throughout the process at a local level.

All work within or affecting the highway is to be laid out and constructed by prior arrangement with, and to the requirements and satisfaction of, the Highway Authority, details to be agreed before the commencement of works. The applicants should be advised to contact the Development Management Team by email at [email protected] or by post to Essex Highways, Springfield Highways Depot, Colchester Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 5PU.

Ecology

9.2 No Objections The bat survey has been reviewed and there is sufficient information to determine the site has low suitability for roosting bats. No Further mitigation is required.

Conservation Officer

9.3 No Objections

The proposal includes a revised proposals following the withdrawal of the previous scheme. It is considered that although the development will include an increase in footprint, the accumulation of extensions/ additions and design of the proposal will not result in a detrimental impact to the setting and character of the conservation area, adjacent listed building and surrounding area. The low level design of the extension will not impact or detract from the views from the footpath to St Marys Church. With the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered acceptable.

ECC Archaeology

9.4 RECOMMENDATION: An Archaeological Programme of Monitoring No development or preliminary groundworks can commence until a programme of archaeological monitoring has been secured and undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and

Page 97 approved by the planning authority.

Reason for Archaeological recommendation The Historic Environment Record indicates the proposed developed lies within an area of known archaeological deposits.

10 REPRESENTATIONS

10.2 No objections made, comments received include: Conditions should be included in regards to the construction of the development.

11 APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A The principle of development (NPPF, ULP Policies S1, GEN2, LC2 NPPF) B Whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings and the character of the surrounding conservation area as outlined in Section 66(1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (ULP Policies ENV1, ENV2, NPPF). C Ancient Monuments and sites of Archaeological Importance (ULP Policy ENV4) D Impact on residential amenity, disturbance (ULP Policies GEN2 & GEN4 ) E Access and Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policies GEN1 and GEN8, UDC Parking Standards) F Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7) G Any other material considerations

A The principle of development (NPPF, ULP Policies S1, GEN2, LC2 NPPF)

11.1 The principle of development of the site (ULP Policies S1, GEN2 and the NPPF) The application site lies within the development limits of Saffron Walden ULP Policy S1 where development compatible with the character of the settlement and countryside setting will be permitted within these boundaries.

11.2 The proposal is for the proposed works to the Fry Art Gallery, the proposal includes single storey extension to the kitchen and infilling the eastern area of the building. The extensions and works to the building are considered of an appropriate scale and design that will include a traditional form and finish.

11.3 The proposed fire escape door will be incorporated into the small pavilion with a pyramidal natural slate roof and lantern, this emulates the existing access to the building. The removal of this part of the wall will include the reuse of bricks within the build of the extension. Taking into consideration the above points it is considered the development accords with ULP Policies S1, GEN2.

11.4 ULP Policy LC2 considers the development and the access to leisure and cultural facilities and advises development proposals for sports facilities, arts and leisure buildings, hotel and tourist facilities, will be required to provide inclusive access to all sections of the community, regardless of disability, age or gender.

11.5 One of the principal reasons for the proposed development is to provide improved access to the site for both visitors and staff members. As such it is considered this is a positive contribution to the existing building and accords with the aims of ULP Policy LC2.

Page 98 11.6 Paragraph 8 (b) of the NPPF looks at the social thread of sustainable development, this core policy throughout the NPPF supports a strong, vibrant and healthy communities with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. Furthermore the location of the site is in close proximity to the town centre and as such paragraph 85 of the NPPF advises planning decision should support three role of the town centre. As such it is considered the proposal is in accordance with the NPPF regards to create a diverse social community services.

11.7 As such taking into consideration the location of the application site from the town centre and the positive contribution to culture and wellbeing the proposed development will accord with the aims of the NPPF.

B Whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings and the character of the surrounding conservation area as outlined in Section 66(1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (ULP Policies ENV1, ENV2, NPPF).

11.8 The application is within the conservation area and the building is part of the adopted local heritage list (2018). This List has been compiled to formally identify and celebrate these assets of local importance, in a form that is accessible and informative to the local community, developers and planning officers. The list should be used to inform future development proposals, with a view to sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses Consistent with their conservation’ Para. 185 – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

11.9 The council’s conservation officer has visited the site and contributed to pre- application negotiations. During the assessment of this planning application the council’s conservation officer has also been consulted, no objections have been made subject to conditions. The proposals are compatible with the existing building and will contribute positively to the conservation area and it surroundings. The scale, design and siting of the proposal ensure the proposal will not result in a harmful impact to the historic setting of the neighbouring listed buildings.

11.10 In regards to the local heritage list, the assessment of the building considers it to be of a: Rarity, Aesthetic Value Social and communal value

The proposal will not result in any harmful impact to the special character of the building, or impact the style, materials within the context of the local area. The works to the building will ensure the future social and community use of the building and provide improved access. As such taking due consideration of the local heritage list, the proposal will not de-value the local heritage status of the building.

11.11 The application site is within the conservation area, the council’s conservation officer has advised the proposal as submitted (single storey) will not have a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area. The extension and works to the building and wall will not compromise the conservation area with a dominating or intrusive feature that is out of character with the area. The reuse of brickwork should be conditioned, as such the proposal will have a positive effect to the conservation area.

Page 99 11.12 As such taking the consultation responses the proposed development will not have any harmful impact to the setting and character of the surrounding historic buildings and the surrounding conservation area and therefore accords with the aims of Section 66(1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (ULP Policies ENV1, ENV2, NPPF).

C Ancient Monuments and sites of Archaeological Importance (ULP Policy ENV4)

11.13 ULP Policy ENV4 assesses the need for the development in regard to the impact on the archaeological importance of the site. A programme of work has been completed by Pre Construction archaeology which has been agreed with Historic England. Essex County Council archaeological specialist has assessed the proposal, no objections or further conditions are made. As such it is considered the proposal does not conflict with ULP Policy ENV4.

D Impact on residential amenity, disturbance (ULP Policies GEN2 & GEN4 )

11.14 Local Plan Policy GEN2 requires that development does not cause an unacceptable loss of privacy, loss of daylight, overbearing impact or overshadowing to neighbouring residential properties.

11.15 The proposal, in the context of the works to the building is not considered to result in any significant impact or loss of residential amenity to neighbouring properties that will have any material harm. The works do not include the change of use of the site and as such the use of the extensions to the building will not result in any significant intensification. As such the proposal accords with ULP Policy GEN2.

11.16 ULP Policy GEN4 and ENV11 consider the development and the impact to neighbouring properties due to noise and disturbance.

11.17 The use of the building is not considered to have a significant intensification of use or material increase in noise that will result in any harm to neighbouring properties amenity value. That being said during the construction there will be some disruptions, a construction management plan should be secured by condition.

11.18 Taking into account the exiting use of the site, the imposition of conditions it is considered the development is in accordance with ULP Policies GEN2 and GEN4.

E Access and Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policies GEN1 and GEN8, UDC Local Residential Parking Standards)

11.19 The location of the application will utilise local town centre car parks, the direct street access is for permit holders only, and therefore it is unlikely the development will result in any increase in street parking. As such the proposal will not have a harmful impact to highway safety. The Highways Authority have been consulted, no objections have been made, that being said a construction management plan should be conditioned to ensure the site has sufficient storage and offloading during the construction period. The proposal accords with ULP Policy GEN1 and GEN8.

F Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7)

11.20 The applicants submitted a biodiversity questionnaire and details of the proposed works to the building, Essex County Council Ecology has been consulted, no

Page 100 objections have been made or requirement of further mitigation details. As such it is considered the proposal is not considered not to have a harmful impact to protected species and biodiversity and accords with ULP Policy GEN7.

G Any other material considerations

11.21 The following policies are included in Regulation 19 Local Plan submission and therefore have been considered in the assessment of the application; these policies hold some limited weight.

11.22 SP9- development within development limits D1- High quality design EN2- Design of development within conservation areas EN4-Development affecting Listed Buildings EN5- Schedule Monuments and sites of archaeological importance TA1- Accessible Development TA4- Vehicle parking standards EN8- Protecting the natural environment

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 In conclusion, the proposal is considered an appropriate form development that would represent an acceptable scheme in terms of the local heritage asset and its surroundings. The proposal would comply with national and relevant local plan policy and is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the planning authority. “No preliminary groundwork's of any kind shall take place on the building until this condition is discharged by the Local Planning Authority

REASON: This pre commencement condition is required to ensure there is sufficient archaeological recording of the building, in accordance with ULP Policy ENV4. The Historic Environment Record indicates the proposed developed lies within an area of known archaeological deposits.

The proposed development is located on Castle Street within the historic town of Saffron Walden. The settlement developed around the castle which was founded in the eleventh century by the de Mandeville’s (EHER 411). In 1141 Geoffrey de Mandeville was given permission to remove Newport’s market and transfer it to his castle at Saffron Walden. It is assumed that by this date the keep and its earthworks were well advanced if not finished. The development lies on the line of the medieval

Page 101 town defences.

In the early to mid-13th century a large area to the south of the castle bailey was enclosed with new streets being laid out. Part of this enclosure survives as the Repell ditches (EHER 0443), part of which are preserved as a Scheduled Monument (SAM 54). There is therefore high potential for encountering archaeological deposits during the proposed development.

The archaeological work would comprise of monitoring groundworks to identify the extent and depth of archaeological deposits with appropriate time allowed to record if archaeological deposits are identified. All archaeological work should be conducted by a professional recognised archaeological contractor.

3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, details of the proposed external finishing materials shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the works. The development will be implemented in accordance with the approved material and shall not be changed without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interest of protecting the architectural and historical significant setting of the adjacent listed building and setting of the conservation area in accordance with Local Policies ENV1, ENV2 and The National Planning Policy Framework.

Justification: The adjacent buildings are of historical importance, also the application site is within the conservation area and it is thereby necessary that these details are required before works commence to ensure that no detrimental harm to the setting of the heritage asset and character of the designated conservation area.

4 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: (a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (d) the control of noise from construction including the hours of working (e) wheel washing facilities (f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

REASON: The use of such pre commencement condition is required to protect the amenity of surrounding residential premises in accordance with Policies GEN1, GEN2, and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

5 The development shall re-use the original bricks of the boundary wall which can be appropriable included and re-used.

REASON: In the interests of the historical importance of the wall in accordance with Policies GEN2, ENV1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

6 All new rooflights to be of Conservation range unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the historical importance of the building in accordance with Policy ENV2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005)

Page 102

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 26th September 2019

Page 103

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 02 June 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

UTT/19/1253/FUL (Stansted)

(Referred to Committee by Councillor Dean, Reason: Access Safety, Insufficient Parking and Turning, Noise and Disturbance, insufficient Access Road.)

PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from B1/B8 and ancillary retail space to B2 (car garage)

LOCATION: Millway Stationery Ltd, Chapel Hill, Stansted

APPLICANT: Proposed change of use from B1/B8 to B2.

AGENT: N/A

EXPIRY DATE: 18th October 2019

CASE OFFICER: Chris Tyler

1. NOTATION

1.1 Within development limits

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site includes the commercial site and two buildings of Millway Stationary located to the north of Chapel hill in Stansted Mountfitchet. Millway Stationary included warehouse storage and distribution and ancillary retail area. The site is accessed by driveway from Chapel hill and shares the access with the Free Church and a number of residential properties.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 This application is for the proposed change of use of the buildings and site from B1/B8 and ancillary retail space to garage for repair, servicing and MOT’s.

4. APPLICANT’S CASE

4.1 The applicant has provided a planning statement in support of the planning application to illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal and to explain and justify the proposal in a structured way.

4.2 The old Milways site on Chapel Hill, consists of two buildings in good condition. The site was originally built for a builder’s yard, then became a distribution hub and then stationary warehouse and storage. The units are very much industrial/ warehouse style buildings.

4.3 The site is accessed from the pre –existing entrance off of Chapel Hill, the access is shared by two dwellings, a local church and hall and one other local business (Chougou).The houses have their own parking spaces, the church and hall have their own car park and the business has their own car park.

4.4 The site has ample parking and it is anticipated 8-10 cars shall arrive per day and 8-10 car shall leave, this is far less than the amount which would have visited

Page 105 Millways. We also offer free collection and deliveries of cars which shall reduce the number of visitors to the site.

4.5 The planning application is to change the use of the buildings and site from B1/B8 to a car mechanic garage. The buildings shall have no external changed, one building will serve MOTS, while the other will be a standard workshop.

4.6 A noise report is included with the application, this concludes that the calculation within the report indicate a low level of disturbance on nearby receivers.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 There are no planning applications linked to this proposal.

6. POLICIES

6.1 Uttlesford District Local Plan 2005

ULP Policy S1 – Settlement Boundaries for the Main Urban Areas ENV1- Design of development within conservation areas ULP Policy ENV11- Noise Generators ULP Policy ENV12 – Groundwater protection ULP Policy GEN1 – Access ULP Policy GEN2 – Design ULP Policy GEN4 – Good Neighbourliness ULP Policy GEN8 – Vehicle Parking Standards

ECC Parking Standards 2009

6.2 National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7. PARISH COMMENTS

7.1 Supports the application The Parish Council supports this application, approval of which would bring a new service to the village.

8. CONSULTATIONS

Environmental Health

8.1 Thank you for re-consulting Environmental Health on this application. The applicants have now submitted a noise report which concludes that noise levels from the use of the premises should not cause any problems. I am inclined to agree with the conclusions as set out, however, consider it prudent to restrict the hours of use of vehicle repair/servicing to those stipulated in the application document.

ECC Ecology

8.2 No objections or further recommendation made

Page 106 ECC Highways

8.3 From a highway and transportation perspective the Highway Authority has no objections to make on this proposal.

Considering the permitted use of the site as B1/B8, it is unlikely that the change of use to B2 will have a detrimental impact on highway safety and efficiency.

There are no reported personal injury accidents within the past 5 years associated with the use of the access off Chapel Hill.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 3 letters of objections have been received, comments include: Inadequate parking and manoeuvring Impact to highway safety Noise and pollution impact The working hours are likely to extend out of what is proposed.

9.2 33 letters of support have been received

10 COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 All material planning matters will be considered in the following paragraphs.

11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A The principle of the development of this site (NPPF, ULP Policies S1, GEN2, ENV1 and the NPPF);

B Impact on neighbouring amenities (ULP Policies GEN2, GEN4 and ENV11)

C Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1);

D Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policy GEN8)

E Whether the proposal would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater (ULP Policy ENV12)

F Any other material planning considerations

A The principle of the development of this site (NPPF, ULP Policies S1, GEN2 and the NPPF);

11.1 The site is located in the development limits of Stansted Mountfitchet (ULP Policy S1) where development will be permitted if compatible with the character of the settlement. The application site includes two large commercial buildings accessed by driveway from the highway. Adjacent the site is a further commercial building. There would be no change to the external appearance of the building, such that the only effect on the character of the area would be from a change in the nature of operations on the site, which would shift from B1/B8 and ancillary retail space to B2 (car garage). The proposed use of the site is considered compatible with the

Page 107 character of this main settlement and will not have any material adverse impact to the appearance of the site.

11.2 As stated above the proposed development will not result in a material changes to the appearance of the site. To the front of the site is the conservation area, the council’s conservation officer has been consulted. No objections or further recommendations have been made. As such it is considered the development accords with ULP Policy ENV1.

11.3 In regards to the NPPF, paragraph 80 advises planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The proposed development and change of use of the site will accord with the aims of the NPPF.

B Impact on neighbouring amenities (ULP Policies GEN2,GEN4, ENV11)

11.4 Policy GEN2 seeks to ensure that development will be of an appropriate design and mitigates any potential harm. ULP Policy GEN4 and ENV11 consider the development and the impact to neighbouring properties due to noise and disturbance and pollutants.

11.5 The use has the potential to cause some disturbance. The proposed use of the buildings is not considered to have a significant material increase in noise from the existing use and will primarily from vehicle movements and the mechanical repairs. That being said, the proposed use of the site must be compared with the existing use which itself has the potential to cause disturbance from vehicle movements and the operation of machinery.

11.6 To the front of the site and next to the access point to the site is a residential property and the church. The proposal will result in some vehicle movements and noise, a number of objections have been made in regards to this. Details as set out in the design and access statement advise the recovery vehicle associate with the garage is a 3.5 ton vehicle and not one of the larger haulage vehicles that are used for storage and distribution services as per the current use of the site.

11.7 A noise report has been submitted with the application and the council’s environmental health officer has been consulted. No objections have been made, however it is prudent that a condition should be imposed in regards to operational hours of use. The proposal will not result in any impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in regards to loss of privacy or overlooking.

11.8 The proposed use of the site will not give rise to pollutants or fumes that will have any significant impact to neighbouring properties or the surrounding area, no objections have been raised by the environmental health officer.

11.9 Taking into account the exiting lawful use of the site, the imposition of conditions and the environmental health consultation response following the submission of a noise report it is considered the development is in accordance with ULP Policies GEN2 GEN4 and ENV11.

C Access to the site (ULP Policy GEN1)

Page 108 11.10 Objections have been received from neighbouring properties in regard to the increase in vehicle movement within the site and the surrounding area, and this will have the potential to impact highway safety. In consideration of this, the fall- back position of the lawful use of these commercial buildings from B1/B8 and ancillary retail space of which has the potential to include the use of large haulage and distribution vehicles. The change of use of the buildings to car mechanic garage is not considered to result in material increase in vehicle movement that will have detrimental impact to highway safety. Furthermore and taking into account that no objections have been received from the highways authority, it is considered the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and accords with ULP Policy GEN1.

D Vehicle Parking Standards (ULP Policy GEN8)

11.11 The submitted layout details show that there would be adequate space within the site for off street parking for customers and staff. This would comply with current Essex County Parking Standards and ULP Policy GEN8.

E Whether the proposal would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater (ULP Policy ENV12)

11.12 Local Plan Policy ENV12 seeks to resist development that would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater, particularly in Groundwater Protection Zones. Given the small-scale nature of the proposed development and reuse of previously developed land, it is considered that the contamination of groundwater is unlikely. Nonetheless, any construction would need to be in accordance with British standards.

G Any other material planning considerations

11.13 The following policies are included in emerging local plan submission and therefore have been considered in the assessment of the application; these policies hold some limited weight.

SP9- Development within development limits D1- High quality design TA4- vehicle parking standards TA1- Accessible Development TA4- Vehicle Parking Standards EN14- Protection of water resources EN16- Pollutants EN19- Noise sensitive development EN2- Design of development within conservation areas

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 In conclusion, the application for change of use is an appropriate form of development that would represent an appropriate scheme. The proposal would comply with national and relevant local plan policy and is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

CONDITIONS

Page 109 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 There shall be no outdoor storage of any materials, goods, equipment, plant or machinery of any description in front of the north elevation of the building. This shall not be altered without prior written permission from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To prevent harm to the character and amenity of the area and to ensure an appropriate level of parking provisions, in accordance with Policies S1, GEN2 and GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005)

3 The hours of operation of the development herby permitted and as shown on the approved block plan shall be as following:

08:00 till 18:00 - Monday to Friday 08:00 till 13:00 -Saturday

REASON: In the interests of the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, The use of this site outside these hours would be likely to cause nuisance and disturbance to adjacent residents. In accordance with Policies GEN2 and GEN4 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005).

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning Page 110

Date: 25th September 2019

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

UTT/19/1463/FUL (THAXTED)

(Referred to Committee by Cllr Tayler if recommendation is refusal. Reason:) Proposal is an appropriate development in a rural setting.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling, garage and stables and erection of replacement dwelling complete with infrastructure and access

LOCATION: Land At Robels, Cutlers Green, Cutlers Green Lane, Thaxted

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Ian & Karen Westlake

AGENT: Mr Chris Loon

EXPIRY DATE: 14 August (Extension of time until 20 September)

CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Doe

1. NOTATION

1.1 Outside settlement limits To the north of the site both sides of the road, both verges of the highway, are Special Verges.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site is a parcel of land on the northeastern side of Cutlers Green Road to the south of a junction of a track leading to Millhill Farm with Cutlers Green Lane. There is a mature hedge along this part of Cutlers Green Road adjoining and forming a part of the site. The site has a house at its southern end, a garage at a central part and behind the garage a stable building.

2.2 To the north is a horse paddock. There is a house on the opposite side of the road and another house further north. To the southeast is a ribbon of housing on the north eastern side of the road and then housing enclosing the green at Cutlers Green.

2.3 Cutlers Green is a small linear settlement of loose dwellings that lies approximately a mile to the north-west of Thaxted village.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Demolition of existing dwelling, garage and stables and erection of replacement dwelling complete with infrastructure and access.

3.2 Robels is a semi-detached house with a wide plot running parallel with Cutlers Green Road. To the side of the house are three buildings, one of which has a lawful use as a residential use, which would be demolished to enable a detached house to be erected.

3.3 The house would be two-storey with a pitched roof .The house would be some 4.5m to the eaves and with a maximum height of 6.5m to the ridge. The timber cladding to the walls and slate roof could read from a distance as an agricultural structure although sizeable fenestration, in particular glazing running up to eaves level of an

Page 113 asymmetric front gable, would weaken such an impression.

3.4 The proposed house would be set back from the road. A front bay would be some 6m from the frontage of the site and the main side to side bay would be some 12m from the site frontage.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The application documentation includes a drainage plan; a report assessing views of the site in the landscape; a completed biodiversity validation checklist and a preliminary ecological appraisal incorporating a bat survey inspection; and, a planning, design and access statement. The planning statement includes the points that there is a bus service for Cutlers Green and that Thaxted is about a mile away.

5.2 The planning, design and access statement refers to how the dwelling would incorporate sustainability features including photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump.

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 Planning permission, UTT/1007/98/FUL, was granted for a garage in 1998. In 2006 planning permission, UTT/0172/06/FUL, was granted for a two-storey rear extension to the garage. In 2009 planning permission, UTT/0742/09/FUL, was granted to change the garage to a home office. The building which had originally been a garage was the subject of an application for a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use of an annexe as separate residential dwelling. This use was deemed lawful in 2017.

7. POLICIES

Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

S7 - The Countryside GEN1 – Access GEN2 – Design GEN7 - Nature Conservation GEN8 - Vehicle Parking Standards ENV7 - Protection of Natural Environment – Designated Sites ENV15 - Renewable Energy H7 - Replacement dwellings

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

Accessible Homes and Play Space

National Policies

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF) (February 2019)

Page 114 Other Material Considerations

Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan 2015 – 2032 ECC Parking Standards UDC Parking Standards Essex Design Guide (2018 version)

8. TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 RESOLVED to SUPPORT with a recorded vote: on the following conditions: For: Cllr's: Spencer, Knight, Howells, Frater, Brazier, Frostick, Barrington. (7) Against: Williams, Morgan 1 vote The Neighbourhood Plan delivery Group (3) On the conditions that, we Note that This dwelling is situated within an area of sensitive landscape as denoted in the Neighbourhood plan. On the provision that this is not in contravention of the Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan and any of its Policies, in particular TX LSC1 & 2&3 and THXD1 & TX LSC4 including any of the policies contained within the Uttlesford Local Plan such as policy S7 of the Local Plan.

9. CONSULTATIONS

Ecology

9.1 No objection subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures.

Conditions recommended regarding: - Implementation of ecological mitigation and enhancement works - Wildlife sensitive lighting scheme

Natural Sciences Officer & Uttlesford Special Roadside Verges Coordinator

9.2 The site is adjacent to a designated Special Roadside Verge Site. UDC policy ENV7 applies. UTT19C Cutlers Green Special Roadside Verges are on the west and east sides of sides of Bolford Street between grid references TL589313 - TL591311. The Cutlers Green West verge ends by the field track at the side of Mill Cottage. The Cutlers Green East verge ends at the road entrance to Mill Hill Farm. The ends of the special verges were marked with wooden posts and white plaques with arrows pointing in the direction that the verges run (→ and ←) and the words ROADSIDE NATURE RESERVE MANAGED FOR WILDLIFE Essex Wildlife Trust 01621 862980 Essex County Council 01245 437655. However I found during a recent visit to the verge sites that the posts marking the southern ends of the west and east verges had both disappeared. A map of the special verge sites is attached to the email with this response. The verges extend further than shown in the diagram Fig.1, section 4.1.2. of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. These verges support species rich chalk grassland. The rich flora on the verges includes Nationally Scarce Plant Sulphur Clover Trifolium ochroleucon and a wide range of other chalk grassland plants: Agrimony, Bird's-foot Trefoil, Black Medic, Creeping Buttercup, Meadow Buttercup, Common Knapweed, Greater Knapweed, Great Willowherb, Hedge Bedstraw, Lady's Bedstraw, Meadowsweet, Meadow Vetchling, Restharrow, Ribbed Melliot, Silverleaf, Sweet Cicely, Tufted Vetch, Wild Onion and Yarrow This habitat is now very rare in the UK. 97% of this grassland had been destroyed in England and Wales by 1984 and losses have continued since that time. The Special Roadside Verges scheme for Essex seeks to safeguard the last verge sites in the

Page 115 county where rare plants still grow. I do not object to this application if a condition is put in place to protect the special verges from damage during the period of construction, if development is approved. For example; "No development shall commence until the developer provides a Construction Management Plan which includes the requirements that: 1. All construction operatives are to be made aware of the location of the special verges. 2. The special verges are not to be used for storage of construction materials. 3. Construction vehicles should not drive onto the special verges or park on them. 4. If it is not possible to comply with points 2 and 3 a membrane is to be used to protect the special verges adjacent to the site entrance. Such that 'Development shall not commence until a membrane has been laid down to protect the special roadside verges on the west and east sides of Cutlers Green Lane. Membrane to be laid over the verge for 25 metres from ends of the special verges, which are adjacent to Mill Cottage on the western side of the road and adjacent to the entrance to Mill Hill Farm on the eastern side of the road.' 5. No topsoil or other material is to be added to the special verges. 6. No mowing of the special verges is to be carried out by construction operatives.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 A site notice was posted and 11 letters were sent to occupiers of neighbouring properties. 4 written representations were received which make the following points: • Good design • The parcel within which the site sits was specifically identified within the Neighbourhood Plan as an area with the highest sensitivity to change and the least able to accommodate new development. • Appears to be to a similar scale to the house on the opposite side of the road and with similar design cues • Screened by the existing landscape. • Would replace a mix match of buildings and create a much more appealing and well-designed single sustainable building and enhance the setting. • A neutral impact on the landscape as it would be barely visible (as the existing buildings are currently) from any viewpoint around the rural setting of Thaxted.

11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A Principle of development, effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and location of the site with regard to the principles for sustainable development (Policies S7 and H3, Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan); B Impact on protected/ priority species and other biodiversity issues (Policies GEN7 and ENV7); C Impact to neighbours (Policy GEN2) D Whether the house would provide sufficient amenity to future occupiers (Policy GEN2) E Car parking and highway access (PoliciesGEN1 and GEN8) F Other matters

Page 116 A Principle of development, effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and location of the site with regard to the principles for sustainable development (Policies S7 and H3, Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan);

11.1 The proposal is located outside any defined settlement limit. The centre of Thaxted is about a mile away as the crow flies. Within such a locality Policy S7 is relevant. Policy S7 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. However, part of the text of Policy S7 states that planning permission will be given for development that is appropriate to a rural area. Within such a locality as the application site development will be permitted if its appearance protects the particular character of the part of the countryside within which it is set.

11.2 It is considered that the character of this particular part of the countryside is that of the edge of a cluster of ribbon development where the vehicular access to Millhill Farm House forms something of a boundary after which to the northwest the character changes to that of open countryside defined by agricultural fields. To the southeast is a continuous, though low density, run of more than a half a dozen residential properties. These properties are of a modest scale.

11.3 There is a mature natural hedge with mature trees interspersed along it set a short way back from the carriageway edge. This would provide a screen to the ground floor with the trees partially obscuring the first floor and roof. This length of vegetation would limit the visual impact of the proposal from the road but the impression of a built form would be perceived. The extent of first floor glazing and the two front bays would detract from the otherwise barn-like nature of the proposed house. Furthermore, the southeast elevation would be seen in an oblique view from a length of the road as there would be an isolation distance of some 30m between the existing built form of the house at Robels and the proposed built form. The eastern side elevation, visible in views from the southeast, would feature a glazed gable and the side of a front bay. The very shallow pitch, some 30 degrees, to the roof of the eastern front bay would be visible in such a view.

11.4 It is considered that the proposal would have a material adverse effect to the appearance and character of the site and its setting by introducing a two-storey built form into the countryside. As such it is fundamentally contrary to the requirement of Policy S7 to protect or enhance the character of the countryside. It is considered that the proposal is essentially contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which, whilst advocating good design, also expects developments to fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings and be sympathetic to local character history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting (Section 12).

11.5 Policy H3 is not directly relevant in that the proposal would not generally be considered to be infilling in that it would not occupy a gap between built forms. Furthermore, Policy H3 requires development to be compatible with the character of the settlement and its countryside setting. It is considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling would be incompatible with the modest scaled original ribbon development and one-and-a-half scale dwellings to the southeast of the site. The proposed sizeable detached house with no clearly defined frontage to the road would not fit the pattern of existing built forms.

11.6 With regard to Policy H7, which is concerned with replacement dwellings, the proposal is considered unacceptable in that it would not be in character with neighbouring properties. Its immediate neighbours would be Robels and Bluebell

Page 117 Cottage which is a semi-detached pair.

11.7 At paragraph 17 of the SPD for replacement dwellings it is stated "If the property you want to replace forms part of a group of houses which stand together in the countryside the new house should be in scale and character with neighbouring properties in terms of height and volume." The volume of the proposal would be significantly greater than that of neighbouring properties and this discrepancy would be visible.

11.8 The design includes a balcony at first-floor level across the rear elevation of the house. This would provide distant views to the north and by the same token the balcony and the silhouette of the built form of the house behind the balcony would be seen from far away. To the north of the site are public rights of way, including part Harcamlow Way. The house would detract from the appearance and character of the countryside in which the site is set by introducing a sizeable and somewhat squat two-storey built form visible from public vantage points to the north of the site.

11.9 The site is situated within a relatively sustainable location along a C classified road which has a regular bus service connecting Debden and Thaxted and beyond whereupon the principle of development was not considered to be an issue with regard to location for approved planning application UTT/18/0851/FUL for a new dwelling, now known as Swallows Cottage.

11.10 In conclusion with regard to the principle of development, the nature of the proposal is such that it would not protect the particular character of the part of countryside within which it would be set and there are no special reason why the development in the form proposed needs to be there. With regard to the Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan, the proposal is both contrary to Policy TXHD1; which is concerned with appropriateness in the context of landscaping; and Policy LSC4; which requires that design should seek preserve and where possible, enhance the surrounding landscape setting.

B Impact on protected/ priority species and other biodiversity issues (Policies GEN7 and ENV7);

11.11 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal incorporating a bat survey inspection forms part of the planning application documentation. Essex County Council, Place Services, Ecology has been consulted on the application and a written response received to the effect that no objection is raised subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission. Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy GEN7. 11.12 With regard to Policy ENV7, specialist advice has been received from the Natural Sciences Officer & Uttlesford Special Roadside Verges Coordinator. This confirms that the site is adjacent to a designated Special Roadside Verge Site. However, the site does not directly adjoin a Special Verge; the nearest designated Special Verge commences the far side of the track to Millhouse Farm House. Nevertheless, the written advice of a specialist advisor makes clear how the habitat of the Special Verge is now very rare in the UK. 97% of such grassland had been destroyed in England and Wales by 1984 and losses have continued since that time. The Special Roadside Verges scheme for Essex seeks to safeguard the last verge sites in the county where rare plants still grow. Specialist advice on this matter does not object to this application if a condition is put in place to protect the special verges from damage during the period of construction, if development is approved. 11.13

Page 118 Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy ENV7 subject to a condition to any planning permission that a construction management plan, with requirements to protect the Special Verge, would be provided to the local planning authority. C Impact to neighbours (Policy GEN2) 11.14 The east side elevation would face toward the rear garden of Robels and other rear gardens of residential properties to the southeast. However, the detailed design has taken this into account by glazing on this elevation being an obscure glazed window or high-level windows; windows with a cill height just above eye level. The orientation and isolation distances of the proposed house are such that there would be no material adverse impact to any neighbour. 11.15 The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy GEN2, impact to neighbours, although any planning permission should be subject to a condition to remove Permitted Development rights to ensure that the detailed design remain such that no overlooking would occur to neighbours. D Whether the house would provide sufficient amenity to future occupiers (Policy GEN2) 11.16 The property would have a private amenity area, set to the side of the house but screened from the road by the vegetation along the road, of some 400 sq m. The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy GEN2, provision to meet reasonable needs of potential users. E Car parking and highway access (PoliciesGEN1 and GEN8) 11.17 The proposed house would use an existing vehicular access to the highway. The local highway authority was consulted on the application with a response being requested 12th July 2019. No response has been received to date. Given that no new access would be created, it considered that the proposal is acceptable with regard to Policy GEN1. 11.18 The plans show that the proposed four-bedroom house would have a gravel area of a sufficient size for three car parking spaces. The proposal would be acceptable with regard to Policy GEN8. F Other matters 11.19 This design, by a Chartered Architect, incorporates sustainability features; principally an air sourced heat pump and PV panels. This is welcomed and in accord with Policy ENV15.

12. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The proposal would detract from the rural character of the setting of the site by the nature of its scale and form. The site is in a reasonably sustainable location. B The proposal is acceptable with regard to nature conservation C There would be no material adverse impact to neighbours D The house would provide sufficient amenity to future occupiers

Page 119 E Car parking and highway access are acceptable F Sustainability features to the design are welcomed

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Reason

1. The proposal; by virtue of by reason of the introduction of a substantial built form with a character and positioning which would be at odds with that of neighbouring residential development to the southeast; would have a significant adverse effect on the streetscene and character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies S7, GEN2 and H7 of the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan and also Policies TXLSC4 and TXHD1 of the made Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework to add to the overall quality of an area.

Page 120 Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13

UTT/19/1869/HHF (WENDENS AMBO)

(Reason: Uttlesford District Council Application)

PROPOSAL: Vehicle crossing and hardstanding

LOCATION: 33 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron Walden

APPLICANT: Uttlesford District Council

AGENT: Mr Andrew Hurrell

EXPIRY DATE: 24th September 2019 (EOT 18th October 2019)

CASE OFFICER: Nicola Perry

1. NOTATION

1.1 Within Development Limits; Groundwater Protection Zone.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling and its curtilage located on Station Road, in the village of Wendens Ambo. The property is set back from the highway with a generous sized garden to the front. The streetscene within which the property is situated is not uniform in design and accommodates a variety of properties of different ages, formats and appearance.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Vehicle crossing and hardstanding.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 The development does not constitute ‘EIA development’ for the purposes of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The application includes the following documents:

- Biodiversity Validation Checklist

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 There are no recent planning applications relevant to this proposal.

7. POLICIES

7.1 S70(2) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the local planning authority, in dealing with a planning application, to have regard to:

Page 123 (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (aza) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.

S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

A full list of policies taken into account whilst reviewing this application are listed below.

Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

7.2 Policy S3 – Other Development Limits Policy GEN1 – Access Policy GEN2 – Design Policy GEN7 – Nature Conservation Policy GEN8 – Vehicle Parking Standards Policy ENV12 – Protection of Water Resources

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

7.3 Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards (2013) Essex County Council Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009)

National Policies

7.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(2019)

Other Material Considerations

7.5 Emerging Local Plan:

Policy SP9 – Development within Development Limits Policy TA1 – Accessible Development Policy D1 – High Quality Design Policy EN8 – Protecting the Natural Environment Policy TA4 – Vehicle Parking Standards Policy EN14 – Protection of Water Resources

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 No response received.

9. CONSULTATIONS

ECC Highways Authority (received 9th September)

9.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the

Page 124 proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority, subject to the following measures:

1. Prior to occupation of the development the vehicular access shall be constructed at right angles to the highway boundary and to the existing carriageway. The width of the access at its junction with the highway shall not be less than 3 metres and shall be provided with an appropriate dropped kerb vehicular crossing of the footway/highway verge. Reason: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the highway in a controlled manner in the interest of highway safety.

2. No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary. Reason: To avoid displacement of loose material onto the highway in the interests of highway safety.

3. Any gates provided at the vehicular access shall be inward opening only and shall be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the back edge of the carriageway. Reason: To enable vehicles using the access to stand clear of the carriageway whilst gates are being opened and closed in the interest of highway safety.

4. The proposed development shall not be occupied until such time as the vehicle parking area indicated on the approved plans, has been provided. The vehicle parking area and associated turning area shall be retained in this form at all times. Reason: To ensure that appropriate parking is provided.

Uttlesford Special Roadside Verges (received 2nd October 2019)

9.2 Thank you for consulting me about this application to install a dropped kerb to allow vehicular access to a driveway at 33 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron Walden. The application site is adjacent to a designated Special Roadside Verge Site. UDC policy ENV7 applies.

UTT38 Wendens Ambo, Station Road special roadside verge is on the north side of Station Road, Wendens Ambo between grid references TL518365-TL519365. A map of the verge site is attached to the email with this response. The verge support species rich grassland. The rich flora includes the Nationally Scarce Plant Lesser Calamint and Agrimony, Bird’s Foot Trefoil, Black Horehound, Common Knapweed, Field Bindweed, Hedge Bindweed, Hedge Bedstraw, Lucerne, Mallow, Marjoram, Mugwort, Ribwort Plantain, White Campion, Wild Basil and Yarrow.

This habitat is now very rare in the UK. 97% of this grassland had been destroyed in England and Wales by 1984 and losses have continued since that time. The Special Roadside Verges scheme for Essex seeks to safeguard the last verge sites in the county where rare plants still grow.

Page 125 I do not object to this application. The special verge is not immediately adjacent to the application site, so it should not be affected by the construction work.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 No comments received.

11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

A Whether the proposal would protect the character of the settlement, be compatible with surrounding buildings, or result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties (ULP Policies S3, GEN2, NPPF) B Access and Parking (ULP Policies GEN1, GEN8, Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards, ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice) C Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7, NPPF) D Whether the proposal would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater (ULP Policy ENV12)

A Whether the proposal would protect the character of the settlement, be compatible with the surrounding buildings, or result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties (ULP Policies S3, GEN2, NPPF)

11.1 The application site is located within the development limits of Wendens Ambo, therefore the principle of modest development compatible with the settlement’s character and countryside setting is permitted in accordance with ULP Policy S3.

11.2 ULP Policy GEN2 states that development should be compatible with the scale, form, layout, appearance and materials of surrounding buildings and seeks to ensure that development would not have a materially adverse effect on the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of any nearby property as a result of loss of privacy, loss of daylight, overbearing impact or overshadowing. In addition the NPPF seeks to ensure good design is applied to all development.

11.3 The application proposes the creation of a vehicle crossing and hardstanding to the front of the dwelling to formalize the existing off-street parking arrangement.

11.4 The streetscene is characterised by varying styles of properties, many of which have off-street parking to the front of similar layout and appearance. The materials specified for the construction are typical of a driveway, the proposal would therefore be visually compatible with neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

11.5 The generous sized front garden provides adequate space to accommodate the proposal, allowing vehicles to park and maneuver a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties so as not to have a materially adverse effect on residential amenity. As such it is considered that the proposed development accords with ULP Policies S3, GEN2 and the NPPF.

Page 126 B Access and Parking (ULP Policy GEN1, GEN8, Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards, ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice)

11.6 ULP Policy GEN1 seeks to ensure that development will only be permitted if the design of access to the site does not compromise road safety, whilst ULP Policy GEN8 advises that development will not be permitted unless the number, design and layout of vehicle parking places proposed is appropriate for the location. Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards 2013 and ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice provide further guidance and good practice.

11.7 Essex County Council Highways have been consulted in relation to the access for the proposed vehicle crossing and hardstanding with regards to highway safety. They have advised that from a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority, subject to required conditions being imposed.

11.8 The proposed hardstanding is sufficiently sized to accommodate two vehicle parking spaces, with dimensions to meet the preferred bay size for cars, as specified in the adopted ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice document. This would enhance the parking provision offered at the property above the existing arrangement. As such it is considered that the proposed development accords with ULP Policies GEN1, GEN8, Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards and ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice.

C Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7, NPPF)

11.9 ULP Policy GEN7 seeks to ensure that development would not have a harmful effect on wildlife, geological features or protected species. Furthermore the NPPF requires development protects and enhances biodiversity and geodiversity.

11.10 The applicant has submitted a completed biodiversity questionnaire with the application; which has not identified any potential issues. Furthermore no concerns were highlighted during the case officer site visit. As such it is considered that the proposed development will not have a harmful impact on protected species or biodiversity and therefore accords with ULP Policy GEN7 and the NPPF.

D Whether the proposal would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater (ULP Policy ENV12)

11.12 ULP Policy ENV12 seeks to ensure development that would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater or surface water, particularly in groundwater protection zones will not be permitted.

11.13 Given the small-scale nature of the proposed development which relates to the formation of a vehicle crossing and hardstanding, it is considered that the contamination of groundwater is unlikely. Nonetheless, any construction would need to be in accordance with British Standards. As such it is considered that the proposed development accords with ULP Policy ENV12.

Page 127 12. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and complies with National and Local Planning Policies. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The vehicular access shall be constructed at right angles to the highway boundary and to the existing carriageway. The width of the access at its junction with the highway shall not be less than 3 metres and shall be provided with an appropriate dropped kerb vehicular crossing of the footway/highway verge.

REASON: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the highway in a controlled manner in the interest if highway safety, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary.

REASON: To avoid displacement of loose material onto the highway in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Any gates provided at the vehicular access shall be inward opening only and shall be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the back edge of the carriageway.

REASON: To enable vehicles using the access to stand clear of the carriageway whilst gates are being opened and closed in the interest of highway safety, in accordance with Policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. Following completion, the vehicle parking area indicated on the approved plans and associated turning area shall be retained in this form at all times.

REASON: To ensure that appropriate parking is provided, in accordance with Policy GEN1 and GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 128 Application: UTT/19/1869/HHF

Address: 33 Station Road, Wendens Ambo, Saffron Walden, Essex CB11 4LB

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 25th September 2019

Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14

UTT/19/1870/HHF (WENDENS AMBO)

(Reason: Uttlesford District Council Application)

PROPOSAL: Vehicle crossing and hardstanding

LOCATION: 35 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron Walden

APPLICANT: Uttlesford District Council

AGENT: Mr Andrew Hurrell

EXPIRY DATE: 24th September 2019 (EOT 18th October 2019)

CASE OFFICER: Nicola Perry

1. NOTATION

1.1 Within Development Limits; Groundwater Protection Zone.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Vehicle crossing and hardstanding.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 The development does not constitute ‘EIA development’ for the purposes of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

5. APPLICANT’S CASE

5.1 The application includes the following documents:

- Biodiversity Validation Checklist

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 There are no recent planning applications relevant to this proposal.

7. POLICIES

7.1 S70(2) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the local planning authority, in dealing with a planning application, to have regard to:

Page 131 (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (aza) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.

A full list of policies taken into account whilst reviewing this application are listed below.

Uttlesford Local Plan (2005)

7.2 Policy S3 – Other Development Limits Policy GEN1 – Access Policy GEN2 – Design Policy GEN7 – Nature Conservation Policy GEN8 – Vehicle Parking Standards Policy ENV7 – The Protection of the Natural Environment – Designated Sites Policy ENV12 – Protection of Water Resources

Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance

7.3 Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards (2013) Essex County Council Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009)

National Policies

7.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(2019)

Other Material Considerations

7.5 Emerging Local Plan:

8. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

8.1 No response received.

9. CONSULTATIONS

Page 132 ECC Highways Authority (received 9th September)

9.1 From a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the Highway Authority, subject to the following measures:

Uttlesford Special Roadside Verges (received 2nd October 2019)

9.2 Thank you for consulting me about this application to install a dropped kerb to allow vehicular access to a driveway at 35 Station Road Wendens Ambo Saffron Walden. The application site is immediately adjacent to a designated Special Roadside Verge Site. UDC policy ENV7 applies.

Page 133 This habitat is now very rare in the UK. 97% of this grassland had been destroyed in England and Wales by 1984 and losses have continued since that time. The Special Roadside Verges scheme for Essex seeks to safeguard the last verge sites in the county where rare plants still grow.

The special verge is immediately adjacent to the application site, as the western end of the verge is on the right hand side of the property boundary. So it may be damaged while the construction work takes place if the application is approved. I do not object to this application if conditions are put in place to protect the special verge during the period of construction.

Such that “no development shall commence until the developer / applicant provides a Construction Management Plan which includes the requirements that: 1. All construction operatives are to be made aware of the location of the special verge. 2. The special verge is not to be used for storage of construction materials. 3. Construction vehicles should not drive onto the special verge or park on it. 4. If it is not possible to comply with points 2 and 3 a membrane is to be used to protect the special verge. 5. No topsoil or other material is to be added to the special verge. 6. No mowing of the special verge is to be carried out by operatives or residents.”

I would request that these conditions be included if the planning officer is minded to recommend approval of the application.

10. REPRESENTATIONS

10.1 No comments received.

11. APPRAISAL

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

11.1 The application site is located within the development limits of Wendens Ambo, therefore the principle of modest development compatible with the

Page 134 settlement’s character and countryside setting is permitted in accordance with ULP Policy S3.

11.3 The application proposes the creation of a vehicle crossing and hardstanding to the front of the dwelling to formalize the existing off-street parking arrangement.

11.5 The generous sized front garden provides adequate space to accommodate the proposal, allowing vehicles to park and manoeuvre a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties so as not to have a materially adverse effect on residential amenity. As such it is considered that the proposed development accords with ULP Policies S3, GEN2 and the NPPF.

B Access and Parking (ULP Policy GEN1, GEN8, Uttlesford Local Residential Parking Standards, ECC Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice)

C Nature Conservation (ULP Policy GEN7, NPPF)

Page 135 11.9 ULP Policy GEN7 seeks to ensure that development would not have a harmful effect on wildlife, geological features or protected species. Furthermore the NPPF requires development protects and enhances biodiversity and geodiversity.

D Whether the proposal would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater (ULP Policy ENV12)

11.12 ULP Policy ENV12 seeks to ensure development that would be liable to cause contamination of groundwater or surface water, particularly in groundwater protection zones will not be permitted.

E Whether the proposal will affect a local area of nature conservation significance (ULP Policy ENV7, NPPF)

11.14 ULP Policy ENV7 seeks to ensure that development proposals that adversely affect areas of nature conservation significance, will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the local significance of the site to the biodiversity of the District. Where development is permitted the use of conditions or planning obligations will be considered to ensure the protection and enhancement of the site’s conservation interest.

11.15 The application site is located adjacent to a Special Verge (Verge No: UTT38), consultation is therefore required. The Special Roadside Verges Coordinator has reviewed the application and made recommendations to protect the area, these will be included as informatives should the application be approved.

12. CONCLUSION

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

A The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and complies with National and Local Planning Policies. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Conditions

Page 136 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. No unbound material shall be used in the surface treatment of the vehicular access within 6 metres of the highway boundary.

4. Any gates provided at the vehicular access shall be inward opening only and shall be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the back edge of the carriageway.

5. Following completion, the vehicle parking area indicated on the approved plans and associated turning area shall be retained in this form at all times.

REASON: To ensure that appropriate parking is provided, in accordance with Policy GEN1 and GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 137 Application: UTT/19/1870/HHF

Address: 35 Station Road, Wendens Ambo, Saffron Walden, Essex CB11 4LB

Organisation: Uttlesford District Council

Department: Planning

Date: 25th September 2019

Page 138 Agenda Item 15 [Attach as a front sheet to final version of committee report before submitting to Democratic Services]

COMMITTEE REPORT CHECKLIST

Committee: Planning

Date of meeting: 16th October 2019

Title: UTT/19/2398/TCA Notification of intent to fell 1no. Norway spruce tree at No.2 Barley Hall Cottages, Parsonage Downs, Great Dunmow.

Lead Officer: Nigel Brown

Impact: Approved by: [Click here to enter Name of Approver] Financial [CFO/CFO’s nominee] [Click here to enter Name of Approver] Legal [ACE/ACE’s nominee] [Click here to enter Name of Approver] Service [Lead Officer / Service Director / HoD]

PART 2 REPORTS All of the exemptions are subject to a qualification in that they can only be used if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Explanation of how the Approved by: public interest test is satisfied

Page 139 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number] (Report Author) (Legal)

Author: Version date: Page 140 Committee: Planning Agenda Item Date: 16th October 2019 [?] Title: UTT/19/2398/TCA Notification of intent to fell 1no. Norway spruce tree at 2, Barley Hall Cottages, Parsonage Downs, Great Dunmow.

Author: Ben Smeeden Item for decision Landscape Officer

Summary

1. This item seeks the Committee’s consideration of the proposed felling of 1no. Norway spruce tree at 2, Barley Hall Cottages, Parsonage Downs, Great Dunmow. The property is in the ownership UDC and is within a conservation area.

Recommendations

2. No objection is raised to the proposed felling of the Norway spruce tree.

Financial Implications

3. The cost of the works to be met by existing budget provisions.

Background Papers

4. The following papers were referred to by the author in the preparation of this report and are available for inspection from the author of the report.

UTT/19/2398/TCA

Impact

Communication/Consultation Weekly List.

Community Safety None

Equalities None

Health and Safety None

Human Rights/Legal None Implications

Sustainability None

Page 141 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number]

Ward-specific impacts None

Workforce/Workplace None

Situation

6. The tree work proposed is the felling of a Norway spruce tree in the grounds of 2, Barley Hall Cottage, Parsonage Downs, Great Dunmow (Appendix 1 Location plan). The tree is in the ownership of UDC and within a conservation area. The reason for the proposed felling is the tree’s proximity to the neighbouring dwelling, Downs Cottage.

7. The tree has been assessed by the council’s Landscape Officer and found to be a mature specimen of some 12m in height situated in the front garden area of the property. The tree is growing within 3m of the neighbouring building and the canopy overhangs part of the roof of a garage building. No evidence was found of the tree having caused any structural damage. At the time of inspection roof guttering was found to be blocked with shed spruce ‘needles’ which could risk an ingress of damp into the building.

8. Norway spruce have the potential to achieve a height of some 40m. Given the close proximity of the subject tree to the neighbouring dwelling it is considered prudent that the tree is removed. There is no remedial tree surgery other than felling which is considered appropriate in this case. The tree is in part visible from the adjacent public highway and can be seen from vantage points on the green. However, the tree is not considered to be of a public amenity value worthy of being made the subject of a tree preservation order and its removal would not detrimentally impact on the visual quality of this part of the conservation area.

9. Risk Analysis

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigating actions

1. There are no 1. None 1. No impact None risks associated with the recommendation

1 = Little or no risk or impact 2 = Some risk or impact – action may be necessary. 3 = Significant risk or impact – action required 4 = Near certainty of risk occurring, catastrophic effect or failure of project.

Author: Version date: Page 142 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number]

Appendix 1: Location plan

Author: Version date: Page 143 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number]

Appendix 2: Photographs.

Author: Version date: Page 144 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number]

Appendix 2: Photographs

Author: Version date: Page 145 [Click here to type title] [Click here to type Committee] [Click here to type item number]

Author: Version date: Page 146 Agenda Item 16

Committee: Planning Agenda Item

Date: 16th October 2019 UTT/19/2451/TCA [?] Title: Notification of intent to fell 1No. mountain ash tree in the grounds of the Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden.

Author: Ben Smeeden Landscape Officer

Summary

1. This item seeks the Committee’s consideration of the proposed felling of 1No. mountain ash tree in the grounds of the London Road Council Offices. The tree is within a conservation area.

2. The tree is situated in the car park area to the rear of the Council Offices. The reason for seeking its removal is to allow for improved access for delivery vehicles serving the offices’ loading bay. . 3. The tree has been assessed by the council’s Landscape Officer and found to be a relatively poor specimen, its development and vigour having been restricted by the surrounding hard standing. The tree is not considered to be of a public amenity value worthy of being made the subject of a tree preservation order (Appendix 1; Photograph).

Recommendation

It is recommended that NO OBJECTION be raised to the felling of this tree.

Financial Implications

1. The costs associated with the tree removal would be covered by existing budget provisions.

Background Papers UTT/19/2451/TCA

Page 147 Impact

Communication/Consultation Weekly List

Community Safety None

Equalities None

Health and Safety None

Human Rights/Legal None Implications

Sustainability None

Ward-specific impacts None

Workforce/Workplace None

Risk Analysis

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigating actions

1 1 1 None

Page 148 Appendix1: Photograph of mountain ash tree.

Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank