Councillor RJ Poult

Planning Committee PL 8 26th June, 2012

MINUTES

of the

PLANNING COMMITTEE

held on 26th June, 2012

Present:

Councillor R.J. Poulter (in the Chair)

Councillors R.S. Burgoyne, R.F. Denston, N. Gulliver, P.V. Hughes, L.A. Mascot, F.B. Mountain, S.W. Pontin, T.E. Roper, C. A. Rycroft, M. Springett R.A. Villa and P.R.A. Wilson

Councillor L.A. Mascot acted as a substitute for Councillor G.B. Nichols Councillor M. Springett acted as substitute for Councillor P.P. Lane

Also in attendance: Councillor R.A. Ride

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P.P. Lane, L. Millane, G.B. Nichols and I. Wright (the Chairman).

2. Public Question Time

Questions were asked and statements made on the following items;

The Wheatsheaf Public House, Main Road, Rettendon Common – (7) applicant, 3 local residents and 1 resident of Chelmsford in support of the proposal and 2 local residents opposing the proposal.

Land North West of Buttsbury Lodge Cottage, Stock Road, Stock – (3) local residents opposing the proposal.

Little Tuftes, The Ridge, Little Baddow – (2) applicants in support of the application

Blakes Mead, Parsonage Lane, Little Baddow – (1) agent in support of the proposal.

3. Declarations of Interests

Members of the Committee were reminded to declare any personal and prejudicial interests in any of the items of business on the meeting’s agenda. No interests were declared.

4. Announcements

There were no announcements

Planning Committee PL 9 26th June, 2012

5. The Wheatsheaf, Main Road, Rettendon Common – 11/00930/FUL

(M6, PL71, 2012) At its meeting on 1 st May, 2012, the Committee had considered an application for refurbishments, extension and change of use of the public house to provide a restaurant and two shops, resiting and refurbishment of existing toilet block and car park; and the erection of one indoor and one outdoor equestrian riding arena for use as an equestrian show centre at the Wheatsheaf, Main Road, Rettendon Common. It had been noted that the application had been referred to the Committee at the request of the local ward members.

The Committee had been advised that the application was supported by several local residents and residents of the Borough several of whom had attended the meeting and addressed the Committee in addition to the local ward member and adjoining ward member although the application was opposed by the Parish Council and some local residents.

The Committee had been advised that in Officers’ view, whilst the refurbishment of the Wheatsheaf Public House was a benefit the equestrian element and in particular the scale of the development proposed would have an unacceptable impact on the rural character of the area and that the level of support for the application did not outweigh this harm.

It had been agreed that whilst the Committee had heard several points being made about the benefits of the scheme no one had addressed any of the proposed reasons for refusal and there had not appeared to be any definition of what ‘unacceptable impact’ meant. The Committee had resolved to defer the application for a site visit and asked that the following information be made available for members;

• at the site visit - whether the amended plans or the original plans should be considered, • at the next meeting – specific details of the lighting and a definition of what ‘unacceptable impact’ means.

The site visit had taken place on 25 th June, 2012.

The Committee considered a further report and noted that since the last Committee detailed revised plans had been received which set the indoor riding arena a further metre into the ground and would raise the earth bund around it by a further metre. Whilst the further set down of the building was welcomed and would offer some visual relief, Officers felt that they did not sufficiently reduce the impact on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore they felt that the size and scale of the bund would in itself appear as an alien feature in the landscape.

The Committee was advised that the lighting specifications submitted with the application showed a modern Deltalux system which was energy efficient and minimised light spillage.

The Committee was also advised that there was no definition of ‘unacceptable impact’ but that all development would have an impact and it was up to the decision maker to balance whether that impact was acceptable or not after considering such things as the character and appearance of the area, the scale and individual nature of the proposal and any other matters which could justify the nature of a specific proposal.

Planning Committee PL 10 26th June, 2012

The Committee heard from a representative of the Parish Council opposing the proposal on the grounds that it would generate a high volume of traffic which would exacerbate problems on already busy roads in the area. He also considered that the development was contrary to the Village Design Statement in terms of the generation of traffic and the protection of open space.

The Committee was advised that the Essex County Council Highways Authority had raised no objection in terms of traffic generation on the basis of the management proposals stated by the applicant.

The Committee also heard from the local ward member who reiterated his support for the proposal and reminded the Committee of the vast public support for the development. He felt that the benefits of the scheme especially in terms of the creation of 28 jobs outweighed any harm caused. He stressed that the setting down of the building would reduce the height of the ridge and result in a significant reduction of visual impact. The bunding would add special contours and be an attractive feature in the area. The activity generated would not be serious and the lighting proposed was modern and not intrusive.

The Committee heard from 2 local residents opposing the scheme on the grounds that the scheme would have an impact in the area, would generate extra traffic in the area such as horse boxes and trailers etc, generate noise disturbing the quiet village life.

The Committee also heard from the applicant, 4 local residents and a resident of the Borough on the grounds that the amended plans which set the building further into the ground would mitigate and offset visual intrusion, the views of the site would be limited especially in relation to the orientation of the building, light spillage would be eliminated and the proposal would have a positive effect on the site as it involved the demolition of derelict buildings, the bund was in keeping with planning guidelines, the facility would not be noisy and the area was ideal for this type of development.

Some members of the Committee agreed that development would not be unacceptable and was more attractive than the current buildings, stating that it was an agricultural building in an agricultural area. A motion to not accept the recommendation to refuse permission with members being minded to approve the application was proposed and seconded. This motion failed.

Some members of the Committee expressed concern and felt that the building would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and that traffic concerns had been played down and wasn’t supported by all local residents.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons as outlined in the report before the Committee.

6. Site of the Former St Johns Hospital, Wood Street, Chelmsford – 12/00260/CAC

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of part of the Wood Street boundary at the Site of the Former St Johns Hospital, Wood Street, Chelmsford. This application was considered alongside the following application no. 12/00333/FUL.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reason as outlined in the report before the Committee.

Planning Committee PL 11 26th June, 2012

7. Site of the Former St Johns Hospital, Wood Street, Chelmsford – 12/00333/FUL

The Committee considered an application for the rebuilding of part of Wood Street boundary in the form of pilasters and railings with new pedestrian access at north end at the Site of the Former St Johns Hospital, Wood Street, Chelmsford.

The Committee was advised that in Officer’s view the wall was of townscape and historic significance and the proposals would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Some members of the Committee commented that whilst the wall was of some historic value the footpath adjacent to the road was very narrow and that opening up this section would be safer for pedestrians. A proposal not to accept the recommendation to refuse permission with members being minded to approve the application was proposed but not seconded.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reason as outlined in the report before the Committee.

8. Land North West of Buttsbury Lodge Cottage, Stock Road, Stock – 12/00503/FUL

The Committee considered a retrospective application for the construction of 100 Ground Mounted Photovoltaic Panels at land North West of Buttsbury Lodge Cottage, Stock Road, Stock. It was noted that the panels were located in two rows with an overall height of 2.64 metres within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Committee was advised that Council Policy encouraged the use of renewable energy and that whilst the Panels would be viewable from views behind some of the properties along Stock Road to the East of the site, the main residential garden areas were some distance away and the main structure of the panels was obscured from view by existing hedge rows.

The Committee heard from 3 local residents opposing the development on the grounds that conditions on the previous permission had been breached as the Panels were too high, the Panels could be viewed from nearly a mile away and that Green Belt land should be protected.

The Committee was reminded that planning law did allow for retrospective applications.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as outlined in the report before the Committee with the amendment of the first paragraph of condition 2 to read;

In this condition ‘’retained hedge’’ means the existing hedge together with any infill hedge plants agreed pursuant to condition 1, which is located to the east of the PV panels and this condition shall have effect until the expiration of 10 years from the date of this permission.

Planning Committee PL 12 26th June, 2012

Little Tuftes, The Ridge, Little Baddow – 12/00433/FUL

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling at Little Tuftes, The Ridge, Little Baddow. It was noted that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the local ward member following concerns about conflict with Policy DC11. The Committee was advised that the proposal was of a similar size and scale with the existing dwelling albeit with an increase in floor space beyond that of the guidelines within Policy DC11. The development was of a modern design and the landscaping at the front would be retained.

The Committee was advised that the 30% guideline was not in the policy but in the explanatory notes and that it was important to consider the character of the area particularly in the light of the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in so far as it related to the rural area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB). Officers had looked carefully at the scheme, negotiated with the applicant and supported the application which respected the character of the area.

The Committee heard from a representative of the Parish Council opposing the scheme as it did not comply with Policy DC11 in that the proposal would result in a 73% increase in floor space with the guideline in the policy being 30%. He expressed concern that the Parish Council had seen many applications approved which were in excess of this guideline and resulted in the stock of smaller properties being eroded and the creeping urbanisation of the area. He asked that these comments be taken into account when considering the next agenda item as well.

The Committee heard from the applicants who advised the Committee that this proposal had been submitted after negotiations with Planning Officers and was intended to be their family home. They felt that the development would minimise impact on the street scene, would be an improvement on the existing property and retain the openness of the street scene.

The Committee generally agreed that the proposal was acceptable but acknowledged the comments from the Parish Council and the importance of looking at the issue of affordable housing in Little Baddow.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as outlined in the report before the Committee with the addition of Informatives 2 and 3 which state;

Inf. 2 The proposed demolition in the scheme should not be carried out until you have given notice in writing to the Chelmsford City Council (Building Control Manager) of your intention to do so pursuant to Section 80 of the Building Act 1984. The notice should be accompanied by a block plan (e.g. 1/1250) clearly identifying the building(s) to be demolished.

Inf. 3 Chelmsford City Council places the principles of sustainable development at the heart of its planning regime and promotes sustainability in urban design, building design and construction methods. More information is available in Chelmsford City Council's Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document which can be viewed on the Council's website at www.chelmsford.gov.uk/sustainabledev and at Essex Energy Efficiency Advice Centre's website at www.essexeeac.com.

Planning Committee PL 13 26th June, 2012

10. Blakes Mead, Parsonage Lane, Little Baddow – 12/00441/FUL

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling with attached garage and the erection of a new four bedroom house with associated ground works at Blakes Mead, Parsonage Lane, Little Baddow. It was noted that the application had been referred to the Committee at the request of the local ward member following concerns about conflict with Policy DC11. The Committee was advised that in Officers’ view, the proposal was of a size and scale similar to that of the existing albeit with an increase in floor area beyond that of the guidelines within Policy DC11, and that it was important to consider the character of the area particularly in the light of the recently published NPPF in so far as it related to the rural area beyond the MGB.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent who advised that the replacement dwelling would be a family lifetime home and replace the poorly constructed existing dwelling.

The Committee agreed that the proposal was a great improvement to the existing dwelling. It was agreed that the Development Policy Committee would need to consider Policy DC11 in its review of policies following the NPPF.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as outlined in the report before the Committee with the addition on Informatives 2 and 3 which state;

11. Chelmsford Retail Market, Bellmead, Chelmsford – 12/00416/ADV

The Committee considered an application for 6 fascia signs with scenes from inside the market and the market logo at Chelmsford Retail Market, Bellmead, Chelmsford. It was noted that the application had been referred to the Committee as the Council owned the freehold of the site.

It was agreed that the signage would serve to advertise the retail activity of the Market without being visually intrusive.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the report before the Committee.

Planning Committee PL 14 26th June, 2012

12. Seymours, Church Lane, Little Leighs – 12/00663/FUL

The Committee considered an application for a single storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer windows at Seymours, Church Lane, Little Leighs. It was noted that the application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant’s partner was a council employee.

The Committee agreed that the proposal was acceptable and would not adversely affect the rural character of the area or harm the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as outlined in the report before the Committee with the addition of Informative 2 which states;

Inf. 2 To ensure that the construction of the approved development will cause minimum nuisance to neighbours, the applicant is strongly advised to follow guidelines for acceptable working hours as set out by the Council's Environmental Health Service. They recommend that noisy work should be limited to 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. Light work is acceptable (beyond the hours set out above) between 7 and 8 am and 6 and 7 pm on Mondays to Fridays. At all other times including Sundays and Bank Holidays, no work should be carried out that is audible beyond the boundary of the site. Please note that in some circumstances further restrictions may be necessary. For more information, please contact Environmental Services Customer Support on 01245 606800. Information is also available on the Council's website at www.chelmsford.gov.uk/construction-site-noise .

13. University Campus Part of Central Park and Land at Park Road, Chelmsford – 11/01360/FUL and 11/01360/OUT

(M7 & 8, PL50 to 56, 2012) At its meeting on 23 rd January, 2012 the Committee had considered an application Part full (Phase 1), Part outline (Phase 2) for mixed use redevelopment for residential (C3), food store (A1), business (B1),retail (A1), financial & professional services (A2), restaurants/cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4), hot food takeaways (A5) & non residential institutions (D1). Conversion of Anne Knight Building to flexible A1- A3 use &/or D1 & /or D2. Conversion of the Frederick Chancellor building to B1 &/or D1 use. Parking, servicing, vehicular &pedestrian access, new & reconfigured public spaces. Substantive demolition of Law Building. Felling of TPO trees and trees within a Conservation Area at the University Campus Part of Central Park and Land at Park Road, Chelmsford. It had been resolved that the applications be approved subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement as outlined in the report before the Committee.

Planning Committee PL 15 26th June, 2012

The Committee was advised that Highway point 12 which states that the following should be completed prior to occupation of any part of the development;

‘Provision of a footpath link from Duke Street via Canon’s Passage to tie in with the east west routes in 8 above, to be maintained free of obstruction at all times and be available for public use in perpetuity’

would need to be amended as not all of Canon’s Passage was in the applicant’s ownership.

RESOLVED that point 12 in relation to the Highway’s Authority’s representation on the application be varied to require the following;

That part of Canons Passage that is under the control of the applicant to be maintained free of obstruction at all times and be available for public use in perpetuity.

14. Planning Appeal Decisions

The Committee received a report on appeal decisions received with a specific analysis of each.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

15. Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business brought before the Committee

The meeting closed at 9:18 pm.