WRITTLE PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 in the Village Hall, 8.00pm
Members = Present X = Absent A = Apologies
Mr A Carter (CHAIR) Mr T Kinloch Mr R Bray Mr T Sach Mr C Hibbitt (CHAIR for items 1 to 6.1) Mrs W Walker Mrs S Bell Mr M Townley (VICE CHAIR) A Mr P Cracknell Mr R Schmid Mr P Costello Mr P Delaney Mrs A Reid Mrs R Smith Mrs L Gannicott A
In Attendance = Present X = Absent A = Apologies
Mr D Walker (CLERK) Mrs L Fox (ADMIN ASST) Members of the public x 50 Stonebond Ltd x 4 Dr Stephen Waite, Writtle College
ACTION
1. PUBLIC FORUM
1.1 NOTED it was noted that there were 50 members of the public present. The Chair, Cllr Hibbitt, welcomed everybody to the meeting and introduced the Parish Councillors and explained Cllr Carter had expressed an interest in item 6.1 and that he would chair the meeting up to that point, he went on to describe how the meeting would proceed. Planning applications are submitted to Chelmsford City Council (CCC) in the same way whether they are small extensions or larger estates and go through the same procedures. There is normally 1-2 weeks consultation dependent on the closing date for comments. Public comments can be made and CCC also ask consultees for their response, of which Writtle Parish Council is one. Writtle Parish Council responds to each Writtle application that appears on CCC’s planning website and will either approve it, approve it with conditions or object/oppose the application. It was noted that Chelmsford City Council have a meeting in early 2016 to make a decision on the planning application 15/01855 Lordship Stud.
The Chair then invited comments from the public noted as follows:
1.2 NOTED it was noted that concerns were raised regarding the junction of Ongar Road and Back Road. It is an extremely dangerous junction with around 50/60 schoolchildren coming out of Back Road and crossing the road to the school and shops.
1.3 NOTED it was noted that all three junctions of Back Road have restrictive sight implications. Back Road is a narrow carriageway with a number of parked vehicles. Not all current houses have parking facilities. Planning application has been rejected twice before because it is in the green belt. It is likely that traffic would
LFox DEV Committee 161215 1
increase by 40% with the new development.
1.4 NOTED it was noted that the estimation of current traffic for Back Road in the reports was way above what it actually is. It would therefore make the increase in traffic from the new development appear to be lighter.
1.5 NOTED it was noted that the development was felt to be unacceptably overdeveloped and within the CCC’s protected green belt.
1.6 NOTED it was noted that there was no indication on the drawings regarding the accessibility to the countryside through the development. It was felt that it was totally unacceptable to develop the site.
1.7 NOTED it was noted that Dr Waite, Principal of Writtle College pointed out that the sale was not financially driven but that he wanted to use the resource to secure facilities for future generations. Lordship Stud is not up to standard to teach students and doesn’t meet the College’s need. It was noted that the college wished to use the capital for its Cow Watering Lane site.
1.8 NOTED it was noted that Mr Hibbitt, Chair, Writtle Parish Council, wished to congratulate the College on its university status. The Parish Council believes the College is important to the village and wished to keep up a good relationship. Writtle needs the College, for its employment and trade for the village and the College wished to continue to work closely with the village.
1.9 NOTED it was noted that Stonebond had met with CCC for a pre- application discussion. They had carried out a process of transparency with the residents. It was noted that CCC needed to balance the views of the government. Current local and government policies allow development of previously developed land. There would be less volume, less footprint and more natural boundaries on the site.
1.10 NOTED it was noted that CCC did not invite development on the Green Belt.
1.11 NOTED it was noted that the land should be gifted back to the community. It was purely opportunistic and profiteering and not a holistic approach. It was noted that the development did not appear in the development site plan. Writtle needed smaller housing, not 4 bedroom houses, as people wanted to downsize and not have to move out of the area.
1.12 NOTED it was noted that the current local development plan for Chelmsford, including sites up to 2021 had been decided and Lordship Stud was not included in the plan. One suggestion was to see if it would be possible to convert the existing barns on the site into 2/3 dwellings.
1.13 NOTED it was noted that livery stables are in short supply in this area. Could it be a possibility to convert the site into stables, as the stud is suitable for keeping horses? Dr Waite thought this might be an idea. It was noted that there would be no vehicular access to look after the fields behind the development but the College
LFox DEV Committee 161215 2
confirmed they had developed access to the fields from their other sites.
1.14 NOTED it was noted that there is no pure line around Writtle, there are fingers of undeveloped land coming into Writtle. It was noted that you could not see through the development into the green belt.
1.15 NOTED it was noted that if it was not developed for housing, would it become a commercial site. Is there a risk of a commercial site there?
1.16 NOTED It was noted that there was a lack of pavement and no lighting along Back Road. Traffic and accessibility were major problems with the new development. There is one new house currently being built at the top of Back Road, and the road has to be frequently closed and it is very difficult to get out of the junction with the increased traffic for just this one house.
1.17 NOTED it was noted by the Chair that the minutes of the last meeting and progress check would be discussed after the Lordship Stud application.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.1 NOTED apologies noted as above.
3. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETINGS – 16 November 2015
3.1 NOTED the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting held on 16 November 2015 were agreed as an accurate record.
3.2 NOTED it was proposed by Mrs S Bell and seconded by Mr T Sach that the agreed minutes be approved and signed.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
4.1 NOTED it was noted that Mr Carter had declared an interest and as the Vice Chair, Mr Townley was not at the meeting, Mr Hibbitt agreed to chair the meeting.
5. PROGRESS CHECK
5.1 NOTED it was noted that there was nothing new to report.
6. PLANNING
6.1 AGREED 15/01855/FUL The Lordship Stud, Writtle College, Back Road, Writtle Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 17 no. new dwellings and associated development including landscaped public realm, car parking and new vehicular and pedestrian accesses from Back Road.
LFox DEV Committee 161215 3
This planning application was discussed at the Writtle Parish Council Planning & Development Committee Meeting on Wednesday, 16 December and the committee strongly objected to the application for the following reasons:-
The important thing to note is although there is currently a presumption in favour of development on suitable Brownfield Land and in the government's declaration earlier this year stated "(the government) will introduce a new zonal system which will effectively give automatic permission on suitable brownfield sites", the operative word is suitable, it will not be carte blanche permission.
Under the definition of suitability we contend this site is not suitable for the following reasons: -
1. It is Metropolitan Green Belt and outside the defined settlement boundary.
2. Development at Daws farm would seriously affect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt at this location it currently provides a significant green lung and should remain so.
3. The proposed site is unacceptably overdeveloped, with no benefit to the character or appearance of the site. The road does not have the infrastructure to support the development of 17 houses. Back Road is a quite heavily developed, congested and minor road with dangerous sight lines particularly on to Ongar Road, exacerbated by a lack of safe footpaths. Concerns were also raised over the number of schoolchildren trying to cross at the dangerous junction of Ongar Road/Back Road to get to the school and shops.
4. This site was ruled out for development in the Chelmsford City Council Development Plan Document adopted 20th February 2008 allocating development sites up to 2021.
5. This site is excluded from the preferred sites in the current Issues and Options document taking us up to 2036, which will meet government requirements on the number of homes required in the Chelmsford area. This proposed development is unwanted and no housing need is demonstrated.
6. The purpose of the 2008 Development Plan Document and the current Issues and Options process is to give certainty, if these documents are ignored where is the certainty?
7. The development will have a detrimental effect on the existing tree preservation order TPO/2015/020. If permitted, pressure will be placed on the Council to allow future works either for the reduction or removal of these trees, which would be a great loss to the street scene.
8. Housing development on this land is contrary to Writtle Village Design Statement adopted in 2004 as Planning Guidance by Chelmsford City Council, that specifically states “Daws Farm
LFox DEV Committee 161215 4
should be retained within the Green Belt and not be developed”, that was repeated in the more recently published Writtle Parish Plan.
9. There is significant objection from numerous Parishioners as demonstrated by the circa 300 strong petition and the 60 or so separate objections submitted to CCC in response to the planning notice. Public opinion must be taken into consideration.
10. The Change of Use to Equine Stud was granted on 2nd June 2000 (App 00/00860/FUL Approved). Condition 6 of the Approval Notice states, 'The use hereby permitted shall be carried out only by Writtle College. When the premises cease to be occupied by the Writtle College, the use hereby permitted shall cease'. The use should revert to agriculture use if the College sells the land, based on the condition above.
It was noted that 12 councillors agreed with the objections and 1 councillor was in favour of the development.
Cllr Carter took over the Chair
6.2 AGREED 15/01798/FUL 20 Wykeham Road, Writtle Rear conservatory The committee agreed that there were no objections to this planning application.
6.3 AGREED 15/01829/FUL 214 Ongar Road, Writtle. Change of use of ground floor from retail A1 to dwelling house C3 plus two storey rear extension and conversion of existing to provide 2 one bedroom flats. The committee raised concerns regarding the external staircase and the right to privacy of 216 Ongar Road.
6.4 AGREED 15/01837/FUL Bumpsteads Cottage, Margaretting Road, Writtle Replace open fronted barn with a two storey twin garage on ground floor and gymnasium/games room on second floor. Close existing entrance to house and open new access away from bend. The committee objected to the planning application due to the scale of the building in the green belt and the effect on the openness.
6.5 AGREED 15/01897/FUL 16 Causeway Cottages, Highwood Road, Writtle. Part two storey, part first floor side and rear extension. The committee objected to the planning application because of the overbearance of the extension and the potential loss of light to the rear of no. 15 Causeway Cottages.
6.6 AGREED 15/01923/FUL 10 Romans Way, Writtle. Single storey front and side extension. Roof extension to side of property above existing garage. The committee agreed that there were no objections to this planning application.
LFox DEV Committee 161215 5
6.7 AGREED 15/01968/FUL 37 Hunts Drive, Writtle Part single storey part two storey rear extension and single storey side extension with new window to first floor side elevation. The committee agreed that there were no objections to this planning application.
7. UPDATE ON PLANNING DECISIONS
7.1 NOTED the Committee received documentation which tabled previous planning applications and the resulting CCC and ECC Planning Decisions since the meeting of the Development Committee of 16 November 2015.
7.2 NOTED the latest Chelmsford City Council Enforcement Schedule (Complaints Received) was circulated.
8. CHELMSFORD’S LOCAL PLAN 2021-36: ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION
8.1 NOTED it was noted that the government’s national plan is to build a lot more houses. Writtle Parish Council supports the government’s plan to build 14,000 new homes in Chelmsford. Chelmsford City Council carried out a call for sites which resulted in a potential 60,000 houses on 281 sites. All green belt and marginal sites were rejected, leaving 42,000 houses on 154 sites.
8.2 NOTED it was noted that comments on the issues and options consultation had to be received by 21st January 2016
8.3 NOTED it was noted that Writtle Parish Council would oppose the options on Warren Farm and present a case to Chelmsford City Council for an alternative.
8.4 NOTED it was noted that the current population of Chelmsford is 168,000, with Writtle having a population of 5,385. Writtle would be taking 20% of the new houses for the 10 year period.
8.5 NOTED it was noted that the Parish Councils in North West Chelmsford had formed a North West Action Group to oppose Warren Farm. Leaflets had been printed to ‘Save the West of Chelmsford’ and would be delivered to all residents in Writtle.
8.6 NOTED it was noted that the group had received a presentation from developers at Hammonds Farm, east of Chelmsford between Chelmer Village and Little Baddow. The group were putting together a statement of common ground.
8.7 NOTED it was noted that infrastructure and traffic were the main arguments for opposing the development. Writtle Parish Council had a meeting with Cllr Aldridge and Cllr Bass regarding the proposals.
8.8 NOTED it was noted that a meeting would be held in Writtle Village Hall on Wednesday, 6 January at 8pm regarding the local plan. All
LFox DEV Committee 161215 6
villagers were urged to attend and give their views to the Parish Council.
8.9 NOTED it was noted that the public present at this meeting were in favour of the Parish Council’s plans.
9. ANY OTHER REPORTS
9.1 NOTED it was noted that there were no other reports.
9.2 NOTED it was noted that a vote of thanks was given to Mrs Fox for her efforts in preparing for the meeting.
10. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
10.1 NOTED it was noted that the next meeting of the Planning & Development Committee will be on Monday, 18 January 2016 at 7.30pm in the Parish Office.
MEETING CONCLUDED 9.40pm
Signed: ______
For and on behalf of Writtle Parish Council
Date: ______
LFox DEV Committee 161215 7