Agenda item

Erection of up to 50 dwellings together with open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage and vehicular/pedestrian accesses from Heckfords Road.

Councillor McWilliams had earlier declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Planning Application 16/00870/OUT by virtue of the fact she was the local Ward Member and also by virtue of the fact that she was pre-determined. Councillor McWilliams therefore withdrew from the meeting, whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision, returning only to speak as Ward Member pursuant to the Public Speaking Scheme as outlined below.

Councillor Fairley had earlier declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Planning Application 16/00870/OUT by virtue of the fact that she was pre-determined. Councillor Fairley therefore withdrew from the meeting, whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision.

It was reported that this application was before the Committee as it was a departure from the Local Plan and it had also been referred to the Committee at the request of Councillor McWilliams, the local Ward Member.

Members recalled that this proposal was a re-submission of an earlier application which had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 22 March 2016. That application had been deferred for further consideration and an on-site meeting with a Highway Engineer from Essex County Council, but was subsequently then refused planning permission at the Committee’s meeting on 19 April 2016 because the proposed pedestrian footway from the site along Heckfords Road (providing a connection back into the village green) would have included a section measuring no more than 1.2 metres in width. The Highway Authority had had no objection, however, the Committee had been concerned that the development would have introduced an increased risk of pedestrians having to step out into the carriageway on the outside of the bend where visibility around the bend was limited. There had been a particular concern that the distance between the narrowest pinch point and the point at which it would have become visible to drivers travelling along Heckfords Road would have been well within the reasonable stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at the legal speed limit.

Members also recalled that at that meeting held on 19 April 2016, there had been another outline proposal for up to 50 dwellings on land at Admirals Farm on the opposite side of Heckfords Road. That proposal had similarly required a footway along the western side of Heckfords Road to connect with the village green, but the applicants for that scheme had submitted information to show how a large part of the footway could have been widened to 1.4 metres through the acquisition of third party land. With this additional width, the Committee had been content to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

Members were informed that the applicants for the refused scheme west of Heckfords Road had since appealed to the Secretary of State although no Inquiry dates had yet been confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate. In light of the Admirals Farm decision, the applicants had also submitted this new application, with a commitment not to occupy any of the new dwellings unless the minimum 1.4 metre width along the said section of footway (as accepted by the Committee for the neighbouring scheme) was achieved. By imposing a planning condition to require the above, the Committee’s reason for refusing the earlier scheme could be addressed and the new application was therefore recommended for approval by the Officers.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (GG) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1) Some observations in relation to the proposed footway connection provided by the agent for the applicant.

Peter Harry, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Pippa Drew, representing Great Bentley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor McWilliams, in her capacity as the local Ward Member, returned to the Chamber and spoke against the application. She then withdrew from the meeting again, on the grounds of pre-determination, whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision.

David Barnes, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, and consideration of advice provided by Officers at the meeting in regards to concerns raised, it was moved by Councillor Hughes and seconded by Councillor Bennison that the application be refused due to highways and sustainability matters, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.

Following further discussion by the Committee, it was then moved by Councillor Hones and seconded by Councillor Fowler that the application be approved, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.

Following further discussion by the Committee, it was then moved by Councillor Everett and seconded by Councillor Hughes that consideration of the application be deferred in order to further investigate highways matters, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.

Following further discussion by the Committee,and consideration of further advice provided by Officers at the meeting with regards to potential risks involved with the appeals process, it was then moved again by Councillor Hones and seconded by Councillor Fowler that the application be approved, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.

Following further discussion by the Committee, and consideration of further advice provided by Officers at the meeting with regards to potential consequences of non-determination and defending potential reasons for refusal, it was then moved by Councillor Everett, seconded by Councillor Heaney and RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of approval, the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development for the following reason:

·         Pedestrian safety.