Reserved matters application with details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the development of 277 dwellings, 1,910m² commercial floorspace (B1 Uses), railway footbridge, attenuation basins, open space, play equipment and associated infrastructure pursuant to outline permission 19/00524/OUT (Outline planning application with all matters reserved, except for access, for 280 dwellings, a 2 Form of Entry primary school, 56 place early years nursery, up to 3000 sqm of office (B1) buildings on 1 hectare and associated ancillary buildings, drainage systems, boundary treatments and hard surfacing as well as public open space, vehicular access from Thorpe Road a pedestrian footbridge and the closure of existing level crossing and formal diversion of public footpath No 5 - Weeley, over the new railway bridge) including minor alterations to public footpaths No.3 and No. 4 to allow for the proposed layout.

 

The application stands referred to the Planning Committee, as when the outline planning permission was granted originally, Members decided that the Reserved Matters application(s) would be referred to the Planning Committee for its determination. In addition, Councillor Peter Harris, the Ward Member, has requested that the application be ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee, due to his concerns about the provision of Open Space within the development; concerns about the surface water drainage scheme; the design of the railway footbridge; and concerns over traffic management and the proposed vehicular access for the site.

Members were told that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as when Outline planning permission had been granted Members of the Committee had agreed that the Reserved Matters application(s) would be referred to the Planning Committee for its determination. In addition, Councillor Peter Harris, the Ward Member, acting on behalf of Weeley Parish Council had requested that the application be ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee,  as the Parish Council had raised its concerns about the provision of Open Space within the development; concerns about the surface water drainage scheme; the design of the railway footbridge; and concerns over traffic management and the proposed vehicular access for the site.

 

The Committee heard that the current application sought approval of the reserved matters related to outline planning permission 19/00524/OUT, which had granted outline permission for the erection of up to 280 dwellings, a potential new primary school and children’s nursery, up to 3,000sqm of office (B1) floorspace and associated infrastructure and development including the provision of Public Open Space. The development had also approved through the outline planning permission a pedestrian footbridge over the railway line to the south of the application site.

 

Members were further informed that when the outline planning permission had been approved it had included approval of the vehicular access to the site – a single road leading from a modified priority junction on Thorpe Road. Whilst the access details had been approved all other matters had been Reserved. The application now in front of Members included details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, of the whole application site, excluding the education land and a relatively small parcel of land immediately to the south of Verity Gardens, as those details had not been included as part of the outline permission and were included for consideration in a current, separate application 22/01332/FUL.

 

Officers informed Members that, as established through the granting of outline application 19/00524/OUT, the principle of a mixed use, residential led development for up to 280 dwellings, with new education facilities, commercial office space, and pedestrian footbridge had all been found to be acceptable by the Council.

 

Members also heard that the detailed design, layout, landscaping, and scale were considered acceptable by Officers. The proposal would result in no material harm to residential amenity or highway safety and the application was therefore recommended by Officers for approval subject to the planning conditions listed in the Officer report.

 

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 Team Leader (AN) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of additional representations, change of wording for conditions and additional conditions:

 

“Additional Representations

 

Weeley Parish Council: Weeley Parish Council (WPC) considered this application at its meeting on 18 September 2023. It resolved to object to the application. WPC submitted objections to this application previously on 18 July 2022 and again on 20 March 2023. The reasons it objected previously still stand.

In considering the application on this occasion, serious concern was expressed about proposed parking provision at the school and business units. It is clearly woefully insufficient in terms of staff parking and parent parking.

You only need to look at the amount of vehicles parked in and around the Gorse Lane Industrial Estate to see how many vehicles this type of activity generates and that area was built with far more generous accommodation that this proposal and it is choked with traffic.

With regard to the proposed school, its proximity to the business units and parking provision, . Parking has over the years become an increasing problem at many schools. It doesn't make sense to design the problem in before the school is built.

WPC requests that the parking provision is reviewed and increased.

ECC Highway Authority:Please note this supersedes the previous recommendation dated: 12 May 2023 for this application.

In relation to drawing nos. 21/12/70 A -  Amended education site access plan and 21/12/51 F - Amended parking layout plan, it is noted that the submitted plan(s) do not fully meet the requirements of Schedule 5 of the s106 dated 13^th August 2019. The proposed location of the school car park at the front of the school, will create a source of noise and pollution on the school boundary and undermine the principle of making Active Travel the most attractive way to get to the school and there appears to no evidence supporting the need for a car park.  It is considered that the access points are not in the correct positions to facilitate the traffic free school frontage that EEC strives to deliver or conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 5 of the s106 dated 13th August 2019. The Highway Authority would welcome further engagement with the applicant, ECC Schools Service and ECC Urban Design to address the issues raised above.

Notwithstanding the above, should Members be minded granting planning permission, the Highway Authority would wish to see the following mitigation and conditions applied:

[Officer comment: Highways conditions are unchanged from their comments dated 12^th May 2023 except updated plan numbers].

ECC Schools: The Land Compliance Study (LCS) does not cover the whole area of the education site as set out in the s106 Agreement, creating ‘gaps’ in the information required. The LCS needs to be reviewed and completed in accordance with the site area as set out in the s106 Agreement.

Also, the LCS states elements as ‘met’ yet there has been no information / details provided to support this.

1.     An archaeology report has not been provided. This is shown as ‘met’ on the LCS, yet no evidence has been provided. Please could ECC have a copy of this report as this will need to be reviewed by ECC.

2.     Has an ecology report / study been provided / submitted? ECC need to understand / know what other species, apart from bats, are on the site and the mitigation strategy. Please could a copy of this report be provided as this will need to be reviewed by ECC.

3.     Has a topographical report / study been provided / submitted. Please could ECC have a copy of this report as this will need to be reviewed by ECC.

4.     Has a geotechnical report been provided / submitted. Please could ECC have a copy of this report as this will need to be reviewed by ECC.

5.     The LCS refers to the removal of an existing hedgerow that is currently on the school site.. Has consent for the removal been obtained? ECC require evidence to support the consent for removal. Will the hedgerow removal occur before the land transfer?

6.     There is an additional section of hedgerow shown within the Education Site. Can you confirm that this part of the hedgerow will be removed as well?

7.     The Tree Survey covers a different Education Site area than that set out in the s106 Agreement. A revised Tree Survey is required.

8.     ECC require confirmation that the overhead powerline will be diverted before the land transfer. Has permission been sought, and if so, ECC require evidence to support this.

9.     The trees and hedgerow shown along the school boundary will reduce the useable space within the Education Site. These need to be excluded from the Education Site and sit outside the school boundary.

10.  The site contamination report has not been fully completed, therefore it cannot meet the requirement of Annex 1, Note 1 of Schedule 5 of the s106 Agreement dated 13^th August 2019.

11.  The Access Plan is NOT accepted. The vehicular access points on the north eastern boundary do not provide for a traffic free / pedestrianised frontage. The vehicular access, for staff, deliveries, emergency vehicles should be located on the eastern boundary, ideally where there is a gap in the fence (unit no’s 69 & 70). Only one access point is required ie: not an in-out access. This was communicated to the developer in 2020.

12.  The Access Plan is NOT accepted. ECC will not provide onsite parking for parents and actively encourage walking and cycling to school. This area within the Education Site should be shown grey like the rest of the education site.

13.  The Utility Plan is NOT accepted. Please can the surface water drainage discharge connection point be shown on the utility plan along with the discharge rate. The school and EY need to connect into the wider development for surface water as per Schedule 5, Para 4.5 4.5 of the s106 Agreement dated 13th August 2019.

14.  ECC are currently providing all electric buildings to meet with the net zero aspirations. The current developers guide is under review and the updated version will require 290kva for a 420 primary, no gas. The EYs would require 72kva, no gas, water 50mm 1.5l/s. A 100mm mains connection pressurised system is required, storage tank with pumps to fill the tank in 36 hours, and 2 telecom ducts. Can it be confirmed that this will be provided as there is a requirement for a new substation if the higher electric capacity could be achieved in two feeds? Please note Alison, the utility provision is not my area of expertise and this point may need to be further clarified with Infrastructure Delivery.

 

Please note: these comments are not exhaustive and further comments may arise as we enter further discussions.

I trust these comments are informative and set out clearly the elements that need to be addressed to meet ECC requirements.

Officer comment: Points 1-10 and 13-14 all relate to matters that are covered/controlled by Schedule 5 (Education Site) of the S106 agreement and the detailed requirements under Annex 1 (Education Site Specification) which the developer must comply with within set timescales of ECC serving the Education Site Notice. They are not therefore for consideration under this reserved matters application.

In relation to Points 11 and 12 the amended Education Site Access Plan removes the parent parking area from the school site. As detailed at paragraph 6.57 of the report, Officers consider it is sensible to provide the parent parking area to reduce the on street parking pressure associated with the education land. Additional condition 17 is recommended to ensure its provision and retention.  Officer’s also favour access into the education site for staff parking from the main highway linking through to the commercial element, rather than omitting Plot 69 as favoured by ECC Schools, due to the associated disturbance to neighbouring dwellings.

Schedule 5 (Education Site) of the S106 contains a wide range of detailed criteria. The required pedestrian and construction grounds maintenance/emergency vehicle access are provided to the Education Site with no objection to these elements from ECC. Their objection relates to the two points of vehicular access outside the northern confines of the Education Site serving the proposed parent parking area and feeding into the Education Site to the indicative staff parking area. Schedule 5 (2.) states “The Owner hereby covenants  2.1  not to use or allow or permit any works or activities to be carried out on the Education Site that may render the Education Site unsuitable for use as an Education Facility in any way or add to the cost or time taken to construct an Education Facility including for the avoidance of doubt storage and or car parking”. There is no conflict as no works are to be carried out on the Education Site under this reserved matters application.

Schedule 5  4.4 states “to agree in writing with the County Council the Education Site Utility Plan and the Education Site Access Plan ensuring always that there are no ransom strips that prevent full access to the Education Site or use of Utilities   PROVIDED ALWAYS that the Owner shall not submit any reserved matters application for the Development that will impact upon or limit options to access service or supply the Education Site until the Owner has agreed with the County Council all appropriate aspects of the Education Site Access Plan and / or Education Site Utility Plan”     Annex 1 Education Site Specification Checklist The Education Site shall be or have:-“ …..”Level with surrounding areas and in particular with suitable points of access (vehicular and pedestrian)”…..”Accessible from suitable public highways (not a cul de sac) and safe direct walking & cycling routes”…   These are requirements on the owner not the Local Planning Authority and do not prevent determination of the reserved matters application. Whether the reserved matters layout impacts upon or limits options to access the Education Site is also considered to be subjective.

 

Alterations to recommended conditions

 

Alteration to condition 1 Approved Plans: 1) to add amended Education Site Access Plan to the approved plans list as it is referred to in additional condition 17 below. 2) To correct landscaping plans to show the added defensive planting 3) Updated Boundary Treatment Plan to show parent parking within the temporary 1.8m high welded mesh school fencing.  

 

1. APPROVED PLANS & DOCUMENTS

 

CONDITION: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings/documents listed below and/or such other drawings/documents as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing pursuant to other conditions of this permission, with the exception of approved drawing 2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0214 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 14 of 17 and 2467-LLA-ZZ-00-DR-L-0215 P09 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 15 of 17.

 

Prior to commencement of development above slab level a scheme for the planting of additional trees around the proposed railway footbridge shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting scheme shall include details of the timing of the planting.

 

Such development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with any Phasing Plan approved, or as necessary in accordance with any successive Phasing Plan as may subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development pursuant to this condition.

   
Site Location Plan – 21/12/01 Rev.A

General Layout & Phasing Plan – 21/12/02 Rev.C

Proposed Block Plan – 21/12/03 Rev.F
Proposed Site Plan Parcel A – 21/12/04 Rev.F

Proposed Site Plan Parcel B – 21/12/05 Rev.F
Proposed Site Plan Parcel C – 21/12/06 Rev.F
Proposed Site Plan Parcel D – 21/12/07 Rev.F
House Type Key Plan Open Market Housing – 21/12/08 Rev.F

House Type Key Plan Affordable Housing – 21/12/09 Rev.F

House Type A & B Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/10 Rev.D

House Type C & D Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/11 Rev.D

House Type E Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/12 Rev.D

House Type F Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/13 Rev.D

House Type G Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/14 Rev.D

House Type H Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/15 Rev.D

House Type J Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/16 Rev.D

House Type J (Variation) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/17 Rev.D

House Type K Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/18 Rev.D

The Chloe & The Chloe (Variation) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/19 Rev.D

The Bettina Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/20 Rev.D

The Cecilia Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/21 Rev.D

The Darcey Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/22 Rev.D

The Olivia Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/23 Rev.D

The Olivia (Variation) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/24 Rev.D

The Georgia Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/25 Rev.D

The Damask Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/26 Rev.D

The Damask (Variation) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/27 Rev.D

The Amelia Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/28 Rev.D

The Eleanor Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/29 Rev.D

The Alexander Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/30 Rev.D

The Ruby Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/31 Rev.D

The Anna Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/32 Rev.D

The Victoria Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/33 Rev.D

The Imogen Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/34 Rev.D

The Imogen (Variations) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/35 Rev.D

The Willow Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/36 Rev.D

The Berkeley Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/37 Rev.D

The Braithwaite Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/38 Rev.D

The Braithwaite (Weeley) Floor Plans & Elevations – 21/12/63 Rev.D

Proposed Outbuildings – 21/12/39 Rev.D

Office Unit A Floor Plans & Roof Plan – 21/12/40 Rev.E

Office Unit A Elevations – 21/12/41 Rev.E

Office Unit B Floor Plans & Roof Plan – 21/12/42 Rev.D

Office Unit B Elevations – 21/12/43 Rev.E

Office Unit C Floor Plans & Roof Plan – 21/12/44 Rev.D

Office Unit C Elevations – 21/12/45 Rev.D

Accommodation Schedule – 21/12/49 Rev.H

Footpath Context & Site Layout – 21/12/50 Rev.A

Parking Layout Plan – 21/12/51 Rev.F

Boundary Treatment Plan - 21/12/53 Rev.I

Demolition Plan - 21/12/61

External Works Materials Plan – 21/12/62 Rev.F

Proposed PROW Plan 21/12/67 Rev.D

Cycle/Pedestrian Access 21/12/69 Rev.D

Network Rail Fencing Plan - 21/12/71 Rev E

Education Site Access Plan - 21/12/70 Rev B

 

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0001 P07 – Landscape Masterplan

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0201 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 1 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0202 P09 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 2 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0203 P09 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 3 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0204 P08 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 4 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0205 P08 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 5 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0206 P08 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 6 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0207 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 7 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0208 P08 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 8 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0209 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 9 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0210 P09 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 10 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0211 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 11 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0212 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 12 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0213 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 13 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0214 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 14 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0215 P10 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 15 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0216 P08 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 16 of 17

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0217 P07 – Detailed Planting Proposals – Sheet 17 of 17

 

2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0301 P01 -      Landscape Specification and Details
2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0401 P03 -      LEAP Proposals
2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0402 P03 -      Public Open Space to School Entrance Proposals
2467-LLA-ZZ-00DR-L-0002 P08 -      Land Plan

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0001 Rev.B01 - Existing General Arrangement

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0002 Rev.B01 – Proposed General Arrangement

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0003 Rev.B01 – Proposed Sectional Elevations

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0004 Rev.B01 – Proposed Northern Ramp General Arrangement

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0005 Rev.B01 - Proposed Southern Ramp General Arrangement

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0006 Rev.B01 – Proposed Sectional Elevation North Side

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0007 Rev.B01 - Proposed Sectional Elevation South Side

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0008 Rev.B01 – Proposed Main Span

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0009 Rev.B01 – Proposed Main Span Details

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0011 Rev.B01 - Proposed Ramp Details – Sheet 2 of 5

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0012 Rev.B01 - Proposed Ramp Details – Sheet 3 of 5

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0013 Rev.B01 - Proposed Ramp Details – Sheet 4 of 5

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0014 Rev.B01 - Proposed Ramp Details – Sheet 5 of 5

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0015 Rev.B01 – Main Deck Trestle Supports

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0016 Rev.B01 - Ramp Trestle Supports

65203381-SWE-ZZ-XX-DR-R-0021 Rev.B01 - Proposed Ramp Details – Sheet 1 of 5

 

TPSarb6990117TPP - Tree Protection Plan

TPSarbQU0018 – Tree Protection Plan and Method Statements

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper phased planning of the development. Details of additional tree planting on both the northern and southern side of the railway track are required to help mitigate the visual impact of the new pedestrian footbridge.

 

Additional Conditions

 

17.  PROVISION OF PARENT PARKING

CONDITION: Prior to first use of the education land for education purposes the parent parking area (coloured green on the Education Site Access Plan drawing number 21/12/70 rev B) including associated landscaping and vehicular access shall be laid out in its entirety and made available to the public, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parent parking area shall then be retained in its approved form thereafter for the sole purpose of vehicle parking associated with the education land.

REASON: To ensure the provision and retention of the approved parent parking area to reduce on street parking pressure associated with the education land.

 

18 FURTHER APPROVAL: PROVISION OF OFFICE CYCLE PARKING.

CONDITION:

No development above slab level of the hereby approved office buildings shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority details of secure cycle storage for an additional five cycle spaces to serve the office buildings. The cycle storage as approved shall be provided prior to first occupation of any of the office buildings and shall be retained thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of cycles is provided to encourage sustainable means of transport.

 

Correction to report

Paragraph 6.78 there are 70 residential visitor parking spaces (not 68 as stated in the report) which accords with the parking standards.”

Will Vote, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Carol Bannister, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Christine Hamilton (Chairman of Weeley Parish Council), spoke against the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-	Officer’s response thereto:-
How many parking spaces are proposed for the school?	25 outside the education site. Essex County Council Education & Highway authorities would prefer a parking free frontage to the school.
Will the amount of parking planned be sufficient for the nursery and the school uses?	It is a 56-place nursery, there is still separate access and parking. Separate staff parking is provided for the school.
There are concerns around the Section 106 Legal Agreement – are we in a position to condition the use of the 2.4-hectare education site?	Option starts at occupation of 20th dwelling and ends at the occupation of the last dwelling. If not used as a school, then it reverts back to the owner. However, the education part of the site is not part of this application. Currently, it remains as agricultural land and will remain so unless a planning permission is granted for a different use.
Is there a way of imposing a Clause that requires the Education Authority to make a firm decision as to whether it wants a school early in the process?	We are tied by the Section 106 Legal Agreement that went with the Outline Planning Permission. The Education Authority sets its own terms and conditions.
Can we have assurance that the parking spaces for the parent parking scheme will be provided regardless of whether the school is provided?	To use the land for anything other than the approved parent parking would require a further planning application.
Can we have an assurance that we can give the residents of Weeley that in 2033 we won’t be getting another application that says the school is not needed and seeks further residential development?	No, Officers cannot give that assurance. The decision is the Education Authority’s to make.
Is there a demonstrated need for another school?	The Outline Planning application documents demonstrated that provision of this development would generate a need for another school.
As this development is being built, children will move onto the site. Where will they go to school in the period before 2032 when the school will be provided? Can we impose a Clause whereby at a certain level of take up, the school is provided otherwise further development is stopped?	The Section 106 requires a two-form school and a financial contribution.
Is there an assurance that the financial contribution will benefit the residents of Weeley?	It will be down to the Education Authority to decide where that money is spent, though under the Section 106 Legal Agreement, there is a requirement that it will be spent at the Weeley School or schools in the District.
Is putting a condition where phasing is linked to the development of the school possible?	Yes, at the Outline or Full Application stage this is agreeable, but it does not form part of this application, so it is a moot point.
Where are the commuting and foraging routes for Bats on this site?	Officers shared the relevant areas on the aerial photograph on the screen.
There are concerns that putting a hole through the hedge at the front of the site for access would interrupt a bat commuting route.	Essex Place Services have not objected to this aspect of the planning application.
What was the condition on the Outline planning permission that referred to the lighting and effect on wildlife?	Condition 17 on the outline planning permission – there will be a need for a further condition on this application to meet the requirements of Essex Place Services.
There are concerns that the external lighting proposed for dwellings near the Bat commuting route will not meet the recommendations of Essex Place Services.	Officers could put a condition on, that would remove external lighting of dwellings. The justification would be the duty to protect wildlife.
Can you confirm what the Healthcare Provision money would be spent on and where?	The amount is £97,000 +, it will be spent on the Thorpe-le-Soken Surgery.
With the 57% increase of Weeley, were the Fire Brigade consulted on this or on the outline application?	No – they are a non-statutory consultee. Their role would be part of the Building Regulations process.
Can we consult them now?	Number of dwellings at outline stage are the determining principle of whether the Fire Brigade is consulted.
Why was there not a financial contribution included within the Section 106 Legal Agreement?	Consultees decide at what point in the process they are consulted. Can take away the point of whether the Fire Brigade is consulted as part of major applications. This site is within the Local Plan for which an Infrastructure Delivery Strategy was required. The Fire Brigade was consulted on that Strategy and the grant required. The Fire Brigade play a key role in the Building Regulations process.
Can we have clarity on any flooding or drainage issues within this application?	We’ve dealt with this by conditions imposed on the outline planning application.
What happens to the original footpath when it is diverted over the new railway bridge?	It will be available for public to still access the woodland.
What amendments will be made to the access road and when? Is there a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for construction traffic? Especially a need to avoid using Crow Lane.	In Condition 24 of the Outline application permission, it sets out all the requirements for the access road. Condition 9 covered the TMP.
Has the TMP been agreed yet?	No.
Can we prevent use of Crow Lane in the TMP by construction traffic?	Yes, we can.
Referred to raw sewage leakage issue in rear vicinity, what assurances are being given?	This development must deal solely with its own burden. Anglia Water has the duty and responsibility to solve all issues with the sewage provision of this site and the surrounding area.

 

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Everett and:-

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant reserved matters approval subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer, or as amended or added to in the Planning Officers Update Sheet, or as added to the meeting in respect of an additional condition to exclude lighting on the external appearance of the dwellings or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of conditions as referenced is retained; 

 

2)    the sending of any informative notes to the applicant, as may be deemed necessary; and,

 

3)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be required to note and take on board the Committee’s wish that any traffic management plan be approved under the relevant planning condition attached to planning permission 19/00524/OUT ensure that construction traffic is not permitted to use Crow Lane.