Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Connecting to the link in front of Plot 7, can Officers confirm that it will connect with the footpath that runs to Frating Cross or is it just in front of the 7 properties?

The layout plan shows the connection to be provided through the landscaped area of the development itself to the front of Plot 7. Beyond that, there will be a requirement to extend the footway from the new pedestrian connection to the existing footway that fronts the development directly adjacent. This is which secured by the condition in terms of the details and timing of delivery. The footpath will not connect across the full frontage of the site; it will only be from the new pedestrian point within the development across to connect the existing footway.

Can Officers explain if surveys are required for ecology protection?

In page 21 of the agenda, it this is standard text used by the ecology advisors will considering birds, barn owls within one requirement in terms of any mitigation or licensing. Because there was an error in the original ecology report which did not completely cover the consideration of birds, the advisors have covered themselves essentially in their feedback to say that if there is a further requirement in terms of birds then there may be some further requirements in terms of barn owls as well, which is a standard response. However, the ecology report does state there are no further surveys required for either breeding birds or barn owls, so that point has been covered which will hopefully lead to a no objection response from ecology once they have reviewed the amended survey. 

So, there could be another survey required?

What has happened is that in the original ecology report that was provided there was an error in that ecology report which triggered the response from ECC Ecology at ECC Place Services which says it is not clear, there could be a potential for future surveys that are needed; however, Officers have now had that corrected and confirmed by the applicant and the agent that no further surveys are required which is a holding response comment and when the new comments come back from ECC Ecology, once they have had the opportunity to review the corrected ecology report, those comments should agree with the contents of the ecology report which confirms that no further surveys are required and then ECC Ecology should be able to recommend approval subject to conditions. 

Do the houses need to be 4/5 bedrooms and why?

Officers and Members have to consider what is before them as that is what is being proposed. On a larger scheme the Council’s housing mix policy would kick in but for a development of this scale there is no such requirement, and it is fairly in keeping with the existing development to the west and other properties developing around the area.

Will these houses be taller than the other houses on the road?

The proposed dwellings will be set back slightly further which will help how they are seen from the street. Officers are comfortable that the houses will not look bulky or taller than the properties on either side.

Will there be any solar panels?

The recommendation includes a condition to secure details of sustainable construction and energy efficiency measures which includes solar panels. The plans that Officers have got say that there will be EV charging points at each dwelling which aligns with the policy in part, but full details are required by condition.

If Frating had a neighbourhood plan, would they be able to ask for speed reductions in the area?

It would be unlikely for a development of this scale unless it was something that would have been agreed as a strategic approach with Essex County Council Highways. Officers cannot speculate as to what is included in a neighbourhood plan but because the speed limit throughout Main Road is 40mph, to require a speed limit reduction for this section of development would be unreasonable.

Do you know if the developer has contacted the Essex Police?

Officers would not have any information on that at this stage as they are not a statutory consultee for this application, they are only an advisory. Their comments can be added as informatives to the decision notice to make the developer aware of Secured By Design principles.

Did Officers say that Anglian Water have found a way through this and has been solved?

For this scale of development, Anglian Water and the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) are not standard statutory consultees, so in this instance they have commented but because they have raised an objection regarding surface water drainage which is not a consideration for a development of under 10 units, Officers cannot insist on a water surface drainage strategy; however, Officers have dealt with that issue by adding a condition to ensure that any new hard surfacing development is either permeable or drains to a permeable area within the development site.

Is it correct to say that the rest of the trees apart from one will remain on the development site?

Yes, that is correct. It is only one dead hawthorn tree to the front of the site that is being removed but the rest will remain and will be protected by fencing in construction as set out in the tree report.

Are the Parish Council happy with the condition on the update sheet?

Yes, that was a correction to a condition. In the report, Officers have explained that having the footway extended across the full site frontage would be unreasonable in this instance because it is not necessarily connecting it to anything so that is why Officers have secured the pedestrian link at the far end of the site closest to the existing footway that allows the developer to provide a reasonable stretch of footway connection.