Parish fears developer’s plans for 135 homes in Great Canfield could alter the character of village
PUBLISHED: 08:42 21 September 2018 | UPDATED: 08:42 21 September 2018
More than 130 houses could be built in Great Canfield under plans submitted to Uttlesford District Council (UDC).
An application for outline permission, submitted by Gladman Developments, could see up to 135 homes in the village, with the plan set to go before the district council’s planning committee on Wednesday (October 3).
The plan has been recommended for approval by UDC planning officials.
However, the chairman of Great Canfield Parish Council Robert Mackley, called the decision to recommend the proposal for approval a “massive u-turn” after development on the site was previously refused in 2014 for 211 dwellings and in 2015 for 180 dwellings.
An outline planning application requests permission for the principle of the houses, with a detailed application to come later, if the outline is approved.
The application site lies west of Great Canfield Road, next to Takeley and Little Canfield, and south of the Flitch Way, with access to the development from Great Canfield Road.
A spokesman for Great Canfield Parish Council, said: “The parish council has strongly argued that the proposals for access from Great Canfield Road, a narrow rural lane is totally unsuitable.”
The spokesman went on to say that the mitigation measures proposed for the site, agreed by Essex County Council, including widening Canfield Road from its junction with the B1256 to the development, “would alter the rural character of Great Canfield”.
Other mitigation measures requested of the developer, written in a report by Essex County Council, include the provision of a new footway and a contribution to the planned improvement scheme on junction 8 of the M11.
But, according to the parish council, approving the development “would set a precedent that could change this part of rural Essex forever”.
In a report to the planning committee, Uttlesford District Council’s planning officer Luke Mills, wrote: “In this case, the moderate adverse effect on landscape character and the limited residual adverse effects on biodiversity and heritage assets would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits from the proposal’s important contribution towards housing land supply.”