Agenda item

Proposed mixed use development comprising 50 dwellings, sports pavilion, pitches, café and new public footpath and cycleway link. (As amended by DRG no: P01a received 10.08.2012).

Recommended: To refuse planning application. Detailed reasons contained within the attached report.

Agenda item 10

The officer introduced his report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. Since the report had been published, a further 32 letters had been received reiterating comments made in support of the application in earlier letters. A 50 signature petition had also been received in support of the proposal.

Brian Forster, Chairman of Kingston Bagpuize Parish Council, spoke in favour of the application.

John Ashton, West Waddy ADP, spoke in objection to the application.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The letter from Matthew Barber, one of the ward councillors, was read in support of the application.

Melinda Tilley, one of the ward councillors, spoke in favour of the application.

The committee discussed the application. They considered the issues raised in the officer’s report, and those raised by the speakers.

RESOLVED:(For 9; Against 4; Abstentions 1)

To refuse to grant planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed residential development of 47 dwelling units is contrary to the Council's general planning policy which requires:

i)      that so far as possible future development should in the main be concentrated in established settlements as this is considered in the best interests of the public from the point of view of economy in the provision of services of all kinds and in land use, the preservation of rural amenities and the conservation of agricultural land and because it is only in this way that balanced communities can be achieved.

ii)     that in rural areas development is only likely to be permitted within the approved limits of development of specified villages and within the village envelope of other villages where such envelope is limited and well defined and where there is no valid planning objection.

iii)  no overriding local need or special circumstances exist, including the present shortfall in housing land allocation provision, to warrant any departure from the planning policies of the Local Planning Authority.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GS1, GS2, H11, H13, DC1, of the local plan and paragraphs 14, 34, 37, 47, 49, 50, 60, 61 and 111 of the NPPF.

2.    The site lies within a countryside area and having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal would lead to a progressive detraction in the rural character of the area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, the rural landscape and to amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GS1, GS2, H11, NE4, and NE7 of the local plan and paragraphs 57, 60, 61, 109, 111 and 115 of the NPPF.

3.    The site and the existing cricket pavilion roof void have been identified as a roosting area for soprano pipistrelle bats. The application has not provided suitable survey work or a mitigation methodology or strategy to address the change to the protected species habitat as would be necessary as part of the demolition and replacement of the sports pavilion. In the absence of this required information the proposal is contrary to the provisions of wildlife and countryside legislations which require the protection of species, habitats and foraging areas in such circumstances. The proposal is also contrary to policy NE4 of the local plan and paragraphs 118, 119 and of the NPPF.

4.         The siting of the proposed 47 dwellings within close proximity to the Kingston Business Park would be likely to give rise to concerns related to noise and disturbance originating from the business park which could result in the need for investigation and monitoring that could result in the cessation of certain business activities should remedial measures not be effective. The absence of a noise and disturbance survey report and levels of mitigation within the residential development give rise to the proposal being contrary to policy DC10 of the local plan and paragraph 123 of the NPPF. 

5.         As part of the rejuvenation of the sports ground facilities on the site the proposed development results in formalising an access road into a car parking area which lies to the southern boundary of Kingston Bagpuize House, a grade II star listed building. This work is considered to harmfully impact on the character and setting of this important listed building and would detract from the appearance and setting of the building and its associated grounds. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy HE4 of the local plan and paragraphs 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, and 134 of the NPPF.

6.         The proposed development would generate the requirement for contributions both on site for affordable housing and off-site for highway works, education, social service, leisure and arts, waste management and towards police services, which have not bee entered into. Without such provision the proposal would be unacceptable. The lack of this requirement in contrary to policy DC8 of the local plan and paragraphs 203 to 206 of the NPPF.

The applicant’s agent withdrew this application immediately after the decision to refuse was made.