Agenda item

Erection of 76 new residential dwellings (comprising 1,2,3 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings) with associated works. (Re-submission of application P12/V0275/FUL).

Recommendation: To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.     Completion, within the agreed planning performance agreement period, of section 106 agreements

2.    Conditions, outlined in the officer’s report, including the requirement for the commencement of development within 12 months from the date of the issue of planning permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall 

Councillor Robert Sharp entered the meeting.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 76 dwellings (comprising 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings) with associated works (re-submission of application P12/V2075/FUL). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The technical grounds on which an application on this site had previously been refused had now been overcome.

Stanford in the Vale is one of the larger settlements in the Vale of White Horse district.

Updates from the report

Seven further objections had raised issues about the accuracy of some of the information in the officer’s report.

The aboricultural officer had further commented: regretting the loss of an ash tree and other trees and raising issues on the management of existing vegetation.

Peter Lewis, from Stanford in the Vale Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       The site is unsuitable: a previous application had been turned down on this site.

·       Possible negative affect on the Horse and Jockey’s bed and breakfast business.

·       Contrary to localism and working with the parish council.

·       Outside the village envelope.

Amanda Bailey, on behalf of a group of Stanford residents and businesses, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·       Not a sustainable location, particularly in terms of education provision.

·       Outside the village envelope.

·       Inadequate drainage and sewerage provision.

·       Highways issues.

·       Negative impact on the environment.

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

Councillor Robert Sharp, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       The application site was outside the village envelope.

·       The density per hectare would be too high: likely to be between 29 and 30 dph if the wood is taken out of the equation.

·       The proposed access to and exit from the site was poorly sited next to the pub and was likely to have a detrimental effect on business, particularly as the puffin crossing would be likely to cause noise and pollution to the clientele in the pub garden.

·       Some of the “studies” in the proposed dwellings are bigger than typical third bedrooms, meaning that there are effectively fewer two bedroom properties than stated.

·       There is a potential flooding risk.

·       The quality of the design.

The committee considered this application and made the following points:

·       Outside the village envelope.

·       Lack of five year housing land supply does not always supersede making decisions based on the suitability/appropriateness of a development.

·       The housing density is too high.

·       The development would be on the wrong side of a major road.

·       The two bedroom houses with studies are really three bedroom houses.

·       Lack of affordable housing.

·       Concerns about the sustainability of the location: particularly public transport and primary schooling.

·       The A417 is a major road with heavy traffic; this development would turn into an internal village road which would be dangerous and detract from the rural nature of the village.

·       Inadequate recreational facilities.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, to grant planning permission subject to s106 agreements and conditions the majority of members of the committee supported refusal of the application for the reasons set out above.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 1)

To refuse planning permission for the following reason/s:

1.    The proposed residential development of 73 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.

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) 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, including the loss of trees, and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, the rural landscape and to amenities of the locality.

iv) 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, NE4, and NE9, of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan, and paragraphs 14, 34, 37, 47, 49, 50, 57, 60, 61, 109, 111 and 115 of the NPPF.

2.    The site lies within a countryside area, separated from the village by the busy A417 road, and, having regard to this unsatisfactory spatial relationship, 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 adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, and paragraphs 57, 60, 61, 109, 111 and 115 of the NPPF.

3.    There are no measures in place to secure the provision of 40% affordable housing and public open space on site, or to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on local facilities and services, including educational and sport and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policies H17, H23 and DC8 of the adopted Vale of white Horse Local Plan 2011 and to paragraphs 203 and 206 of the NPPF.