Agenda item

Demolition of no. 44 Milton Road to create access, residential development of site for up to 70 dwellings, including vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle links, public open space, landscaping and drainage. 

 

Recommendation:It is recommended that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman subject to:

1. Completion within the agreed planning performance agreement period of section 106 agreements for on-site affordable housing provision, on site open space provision, contributions towards off-site facilities and services including highways works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, local and area hub recreational and community facility improvements. 
2. Conditions as outlined in the officer’s report. 

The officer presented his report on an application to demolish no. 44 Milton Road to create access, residential development of site for up to 70 dwellings, including vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle links, public open space, landscaping and drainage. 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.

 

Updates from the report

·       Further letters of objection have been received, reiterating points already covered in the report.

·       Councillors have received direct representation from Pye Homes who are applying to develop the neighbouring site.

 

The following contributions have been requested:

 

Vale

·       Waste bin provision – £11,900

·       Art – £17,000

·       Street naming – £332

·       Recreation – £133,509

·       Abingdon shop mobility – 2,315

 

County

·       Transport (Science Vale UK) – £191,590

·       Education (towards expansion of the village primary school) – £244,486

·       Education (secondary) – £213,768

·       Education (sixth form) – £42,754

·       Education (Special Educational Needs Schools) – £13,351

·       Property (Libraries, waste management, museum resource centre, social / health care) – £46,849

 

Other contributions

·       Police (bicycles) – £1,600

·       Police (APNR) – £11,000

·       Primary Care Trust – £11,779

 

David Hignell from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, spoke, objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       This is not a sustainable location for development.

·       Infrastructure is inadequate.

·       Foul and surface water drainage is inadequate.

·       Overloaded minor road network.

·       In combination with previous planning permissions in the village, this represents a cumulative development of 27 percent growth.

 

Pauline Wilson, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·       The draft local plan should be used to make decision, development should not be developer led.

·       Effect of cumulative development.

Chris Doel, from Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       The village will increase by 27 percent as a result of all development.

·       Highways not sustainable.

·       Primary schools already full.

 

David Burbridge (Bidwells), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       Local consultation had taken place.

·       The plan was for deliverable, sustainable development.

·       The applicant intended to build sustainable homes.

 

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

·       Traffic issues.

·       Sutton Courtenay losing its greenfield sites.

·       Potentially becoming a suburb of Didcot.

·       The Boundary Commission report that by 2018 Sutton Courtenay and Appleford will have 28 percent more electors (plus children and others not eligible to vote).

 

The committee considered this application. During the discussion, clarification was sought from officers, and the following points were raised and responded to:

·       Affordable housing is spread throughout the sites.

·       It is for the County Council to meet the need for school places.

·       Little weight can be given to the local plan as it is in the early stages of development.

·       The s106 monies for schools would go to expand primary places in Sutton Courtenay and secondary places in Abingdon and Didcot. The cumulative affect on the size of the village from non policy compliant applications will be between 6.9 and 10.3 percent.

·       Large number of conditions as this is an outline application.

·       In response to Dr Wilson’s email, the officer clarified that the context of this application was not the same as that of the strategic housing applications to the south of Banbury in Cherwell District Council, which had been called in by the secretary of state, as Cherwell District is significantly more advanced with its emerging local plan and has a five year housing land supply.

 

RESOLVED (for 10; against 3; abstentions 0)

 

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

 

1.  Completion within the agreed PPA period of section 106 agreements for on-site affordable housing provision, on site open space provision, contributions towards off-site facilities and services including highways works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, local and area hub recreational and community facility improvements.

 

2. The following conditions, 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: 

 

i)           Time limit (12 months).

ii)         Reserved matters to be submitted (within 6 months).

iii)        Approved plans.

iv)        Maximum number of dwellings (70).

v)         MC2 sample materials.

vi)        LS1 landscape.

vii)       LS4 trees.

viii)     LS5 retain existing hedgerow / trees on north boundary.

ix)        LS6 – maintenance of open space / play areas.

x)         Boundary details to public areas to be walls.

xi)        Plot curtilages to exclude existing landscaping / landscaped areas.

xii)       Grampian drainage detail condition.

xiii)     HY2[I] - access in accordance with plan.

xiv)     Parking to accord with adopted standards.

xv)      RE11 - garage accommodation.

xvi)     Development in accordance with travel framework plan.

xvii)    Construction traffic management plan.

xviii)   Scheme of archaeological investigation.

xix)     Contamination.

xx)      Ecology mitigation in accordance with submitted report.

 

Informatives

i)           Affordable housing to be spread across the site.

ii)         S278 agreement required for highway works.

iii)        Planning obligations.