Agenda item

The officer presented the report on an application to demolish 110 Milton Road and erect 34 dwelling houses with associated access. 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.

Sutton Courtenay scores fourth of approximately 80 villages in the Vale on grounds of sustainability and is therefore considered suitable for applications to be considered which fall outside of the Vale’s policy on development in order to meet its five year housing land supply shortfall.

The application came back to committee as it had been deferred by the committee from the meeting on 8 May 2013. The grounds for deferral were for the following reasons:

1.    A redesign of the layout to ensure that the affordable housing provision is better distributed through the site.

2.    Additional information was requested by the planning committee as to the highway works that had been considered acceptable by the Oxfordshire County Council Highways Office to address the identified highway and access issues that this proposed development generates. Committee also wished to see an assessment of the locally sponsored traffic survey on behalf of the Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural action group.

3.    Additional information relating to land drainage of the site. The planning committee wished to be advised of the details of solutions being considered by the appropriate drainage authorities to address the identified ground water drainage, and the foul water drainage infrastructure considered necessary for this proposal to take place.

4.    Education provision requirements linked to this development proposal. The planning committee wished to be advised of the detailed solutions being considered by the county council education authority to address the identified lack of school places that would result should this development take place.

Additional information provided by the officer

• There had been over 100 local objections to this application.
• Design changes had been made to the layout of social housing and public space to meet concerns raised at 8 May committee meeting.
• Slab levels had been raised by 30 centimetres in response to drainage concerns.
• The drainage objections had been removed.
• Foul sewage: two possible solutions had been proposed by Thames Water, and officers were now satisfied on this issue.
• £250,000 had been put forward under s106 agreements for education, and this was considered satisfactory by the local education authority.
• The speed reduction measures proposed were acceptable to the county highways officer.

Michael Jenkins from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Cumulative growth from 1007 households to 1281 households with the agreed and proposed applications, representing a 27 percent increase in growth.

·           This site previously considered unsuitable for development.

·           Housing not adequately pepper potted throughout the site.

·           Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural’s independent highways survey had not yet been presented to the Vale.

·           Flooding measures had not, in his opinion, been adequately addressed.

·           Foul drainage works should be completed before commencement of building.

Dr Nicholas Richardson from Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Affordable housing not adequately pepper potted throughout the site.

·           Results of the Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural independent traffic survey not yet submitted to the Vale.

·           Safety of highways.

Kevin Nicholls, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Potential subsidence to his property.

·           Possible decrease in the value of his property.

John Ashton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           The council’s housing officer is content with the distribution of affordable housing as it is currently proposed.

·           Highways: the traffic calming measures have now been clarified.

·           Ground water: details are now in place. Officers are content.

·           Foul drainage: officers now say the scheme proposed is acceptable.

·           Education: s106 contributions have been offered which are acceptable to the local education authority.

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

·           Sutton Courtenay parish comprised only 19 percent green fields.

·           A letter had been submitted from Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural action group, suggesting problems with the application and he was not satisfied that they had been fully addressed.

The committee considered this application.

·           Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural were in possession of their independent traffic survey but had not yet submitted it to officers.

·           The county highways officer was now content.

·           Urban sites have taken three quarters of the population growth in the Vale since 2001.

·           This council has a 3.3 year land supply, rather than the 5 year supply required by government.

·           The issues raised due to the deferral have been resolved to the satisfaction of officers.

·           Consultation of technical matters to take place post decision making, the ward member had not been involved yet as the application had not yet been determined.

·           The school would need places for an additional 30 pupils, and not all of the committee were content that the school had the potential capacity to absorb these numbers.

·           Not all of the committee were content with the hydrology solutions proposed and considered that flooding and drainage were still potential problems.

·           Committee members were concerned about the cumulative impact on local facilities which they were not convinced were sufficient to sustain the additional number of people likely to be living in the village if all approved applications were built.

·           The bus service, as well as the road network was insufficient, given the increased numbers of people including young families, who were likely to be using it.

·           The increase in population size (27 percent), together with the likely impact on facilities and infrastructure meant that were serious questions around the sustainability of this potential development.

The committee RESOLVED to defeat the officer’s recommendation that the application be delegated to the head of planning to grant planning permission.

Councillors Jerry Patterson and John Woodford voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation and requested that their votes be recorded.

The committee further RESOLVED (for 9: against 5; abstentions 0) the following. (The heads of terms were agreed at the meeting and the meeting also agreed that officers would add clarification to these headings outside of the meeting. The clarification is included in these minutes in italics for completeness).

To refuse the planning application as outlined for the following reasons:

1.         Sustainability of the development

2.         Drainage impact.

3.         Local transport impact.

4.         Impact on local facilities.

(These to be further detailed in the decision notice)

Councillors Jerry Patterson and John Woodford voted against this resolution and asked that their votes be recorded.