Agenda item

Erection of 43 dwellings with associated means of access, car parking, new footpath links, amenity space and landscaping (as amended by Drawing Nos: 3947_SK and 13025-T03 Revision B accompanying agent's letter of 23 May 2013 and email of 13 June 2013 and clarified by Drawing C13025-C001 accompanying agent's email of 25 June 2013).

Recommendation: to delegate the authority to grant outline planning permission  to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, subject to S106 agreements and conditions

If the required section 106 agreements are not completed, and planning permission cannot be granted by the determination deadline of 24 September 2013, it is recommended that authority to refuse planning permission is delegated to the head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman.

The officer presented the report on an outline application for 43 dwellings on King’s Field to the north of the built-up area of Marcham village.  The report set out the proposal, representations received following consultation, the policy position and planning guidance, and the site’s planning history. 

Updates to the report

The planning officer reported that since the publication of the report, the council had received a further six letters objecting to the application.  He also corrected his report by advising that Marcham only had one public house and that there had been two previous planning applications in 1978 to develop the site, both of which the planning inspector had rejected on appeal against the council’s decisions.  However, the planning officer still recommended the committee delegated authority to approve the application subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement but if the agreement was not completed by 24 September 2013, then the application should be refused. 

Public speaking

The chairman invited the public who had registered to speak to this application to address the committee. 

David Walton spoke on behalf of Marcham Parish Council objecting to the application.  His concerns included:

·        the application was on a site on the edge of the village and the proposal was disproportionate to the size of the village

·        the village had the equal lowest number of amenities of all the ‘large villages’ in the Vale of White Horse district and therefore this development was not in a sustainable location.  New residents were likely to drive to Abingdon to access facilities 

·        the site was on higher ground, presenting a greater risk of flooding to other areas in the village as the drainage system and sewerage system was already overloaded

·        there were likely to be more children from the development than estimated in the report and the applicant should pay for an additional classroom at the local primary school

Lorraine Young of the King’s Avenue and Chancel Way Residents’ Group objected to the application and presented a petition containing 89 signatures on behalf of the group.  Her concerns included:

·        the development was on greenfield land and would result in the loss of agricultural land and trees

·        the location of the site would mean new residents were likely to use their cars adding traffic to the village

·        the village could not sustain any more development

·        the cumulative effect of housing developments at Marcham was having a detrimental impact on the village’s services and facilities, including the school

·        there were poor sight lines from the access road

·        the development was contrary to many local plan policies

·        it would cause drainage problems in the village

·        the development would not benefit the village

Mike Robinson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.  He believed:

·        Marcham was a sustainable location for housing development with good facilities

·        the land was of poor agricultural quality and therefore was suitable for development

·        the design fitted in with the character of the area

·        the site was in single ownership and could be delivered quickly

Councillor Ron Mansfield read a statement submitted by the local ward councillor Catherine Webber, raising concerns about the application.  Her points included:

·        there was an adverse cumulative impact on Marcham from this and other applications.  The cumulative impact on villages should be referred to in all officer reports

·        although Marcham was a thriving sustainable village, this had only been achieved through the hard work of villagers.  The development would make the village less sustainable.  It seemed that the village was being penalised for its efforts  

·        granting planning permission would set a precedent for more development outside the village envelope

·        concern at whether an additional classroom would be provided at the primary school

·        concern that the views of local residents and the parish council were not being taken into account in compiling the list of section 106 developer contributions

·        there were many objections on flooding grounds and ecological grounds 

Committee debate

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate, the discussion covered the following points:

·        the application had to be considered on its merits, as would every planning application, and forthcoming applications could not be taken into account 

·        before the detailed application stage, the applicants would have to produce a detailed drainage scheme to overcome the flooding risk

·        there would be a contribution towards services needed in the village such as primary education

·        the application brought the benefit of 17 units of affordable housing to the village

·        the committee could find no material planning grounds on which to refuse the application

·        the local member should also be consulted before granting planning permission

RESOLVED (11 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention)

(a)       to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman and the local member, to grant outline planning permission for application P13/V0575/O subject to:

1.         a section 106 agreement with both the County Council and District Council to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing;

2.         conditions as follows:

1 : Time limit - 1 year

2 : Time limit - Reserved Matters application – 6 months

3 : Approved plans

4 : Sample materials to be agreed

5 : Visibility Splays to be agreed

6 : Access, parking and turning to be agreed

7 : No Drainage to Highway

8 : Submission of Landscaping Scheme

9 : Implementation of Landscaping Scheme

10 : Boundary Details to be agreed

11 : Drainage Details (Surface and Foul) to be agreed

12 : Sustainable Drainage Scheme to be agreed

13 : Details of sewer connections to be agreed

14 : Construction traffic management plan to be agreed

15 : Works in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment

16 : Tree Protection to be agreed

17 : Wildlife Protection as per submitted statements

(b)       If the required section 106 agreements are not completed, and planning permission cannot be granted by the determination deadline of 24 September 2013, to authorise the head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman and the local member to refuse planning permission.