Agenda item

18 dwellings (8 dwellings for the Over 55 age range, 7 affordable and 3 open market dwellings) with landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V0080/FUL for planning permission for the construction of 18 homes, of which seven are affordable units, three are full open market and eight are over-55’s units on land at Penstones Farm, Horsecroft, Stanford in the Vale.

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:

Oxfordshire County Council reported that they maintained their objection to the application because of the pressure on places at the school.

Mark Isaacs, representing Stanford in the Vale Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         the primary school was at capacity. Recently granted planning permission for 73 houses would put pressure on school places;

·         the village had started to prepare a neighbourhood plan. Initial responses did not favour development on this site, and wished to safeguard conservation areas from development;

·         the site design was not integrated or inclusive.

Nina Stillion, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         the relationship of the development to the village;

·         the impact of increased traffic, lack of pavement over the whole length of the access to the site, and the unsafe junction;

·         unacceptable design lacking in provision of open space and infrastructure.

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

·         The application as set out dealt with the concerns and there were no objections from statutory or professional bodies;

·         The application provided ample parking on site, open space, and a package of off-site improvements. This included provision for education which could be used to extend the school, and a contribution to the parish council.

Councillor Robert Sharp, one of the ward councillors, said he had reservations about the application, including concerns about the access road and the impact on this part of the village. Eighteen houses did not make a significant difference to the housing land supply.

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

·         This was not a strategic site.

·         The impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent listed building on the edge of the settlement, which after debate was considered to be detrimental.

·         The impact of the development on the rural setting of this part of the village, and the impact of extending the built up area of the village onto this site, which after debate was considered to be detrimental on balance.

·         On balance, given the consultation responses from statutory and professional bodies, the proposal was acceptable. However, the development placed too much pressure on the school and the developer contribution could not mitigate this. The cumulative impact of recent permissions and this application on the local primary school was unacceptable. The committee took seriously Oxfordshire County Council’s continued objection because the school would not be able to accommodate the extra children.

·         The site layout did not encourage cohesion and a mixed community.

·         While the emerging neighbourhood plan was not a material consideration, some weight should be attached to the results of the initial consultations, and in particular the lack of local support for development on this site. 

·         Notwithstanding the comments from the highways authority, the committee considered the access to the site for the additional vehicles and pedestrians along and into Horsecroft was not safe or of acceptable standard along the full length.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendation was lost by eight votes to five.

After further debate (included above) the committee voted to refuse the application for the reasons set out below, with Councillors Patterson and Woodford voting against.

RESOLVED (for 8; against 4; abstentions 1)

to refuse planning permission for P14/V0080/FUL, land at Penstones Farm, Horsecroft, Stanford in the Vale, for the following reasons:

1.      Development of this site would have an adverse visual impact on the views across this site for adjacent residents and walkers, and would have an adverse impact on the open rural character of this part of the village, contrary to policy NE9 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2011. 

2.      Development of this site would have an adverse impact on the rural and open setting of the adjacent listed and historic buildings, and this was not sufficiently mitigated by the site layout, contrary to policy HE1 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2011. 

3.      The application was considered to be premature given the development of the neighbourhood plan.