Agenda item

The officer presented the report on application P14/V1964/FUL for a residential development comprising 26 dwellings and off-site highway works on land north of Portway Villas in East Hendred.

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: An additional comment has been received from a neighbouring property requesting a condition requiring the developers to fund the re-routing and maintenance of a private water supply pipe and raising concerns over its future maintenance. The email included a series of correspondence with the developer over the past year relating to construction damage to the pipe and the promise by the developers to re-route the supply.

The officer has also received updated comments from Oxfordshire County Council Highways raising no objections to the application and that they are now satisfied with the level of parking on site, the proposed access, and the proposed controlled crossing on the A417 subject to conditions and the S106 Agreement.

Officer Response: The additional letter relates to an ongoing civil issue between the developers and a group of neighbouring properties. As long as there is a sufficient supply to serve the development in addition to existing residents, the responsibility for its maintenance is a private matter. There are no technical objections to the development in relation to water supply from Thames Water and therefore there are no reasonable grounds to object on this issue.

A requirement to re-route a private water supply in the interests of future maintenance is not something we could legally require under the planning permission. Whilst the developers can offer this in kind, a planning condition to this effect would not meet the legal tests as referenced under the (National) Planning Policy Guidance as it is not required to make the development acceptable.

Amendment to report: Paragraph 3.1 under OCC Highways – that the previous concerns have been addressed in relation to visitor parking and the site access and that no objections are raised subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

Dr John Sharp, a representative of East Hendred Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included the following:

• Phase 1 of the development is built next to housing, however this application extends into open countryside;
• The application is against the wishes of the parish council to develop north of the parish and would result in a change. to the character of the area;
• The proposal could set a precedent for further development as the buffer from phase 1 is breached by this phase; and
• S106 contributions towards village facilities improvements.

Tim Roberts and Mr M Simmonds, two local residents, spoke objecting to the application, their concerns included the following:

• The proposed development does not serve local needs;
• The buffer from Phase 1 has been disregarded;
• The site floods badly already;
• Traffic congestion on the A417;
• Parking spaces are too far away from the dwellings; and
• Pedestrian crossings and speed limits need to be considered.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application, his speech included the following:

• The site would be invisible from the South;
• Connectivity to the village is a key theme;
• Improvements from Phase 1 including a signalised crossing;
• There can be no Phase 3 as the access cannot serve any more phases; and
• East Hendred is a large sustainable village.

Councillor Bill Jones, one of the ward councillors, spoke against the application, making the following points:

·         Concern that this application would open the way for further development; and

·         The gardens lack natural surveillance.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate. Whilst there was some support for this application, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was lost by 7 votes to 6 with 1 abstention. The committee raised the following concerns:

• The breach of the deep landscape buffer to the north from Phase 1;
• Small impact on housing shortfall does not outweigh the extension into open countryside;
• Capacity of the existing road junction; and
• Flooding concerns.

RESOLVED (for 7; against 6; abstentions 1)

To refuse application P14/V1964/FUL for the following reasons:

      i.        The extension of development from Phase 1 is breaching the existing landscape buffer and encroaching on open countryside affecting:

a.    The visual impact;

b.    Connectivity of the village as a while; and

c.    Erosion of the countryside.

As such the proposal is contrary to Policies GS2 and NE9 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local (2011).