Agenda item

Outline application for residential development comprising up to 59 dwellings with associated highways works, landscaping and infrastructure improvements.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P13/V1514/O for outline planning permission for a residential development of 59 dwellings with associated highway works, landscaping and infrastructure improvements.

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.

Sarah Day, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         Strong opposition from the village;

·         Concern for the Grade I agricultural land;

·         The proposal lacks fluidity with the surrounding area;

·         The connection to the mains is complex and extensive;

·         The proposed wildlife ponds are dangerous for children; and

·         There is already favoured available and deliverable allocation site in the village.

J E Varney, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The dangerous proposed access point where visibility is poor;

·         Access to shops and amenities is poor;

·         The site requires a £1.5m sewer upgrade;

·         Part I of the local plan does not include this site.

Steven Neal, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His speech referred to the following:

·         The applicant has worked closely with officers;

·         The mitigation scheme for the Great Crested Newt population has been greatly improved;

·         There are no technical objections from statutory consultees;

·         There will be a sustainable system for flooding and drainage;

·         The illustrative layout is irrelevant as it is only outline; and

·         A proposed mix of 40% affordable housing.

Elaine Ware and Simon Howell, two of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Following consultation with residents, the North of the village is the preferred allocation site for new housing;

·         Inappropriate location and scale;

·         Cumulative impact and need for infrastructure are material planning reasons for refusal;

·         The applicant has only offered £10,600 in contributions; and

·         The proposal will have a negative impact on the community.

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

·         The negative impact on the long views of the lowland Vale;

·         Concern for the safety of children around the newt mitigation ponds;

·         Concern for the rare Grade I agricultural land;

·         The view of the Grade I listed church would be adversely affected; and

·         The layout of the proposal.

The officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission, was rejected on being put to the vote (for 2; against 11; abstentions 0).

The committee resolved to refuse planning permission on the following grounds:

·         The loss of Grade I agricultural land;

·         The negative impact on views from the Grade I listed church;

·         Detrimental landscape impact;

·         Overdevelopment and poor design;

·         The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area; and

·         In the absence of a s.106 agreement, the proposal would not provide affordable housing or sufficient infrastructure for the development.

 RESOLVED (for 11; against 1; abstentions 1)

To refuse planning permission for application P13/V1514/O for the following reasons:

1.    Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land to be taken into account and where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. According to a Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food soil survey plan the site is grade 1 agricultural land which is the highest classification and a rare commodity in this District making up only some 0.3% of land. The proposal would result in the loss of 3.5 hectares of grade 1 agricultural land for which there is no overriding justification particularly as poorer quality agricultural land exists in the District including elsewhere at the edges of Shrivenham. The Council gives weight to the economic and other benefits of grade 1 agricultural land and considers this proposal contrary to paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    Policy HE4 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 is consistent with criterion 10 of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. In accordance with paragraph 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has identified and assessed the significance of heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal.

St Andrew's church is a grade I listed building and its tower is clearly visible and prominent in views north across the site from the public footpath at the southern boundary of the site. The application site makes an important contribution to the setting of the church. Residential development would obscure vital and important views of the church and would significantly and demonstrably have an adverse impact on the setting of this grade I listed building. The Council has given significance importance and weight to protecting the setting of this grade I listed building and the harm to its setting is considered substantial. The proposal is considered contrary to policy HE4 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraphs 17(10), 131, 132 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    Policy NE9 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 is consistent with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site is located within the Lowland Vale landscape which is distinctive and valued for its own quality. This is an area of open land clearly beyond the edge of the village. It is highly visible from the public footpath on the southern boundary of the site and also from Longcot Lane and Stainswick Lane south of Glebe Close. Viewing the site from the south it appears as part of the wider patchwork of fields on the village edge. It is also part of the open vistas available at the edge of the village which users of the footpath at the very least enjoy. It is the Council's opinion that the proposal is insensitively located, detracts from important views, impacts on the quality of this part of the Lowland Vale. The proposal is therefore, contrary to policy NE9 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    Policy DC1 of the adopted Policy DC9 of the adopted Local Plan and the 2015 adopted Design Guide require high quality design and this accords with criterion 4 of paragraph 17 and paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the Council gives great importance to the design of the built environment.

The proposal has failed to demonstrate that up to 59 dwellings could be adequately accommodated on this site. The Vicarage Lane housing is low density with large back gardens which help soften the edge of the village. On the contrary this development is an overdevelopment of the site comprising a density of development at odds with the low density character of development on this edge of the village which in turn detracts from the open, semi-rural aspect of the village. In addition, the proposed layout is car dominated with focal points dominated by hardsurfaces and/or parking and including access and parking against the open space, other courtyards of parking, road side parking and parking in front of dwellings. As such the proposal is contrary to policy DC1 of the adopted Local Plan, the 2015 adopted Vale of White Horse Design Guide March 2015 and paragraph 17(4), 56, 57, 58, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.    In the absence of a s.106 agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing and financial contributions towards recreation, open space maintenance, public art, public transport, education, libraries, waste collections and waste disposal, policing, museum resource and adult day care the proposal would place increased pressure on these facilities and fail to provide the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs. This is considered contrary to policies DC8 and DC17 of the adopted Local Plan, policies CP7 and CP24 of the emerging Local Plan 2031 - Part 1 and paragraphs 17 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework.