Agenda item

Erection of 15 dwellings and associated works.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2887/FUL for the erection of 15 dwellings and associated works (as amended by drawings and information accompanying agent's email of 22 March 2016 and further amended by location, site and landscaping plan drawings 2925.100B, 101D, 102F, 113A and 115B and design and access addendum received 31 March 2016 and as clarified by updated flood risk assessment accompanying agent's email of 23 June 2016) on land off School Road, West Hanney, Wantage.

 

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the offer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

 

Chris Surman, representative of West Hanney Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. His points included the following:

·           The entrance to the development is not safe.

·           There are few facilities in the village.

·           The school is over subscribed.

·           Footpaths proposed are inadequate.

·           There is a risk of coalescence between East and West Hanney.

 

Trevor Page spoke objecting to the application, his points included the following:

·           Visual domination of existing properties.

·           Density is too great for the surrounding context.

·           Buffer zones are inadequate.

·           Did not believe that proper processes had been followed.

·           Creating anxiety amongst existing residents.

 

Ken Dijksman, agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of this application; his points included the following:

·           Low density, modest scheme on the edge of the village which would not harm the character, form or density of the village.

·           Scale is in keeping with the settlement.

·           Facilities: very close to primary school and close to a larger village give it good sustainability credentials.

·           Environmental impact will not be materially harmful on the greater landscape and will not lead to coalescence with East Hanney.

·           Six affordable houses of which two would be shared equity.

 

Matthew Barber, the ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application; his points included the following:

·           The school is full even though close by, this will put additional pressure on it.

·           The character is relevant, the access road moves closer to East Hanney, residents risk a phase 2 based on the layout.

·           The density is greater than elsewhere in the village.

·           Poor use of land when considering the access road.

·           Would make a very small contribution to meeting housing need.

 

The committee asked questions of clarification to the officers, and received responses:

·           Affordable housing is only 35 percent, not 40 percent as the most recent evidence base suggests that 35 percent is supportable and sustainable.

·           The primary school is full, but the county council believe that it can be expanded on the current site.

·           Registered housing providers prefer to have properties on smaller plots together for ease of management.

·           The rest of the field is also owned by the developer and could be subject to a further application which would be judged on its own merits.

·           Ridge height made the properties more visible, but the design access statement would have looked at the context of the local village and would confirm the approach taken.

·           Officers do not formally minute every meeting with developers but the outcomes are summarised in emails.

·           This is a minor contribution to the 5 year housing land supply, but there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. And there is not “significant and demonstrable harm” in a district which doesn’t have a demonstrable 5 year housing land supply.

 

A motion, to approve the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded and put before the committee for discussion:

 

·         The development is minor and there were not strong grounds for approving it.

·         Coalescence between East and West Hanney

·         Plot sizes do not relate to the current area and has a negative impact on the character of the housing.

·         No school places locally and no contributions to that.

·         Officers report says that the harm cannot be mitigated by financial contributions.

·         Footpaths and roads are inadequate.

·         The affordable housing is contrary to our existing policies as it is not fully integrated with the other housing and it can easily be identified from the rest of the site.

·         Difficult to distribute housing across smaller sites.

·         The issue of school places has been undermined by the county council’s position on this.

 

 

RESOLVED (For 5; against 3, abstentions 2)

 

To delegate the authority to grant planning permission is delegated to the head of planning subject to:

 

1.    A S106 agreement being entered into with both the county council and district council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure affordable housing; and

 

2.    Conditions as follows:

 

          i.    Commencement within one year.

         ii.    Approved plans.

        iii.    Highway works to be agreed – including provision of pedestrian crossing.

        iv.    Internal road layout specification to be agreed.

         v.    Car parking to be agreed.

        vi.    Slab levels for all dwellings to be agreed.

      vii.    Sample materials to be agreed.

     viii.    Construction traffic management plan to be agreed.

        ix.    Travel information pack to be agreed.

         x.    Sustainable urban drainage scheme to be agreed.

        xi.    Landscaping scheme to be agreed – hard and soft – including link to footpath.

      xii.    Implementation of landscaping scheme as stated.

     xiii.    Boundary details to be agreed.

     xiv.    Bicycle parking and bin storage to be agreed.

      xv.    Ecology mitigation measures to be agreed.

     xvi.    Visibility splays as specified.

    xvii.    Turning space as approved.

  xviii.    No drainage to highway.

     xix.    Garage accommodation to be retained.

      xx.    Obscured glazing and fan light only in first floor window of Plot 6.