Agenda item

Outline application for the construction of up to 24 dwellings with all matters reserved except access (35% affordable).  P16/V0364/O

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0364/O for outline planning permission to construct up to 24 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access on land south of The Causeway, East Hanney.

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

James T Triffit, a representative of East Hanney parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         East Hanney has seen a 62% increase in housing in the last 5 years and would like to ensure future developments are reasonable and controlled as per the emerging neighbourhood plan;

·         The parish council dispute the county council traffic assessment of the proposed access route deeming it dangerous and concern for the speed limit where a speed of 47mph was recorded recently (in a 30mph zone); and

·         The proposed development is out of character and too dense in relation to the adjacent development.

Trevor Brettell, a representative of West Hanney parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Safety concerns due to the proposed access being directly opposite the school;

·         The community woodland is accessed by pedestrians by this site;

·         A high proportion of vehicles exceed the speed limit;

·         Traffic construction would need to be controlled;

·         The area would be at a greater risk of flooding; and

·         The proposal is out of character and would double the number of homes in this part of the village.

James Craddock, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The site density is double the surrounding area and out of character, therefore contrary to policy DC1 of the Local Plan;

·         The road network cannot accommodate the new development without compromising safety;

·         The proposed access is opposite the primary school and therefore not safe;

·         The school is already at capacity; and

·         The Causeway floods on an annual basis, which would be exacerbated by the proposed development.

Daniel Stiff and John Legan, the applicant’s agent and applicant, spoke in support of the application. Their speeches included the following:

·         There are no statutory objections;

·         Drainage, flooding and highway safety can be dealt with by condition;

·         Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged due to the lack of five year land supply;

·         The applicant has worked with the parishes and reduced the density from 30 to 24 dwellings; and

·         It is possible to incorporate a formal pedestrian crossing as part of reserved matters to improve safety.

Matthew Barber, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Flooding, school provision, highway safety and the access being opposite the school would not be viable reasons to sustain a refusal should the application go to appeal;

·         Density is higher than in the surrounding area; and

·         The harm on the conservation area, landscape and character are sufficient reasons for refusal.

Officers responded to the committee’s questions:

·         The conservation officer would be consulted at the reserved matters stage, however a heritage impact assessment deemed there to be sufficient space between the heritage assets and the development; and

·         The county council have assessed the issue of the new junction and had insufficient evidence to demonstrate severe harm.

The committee did not agree with the recommendation and considered the development would have a severe impact on the character and appearance of the area.

A motion, moved and seconded for refusal, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED:

To refuse outline planning permission for application P16/V0364/O for the following reason:

Having regard to its particular location on the edge of the village, its landscape setting and close proximity to the conservation area, this development would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This harm is not outweighed by the associated benefits and the proposal is therefore contrary to policies DC1, NE7, HE1 and HE4 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 20111; policies 37 and 44 of the emerging Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1; and advice contained within the NPPF.