Agenda item

Proposed residential development of 46 dwellings.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2560/FUL for 46 dwellings on land to the east of Portway Cottages, Reading Road, East Hendred. 

 

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.  Updating the report, following the response by Thames Water, the officer recommended an additional condition requiring a drainage strategy. 

 

John Sharp, a representative of East Hendred Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The proposed development would disproportionately extend the village to the north into the open countryside changing the character of the area

·         This would have an impact on the landscape and harm the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, eliminating views from the A417

·         With development of the adjacent site there would be continuous development north of the A417 eastwards along to Featherbed Lane

·         The previous two developments were allowed by a planning inspector on appeal, but this site had a different nature

·         The pedestrian footway along the A417 was unsafe

 

Mark Beddow spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included:

·         The A417 was used by heavy goods vehicles and this made using the footpath and crossing unsafe

·         The sight lines westwards from the site access over the frontage of Portway Cottages

·         He questioned the acceptability of this development

 

Tim Roberts spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included:

·         The council was very close to achieving a five-year housing land supply and this application should not be approved

·         Approving the application could lead to judicial review of the decision; the council should follow its own local plan, which excluded this site from development

·         The Planning service had a duty to serve the public

 

Dair Farrar Hockley spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included:

·         The majority of local people objected to this application

·         Serious shortcomings had been identified in the report to the committee’s last meeting

·         Road safety concerns were sufficient to refuse this application

·         The Countryside and Rights of Way Act said that building in a location that adversely affected an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was sufficient reason to refuse an application

·         He questioned why the committee could only give little weight to its local plan when it was published on the council’s website

 

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         Land south of the A417 was in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and, therefore, the proposed development to the north of the A417 was a more suitable location for housing

·         This was a visually contained site and would not cause real harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

·         The applicant had tried to overcome the objections and issues raised at the last meeting: a road safety audit had revealed that the access to the site was safe and the crossing deliverable; garden sizes were acceptable and the apartment block had been removed

·         The landscape buffer along the northern boundary would be a mixture of indigenous species, the same as on the site to the west

 

Councillor Mike Murray, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The local plan was emerging but was at a significant stage

·         Once the local plan inspector confirmed his acceptance of part 1 of the plan, this would give the council a seven-year housing land supply

·         The inspector’s confirmation was expected soon and, therefore, the local plan should be given more weight

·         This site in the open countryside did not meet the local plan’s long term strategy

·         It would adversely affect the character and appearance of the landscape and have an adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

Officers responded to the committee’s questions:

·         The council did not have a five-year housing land supply until the local plan inspector confirmed his acceptance of part 1 of the plan and the council formally adopted it

·         The officer’s report set out the material considerations the committee should take into account

·         The application at Greensands was refused on landscape impact grounds but the committee had to consider each application on its merits, balancing benefits against harm

·         In the emerging local plan this was an unallocated site

·         Affordable housing was grouped in one location in the proposed development but this was not considered a matter that warranted objection by officers

·         The county highways team had not objected to this application

 

A motion, moved and seconded to refuse the application was put to the meeting on the grounds that the site was an extension of the village into the open countryside and would have an adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  While the motion received some support, other committee members believed that the reasons for deferring the application on 6 July 2016—to allow the applicant to address the design and amenity issues and clarify the arrangements for the pedestrian crossing and visibility for Portway Cottages—had been overcome.  Following the debate, the motion to refuse the application was declared lost on being put to the vote. 

 

A motion was then moved and seconded to delegate authority to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.  This was carried on being put to the vote. 

 

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning to approve application P15/V2560/FUL subject to:

 

(a)       a Section 106 agreement being entered into to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure affordable housing; and

 

(b)       conditions as follows:

1.         Commencement three years.

2.         Approved plans.

3.         Slab levels for all dwellings to be agreed.

4.         Samples of all materials to be agreed.

5.         Boundary details to be agreed.

6.         Landscaping scheme to be agreed.

7.         Tree protection to be agreed.

8.         Off-site highway works to be agreed.

9.         Travel information pack to be agreed.

10.      Construction traffic management.

11.      Sustainable urban drainage scheme to be agreed.

12.      Bicycle parking and bin storage to be agreed.

13.      Archaeology written scheme of investigation to be agreed.

14.      Programme of archaeology mitigation to be agreed.

15.      Noise assessment and mitigation to be agreed.

16.      Windows in western elevation of Plot 17 to be agreed.

17.      Landscaping scheme implementation.

18.      Access and visibility splays as approved.

19.      Parking as approved.

20.      Roads and footpaths prior to occupation.

21.      Hours of work.

22.      No drainage to highway.

23.      No first floor windows in western elevation of Plots 1 & 11.

24.      Foul Drainage strategy to be approved.