Agenda item

Residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated access.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V1589/O for a residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated access on land west of Faringdon Road, Stanford-in-the-Vale. 

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.  The officer also reported that the education authority planned to provide additional classroom capacity on the existing school site. 

Peter Lewis, a representative of Stanford-in-the-Vale Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·         The development, although allocated for housing in the local plan, must be sustainable

·         The lack of capacity at the village primary school had not been fully resolved

·         The density of the development proposed on this site was too high, especially in this edge of village location

Nicky Brock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.  Her speech included the following:

·         The proposal complied with the local plan

·         There were no objections from the statutory bodies

·         The applicant had worked with local people and the neighbourhood planning group to provide an acceptable development

·         The applicant would pay a higher than standard contribution towards new education provision

·         100 homes should be achievable on this site but the exact number would be a matter for the reserved matters application

·         The applicant had no right of access over the adjacent site

Councillor Robert Sharp, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application:

·         The proposal had a high density for this edge of village location

·         There was no masterplan for the three sites

·         The housing density of the three separately-owned sites could result in more dwellings than the 200 homes allocated in the local plan for these three sites combined

·         There was no agreement on additional education provision and this alone was a reason to refuse the application

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. The discussion included the following points:

·         The density of the site would be considered at the reserved matters stage

·         The county council had assessed possible expansion of education provision on alternative sites but had concluded that the best option was to expand the primary school’s capacity on the existing site

·         The proposed expansion of the primary school’s capacity covered the whole local plan allocation of 200 new homes

·         Section 278 works could be covered by a planning condition

A motion was moved and seconded to defer consideration of the application to allow both this application and the application for the adjacent site to be considered together.  The committee was advised that each application would have to be considered separately on its own merits and the two applications could not be considered together as one.  It was also normal procedure to consider density at the reserved matters stage.  In light of this, the proposer and seconder agreed to withdraw their motion to defer the application; the committee accepted this. 

A motion, moved and seconded to approve the application, was then put to the meeting and was declared carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to delegate authority to the head of planning to grant outline planning permission for application P16/V1589/O, subject to the following:

1.    A S106 agreement being entered into in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure affordable housing; and

2.    Conditions as follows:

1.    Commencement two years after reserved matters approval, reserved matters within three years.

2.    Reserved matters to include a biodiversity enhancement strategy.

3.    Approved plans.

4.    Road safety audit to be agreed.

5.    Off-site highway works to be agreed.

6.    Construction traffic management plan to be agreed.

7.    Residential travel plan to be agreed.

8.    Travel information pack to be agreed.

9.    Sustainable urban drainage scheme to be agreed.

10. Tree protection to be agreed.

11. Contamination risk assessment to be agreed.

12. Access as agreed.

13. Visibility splays as agreed.

14. Protected species strategy as agreed.

15. Foul drainage strategy as agreed.

16. New estate roads to highway authority specification.

17. No drainage to highway.

18. No occupation until drainage scheme implementation.