Agenda item

P15/V2828/FUL - Close End House, 19 East Way, Drayton

Development of eight dwellings and a new access road.

Minutes:

Councillor Davenport stepped down from the committee for this item as the application fell within his ward.

 

The officer presented the report and the addendum on application P15/V2828/FUL for the development of 8 dwellings and a new access road (as amended by revised layout and new character study in March 2016, and further amended on 12 October 2016 by revised design, housing mix and site layout, Arboricultural Assessment, and revised East Way Improvement drawing and schedule of works).

 

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.

 

Richard Williams, a representative of Drayton Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the application.  He argued that:

·         The proposed development was not compliant with the Drayton neighbourhood plan.

·         The implications on traffic and drainage would be negative. 

·         The application should be deferred until Local Plan part 1 is adopted.

 

The speaker received questions from the committee:

·         Had this site been considered as part of the neighbourhood plan? This was one which they were not aware of at the time, so it has not been assessed by the village.

·         Why is it contrary to the neighbourhood plan? It is not one of the three sites allocated as part of the plan.

 

Mr Hagan and Mark Tamburro spoke objecting to the application.  They raised concerns that:

·         It was not consistent with the neighbourhood plan.

·         Flooding was already an issue in the area.

·         The traffic problems on the bridleway would be worsened.

 

The speakers received questions from the committee.

 

Mike Gilbert and Euan Fergusson, the agent and a supporter, spoke in favour of the application.  Their points were as follows:

·           A neighbourhood plan cannot block sustainable windfall sites within the boundary of the village and cannot cap development.

·           County highways do not object to the amended scheme.

·           The development will improve the Eastway at no cost to the residents with a 10 year maintenance plan.

 

Both the objector and the supporters were given an extra 30 seconds to speak.

 

Councillor Davenport, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

 

·         It is not part of the neighbourhood plan.

·         Access to the site is poor.

·         The roads will not be fit for more vehicles.

 

The speaker received questions from the committee and the following point was raised:

·         The neighbourhood plan does not forbid the site for development, but it has not been assessed and other more suitable sites have been found.

 

The officers received questions from the committee.  The following points were clarified:

·         This is not a five year housing land supply site, it is an “infill” site and does not extend the village’s boundaries, so complies with policies.

·         The concerns about flooding were addressed; the drainage engineer has raised concerns but they can be addressed by condition 11 (see below).

·         The level of parking provision overall is considered acceptable.

·         The absence of this site from the neighbourhood plan does not form a material planning consideration.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    No obstructions to bridleway during construction.

4.    Vehicle access (construction): No construction / demolition vehicle access to be taken along or across the bridleway without appropriate safety/mitigation measures.

5.    Vehicle access (occupation): No vehicle access to be taken along or across the bridleway without appropriate safety and surfacing measures.

6.    No changes to bridleway unless otherwise agreed in writing.

7.    Bridleway improvements to be completed prior to first occupation.

8.    Garages to be used for vehicle parking only.

9.    Landscaping (hard and soft landscaping including lighting, boundary treatment, and replacement tree planting) to be approved.

10.External materials samples to be approved.

11.Detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme (SUDS) to be approved, and then implemented in full prior to occupation.

12.Biodiversity enhancement strategy to be approved.

13.Ecology survey (to include a mitigation scheme, if required) to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of the development

14.Slab levels to be approved.

15.Details of amended rumble strip at bridleway end of private drive to be submitted and approved.

16.Combined total floor space of the eight dwellings shall not exceed 999 square metres.

 

Informatives:

1.    The new lamp post on East Way and the new specimen tree at the site entrance should be positioned so they do not obstruct access for waste collection vehicles.

2.    Approval is required from the County Council before any works within the public highway.

3.    Works to East Way must be delivered under a Section 278 agreement with the County Council. If safe public access cannot be maintained during works to the public bridleway then the route must be closed using a temporary traffic regulation order, requiring a minimum of 12 weeks’ notice.

4.    Private drive to be constructed to Oxfordshire County Council adoptable standards, via a Section 38 Agreement but will not be adopted, therefore a private road agreement with OCC will be necessary.

5.    Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx. 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

6.    Groundwater Risk Management Permit required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer.

 

 

Supporting documents: