Residential development comprising the erection of 87 dwellings including associated amenity space, access, parking and ancillary development.
The committee considered application P18/V2049/FUL for a residential development comprising 87 dwellings, amenity space, access, parking and ancillary development on land at Park Farm, East Challow.
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.
The planning officer pointed out a discrepancy in the table at paragraph 5.54 of the report in which a reference to Shrivenham should be replaced with East Challow. He also sought the committee’s view on whether a signalised pedestrian crossing and additional unallocated parking should be secured by planning conditions, if any refusal of the application was subject to an appeal.
Liz and Steve Gillott, local residents, spoke objecting to the application.
James Yeoman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Yvonne Constance, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application.
Committee members considered that the application should be refused and that a signalised pedestrian crossing, for reasons of highway safety, and additional unallocated parking were both required.
A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P18/V2049/FUL for the following reasons:
1. The proposal fails to provide an adequate amount and mix of affordable housing on the site to meet objectively identified need in the district. As such the proposal is contrary to core policies 22 and 24 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1.
2. The proposal is considered a poorly designed, cramped and congested scheme that is highway and parking dominated; lacks appropriate focal points, adequate unallocated parking spaces, adequate street landscaping, attractive public open spaces and results in inadequate living conditions for future residents. As such the proposal does not deliver a high quality and sustainable development and is therefore, contrary to core policies 35, 37, 38 and 44 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, saved policies H23 and DC9 of the Local Plan 2011, the adopted Vale of White Horse Design Guide 2015 and paragraphs 117, 118, 122(e), 124, 127, 128, 130 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. In the absence of a s.106 agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing and financial contributions towards maintenance of a signalised crossing on the A417 and associated public consultation, public transport improvements including improved bus services through East Challow and bus stop provision, travel plan monitoring, changes to the speed limit on the A417, public art, street naming, waste bin provision, and the management of public open spaces and play areas, the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on these facilities and fail to provide the social and recreational services to serve the development. This is considered contrary to core policies 7 and 24 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, saved policies DC4, DC7 and H23 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, and paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework.