Agenda item

Single dwelling house with detached double garage (as amended by plans and additional information received on 29 November 2019 and 16 January 2020).

The committee considered application P19/V2428/FUL for a single dwelling house with detached double garage (as amended by plans and additional information received on 29 November 2019 and 16 January 2020) at 208 Steventon Road, Drayton, Abingdon.

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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that this application was deferred at the planning committee meeting on 26 February 2020 to seek clarification regarding the status of the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan and Figure 4, referred to within Policy P-LF2, and to allow the committee members to visit the site. The site visit had taken place on 28 September 2020.  In addition, planning officers had since sought advice from the Planning Policy Team regarding the aforementioned status, Following the advice received from the team, officers had considered that the proposed development was contrary to the Council’s settlement hierarchy strategic policies for the location of housing within the Local Plan 2031 Part 1. As Policy P-LF2 referred to extending the village boundaries through ribbon (i.e. roadside) development, the policy was not considered to be relevant to this application which was ‘backland’ development.

The planning officer reminded the committee that at the committee meeting on 26 February 2020, concerns had been raised regarding inconsistencies in respect of decision-making for other developments within the village. The committee were provided in the report (at page 14) with a map illustrating the developments that had gained planning permission within the parish. The committee noted that the Neighbourhood Plan allocated three sites for housing in Drayton, totalling about 250 houses, highlighted in red on the plan.  The committee was advised that the Neighbourhood Plan did not seek to prohibit development on sites other than those allocated, and it did not impose a ‘cap’ or ‘ceiling’ to sustainable development elsewhere.

Planning officers recommended refusal of planning permission, as the application site did not lie within the built area of the village of Drayton and represented an extension to the built area into open land beyond its edge forming part of the wider area of the open countryside. Also, the site was not allocated for development within the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part ,1 or within the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan, and was therefore contrary to a number of policies (listed in detail in the report) of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, and was contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.  Planning officers were also recommending refusal, as the proposed development would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area by reason of the siting and layout.

Mrs. Diane Dunsdon, the owner, spoke in support of the application. The democratic services officer reported that he had sent Mrs. Dunsdon’s

statement to the committee prior to meeting.

Councillor Andy Cooke, a local ward councillor, spoke in support of the application.

The committee expressed the view that the application seemed to be within the built-up area.  Core Policy 4 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 confirmed that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the existing built areas of larger villages. Additionally, Drayton Parish Council had made no objection to the application. It was noted that the parish council was working on their Neighbourhood Plan to delineate their border, and any future changes to the Plan would not have any bearing upon the application at the present time. For these reasons, the committee considered that granting planning permission, contrary to the officers’ recommendation, was justified. The senior planning officer reported that permission would represent a departure.

In response to a question from the committee regarding a paddock near the boundary of the site, the senior planning officer reported that a permission would need to include reference to a garden area and residential property within the curtilage.

The committee requested the planning officer to list the type of conditions which would be included in a permission for this application.  In response, the planning officer reported that these would include a statement of materials, arboriculture, tree protection, landscaping, contaminated land risk assessment, national grid impact, correct reference to the paddock land, a garden condition and Community Infrastructure Levy.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P19/V2428/FUL, subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the head of planning, for the following reasons;

1.    The application represented limited harm to the local area;

2.    The proposal fitted in with character and appearance of properties in the area by virtue of its design and layout.