Agenda item

Residential development of 39 dwellings, comprising a partial re-plan of details approved under application reference P18/V0744/RM, to include an uplift of 13 no. additional dwellings, revised housing mix across the relevant development parcels and associated development works (as amended 8 September 2020).

Councillor Max Thompson in the chair.

The committee considered application P20/V1395/FUL for residential development of 39 dwellings, comprising a partial re-plan of details approved under application reference P18/V0744/RM, to include an uplift of 13 no. additional dwellings, revised housing mix across the relevant development parcels and associated development works (as amended 8 September 2020) 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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that since the despatch of the agenda a further objection to the proposal had been received by the council. This had not raised any new points of objection beyond those already received. The committee were requested to consider this application in the context of the wider Park Farm development, which was under construction, with some dwellings completed.

The planning officer confirmed that the application site formed part of an area upon which the council had permitted 88 dwellings and that development had commenced. This application sought to revise the central and northern parts of the approved scheme to increase the number of dwellings proposed across the wider Park Farm site from 88 to 101 dwellings; an uplift of 13 dwellings. The site layout plan was shown at Appendix 1 and the approved site layout at Appendix 2. These plans were also displayed to the committee via a PowerPoint presentation. The proposal was considered to be sustainable development and accorded with the housing strategy in the development plan.

The planning officer reported that access to the site is taken from the A417 via a relatively newly constructed priority staggered junction, including right hand turn lanes into the site and Letcombe Hill. As the Highway Authority, Oxfordshire County Council, did not object to the proposal.

In conclusion, the planning officer reported that if approved planning conditions should be imposed as summarised in the report and a S106 agreement or deed of variation should be entered into to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and services, including education and bus service improvements, management of public open spaces and the play area and to secure affordable housing.

Mr Steve Gillott, a local resident, who had objected to the application, had provided the council with a statement. The democratic services officer confirmed that Mr Gillott’s statement had been communicated to the Committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Andrew Gregson, a local resident spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. David Brown, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question from the committee, the planning officer confirmed that a financial contribution would be sought for the provision and/or improvement of bus services in the vicinity of the site and its intended use would be for the retention of bus service 67.

In debating the merits of the application, some members of the committee expressed concerns at design aspects, particularly plots 66 – 68, as a configuration of three dwellings. The committee also referred to paragraph 5.10 of the report, which stated that one of the proposed affordable dwellings (plot 60), whilst the same size as the dwelling already permitted on this plot, was 8 sq m smaller than the space standard of 79 sq m, required for a four person two-bedroom dwelling. This being in conflict with development policy 2 of the LPP2, which had been adopted since the earlier permission.  The planning officer reiterated paragraph 5.11, which stated that work on this plot had commenced in accordance with the approved 88 dwelling scheme and whilst the dwelling was 8 sq m smaller than the space standard requirement, it still provided reasonable accommodation. Additionally, the garden size for this plot exceeded the guidance in the Design Guide. Overall, given the previously approved house type was used elsewhere on the wider site, and this dwelling was under construction as already permitted, the proposed dwelling on plot 60 was acceptable. Some committee members considered that the garden areas for some plots were not adequate.

Some committee members regretted that the original design feature incorporating a roundabout for the scheme had been omitted.  Some  committee members, whilst noting the position of non-objection by Oxfordshire County Council, had concerns at the amount of traffic generation and probable higher traffic speeds, representing hazardous highways travel. The committee considered that road design improvements were necessary, particularly to afford better access to the school road crossing. Also, local schools might not be able to accommodate additional pupils or adequately expand to provide increased accommodation

Some committee members remained concerned at the proposal owing to inadequate garden sizes, the inadequate size of plot 60 the highways safety deficiencies, unsatisfactory housing design aspects and potential harm to the local character of the area, and were minded to refuse planning permission.

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

RESOLVED; to refuse outline planning permission for application P20/V1395/FUL for the following reasons;

1.    Poor design

2.    Inadequate garden sizes

3.    Inadequate floor space (plot 60)