Agenda item

Rodger Hood, Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to one of the requirements of the exception site policy, which was that the scheme should be supported in principle by the local community and represented by the Parish Council.  Officers had been concerned by the level of local objection.  However, the Parish Council fully supported the scheme which was vital.  Officers acknowledged that the proposal would have an impact on the character of the rural edge of the village.  However, exception sites were usually proposed on edge of village locations due to the very nature of the policy.  It was emphasised that as stated in the report, the majority of the housing was set back from the road frontage and most of the hedging would be retained.  A Section 106 Agreement would be required to restrict occupation and the County Engineer had no objection in terms of access and parking.

The Committee was advised that the applicants had agreed to amend the plans in accordance with the requirements of the Consultant Architect’s suggestions.

The Committee was advised that two further letters reiterating objections previously raised had been received, and an additional email stating that the Defence Academy was undertaking an internal establishment development plan review as a result of which some sites, perhaps including the telephone exchange site might be considered for other uses.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had raised no objection to the proposal, commenting that no major trees would be harmed as the substantial oaks were far enough away from the development.  However, he had suggested that there should be a fence round the development.

Furthermore, it was noted that Natural England had commented that trees and hedgerows both provided important roosting and foraging habitats for bats and providing that no current dwellings, trees or hedgerows would be lost to the development, no reasons could be seen why bats would be affected.

Furthermore, the Officers explained that the applicant had submitted an email received from its consultant relating to the surveys undertaken as part of the eco home accreditation.  It was explained that the applicant wished to provide eco homes seeking to maximise the credits available in respect of the ecology of the site and as such ecological assessments should be undertaken before any major development.  The statement received from the applicant in this regard was read out in full at the meeting.

The Committee was advised that a statement had been received from Councillor Peter Saunders, one of the local Members, which was also read out in full.  The local Member expressed support for the proposal, referring to the need for affordable housing which would benefit local people;  the results of the housing needs survey conducted in 2004 and the comments to the Parish Council from the District Council’s Deputy Director (Housing), indicating that there were 191 people currently on the housing register and that 14 houses would only contribute a very small proportion of the local housing need;  the consideration given to alternative sites;  the Oxfordshire Diocese support for the proposal;  the proposal meeting the criteria for development on an exception site.

Finally, the Officers advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, approval should be subject to receipt of amended plans to reflect the comments of the Consultant Architect, an amended plans condition and a condition to provide for a footpath to the front of the site.

Sarah Day made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council in support of the application, commenting that she had been approached to sign a petition opposing the development and it had been suggested that the new housing would be occupied by criminals.  She referred to the ever increasing prices of houses, commenting that the proposal would provide affordable housing for local people.

Colin Holman also made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council in support of the application advising that 14 houses would be provided and that there currently 191 people on the housing register who had expressed a preference to live in the Shrivenham area.   He referred to the investigation of alternative sites including the telephone exchange site, and whilst noting the strong local opposition, the current site was proposed based on its merits and the willingness of the owner to allow the land to be sold for affordable housing for local people.  He emphasised that this was the only site available in Shrivenham.

Anne Davis made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She raised concern that the site had been chosen ignoring the comments in the survey and the views of some 66% of the residents.  She referred to the petition opposing the site advising that signatures had been given freely.  She raised concern that the proposal would detract from the tranquil buffer between the village and the countryside, harmful impact on the habitat for wildlife;  loss of open space;  inadequate pavement;  vehicle manoeuvrability;  pedestrian safety; increased traffic;  proposal being out of keeping with the surrounding area.  She commented that bungalows would have been more sympathetic to the surrounding area and whilst it had been suggested that there would not be affordable housing in Shrivenham, the Chair of the Parish Council had indicated that should the application be unsuccessful an alternative site would be found.  She emphasised that a large proportion of the community objected to the proposal and stressed that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, she suggested its deferral for proper consultation, commenting that a previously unidentified site would be becoming available.

Stuart Roberts, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application, referring to the significant number of successful schemes previously undertaken.  He referred to the overwhelming need for affordable housing in this area and that the houses would be allocated to local people.  Furthermore, the applicant would be entering into a Section 106 Obligation to retain some of the houses to prevent them being sold outright.

Members spoke in support of the application, referring to a similar proposal elsewhere which had initially been unpopular but had subsequently been accepted.  It was noted that there were no highway objections and that deeds and covenants were not a relevant planning consideration.  It was noted that the proposal accorded with planning policy and that there was no reason for refusal.  In response to a question raised, the Officers advised that the proposed footpath would link to the existing footpath network and that there would be some changes internally to the access layout resulting in the removal of a footpath and the provision of additional landscaping.

With reference to potential other sites, the Committee noted that it needed to consider each application on its merits as submitted.  It was noted that there was sufficient need for housing and that the local people would benefit from the proposal.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, be delegated authority to approve application SHR/20042 subject to:-

(1)       the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the housing remains affordable for local people in perpetuity;

(2)       the submission of amended plans to reflect the comments of the Consultant Architect;

(3)       the conditions set out in the report;

(4)       a further condition to provide for amended plans;  and

(5)       a further condition to provide that the footpath shown on the plans shall be implemented.