Agenda item

P20/V2298/FUL - Land at Yarnells Hill, Oxford

Erection of three detached dwellings, including access and landscaping (as amended by drawings and information received 27 July 2021 and amplified by consultants reports received 8 September 2022 and additional information received 10 October 2022).

Minutes:

The committee considered planning application P20/V2298/FUL for the erection of three detached dwellings, including access and landscaping (as amended by drawings and information received 27 July 2021 and amplified by consultants’ reports received 8 September 2022 and additional information received 10 October 2022), on land at Yarnells Hill, Oxford.

 

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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Debby Hallett. The planning officer informed the committee that the application was for three new houses on a greenfield site at Yarnells Hill.

 

In addition, the planning officer noted the main objections to the application which were on biodiversity grounds, particularly around the potential impact on the local badger population, and the impact on the alkaline fen in Raleigh Park and a stream running adjacent to the site. The planning officer also indicated that fen was defined as irreplaceable habitat in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

However, due to the mitigation methods outlined in the report and secured through potential conditions, the planning officer believed that there could be biodiversity net gain, that the badgers’ sett could be moved and controlled through Natural England and their licencing scheme, and that the impacts of surface and fowl water on the alkaline fen could be limited through several sustainable drainage systems, maintained over time, and through conditions during the construction phase of the development.

 

In addition, the planning officer considered that the proposed houses were of contemporary design and that there was sufficient distance between the properties, and the neighbours, so that they did not adversely impact neighbour’s amenity. As technical officers believed that the impact on trees, biodiversity, traffic, and parking were considered acceptable, the planning officer recommended the application be approved, subject to conditions.

 

 

Stephen Parkinson spoke objecting to the application. 

 

Ian Gillespie, the agent representing the applicant, and Dr Peter Shepherd, Sam Pucknell, and Ed Tyack spoke in support of the application. 

 

Councillor Debby Hallett, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

 

 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. Members then asked the countryside officer, Edward Church, as to why he was unable to support the application but also why he did not object to the application either. In response, the countryside officer confirmed that he believed that a development close to the alkaline fen would pose a risk but that the applicant had provided detailed mitigation measures. Therefore, the countryside officer felt that on balance, despite the risk, he could not object to the application.

 

The committee then asked the drainage engineer, Leigh Travers, about how the council might ensure the maintenance of the drainage scheme so that it would never have an impact on the fen. In response, the drainage engineer confirmed that a maintenance management company would be responsible for this, but none would be appointed until after the application was approved. Furthermore, the planning officer informed members that maintenance schedule logs could be required through condition so that they could be examined to ensure regular maintenance. 

 

Members continued to express concern about the proposed development and the impact it would have on the fen and the badger population as they believed that there was no way to guarantee they would not be degraded over time as a result of the application. Members felt the responsibility to the NPPF was to ensure the protection of this irreplaceable habitat, and that the lack of clarity around the conditions extending into the future and the lack of certainty of the protections they would provide were not considered to be sufficient.

 

Overall, members maintained concerns about the site’s suitability for development due to the potential risk of damage to the fen and the impact the relocation of the badger sett would have on the badger population. Therefore, despite mitigation, the committee believed that the proposed development would lead to unacceptable risk of harm to irreplaceable habitat, contrary to local plan, neighbourhood plan, and the NPPF.

 

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P20/V2298/FUL, for the following reason:

 

Despite the mitigation measures proposed, the development would lead to an unacceptable risk and harm to irreplaceable habitat and to protected species and habitat, having regard to the sensitivity of the nearby alkaline fen to type and amount of water supply and to the impact on the badger sett on the site. This is contrary to policy CP46 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1, to policy GS2 of the North Hinksey Neighbourhood Plan 2031, and to the NPPF.

Supporting documents:

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

Vale of White Horse District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE