Agenda item

Application summary: Outline application for up to 110 dwellings (access not reserved).

Mr Robert Simister, a local ward councillor, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item.

The committee considered outline application P13/S2184/O for up to 110 dwellings on land at Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake.

The Planning Officer reported that, whilst the application was before the committee at the request of Councillor Wood, the Planning Manager had also placed it on the agenda.  This was because of the scale of the proposed development and because the site fell within the Parish of Harspden, where the preparation of a neighbourhood plan was underway with Henley, and because the proposal directly affected the parish of Shiplake.

The Planning Officer also reported that section 3.1 of the report incorrectly noted the comments of Henley Town Council as an objection to the proposal.  The exact wording from the town council said:

‘we will note the application but not offer any recommendation’

In paragraph 8.2, the penultimate sentence of refusal reason 2 should read ‘it has not been agreed in principle rather than principal’

Mr K George, a representative of Harpsden Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr D Oliver, a representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr T Taylor and Ms H Andrews, local residents, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr D Bartholomew, county councillor, spoke about the application.

Mr R Simister, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P13/S2184/O Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake for the following reasons:

1.      The application site lies on the edge of the settlement of Shiplake, it is not a site allocated for development in a Development Plan, including a Neighbourhood Plan and is not considered an infill site within the built up limits of the settlement.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies CSS1 and CSR1 of the adopted Core Strategy.  The development would extend into and encroach upon the adjacent countryside contrary to policies G2, G4 and C4 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.      Insufficient information accompanies the application to demonstrate that matters of highway safety and access meet the required standards, namely the provision of an adequate swept path route for a refuse vehicle and the provision of an emergency vehicular access onto Bolney Lane.  Furthermore, the Harpsden 2 public Right of Way upgrade measures have not been agreed in principle and remain an outstanding matter.  The proposal therefore contravenes policy T1 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011. 

3.      The proposed new vehicular access and associated carriageway widening will result in the loss of and a future threat to a number of trees that are considered to have high amenity value and as such are covered by a Tree Preservation Order.  The proposal conflicts with policy C9 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and to guidance contained within paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

4.      Inadequate information accompanies the application to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon habitats that have the potential to be used by a number of protected species as such, the proposal contravenes policies C6, C8 and C9 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, policy CSB1 of the adopted Core Strategy and guidance contained within the NPPF and accompanying Circular (ODPM 06/2005).

5.      Inadequate information accompanies the application to demonstrate that the proposed development will have adequate waste water infrastructure to serve the development and will not adversely impact upon the Harpsden public water supply abstraction.  The development is therefore contrary to policies EP4, EP6 and EP7and to advice contained within paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

6.      That the proposal fails to secure affordable housing and provide a housing mix to meet the needs of the District contrary to policies CSH3 and CSH4 of the adopted Core Strategy and wider guidance contained within the NPPF.  The proposal fails to provide adequate services and facilities to meet the needs of the development contrary to policies C6, R2, R3, R6 and D12 of the saved policies of the adopted South Oxfordshire Plan 2011 and policies CSG1, CSI1 of the adopted Core Strategy.