Agenda item

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of 241 dwellings (40% of which will be affordable) with associated access; public open space, landscaping, sports provision, nature park and woodland; up to 230 sq.m. retail; and provision of community facilities including relocated school playing fields, youth hut, skate park and play space.

Felix Bloomfield and Richard Pullen, the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item. Ian White also stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item. Councillor Toby Newman was nominated and voted in as temporary Chairman for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S1139/O for the erection of 241 dwellings (40 per cent of which will be affordable) with associated access; public open space, landscaping, sports provision, nature park and woodland; up to 230 sqm retail; provision of community facilities including relocated school playing fields, youth hut, skate park and play space at land north of Littleworth Road, Benson.

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 this meeting.

The planning officer reported that, since the publication of the report, a further 64 objections had been received from residents.  No objections from technical consultees have been received for this application. She also informed the committee that, in the light of a recent appeal decision, significant rather than moderate weight should have been given to the social benefits of the application in her report.

The planning officer set out the key issues that had arisen from the consultation and the context in which the application was being considered. She outlined that the council has been found by planning inspectors to not have a five year land supply of housing across the district. This meant that the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was engaged.  The main housing policy for housing in larger villages, CSR1, had also been found to be silent, which also lead to the implementation of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In addition, the Local Plan 2032 and the Benson Neighbourhood Plan were both at early stages. This meant that they could only be given limited weight in decision making and that national policy requirements must also be taken into account.

Jon Fowler, a representative of Benson Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The proposed development was out of character with the rest of Benson and did not fully comply with several SODC Core Strategy policies;

·         Approving the application would render a key part of emerging Benson Neighbourhood Plan null and void;

·         The provision of the community facilities included in the application was dependent upon the approval of the parish council which would not be given;

·         The proposed expansion of the primary school and relocation of the school playing fields was dependent upon obtaining the permission of the landowner which had not yet been given.

David Rushton and Frank Farquharson, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The effect of additional traffic and parking on the ancient High Street;

·         The validity of the flood risk assessment;

·         The adequacy of the foul drainage system.

John Ashton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The development would help meet South Oxfordshire’s housing supply shortfall;

·         The development was sustainable with good public transport links.

·         It was a high quality development.

·         There had been no objections from the statutory consultees.

Felix Bloomfield, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The scheme was dependent upon the delivery of the earlier phase (Phase 1);

·         Many of the proposed benefits were uncertain so should be given less weight;

·         The traffic assessment did not equate with residents’ experience;

·         The highways infrastructure was inadequate and the Highways Authority should reconsider this matter.

In response to matters raised, the planning officer reported that:

·         This was an outline application with many matters of detail subject to a further application should outline permission be granted;

·         If approved, community facilities would be secured via a S106 agreement;

·         Concerns about the school playing fields, flooding and foul drainage would be addressed by conditions.

A member expressed the view that it would be appropriate to defer further consideration of the application pending a site visit for the following reasons:

• to form a view about the effect of this large scale development in a village location;
• there was no Oxfordshire County Council officer present and it would be helpful for members to have their views, particularly with regard to public concerns about the accuracy of the traffic assessment and other highways matters;
• to better understand the sustainability of the development in relation to the site that already has planning permission and the rest of the village.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit was declared carried upon being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of application P16/S1139/O pending a site visit.