Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and creation of a new headquarters for CABI, erection of 91 dwellinghouses, comprising open market and affordable housing, provision of open space, landscaping and parking and other associated works. The residential part of the proposal is made in full while the CABI headquarters part is made in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration except access.

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. Councillor Toby Newman was nominated and voted in as temporary Chairman for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S3387/FUL for the demolition of existing buildings and creation of a new headquarters for the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CAB)I, erection of 91 dwellinghouses, comprising open market and affordable housing, provision of open space, landscaping and parking and other associated works. The residential part of the proposal is made in full while the CABI headquarters part is made in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration except access.

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 on the responses received on the amended plans, since the publication of the report.  With regard to the clauses proposed by the officers as set out in paragraph 7.47 of the report, the applicant had accepted points 1 and 2 and, on point 3, had suggested 30 rather than 36 dwellings could be occupied before the office building has been completed and occupied, in order to allow a meaningful contribution to housing supply.

The applicant had also clarified that the open market mix set out in paragraph 7.63 of the report included a greater supply of smaller units and should specify:

·         2 bed: 4% of the overall private dwellings

·         3 bed: 11% of the overall private dwellings

·         4 bed: 85% of the overall private dwellings

In the light of the above and other representations received the planning officer reported that the recommendation had been amended to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning subject to:

1.  Additional information/Amended Plan

Provision of additional information on the trees adjoining plot 68 and amended plan for the layout of plot 68 if necessary to ensure retention of the adjacent trees. 

2.  S106, to cover the heads of terms set out in paragraphs  7.92 and 7.93, Except in relation to phasing provisions in paragraph 7.93, to refer to 30 rather than 36 dwellings to be occupied

3.  Conditions

Condition 5: Delete relates to access track to pumping station

Additional conditions, to set the parameters for the new office building which is in outline:

Condition 31: B1 office floor space to not exceed 3,108 sqm

Condition 32: The reserved matters for the office to accord with the parameter plans set out on page 74 of the Design and Access Statement. (relate to height

Condition 33: Electric vehicle charging points for every 10 dwellings 

P74:

Height parameter, no more than 11m above existing ground level

Mark Gray, a representative of Crowmarsh Parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         This was a major residential development in an isolated countryside ;

·         The development was unsustainable and contrary to core strategy policy CSS1 and SOLP G1-G4 and H6;

·         The development will not enhance or conserve the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

·         The development would generate further traffic on Nosworthy Way.

Adrian Lloyd, a representative of Wallingford Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The impact on the AONB;

·         The development was unsustainable with residents having to drive over a mile to access shops, schools community facilities;

·         The roads were already congested at peak times.

Richard Harding, representing CPRE and Anthony Fletcher, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The impact on the AONB;

·         There was no justification for the breach of the affordable housing policy;

·         The development was economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable.

Trevor Nicholls, Ian Barry and Neil Cottrell representing the applicants, spoke in support of the application:

·         CABI was a not-for-profit organisation;

·         The current building was of poor quality ;

·         The proposed high quality, bespoke building would have minimal impact on the surrounding environment;

·         If the application were to be refused, then CABI would need to look at relocating outside of South Oxfordshire;

·         The proposal would provide much needed affordable housing.

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

·         The impact on the AONB;

·         The development was unsustainable.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, the committee did not agree that the need for replacement offices for CABI and the enabling role of the housing were exceptional circumstances which outweighed the harm to the AONB.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P16/S3387/FUL for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal comprises major development and is located in open countryside, within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal would represent a visually intrusive form of development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that would fail to protect and enhance this valued landscape. No overriding exceptional circumstances have been presented which demonstrate that the development is in the public interest whereas great weight is given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policy CSEN1 of the adopted Core Strategy and contrary to paragraphs 109, 115 and 116 of the NPPF.

2.     The proposed housing does not comprise sustainable development due its location in open countryside detached from the built up area of any existing settlement with limited access to local facilities, inadequate provision for affordable housing and an open market housing mix that does not meet the identified needs of the area. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to paragraph 7 of the NPPF.

3.     In the absence of a completed S106 agreement the proposal fails to secure contributions for public transport, management arrangements for public open space and affordable housing to meet the needs of the District. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CSI1 and CSH3 of the adopted Core Strategy.