Agenda item

Outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. Means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved.

David Nimmo-Smith declared an interest in this item, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the committee’s debate or voting on this application. 

 

The committee considered application P16/S0970/O for outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved, on land at Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake.

 

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. 

 

Officer update:

·         Since the publication of the agenda, a further 128 responses had been received objecting to the application, 28 of which were from new respondents

·         the council had received allegations that some of the letters of support were fraudulent and as a result two representations have been removed from the council’s website

·         the officer would contact the Department for Communities and Local Government on 8 September 2016, advising of the committee’s decision; the department would then consider whether to call-in the application for the Secretary of State’s determination

·         officers had sent the committee additional information in response to a submission by the local Member of Parliament, and further information on case law and recent appeal decisions

 

David Nimmo-Smith, a representative of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The town council’s concerns included:

·         the site was within the Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan area and the plan had not included this as a housing site

·         the policy objections to the proposed development of this site in 2013 were still relevant to this application, including the landscape objections 

·         the sight lines at the site’s access were inadequate, given the amount of traffic using the Reading Road

·         the Neighbourhood Plan could not be considered out of date

·         this part of the district was already making a significant contribution to the district’s five year housing land supply; why should this area suffer further housing? 

 

Tudor Taylor, a representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         the five year housing land supply was one consideration but should not override the Neighbourhood Plan, which itself had over-provided for housing within its area 

·         a number of matters remained but had been dealt with by the officer’s proposed planning conditions; these issues should be resolved before the committee considered the application 

·         the highways access to the site would be a safety risk

·         there would be an adverse impact on the character of the area

·         the proposed development was unsustainable

·         residents of the new homes would have to rely on their cars and children would have to be bussed to schools outside the village

·         there were neighbourhood planning, environmental, social and sustainability grounds to refuse the application

·         the proposal trampled on local democracy

 

Kester George, a representative of Harpsden Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         the proposal was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, which planned for 500 homes in the plan area up to 2027, but had not included housing on this site

·         of the possible housing sites considered for the Neighbourhood Plan, Thames Farm had been near the bottom of the priority list due to the high volume of traffic that used the Reading Road

·         it was a greenfield site that would only provide a separate community, not an integrated one with the rest of the village

·         to allow this application would make a mockery of the neighbourhood planning process and its role in the national planning system

 

David Bartholomew, the local county councillor, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         support for this application on pre-printed forms should be discounted

·         the committee had rejected a similar application on this site previously

·         the only change in circumstances was the council no longer had a five year housing land supply

·         there were five reasons to refuse this application as follows

·         the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of this rural area

·         at senior level, the county council objected to this application on highways grounds, disagreeing with the highways officer’s comments; urbanising measures were inappropriate in this rural area, and the application provided no additional infrastructure

·         the county council objected on education grounds; there would be a need for additional primary education facilities and the application did not provide for this; residents’ children would have to be bussed to a primary school

·         the application was unsustainable; there would be no footpath, no cycle path, but rather an urban island where residents’ only option would be to use their cars 

·         the application was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, which had not allocated this site for housing and had been prepared through a democratic process; the Crane v SSCLG 2015 case was relevant to this application

 

Les Durrant, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         the application provided for the need for more housing in the district, particularly affordable housing of which there would be the full 40 per cent

·         this was a high quality development that would be delivered at the earliest opportunity

·         the design of the development showed the applicant’s commitment to quality

 

Michael Watson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         the developer had delivered housing schemes across South East England

·         it was fully committed to deliver a high quality development

·         there would be 40 per cent affordable housing on the site

·         the developer would work with the Shiplake community

 

Brett Farmery, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         installing a roundabout at the access to the site was not possible due to the position of the residential access to a property opposite the site

·         the county council preferred a right-turn lane option

·         footways would be installed at the front of the site

 

Paul Harrison, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         the committee had previously considered this site unsuitable for housing, as had the Neighbourhood Plan

·         it was not the case that the lack of a five year housing land supply out-ranked the Neighbourhood Plan and Local Plan

·         Shiplake Parish Council’s independent highway safety assessment should be taken into account 

·         the committee should ignore suggestions that the Highlands Farm housing site would not be necessary 

·         support for the application by pro-forma response should be ignored

·         the Crane v SSCLG 2015 case was relevant to this application

·         the Neighbourhood Plan was in date and this application was contrary to it

·         the application, if approved, would add to the air quality problems in Duke Street, Henley

·         if the committee approved this application, more housing applications would follow

 

The committee considered that more weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Plan.  This site was unsuitable for housing as any benefit from the development was outweighed by the significant and demonstrable harm to the safety of road users and to the character and appearance of the area.  The committee also considered that the application was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, it did not provide for primary education needs, and it was unsustainable development. 

 

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/S0970/O for the following reasons:

 

1.     The application site lies beyond the edge of the settlement of Lower Shiplake (a smaller village) and is not a site allocated for development in the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan.  The development would extend beyond the settlement edge, into the adjacent countryside, in a manner that does not accord with the district's strategy for growth.  The proposal would have a detrimental impact on a locally valued landscape and detract from the character and appearance of the area.  As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS1, CSS1, CSR1, CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, policies C4, G2 and G4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, and policies H1 and DSQ1 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan.

 

2.     The proposal would have a severe adverse residual cumulative effect on the safety and convenience of highway users, including pedestrians and cyclists.  As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies T1 and G2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, and the objectives of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan.

 

3.     In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure affordable housing to meet the needs of the district.  As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CSH3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, and the objectives of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan.

 

4.     In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development.  As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CSI1 and CSG1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, policies C6, R2 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, and the objectives of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan.