Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of up to 95 dwellings including affordable housing; new public open space; landscaping; surface water attenuation; access with Kennylands Road; services, utilities and associated works.

The committee considered application P16/S3142/O for outline planning permission to erect up to 95 dwellings, including affordable housing; new public open space, landscaping; surface water attenuation; access; services, utilities and associated works on land off Kennylands Road, Sonning Common.

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: The Chilterns Conservation Board has submitted its objection to the proposal due to the harm to the setting of the AONB. The council’s landscape officer has not amended their response. 29 further letters of objection have been received.

Tom Fort, a representative of Sonning Common parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

• If approved, the application would destroy the Sonning Common Neighbourhood Plan, which was robustly supported by the residents of Sonning Common;
• In 2015, John Cotton urged villages to do a neighbourhood plan; to against the Sonning Common made plan would have a terrible effect on neighbourhood planning across South Oxfordshire; and
• The damage done to the countryside would be irreparable; this field should not be looked at in isolation but in the context of the wider landscape.

Mr Pearson, a representative of Kidmore End parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

• A lot of work went into the Sonning Common neighbourhood plan, which is not yet six months old;
• The wider application site serves as an important buffer with the AONB and boundary with Kidmore End parish and should therefore not be removed; and
• South Oxfordshire District Council are encouraging more democratic involvement, therefore accepting this proposal would damage its credibility.

John Pearman, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

• Local residents are outraged by the recommendation, it is a betrayal of localism and a mockery of public statements made supporting neighbourhood plans;
• To say that SOL6 wouldn’t depart from the spatial strategy is a spurious claim;
• The neighbourhood plan has allocated 195 homes with 44 in reserve; the extra 69 proposed is an increase for this site of 2.5 times;
• It is not a sustainable location as future residents would mostly drive to village centre and most likely go else where; and
• The Chilterns Conservation Board has objected due to the harm to the setting of the AONB.

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

• This application has been fully and appropriately judged on planning weight;
• There is limited conflict with the neighbourhood plan as the enlargement would not depart from the spatial strategy;
• There is a need for a pragmatic approach;
• There are no technical objections apart from the Chilterns Conservation Board;
• The proposed development would be of high quality in a sustainable location, well located to the village centre; and
• There would be an important contribution to both affordable and market housing, CiL payments and S106 monies to mitigate the impact.

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

• Throws the neighbourhood plan into disrepute;
• Important to mention Gavin Barwell statement, supporting neighbourhood plans;
• The neighbourhood plan cost £69,000 and has resulted in a 91% parish council tax rise;
• Would discourage other parish councils from doing their own neighbourhood plans; and
• There are already parking issues on Wood Lane, which would be exacerbated.

In response to questions, officers reported that:

• Full weight can be applied to the ministerial statement by Gavin Barwell MP;
• The Secretary of State has received a request to consider calling in this application should the recommendation to grant planning permission be approved. Any such permission could not be issued until the Secretary of State has concluded his consideration of the case should he decide to call it in.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. They did not agree that that the proposed application would not severely harm the setting of the AONB, as exemplified by the Chilterns Conservation Board’s objections; the committee expressed full support of the Sonning Common neighbourhood plan and in neighbourhood plans in general.

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/S3142/O for the following reasons:

1.    The application proposes a significant enlargement, in terms of the site area and number of dwellings proposed, over the site allocation in the Sonning Common Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal would extend significantly beyond the linear infill allocation as set out in the Neighbourhood Plan and result in development outside the built area of the village. The application is therefore contrary to Policy HS4 of the Sonning Common Neighbourhood Plan, Polices CS1, CSR1, CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, Polices C4,G2 and G4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and in particular but not confined to paragraphs 14 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The application site area borders the Chilterns AONB and includes open farmland which contributes to the character and appearance of the area and the enjoyment of a nearby right of way.  The proposed development would diminish the role of the site in protecting and enhancing a distinctive and valued landscape which contributes to the identity of Sonning Common. It would therefore result in the loss of the distinctive landscape boundaries of the existing settlement and harm the valued landscape setting of the AONB and the wider dip slope landscape character of the area. As such the application is contrary to Policy CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, Policies G2, G4, C4 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, Policy ENV2 of the Sonning Common Neighbourhood Plan and in particular but not confined to paragraphs 7,14,109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 Sonning Common 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 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, Policies T1, R2 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.