Agenda item

Outline planning application for up to 150 dwellings together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas.

Felix Bloomfield and Richard Pullen, the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item. Toby Newman acted as chairman.

The committee considered outline planning application P16/S3608/O for 150 dwellings together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas on land to the East of Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford.

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 updates:

·         Further objections had been received from residents which reiterated issues within the officer’s report;

·         The South Oxfordshire Local Plan Part 2 is currently out for further consultation.  This site is one of the preferred options but at this stage this carries little weight; and

·         Referring to paragraph 6.22 of the officer’s report, there is an update on the two current Crowmarsh Gifford planning applications; 80 homes to the west of Reading Road has been refused; and the Newnham Manor application is currently being considered.

Nigel Hannigan and John Griffin, representatives of Crowmarsh Gifford Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The development is premature and opportunistic, as the wider site could take a lot more than 150 homes;

·         This site is not a preferred option for the parish council;

·         The large increase in housing is not proportionate to the area and will put pressure on local services, especially the primary school which is at capacity; and

·         The proposed closure of Wallingford Bridge will lead to traffic build-up and affect air quality.

Lee Upcraft, of Wallingford Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         This development will adversely affect air quality, with air pollution already a serious problem in the Wallingford area;

·         This application only considers its own effect on air quality, contradicting SODC guidance which requires that the cumulative effect of other planned developments is taken into consideration; and

·         There are no conditions or mitigations referring to air quality.

Stephen Beatty, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·         The development is not sustainable as per paragraph 14 of the NPPF due to the adverse impacts on schools, healthcare and air quality;

·          The local primary school cannot accommodate more children, who would need to travel to schools outside the area and Wallingford secondary school can only take children of already approved applications;

·         Wallingford medical practice has one of the highest patient ratios and there is no GP capacity in Henley or Didcot;

·         Crowmarsh Gifford is classified as a large village and should therefore only need to accept 10% more housing equating to 40 homes;

·         Crowmarsh Gifford residents are not anti-development; the alternative site of 100 houses at Newnham Manor are more appropriate;

·         The land is classified as grade 2 agricultural and should therefore be protected; and

·         The proposal does not meet local affordable housing needs as the majority are 3 or 4 bedroom homes.

Steven Brown, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.  His points included the following:

·         The applicants have undertaken lengthy pre-application discussions with officers, met with the parish council and had a public exhibition for local residents to address concerns;

·         The site is one of the preferred options in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan part 2;

·         The proposal will deliver much needed housing in a sustainable location;

·         Education provision is deemed to be acceptable by the county council subject to financial contributions; and

·         The applications respects the amenity of neighbours and the character of the village, 40% of the site is proposed as open space and 40% will be affordable.

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

·         The development would be harmful to the local character, landscape and setting of the Chilterns AONB;

·         Concern for the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land which needs to be protected; and

·         There will be a cumulative impact on highways, schools, infrastructure and services.

In response to questions, officers clarified the following:

• Although a proposed increase of 48 homes was suggested in the Core Strategy, this has been superseded by the SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) to which there is no definite allocation for villages;
• It is clear from previous lost appeals (Benson and Chinnor) that there is no cap to growth; and
• Referencing paragraph 6.18 in the report, there are two conditions to encourage more sustainable transport, e.g. electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.  Their discussion included the following points:

• Although the Chilterns Conservation Board have not objected to the application, there are substantial mitigation requests which would indicate the harm of the development;
• Strong concerns about the nearby road junction which is due to be modified;

·         There is a lack of education provision in the area to accommodate the development;

·         This proposed development would harm the local landscape, adversely affect air quality, local setting and character;

·         Concern for the loss of a greenfield site and Grade 2 agricultural land;

·         The Local Plan part 2 carries little weight at this stage; and

·         If Crowmarsh Gifford had a neighbourhood plan, objections would carry more weight;

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 outline planning permission for application P16/S3608/O for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development will result in harm to the local character and distinctiveness of the area, harmful to the setting of the village of Crowmarsh Gifford and users of the public rights of way within and overlooking the site; accordingly the site is considered to fall within a valued landscape which the development fails to protect and enhance. The development will also will have a significant and demonstrable adverse effect upon the setting of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such the development would result in significant and demonstrable harm and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular but not confined to paragraphs 7, 14, 109 and 115, and is contrary to policy CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies G2, G4, D1 (ii and iv) and C4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.
2. The existing school in Crowmarsh does not have adequate capacity to serve the pre-school and primary education needs generated from this development and the site of the school is constrained such that the school is unable to expand. Significant other development has already been permitted in Crowmarsh and Wallingford and Benson which means that the capacities of other schools in the locality are also expected to be exceeded. The development cannot therefore make adequate provision for education infrastructure and is an unsustainable form of development, contrary to Policy CSI1 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and the NPPF.
3. The proposed development will result in the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land contrary to paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 
4. In the absence of a completed S106 agreement the proposal fails to i) secure affordable housing to meet the needs of the District and ii) secure other on and off site infrastructure necessary to support the development, and as such is contrary to policies CSH3 and CSI1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.