Agenda item

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 120 residential dwellings and space for a community facility (Use Class D1/D2) with associated highways, landscaping and open space, with all matters reserved except access. 

David Turner, the local ward councillor, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S4062/O for outline planning permission to erect up to 120 residential dwellings and space for a community facility with associated highways, landscaping and open space with all matters reserved except for access on land east of Chalgrove.

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 officer reported that since publication of the agenda pack, Cuxham and Easington parish council have sent in their objections comprising the following:

1.    Highway safety concerns.

2.    All applications in Chalgrove and the surrounding areas should be considered at the same time.

3.    Extension into open countryside narrowing space between the two settlements.

4.    Increased traffic would be harmful to the village of Cuxham.

5.    Construction traffic dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists and would potentially damage listed buildings.

6.    Extra heavy vehicles could destabilise the road and extra traffic will increase pollution and run-off into Marlbrook stream.

Ann Pritchard, a representative of Chalgrove Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         The emerging neighbourhood development plan has identified an alternative preferred site, which will shortly be coming up for consideration at planning committee;

·         There is only one access road onto the busy B480;

·         Safety concerns for proposed pedestrian crossings, which the parish council did not request (as stated in the report) but for the dangerous corner to be addressed;

·         There is no pavement on the slip road;

·         The traffic survey was conducted during the Easter holidays at a quiet time of day;

·         Future flooding is a major concern as the site is upstream of the village; and

·         No-one knows how effective SuDS or Swales will be.

Jacky Nab, a representative of the Chalgrove Neighbourhood Development Plan, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         The NDP has been subject to many delays over the last few years, which been out of the working group’s control;

·         They are not opposed to development and welcome the proposal for 200 more homes in Chalgrove;

·         The Marley Lane site is the preferred option for the NDP, would provide all 200 homes as opposed to 120 as proposed for this site and is downstream;

·         Concern for risk of flooding;

·         The proposed site would be isolated from the village, the only footpath linking it is liable to flood;

·         Loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitats; and

·         There is a danger that if approved, Chalgrove could face 320 new homes if the Marley Lane site is also approved for which the pressure on infrastructure (especially schools) would be too great.

John Tarvit, the applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application:

·         The applicants have developed a good relationship with the parish council and neighbourhood development plan working group and look forward to continuing this if the application is approved;

·         There have been no objections from statutory consultees;

·         The proposed roundabout on the B480 would alleviate traffic speed concerns;

·         The pedestrian access to the village will be the quickest route for future residents and Oxfordshire County Council Highways have deemed the proposed pedestrian crossings safe – the applicants would be open to securing measures to increase safety by condition;

·         The surface water flood risk will be alleviated by the measures proposed, this being a unique opportunity to reduce the flood risk for Chalgrove.

David Turner, the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Not averse to development, but not content with the prospect of 320 new dwellings;

·         The flood map has been updated following flooding issues, which delayed the submission of the NDP;

·         Of the two sites (of which this application is one), the site to the west of Chalgrove is preferred by 65% of residents;

·         This site is not connected to the village by road and not coalescent being a greenfield site;

·         The access on to the B480 is of great concern;

·         There are poor vision splays at the proposed zebra crossings;

·         There is no footpath on the Berwick Slip Road, which is dangerous;

·         The site is at risk of flooding;

·         There is just enough school provision with 200 extra dwellings, not 320; and

·         The doctor’s surgery is already under pressure.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. The committee had concerns about the following:

·         This application not being the preferred site for the village;

·         Loss of agricultural land;

·         Density being too high as per the Urban Design Officer’s conclusion;

·         Lack of pedestrian walkway on the slip road.

The head of development advised the committee that the emerging neighbourhood plan can only be afforded limited weight as it is not yet made and to be aware of the lack of objections from statutory consultees. He also stated that the agricultural land is grade 3 and therefore not regarded as of particularly high quality.

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/S4062/O, due to the following reasons:

1.    The proposal, by virtue of its urban character and open location to the east of Chalgrove, would represent a significant encroachment into the open countryside. As a result the proposal would detract from the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, and would fail to conserve the landscape setting of Chalgrove. Whilst all matters relating to design and layout are reserved for future consideration, the proposal, by virtue of its form and access arrangements would result in a development that would not be sufficiently integrated and connected to the wider built context and would fail to make a positive contribution to the quality of the character and functionality of the wider settlement and would fail to establish a strong sense of place. The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, and as such the proposal would not comprise sustainable development as defined by local and national legislation.

The proposed development would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 7, 14 and 17 of the NPPF and sections 7 (Requiring good design) and 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and polices CS1, CSR1, CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies G2, G4, D1 and C4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.    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 and Policy CSH3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy

3.    In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure on and off site infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development. As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CSI1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and Policies T1, R2 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.