Agenda item

Outline planning application for erection of up to 140 dwellings, new public open space, associated landscaping and site infrastructure.  All matters reserved.

Ian White stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered outline application P16/S3284/O for the erection of up to 140 dwellings, new public open space, associated landscaping and site infrastructure with all matters reserved on land south of Greenwood Avenue, Chinnor.

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 Chinnor neighbourhood plan is currently with the parish council for fact-checking and will be issued next week for examination, it therefore carries limited weight.

Martin Wright, a representative of Chinnor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The planning inspector for the adjacent sites stated that retaining the proposed site area as a field would mitigate the harm of the sites allowed at appeal;

·         The proposed density of the application does not fit in with the character of the area;

·         The proposed access onto Greenwood Avenue would cause issues due to the lack of off street parking and narrow road; and

·         Request there is a spine road through the three developments instead.

Maxine Pickard and Robert Dobbs, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Light pollution impact on local wildlife; and

·         The inspector’s comments concerning the retention of this field should not be disregarded.

Caroline Owen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The application site will be a landlocked field in an urban setting, bordered by residential areas on four sides;

·         The neighbourhood plan can only be afforded limited weight;

·         The application will contribute to housing numbers in the village and provide 40% affordable homes;

·         The forestry officer has no objections;

·         Taylor Wimpey have indicated agreement to provide through-access, although the applicant has yet to discuss this with Bellway Homes. Future access through the adjacent sites can be secured at reserved matters;

·         Agreed timescales can be reduced to 18 months; and

·         The applicant would be willing to include a ransom strip condition.

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

·         According to the planning inspector, by retaining this field, the harm of the adjoining sites will be mitigated;

·         The application will cause harm to the setting of the rural community;

·         Impact on local amenity regarding the substantial increase in traffic; and

·         Concerns for road safety due to the narrow one-way access road.

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. They did not agree that the impact on the landscape setting or character of the local area would be acceptable.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/S3284/O for the following reasons:

1.      The application site provides separation between two approved housing developments and mitigates against the harmful impacts that these developments will have on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would result in the loss of this intervening green space, consolidate the built up appearance of the area and diminish the rural, green and open character of the locality, which can be seen in views from the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, the development would result in significant and demonstrable harm and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS1, CSR1, CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and policies C4, G2 and G4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.      In the absence of a completed Section 106 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 Section 106 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, policy CSI1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and policies R2 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011