Agenda item

Residential development of up to 245 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), structural planning and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play areas, vehicular access from Peppard Road and Kiln Road and associated ancillary works. All matters reserved with the exception of the main vehicular access.

The committee considered outline planning application P16/S3630/O for a residential development on land off Peppard Road, Emmer Green of up to 245 dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), structural planning and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play areas, vehicular access from Peppard Road and Kiln Road and associated ancillary works with all matters reserved with the exception of the main vehicular access.

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:

·         Reading Borough Council have reiterated their objections following the amended plans.

·         Representations have been received from the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and Sonning Common Health Centre expressing concern on the major pressure this development would have on Sonning Common Practice. In terms of health services, the provision of these services including improvements to local surgeries would be funded through CIL as health infrastructure is included in the Council’s CIL Regulation 123 List. 

·         The Chilterns Conservation Board have clarified their position in that this site has been submitted to Natural England for inclusion in the Chilterns AONB boundary review and permitting this application would prejudice this review. 

·         MPs John Howell (Henley) and Matt Rodda (Reading East) had submitted statements to the committee.

David Woodward, a representative of Eye and Dunsden Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Tom Fort, a representative of Sonning Common Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

The following also spoke in objection to the application:

·         Clare Grashoff, a representative of Reading Borough Council.

·         Paul Matthews, a representative of CADRA.

·         Annette Fairweather, a representative of EGRA.

Diana Richardson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Will Hall, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

In response to questions raised by the committee and comments made by the speakers, the officers reported that:

·         Thames Water have confirmed that they will be responsible for the supply of water using powers under the water industry act.

·         Reading Borough Council Transport Officer has no objections to the application.

·         Following their original objection to the application and subsequent amendments, Oxfordshire County Council Education have revised forecasts for pupil numbers which indicate that there will be sufficient capacity to meet the level of need for both planned and the proposed development; they have therefore removed their objections.

The committee had many concerns about the application which are summarised as follows:

·         The application conflicts with the South Oxfordshire spatial strategy;

·         The proposed development would damage the valued landscape and rural community setting and character; and

·         The increase of 170% to the population of Eye and Dunsden parish is unacceptable.

Officers advised committee that there were no technical objections to the application and that certain concerns were not material planning reasons to object: attitude and approach of the developer; the neighbourhood planning process; and setting a precedence.

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/S3630/O for the following reasons:

1.    The application site lies in open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary in the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and the proposed development 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 the attractive landscape setting of the settlements in the district and would not comprise sustainable development as defined by local and national legislation.  As such the proposal is contrary to policies CSS1, CSR1 and CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, policies C4, G2 and G4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and Government Guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.

4.    In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure funding to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the proposed development to local wildlife sites in conflict with Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF.