Agenda item

Outline residential development of up to 36 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

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

The committee considered outline planning application P16/S1124/O for a residential development of up to 36 dwellings with all matters reserved except access on land off Fieldside Track, Long Wittenham.

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.

Stephen Brown, a representative of Long Wittenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Peter Rose, a representative of the neighbourhood plan group, spoke objecting to the application. 

Michael Robson of Cerda Planning and Nick Jones-Hill of Watermans, spoke in support of the application.

Sue Lawson, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

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

·         The application is due to go to an appeal inquiry for non-determination in November and although the committee are unable to make a decision on this application, they have been advised to have a clear position as to what they would have been minded to do had they been able, to help inform the council’s case in November.

·         Flood risks are considered to be low subject to mitigations and the standard Grampian condition.

Some members of the committee were not satisfied with the sustainability of the site with particular reference to transport links, lack of amenities within the village and limited number of school places available. They also expressed concern about the proposed vision splays and access being on a dangerous bend in the road and that the land required was not in ownership of the applicant; however it was pointed out that the Grampian condition concerning access would ensure that the development could not go ahead until the land required was guaranteed.

A few members of committee pointed out that the neighbourhood plan proposed village hub on the same site required funding from house building and also felt that the highlighted issues could be mitigated.

Although concern for the impact on the landscape setting of the village was mentioned, officers reminded committee that there was no technical support for this as a reason for refusal.

Overall, the committee were of the view that the application was in conflict with the Long Wittenham neighbourhood plan regarding sustainability and lack of services.

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/S1124/O, for the following reasons:

1.The proposed development would not accord with the distribution strategy for housing in the district as Long Wittenham is a small village, with limited services and facilities. The proposal would not comprise limited growth and would consequently result in the provision of housing in an unsustainable location where future residents would have poor access to sustainable modes of transport and services and facilities. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the district’s objectives and strategies for growth and necessary infrastructure, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CSS1 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2027; saved policy G3 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011; policy STRAT 1, H1 and H8 of the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2033; and the strategy of the Long Wittenham Neighbourhood Plan as outlined in section 2.1. 

2. In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the application fails to secure infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development including contributions towards the provision of affordable housing, sustainable transport, highways works, open space and play areas, on-site recycling and street naming. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to policy CSI1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies CSH3 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework.