Agenda item

Erection of eight detached and semi-detached dwellings with access, parking, amenity space and landscaping.

The committee considered application P17/S1884/O for the erection of eight detached and semi-detached dwellings with access, parking, amenity space and landscaping at and west of Chalford Road, Postcombe.

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.

Duncan Boulton spoke on behalf of Lewknor Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Mr and Mrs Tew and Alan Taylor, spoke objecting to the application.

Jake Collinge, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Caroline Newton, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the speakers.

The committee asked questions of the officers and debated the item.

·           There was a regular bus service but it travelled to Oxford and London rather than to local centres such as Thame.

·           The land for this application had been assessed as Agricultural, Grade 2, which was the best quality, most fertile land.

·           This site is outside the built limits of the village, in an open landscape, but South Oxfordshire does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply.

·           This site is just outside of the AONB.

·           There were inadequate local facilities to sustain the site.

·           This was a matter of balancing the potential harm of the site against the need for additional housing.

·           There were significant difficulties with drainage and flooding (although a technical solution had been put forward).

·           The site was a fourth tier village and was not infill.

·           This represented potential urbanisation and would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area.

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

RESOLVED

To refuse the application P17/S1884/Ofor the following reasons:

1.     The Development Plan identifies appropriate locations for new development. Planning permission will not be granted for new houses on sites within other villages unless the proposal is for infill development on sites up to 0.1 hectares in size in an otherwise built up frontage or where the site is closely surrounded by buildings. In this case, the site is not an infill site in a built up frontage, is over 1 hectare in size and is not closely surrounded by buildings. Postcombe has limited facilities and poor public transport links, so that future occupants would be highly dependent on travel by car for employment and other services. The development is therefore not sustainable. The application does not accord with the district's strategy for growth to allow limited growth on infill sites only in other villages and development would undermine this spatial strategy. The district does not have a 5 year housing supply but, for the reasons set out, the proposal is unsustainable and therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CSS1, CSR1, CSM1 and CSI1of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy.

2.     The proposed development would represent a significant encroachment into the open countryside detracting from the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area and surrounding landscape, as defined by local and national legislation. The proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and policies G2, G4, C4 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

3.     The proposed development would result in the loss of grade 2 agricultural land, which is the best and most versatile agricultural land. Such agricultural land is a finite resource and the application fails to demonstrate that there is no land at lower grades available for the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.