Agenda item

Erection of up to 40 homes, associated open space, local area of play and other infrastructure, with all matters reserved save for that of access.

The committee considered application P17/S3711/O for the erection of up to 40 homes, associated open space, local area of play and other infrastructure, with all matters reserved, save for that of access, on land at Watlington Road, Lewknor.

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.

The planning officer reported that a further representation had been received from the landscape consultant clarifying that, although there were design issues to be resolved at reserved matters stage to minimise impact on the landscape, there was no ‘in principle’ objection on landscape grounds or harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Caroline Hjorth, a representative of Lewknor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

James Winspear, a representative of the Lewknor Neighbourhood Development Plan Committee, spoke objecting to the application. 

Richard Mees, representing the applicant, and Roger Smith, representing the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

·         This was an outline application for up to 40 homes. Whilst the indicative plan showed that the site could accommodate this number of dwellings, issues relating to layout and design would be addressed at the reserved matters stage, should the application be approved.

·         The application met parking standards.

·         The application was comparable with the Long Wittenham appeal decision (P16/S1124/O) with regard to the matter of sustainability in a smaller village, scale of development, transport links and being located close to wider services in neighbouring towns.

Members expressed concerns about:

• Poor public transport links or cycle routes resulting in the over-reliance on private transport;
• Parking problems caused by the displacement of bus stop parking to the development and the village;
• The overly urban character of the development which was incongruous with the rural form of the village;
• Overdevelopment of the site in terms of number of units; and
• Insufficient weight being afforded to the sensitive landscape character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the development, resulting in harm to the setting.

Accordingly, they concluded that the harm caused by the development substantially outweighed the benefits and did not constitute sustainable development.

Contrary to the officer recommendation, 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 P17/S3711/O, for the following reasons:

1.     40 dwellings cannot be adequately accommodated on the site without resulting in a development that is out of character with the rural character of the village, or being incongruous with the existing settlement pattern. The parameter plans set out a developable area that is too constrained to address these matters through a redesign of the scheme at reserved matters stage, without compromising important landscape buffering. The development fails to respect the rural character of the settlement and its setting and therefore conflicts with policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy (SOCS) and policies D1 and G2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan.

2.     The introduction of 40 dwellings to the village represents a disproportionate addition to a smaller village and overdevelopment of the site. The harm associated with the scale of development, in relation to the size of the existing village, and the lack of sustainability of the location, substantially outweighs the benefits. The development therefore conflicts with the overarching strategy for the district and policies CSQ3 and CSS1 of the SOCS.

3.     Limited services and facilities are available in the village, and occupants of the development would be overly reliant on private transport to travel to work, local shops and secondary school education. Poor connectivity limits sustainable travel to the closest larger villages, exposing pedestrians and cyclists to highway risk and providing limited opportunity to travel by bus. Lewknor does not represent a sustainable location for this scale of development. Even in the context of reduced weight being afforded to housing policies, the proposal does not constitute sustainable development. The harm resulting from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and, under the provision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is refused on these grounds.

4.     In the absence of a completed Section 106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development.  

5.     In the absence of a completed Section 106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure affordable housing to meet the needs of the district.