Agenda item

Variation of Condition 4 (approved plans) of outline planning permission P16/S1124/O (outline residential development with all matters reserved except access for up to 36 dwellings) for revised access design.

The committee considered application P18/S1964/FUL to vary Condition 4 (approved plans) of outline planning permission P16/S1124/O for a revised access design 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.

Officer updates:

·         Since the publication of the agenda Long Wittenham Parish Council have been consulted on all the revised plans and still object to the proposals. They reiterate their concerns:

·         The application indicates that surface water will not be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection, however approval should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. Should the applicant subsequently seek a connection to discharge surface water into the public network in the future then it would be considered a material change to the proposal, which would require an amendment to the application at which point the council would need to review their position.

·         Environmental Health have no objections.

·         Prior to the site visit, Long Wittenham Parish Council had mapped out their interpretation of where the access would be on site. The accuracy of these markings could not be verified and in some instances, they were found to be incorrect. Members were advised to disregard the markings.

Ian Marshall, Principal Transport Engineer at Oxfordshire County Council was present to answer any technical highways questions.

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

Michael Robson and Nick Jones Hill, the applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application.

Sue Lawson, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

In response to questions raised by the committee, the officers reported that:

·         In relation to the usability of the new access, Ian Marshall confirmed that it was similar to the previously approved access with good visibility.

·         As a result of the road realignment, the distance from the front curtilage of some properties on Didcot Road would be reduced from 6m to 3.2m (still including the widened footpath and reduced grass verge.

Some committee members were not satisfied with the proposed access having regard to highway safety concerns, air pollution and the potential impact on trees. In this regard, officers reminded members that there were no technical objections from consultees to the proposal and it would therefore be difficult to defend these reasons should the application go to an appeal.

Members also highlighted concerns about the impact of the highways works on the informal and rural character and appearance of Fieldside Track which is a prominent entry point to the village. They expressed their concerns about the impact on the amenity of residents living in the properties opposite to the proposed access whose front gardens served as their main amenity space. Some members requested that an alternative option was investigated through discussion with another landowner.

Other members were not satisfied that there were sufficient material planning reasons nor support from technical experts to refuse the application and were content that it met policy requirements.

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 P18/S1964/FUL, for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed road realignment and associated works would have a detrimental impact on the informal rural character of Fieldside Track and the amenity of the adjacent residential properties contrary to policy LW4 of the adopted Long Wittenham Development Plan and policies G2 and C4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.    In the absence of a completed Deed of Variation 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 Policy T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.