Agenda item

Outline application (with all matters reserved except Layout and Access), for the erection of up to 54 age restricted dwellings (for people aged 55 and over), including 40% affordable housing and communal facilities, on land to the north of Crowell Road, Chinnor. New vehicular access to be created off Crowell Road, along with the retention of the existing pedestrian access to Oakley Road to the North.  (Additional information received 31 March 2021 and 6 June 2021 and 29 October 2021 and 10 December 2021)

The committee considered application P21/S0804/O in respect of an outline application (with all matters reserved except Layout and Access), for the erection of up to 54 age restricted dwellings (for people aged 55 and over), including 40% affordable housing and communal facilities, on land to the north of Crowell Road, Chinnor. New vehicular access to be created off Crowell Road, along with the retention of the existing pedestrian access to Oakley Road to the North (additional information received 31 March 2021 and 6 June 2021 and 29 October 2021 on Land at Crowell Road, Chinnor.

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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that the application had been referred to the committee at the development manager’s discretion for a resolution on how the application would have been determined, had the applicant not submitted an appeal for non-determination. At the current time, the application would have been recommended for refusal on matters covered in the report. Were the proposal refused, the committee would be requested to confirm its putative reasons, which would then be used to inform the main issues to be considered through the appeal process.

The planning officer referred to paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17, which summarised several issues which council officers considered should be addressed. These included the need for additional photomontages to allow a full assessment of the impact on the landscape and conservation area; details of actual building heights in metres; the provision of continuous and linked footpaths; the need for boundary planting on the north western boundary; the inappropriateness of a slope to the sides of the attenuation basins, as it would not create an attractive feature and would not allow access to these areas for elderly residents; appropriate lighting details would be required to avoid harmful impacts on heritage and landscape; and further information was required to demonstrate that refuse vehicles could adequately access the proposed bin stores within acceptable distances.

The committee noted the report stating the importance of the need for a ‘Grampian’ condition, to secure foul water upgrades in agreement with Thames Water, and for a sustainable drainage scheme, to ensure that the proposal was in accordance with Policy EP4 (Flood Risk). Also of significance was that the clinical commissioning group had considered the application and had no objection to the proposal, stating that local healthcare should have sufficient capacity to deal with any additional needs.

The planning officer reported that South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 Policies H1 and H13, and Policy CH H5 of the Review Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan were supportive of the proposal in terms of it providing specialist accommodation for older people, particularly given that the site was located on the edge of Chinnor, a larger village.  The council monitored the need for specialist elderly accommodation, which was growing. Refusal of this development was not proposed on the grounds of a departure from policy.

The representative of Chinnor Parish Councillor was unable to attend the committee meeting owing to a family medical emergency. Local ward Councillor Ian White read the parish council’s statement of objection to the committee. The democratic services officer had sent the parish council’s statement and supporting documentation to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Giles Brockbank, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Ian White, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee supported the reasons for refusal and requested that the final drafting of the notice be subject to consultation between the head of planning and the chair of the committee.

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

RESOLVED: that, had the council been able to determine application P21/S0804/O, it would have refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to demonstrate a design and layout of high quality that

incorporates tree planting, landscaping and drainage features and that the

development can provide adequate areas of usable open space for residents. The proposed development will be detrimental to the landscape of the area and would result in unsatisfactory amenity space for residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV1 (Landscape and Countryside), Policy DES1 (High Quality Development Proposals), Policy DES2 (Enhancing Local Character), Policy DES4 (Masterplans), Policy DES5 (Outdoor Amenity Space), Policy EP3 (Waste Collection and Recycling) and Policy CF5 (Open Space, Sport and Recreation in New Residential Development and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal fails to provide safe and secure access arrangements for all

vehicles and pedestrians. As such, the proposed development would be

detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy TRANS5 (Consideration of Development Proposals), Policy EP3 (Waste Collection and Recycling) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The development fails to secure the provision of affordable housing to meet the identified needs of the district. The proposal has not included sufficient evidence to demonstrate it would secure the delivery of 40% affordable housing of a suitable mix, type or tenure as required by the Development Plan. As, such the proposed development is contrary to Policy H9 (Affordable Housing), Policy DES1 (High Quality Design), Policy CH H2 (Affordable Housing), Policy CH H4 (Allocation of Affordable Housing for Local People) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposal fails to secure the necessary affordable housing to meet the needs of the district and local area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy H9 (Affordable Housing), Policy CH H2 (Affordable Housing), Policy CH H4 (Allocation of Affordable Housing for Local People) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposal fails to secure the infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan, including Policy TRANS5 (Consideration of Development Proposals) and Policy INF1 (Infrastructure Provision), Policy INF4 (Water Resources), Policy TRANS2 (Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility), Policy EP3 (Waste Collection and Recycling) and the National Planning Policy Framework.