Agenda item

Erection of six detached dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure and works (as amplified by additional energy information received 31 August 2022 and drainage information received 1 November 2022 and amended by revised site plan showing right of way received 6 January 2023 and amplified by ecological information submitted on the 23 January 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S2788/FUL for the erection of six detached dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure and works (as amplified by additional energy information received 31 August 2022 and drainage information received 1 November 2022 and amended by revised site plan showing right of way received 6 January 2023 and amplified by ecological information submitted on the 23 January 2023), on land at Brimpton Grange, access to Hotel from A40 Milton Common.  

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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Tiddington with Albury Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application sought permission for six dwellings in land adjacent to the Belfry Hotel and that there was extensive planning history on the site. In summation, permission was previously granted for four dwellings on the site and the works had lawfully commenced. Although this was granted at a time where the council did not have a five-year housing supply, the planning officer emphasised that this permission was a material planning consideration for the current application. Another application for the site then came forward, for six houses, but this was refused and dismissed at appeal for its intensification of the site and on its transport impacts.

The planning officer then informed members that, more recently, a neighbourhood plan had come into force, and it did not allocate the site for development as it was beyond the village area. However, as the planning officer believed that the application made better use of the land than the previously approved scheme and that the development was of acceptable design, he stated that, on balance, he considered the application acceptable.

Councillors Chris Hill and Russ Chaplin spoke on behalf of Tiddington with Albury Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

The committee asked the planning officer about the sites position in relation to the M40 and if he believed there would be traffic issues as a result of the application. In response, the planning officer clarified that the junction was relatively far away from the site and that highways had not objected on highways safety grounds. Members also noted that the current application, as opposed to the already approved one, had its own access directly onto the A40 which also raised concerns, but the planning officer clarified that highways also had no objection to that aspect of the scheme.

Members then asked the planning officer about how much weight was given to the neighbourhood plan which did not consider the site appropriate for development as it lay beyond the village, and he confirmed that the plan carried full weight in planning terms.

The committee also spoke about the reasons for refusal for the previous six dwelling application, noting the planning inspectorates reasoning that the increase from four to six dwellings would be an unacceptable intensification and lead to more travel by car due to its unsustainable location. Members then compared this to the current application and agreed that the inspectorate’s reasons for refusal could carry over, in addition to the fact that it conflicts with the neighbourhood plan. 

Overall, as members felt that the site was outside the settlement boundary as shown in the neighbourhood plan, that the increased number of dwellings was an unacceptable intensification on the site, and that this would increase travel by car in an unsustainable location, they agreed that the application should be refused.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P22/S2788/FUL, for the following reasons:

The site is outside of the settlement as defined by Policy TwA2 of the Tiddington with Albury Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal for 6 dwellings will result in an unacceptable intensification of development in an unsustainable location which is not well served by facilities and amenities, and will lead to increased traffic movements by private vehicles. The development is therefore contrary to policies DES1 and TRANS2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and Policy TwA2 of the Tiddington with Albury Neighbourhood Plan.