Agenda item

Landscaping works including the creation of a new access, the creation of a lake and tree planting (amended plans and additional information received 27 September 2023 and 07 November 2023 and 02 January 2024).

The committee considered planning application P23/S0582/FUL for landscaping works including the creation of a new access, the creation of a lake and tree planting (amended plans and additional information received 27 September 2023 and 07 November 2023 and 02 January 2024), on land at Satwell House, Satwell.  

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 sat within the Chilterns National Landscape and was for the formation of a new access of Witheridge Hill Road and a driveway linking that access to Satwell House. A lake was also proposed at the centre of the site for the driveway to pass over. He informed the committee that key issues of concern from the parish council and objectors related to the applications visual and ecological impacts. The planning officer confirmed that the application would have some visual impact, although he did not believe it to be detrimental.

The planning officer indicated that the loss of the hedgerow on the road would have an impact on the street scene. He also suggested that there would be ecological implications for the removal of the hedgerow and as it was a priority habitat, its removal would contradict local plan policy. However, on balance, the planning officer believed that the suggested replacement planting and biodiversity net gain that would be achieved on the site would be sufficient compensation.

On the proposed conditions, the planning officer indicated that an additional condition around the control of external lighting could be imposed as it would allow the council to control the amount of external lighting used.

On balance, the planning officer believed that the application would result in some harm through the removal of a large stretch of important hedgerows. However, as the proposed application compensated this loss on site with the provision of a new hedgerow and additional trees for the ones that also would have to be removed, the planning officer believed that these points would outweigh the applications harmful impacts.

As the planning officer also believed that the application would ensure appropriate drainage, and that there were no objections on flood risk or highways grounds, he recommended that the application be approved.

Councillor Richard de Vere Stacpoole spoke on behalf of Highmoor Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Melinda Swann spoke objecting to the application. 

Ken Casey, the agent representing the applicant, and Marcus Barnett and Joseph Martin, the landscape architects, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Jo Robb, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. On a question about the timescale that the applicant would be responsible for maintaining the new hedge for, the planning officer indicated that part of proposed condition 7 would require any soft landscaping that was damaged or destroyed within five years to be replaced.

In response to a question about the water supply for the lake, the planning officer confirmed that this would be achieved via bore holes, and that Thames Water had been consulted and had no objections.

The committee discussed the potential to pick up the existing hedge and move it to a different point in the site, indicating that this would be preferable to the loss of the hedge entirely. In response, the planning officer emphasised that officers had assessed the application based off the loss of the hedge, and that if the hedge were to be moved, they would advise deferring determination of the application in order to reassess it. Although they believed that the moving of the hedge would be a preferable scheme to the one proposed, they agreed to determine the current application without this feature.   

On the maturity of the replacement hedges, the planning officer confirmed that conditions covered the size and number of these and that he was satisfied with species submitted.

The committee noted the council’s responsibility to conserve or enhance the National landscape and agreed that, from undertaking the site visit, the character and appearance of the area was generally rural and unspoilt.

As the application would result in the removal of a significant stretch of priority habitat, the committee raised serious concerns about the proposal. In addition, they agreed that the proposed driveway across the field would be a significant change to the current character of the area. Based on this, members did not believe that the development met the requirements to conserve or enhance the National Landscape.

On the hedgerow, the committee were also not satisfied that the need for removal of the hedgerow was demonstrated by the application. Also, as they were not satisfied that the replacement planting was sufficient compensation, they agreed that the applications benefits did not outweigh the ecological harm.

Some members believed that the lack of objections from technical consultees could be a reason to approve the application. Overall, however, the committee believed that the application had significant material reasons for it to be refused, such as the impact it would have on the character and appearance Chilterns National Landscape, and that the proposed benefits from the replacement planting did not outweigh the harms of removing that priority habitat.

Overall, as the committee agreed that the application would fundamentally change the character and appearance of the area through the removal of the hedgerow and creation of a driveway through the field, they believed that it did not conserve or enhance the Chilterns National Landscape. For these reasons, the committee agreed to refuse the application. 

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P23/S0582/FUL for the following reasons:

1.       Having regard to its scale and form the proposed development would erode the open, rural, and unspoilt character and appearance of this part of the Chilterns National Landscape. As such the development would fail to conserve or enhance the local landscape, and would be contrary to Policies ENV1, DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.       The proposed development would result in the loss of a significant stretch of established hedgerow that comprises a priority habitat. The scheme fails to demonstrate a need/benefit to outweigh the harm arising from its loss or that there are no reasonable alternatives.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policy ENV2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 and paragraph 185 of the National Planning Policy Framework.