Agenda item

Residential development of 44 dwellings including demolition of 43 Springhill Road, vehicular and pedestrian accesses, play area, public open space and associated landscaping and earthworks.

The committee considered planning application P20/S2488/FUL for the residential development of 44 dwellings including demolition of 43 Springhill Road, vehicular and pedestrian accesses, play area, public open space and associated landscaping and earthworks.), on land at 43 Springhill Road, Goring, RG8 0BY.  

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 provided an update and highlighted that since the publication of the report the highways officer at Oxfordshire County Council had requested that the proposed uncontrolled crossing at the site entrance on Wallingford Road be moved slightly with the inclusion of a condition to this effect.

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application sought permission for the erection of 44 dwellings and the demolition of the existing property and that the site was allocated in the Goring Neighbourhood Plan. The site was located on a prominent hillside in Goring within the open rolling downs landscape and within the Chilterns National Landscape and in the setting of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. She clarified that the application site did not cover the entire allocated site as set out in the Goring Neighbourhood Plan.

The planning officer showed the committee a number of photos from the site and highlighted that many of the mature trees on the southern boundary of the site were covered by tree protection orders. The planning officer went on to advise that the site access would be sunk as per the Neighbourhood Plan and with the steepest part of the site being sunk by around three metres. The committee were shown site sections to demonstrate the level of cut and fill that was required. The planning officer informed the committee that the Chilterns Area of Outstanding National Beauty board had suggested the removal of the four dwellings at the top of the site but even if they were removed the site would need to be levelled for the access road and a retaining structure required. The planning officer went on to inform the committee that a key requirement of the Neighbourhood Plan was that the development did not break the crest of the hill and the planning officer confirmed that information had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not do so. Whilst the landscape officer had said that there was little margin for error, the planning officer was satisfied that the development met this key Neighbourhood Plan policy requirement. The planning officer showed further photos of the site from various vantage points highlighting that views of the site from Wallingford Road would be fleeting, most likely from a moving vehicle and that whilst the viewpoints from the south were more significant, existing mature trees would screen the site to a large extent and the development would be seen in the context of the existing village and rolling countryside would still be evident.

The planning officer further advised the committee that Oxfordshire County Council maintained their objection to the application on the basis that some of the gradients on the site were not compliant with the Equalities Act 2010 and as a result they would not enter into a Section 38 Agreement for adoption of the roads and footways, nor would they enter into a Private Streets Agreement. The planning officer highlighted the areas of the site which did not comply with the 1 in 20 or less requirement which Oxfordshire County Council were applying, asking members to disregard to reference to 1in12 mentioned in the report. She went on to inform the committee that the Mobility Issues Group Goring and Streatley (MIGGS) had been involved in making suggested amends to the scheme which the developer had taken on board. One such suggestion was for the provision of benches across the site which could be added as a condition if the committee felt this was necessary.

The planning officer concluded that officers recommended the application for approval subject to an additional condition as per Goring Parish Council’s comments to remove permitted development rights for units 1 to 4 for outbuildings under Class E and to make roof alterations such a Velux windows, chimneys and satellite dishes. The site was the largest allocation in the Goring Neighbourhood Plan and therefore formed a significant proportion of its housing growth. A great deal of work had been done with the applicant to find an acceptable scheme for this site in light of the constraints it posed and, on balance, officers were of the view that the benefits it would provide outweighed the harm.

Cllr Mike Stares spoke on behalf of Goring Parish Council, in support of the application. 

Sarah Jane Dexter and Tom Rothwell spoke objecting to the application. 

Matt McAdden, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Maggie Filipova-Rivers, a local ward councillor, spoke on the application.

The committee asked the planning officer to comment on how the mix of market and affordable housing proposed sat with the Neighbourhood Plan and the mix it set out. The planning officer confirmed that the minimum requirement was for 35 one, two and three bed dwellings and this was met as the application proposed 38. The planning officer advised that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) suggested 5.7 percent of market dwellings should be one bed, which for this site would equate to one and a half dwellings. She confirmed that officers were satisfied with how closely the proposed scheme aligned with the SHMA.

The committee asked the planning officer to confirm that the disability and human rights issues raised by Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) had been satisfied. The planning officer confirmed that there was a requirement to follow the public sector duty which requires public sector bodies to consider the Equalities Act. Public sector bodies are entitled to make this consideration and accept that some people would be disadvantaged by a proposal. The planning officer clarified that it was the Inclusive Mobility Guidance which set out the standards of 1 in 20 that had not been met and not the Equalities Act 2010 itself. She went on to inform the committee that the Inclusive Mobility Guidance had been updated in 2021 by which time the site had already been allocated and the application had already been submitted. The planning officer also highlighted that no concern with the gradients had been raised during the Neighbourhood Plan process.

The committee asked the planning officer to provide further clarity on the requirement that the proposal did not break sight lines over the ridge. The planning officer clarified that the requirement of the neighbourhood plan was that there was no breaking of the sight line of the hill when viewed from the north. She confirmed that due to the angles from the view point in question, the proposed ridges would be hidden by the crest of the hill.

The committee enquired as to whether OCC would adopt the roads were the four dwellings at the top of the site not included and what the impact would be on residents if the roads were not adopted. The planning officer advised that her understanding was they would not adopt even without those dwellings. She went on to advise that the intention was for the roads to be private and that this would require maintenance and additional insurances which would be for the residents and registered providers to arrange, most likely through a management company.

The committee asked for assurances that sufficient provision for drainage had been put in place due to the delicate nature of the surrounding eco-system. The planning officer advised that additional conditions had been suggested in the recommendation to take account of this.

The committee queried if the proposed condition 27 restricting permitted development rights to convert garages to living accommodation from the officer recommendation would be upheld in practice. The development manager confirmed that any such changes would require planning permission and that each application would be considered on its own merits but that due to the restrictions on parking on the site it would be a key consideration that appropriate parking continues to be provided.

The committee enquired as to whether it was possible for OCC to review their comments on the gradients of the site. The planning officer confirmed that they had approached OCC who had confirmed that they upheld their objection on those grounds. The development manager advised the committee that as the determining authority a decision must be taken at some point even in the presence of objections and that responses need to be weighed up at the point a decision is taken. The comments were received relatively late in the process, there were other examples within the district of sites with a gradient and overall the site was acceptable.

The committee asked if it was possible to require that checks for wildlife were carried out via condition due to the undisturbed nature of the site. The planning officer confirmed that it would be possible to require a walk over survey via condition.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application subject to additional conditions in relation to the position of the uncontrolled crossing on Wallingford Road, the restriction of permitted development rights for units 1 to 4 and the requirement for walk over surveys, was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee reflected that the site was allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan and that the proposal had been reduced sufficiently to take account of comments made but remain viable. The committee felt the proposal was the best that could be achieved on a tricky site and noted that it would achieve the addition of 17 affordable units. The committee acknowledged that finding sites in Goring as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process had been difficult and that the options had been limited but that the site before them had been allocated and supported by the community and approved by the Planning Inspector. Members thanked the planning officer for their thorough report which they felt clearly set out the planning considerations. The committee agreed that on balance the planning harm was outweighed by the benefits.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P20/S2488/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement within 3 years
2. Approved plans
3. Construction Traffic Management (details required)
4. New vehicular access
5. Vision splay protection
6. Springhill Road connection
7. Details of pedestrian crossing on Wallingford Road
8. Tree Protection (detailed)
9. Construction Method Statement
10. Surface water drainage works (details required)
11. Protection of Source Protection Zone (occupation)
12. Protection of Source Protection Zone (construction)
13. Foul drainage works (details required)
14. Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)
15. Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP)
16. Sample materials
17. Energy Statement SAP calculations
18. Energy Statement verification
19. Cycle parking facilities
20. Electric vehicle charging point
21. Green travel plans
22. Landscaping (including hardsurfacing and boundary treatment)
23. Landscape management plan
24. Children’s play space
25. External lighting
26. Unsuspected contaminated land
27. Root protection area and soakaway Plot 39
28. No garage conversion to accommodation
29. Removal of permitted development rights for units 1-4
30. Affordable Housing tenure plan
31. Updated walkover survey

At this point Councillor Arlett left the meeting.