Agenda item

Outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 120 dwellings (40% of which will be affordable) with associated access, public open space, landscaping and play space.

Richard Pullen, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered outline application P16/S3441/O for the erection of up to 120 dwellings (40% of which will be affordable) with associated access, public open space, landscaping and play space with all matters reserved except access on land south of Watlington Road, Benson.

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: Two further letters of objection have been received reiterating concerns already expressed within the committee report.

Correction to the report – The last sentence in 6.43 is incorrect and the whole of it should be deleted. A noise assessment was submitted with the application and there is no extant planning permission on the site.

Jon Fowler, a representative of Benson Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application undermines the Benson neighbourhood plan, which has over-allocated 340 dwellings to the North;

·         On top of the 400 already approved dwellings, this represents well over the recommended 15% growth as per the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan; and

·         The application could jeopardise the proposed Edge Road relief road and other allocated sites;

·         Concern that the applicant has not considered the phase one habitat survey.

Stewart Fryatt, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         This application is contrary to the neighbourhood plan, which is in its final stages before completion and therefore the wishes of the community of Benson;

·         The application site has no vehicular access into the village, in which the facilities are already stretched;

·         Concern for the impact of extra traffic in the village regarding noise and pollution;

·         The application site is elevated and will dwarf Brook Street; and

·         Loss of green areas will not be of benefit to the village or wider landscape.

Phil Brady and John Ashton, the applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application:

·         The comprehensive transport assessment was based on a proposal of 180 dwellings, which has now been reduced to 120 dwellings;

·         Highways are satisfied with the traffic impact mitigation of a package of measures through contributions;

·         The range of market and affordable housing will help the district meet its housing shortage;

·         A condition can be included to ensure bungalows are put in next to adjacent properties;

·         A strategic landscaping condition can also be included to amend the green spacing proposals;

·         There are no technical objections regarding transport, flood risk and ecology;

·         The draft neighbourhood plan is yet to be submitted and can therefore only be afforded limited weight; and

·         Following a question from the committee, it was confirmed that reserved matters could be submitted within 18 months.

Felix Bloomfield, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application will have a harmful impact on the landscape setting and neighbouring AONBs;

·         Concern for the loss of high quality agricultural land;

·         Adverse impact on schooling and local highways with other developments being taken into consideration;

·         On street parking issues already in the immediate area; and

·         The application site is not allocated in the neighbourhood plan and is contrary to policy.

Richard Pullen, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

In response to questions, the officer confirmed that drainage, education and noise impact have all been considered and either mitigated by condition or contributions and have been approved by technical consultees.

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. The committee did not agree that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and rural setting of Benson, the setting of the Chilterns AONB and loss of high quality agricultural land.

The committee were advised that the neighbourhood plan does not carry significant weight at present.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/S3441/O, for the following reasons:

1.            The proposal, by virtue of its urban character and open location to the east of Benson, would represent a significant encroachment into the open countryside. As a result the proposal would detract from the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, and would fail to conserve the landscape setting of Benson and would detract from the setting of the nearby Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whilst all matters relating to design and layout are reserved for future consideration, the proposal, by virtue of its form and access arrangements would result in a development that would not be sufficiently integrated and connected to the wider built context and would fail to make a positive contribution to the quality of the character and functionality of the wider settlement. The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, and as such the proposal would not comprise sustainable development as defined by local and national legislation. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 7, 14 and 17 of the NPPF and sections 7 (Requiring good design) and 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and polices CS1, CSR1, CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies G2, G4, D1 and C4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.            The proposal involves the loss of a portion of grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, best and most versatile land, contrary to paragraphs 109 and 112 of the NPPF.

3.            In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure affordable housing to meet the needs of the district. As such, the development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CSH3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy

4.            In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, 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 Policies T1, R2 and R6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.