Issue - meetings

Refused reasons to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 16/01780/F for the change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 8 gypsy families, each with two caravans and an amenity building. Improvement of existing access, construction of driveway, laying of hard standing and installation of package sewage treatment plant for Clifford Smith and Robert Butcher at Land West Of M40 Adj To A4095, Kirtlington Road, Chesterton.

Matthew Pearson and Andrew Glossop, local residents, addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Philip Brown, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Councillor Clarke proposed that application 16/01780/F be approved in line with the officer recommendation. Councillor Heath seconded the proposal. The motion was duly voted on subsequently fell.

Councillor Pickford proposed that application 16/01780/F be refused as the proposal was contrary to Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell local Plan Part 1, saved Policies C8 and C28 of the Cherwell local Plan 1996 and Government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework. Councillor Milne Home seconded the proposal.

In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officers report, presentation, written update and address of the public speakers.

Resolved

That application 16/01780/F be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The proposed development, by virtue of its siting adjacent to the M40, would be adversely affected by noise, thereby resulting in an unacceptable living environment for the occupiers of the proposed traveller pitches. As such, the development would give rise to "Significant Adverse Effects" on the health and wellbeing of residents of the new development and is considered to be unsustainable, contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1, saved Policy ENV1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework and Noise Planning Practice Guidance.

2.            The proposed development, by virtue of its siting in the open countryside, overall scale and appearance, would have an urbanising effect on the open countryside, and would result in detrimental harm to the rural character and appearance of the area. Thus, the proposal is contrary to Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell local Plan Part 1, saved Policies C8 and C28 of the Cherwell local Plan 1996 and Government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.