Issue - meetings

Refused, contrary to officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that the application was contrary to the policy of Bicester 13 (full reasons for refusal to be included in the Minutes)

The committee considered application 15/00837/OUT an outline application for a Residential development of up to 180 dwellings to include affordable housing, public open space, localised land remodelling, compensatory flood storage and structural planting at part of the land on the North East side of Gavray Drive, Bicester for Gallagher Estates.

Councillor Dan Sames, local ward member addressed the committee.

Mr Dominic Woodfield, Ecologist and Mr John Broad, local resident addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Mr Darren Bell agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Sibley proposed that application 15/00837/OUT be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy Bicester 13.  Councillor Wood seconded the proposal.

In reaching their decision the Committee considered the officers’ report, presentation, written update and the addresses of the local ward member and public speakers.

On the advice of Officers, it was agreed that the precise reasons for refusal were to be agreed with the Chairman, Councillor Sibley and Councillor Wood.

Resolved

That application 15/00837/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development represents an inappropriate attempt at piecemeal development of the strategically allocated Bicester 13 site in the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 which, in the absence of a single comprehensive application covering the whole of the allocated site, leaves the Council unable to satisfactorily determine whether the proposals would enable development across the whole of the site to properly meet the overall objectives and requirements of Policy Bicester 13. In doing so the proposals fail to demonstrate that the allocated housing total can be appropriately provided across the allocated site in a manner that adequately protects and enhances locally significant ecological interests on the land to the east of Langford Brook which is in direct conflict with the inherent and sustainable balance contained within Policy Bicester 13 between housing delivery and biodiversity enhancement.  As a result the proposals are considered to be contrary to the overall provisions of the Development Plan and the specific requirements of Policies Bicester 13, ESD10 and ESD11 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1.

2.         In the absence of a satisfactory completed legal agreement, the proposals would not commit to the necessary provision of on-site and off-site infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development or contribute towards providing affordable housing in order to create a mixed and balanced community. As a consequence the proposals would not deliver suitable and sustainable residential development and would have a significant detrimental impact on wider public infrastructure.  The proposals are therefore found to be contrary to the requirements of Policies Bicester 13, BSC3, BSC4, BSC9, BSC10, BSC11, BSC12, SLE4, ESD15 and INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 as well as Government guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.