Agenda item

Refused, reasons to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 15/00317/OUT, an outline application with all matters except access reserved, for a residential development of up to 98 dwellings, land for potential GP outreach surgery/pharmacy/community use, landscaping, public open space, associated infrastructure and associated works at Land to west of Banbury Road, Twyford for Gladman Development.

Parish Councillor David Griffiths, Adderbury Parish Council, and Peter Burrows, Chair of Adderbury Conservation Group, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

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

Resolved

That application 15/00317/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed development, by reason of its siting and scale on the edge of a village in an open countryside location, and taking into account the amount of new housing development already planned to take place at Adderbury and Cherwell Council’s ability to demonstrate an up-to-date 5.1 year housing land supply, is considered to be unnecessary, undesirable and unsustainable new housing development that would harm the rural character and setting of the village and would prejudice a more balanced distribution of the rural housing growth planned for in the Cherwell Submission Local Plan. Therefore the proposal is considered unacceptable in principle and conflicts with saved Policies H12, H18, C8, C9, C27 and C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan, draft Policies ESD13, ESD16 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 17 and section 7 ‘Requiring good design’, and the PPG.

2.      By reason of its siting, size, scale, form and appearance, in particular the extensive loss of important views across open countryside of the historic core of Adderbury village including Adderbury Conservation Area and the Grade I listed church of St. Mary, as experienced along one of the main approaches into the village, the proposed development is considered to cause considerable, unnecessary and unjustified harm to the setting and significance of designated heritage assets. There are no public benefits that outweigh this level of harm. Therefore the proposal conflicts with saved Policies C27 and C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan, draft Policies ESD13, ESD16 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraph 17 ‘Core planning principles’ and section 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, and the PPG.

3.      By reason of its siting, size, scale, form and appearance, in particular the extensive loss of important views across open countryside of the historic core of Adderbury village and the Sor valley, the proposal is considered to cause significant and unacceptable harm to the rural landscape character and quality of the area and the setting of the village as experienced by local residents, visitors and users of the A4260 and the public rights of way. Therefore the proposal conflicts with saved Policies C7, C27 and C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan, draft Policies ESD13, ESD16 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraph 17 ‘Core planning principles’ and section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ and the PPG.

4.      By reason of the engineered, regular linear position and form of the proposed internal access roads, the details of access shown on the Initial Framework Plan are considered to dictate an overly modern, urban estate layout that would not be successful at responding to, and integrating with, the traditional rural character and settlement pattern of the historic village and the surrounding countryside. Therefore the proposal conflicts with saved Policies C27, C28 and C30 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan, draft Policies ESD13 and ESD16 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraph 17 ‘Core planning principles’ and section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ and the PPG.

5.      By reason of the siting and size of the development and the resulting loss of some 14 hectares of grades 2 and 3a agricultural land, and taking into account the Council’s ability to demonstrate an up-to-date 5.1 year housing land supply, the quantum of housing development already planned for in Adderbury, and the lack of evidence to demonstrate that there are no other sites in Category A villages in the District which would be preferable in terms of using areas of poorer quality agricultural land to meet the District’s housing needs, the proposal is considered to result in the unnecessary and unjustified loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Therefore the proposal conflicts with draft Policies BSC2 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraphs 17, 28, and 112, and the PPG.

6.      By reason of the site’s location in an area of known archaeological interest with high potential for significant archaeological deposits to survive on site, in the absence of a detailed and adequate archaeological field evaluation the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable and unavoidable harm to archaeological assets. Therefore the proposal  conflicts with draft Policies ESD16 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraph 17 ‘Core planning principles’ and section 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, and the PPG.

7.      By reason of the lack of a satisfactory completed s106 legal agreement to secure contributions to the community services and infrastructure that would be directly affected by the development, and to secure the provision of affordable housing to meet housing need, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the impacts of the development in these respects can be made acceptable. Therefore the proposal conflicts with saved Policy H5 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan, draft Policies BSC3 and INF1 of the Cherwell Submission Local Plan, the NPPF in particular paragraphs 17, 203 and 204 and section 6 ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’, and the PPG.