Agenda item

Refused, reasons to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 15/01773/OUT, an outline application for up to 50 residential dwellings (including up to 35% affordable housing), land for potential GP outreach Surgery/Pharmacy/Community Use/Primary School Relocation, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Banbury Road and associated ancillary works with all matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access at Land West of Banbury Road, Twyford, Banbury for Gladman Developments.  

David Griffiths, on behalf Adderbury Parish Council, addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Peter Hilldrup, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application.

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

Resolved

That application 15/01773/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The development proposed, by reason of its scale and siting 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 in Adderbury and Cherwell District Council’s ability to demonstrate an up-to-date five year housing land supply, is considered to be unnecessary, undesirable and unsustainable new 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 Local Plan. Therefore the proposal is considered unacceptable in principle and contrary to Policies ESD13, ESD15 and Policy Villages 2 of the adopted Cherwell local plan 2011-2031 and saved Policies C8 and C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local plan 1996 abd advice within the National planning Policy Framework.

2.            By reason of its siting, scale, form and appearance, in particular the loss of important views across open countryside of the historic core of Adderbury village including the Adderbury Conservation Area and the Grade 1 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. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies ESD13, ESD15 and Policy Villages 2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, saved policy C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and the advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.            By reason of its siting, size, scale, from 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 setting of the village as experienced by local residents, visitors and users of the A4260 and public rights of way. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ESd13, ESD15 and Policy Villages 2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and saved policy C33 of the adopted Cherwell Local plan 1996 and advice within the National planning Policy Framework.

4.            By reason of the siting and size of the development and resulting loss of some 14ha of most versatile agricultural land, and taking into account the Council’s ability to demonstrate a five 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 areas using poorer quality agricultural land to meet the District’s housing needs, the proposal is considered to result in unnecessary and unjustified loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BSC2 and Policy Villages 2 of the adopted Cherwell local Plan 2011-2031 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.            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 Policies ESd15 and Policy Villages 2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.            It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by the Transport Assessment submitted with this application what impact the proposed development, including the GP surgery, pharmacy, community facility and new primary school may have on the proposed access and local highway network contrary to the advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.            By reason of the lack of a satisfactory completed section 106 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. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies BSC3 and INF1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.