Agenda item

Refused reasons to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 17/01688/OUT, an outline application for a proposed residential development for up to 20 new dwellings and associated works with all matters reserved except access for Manor Farm Developments Ltd, S Nicholson, JF Budgett, DC Grayland, CM Budgett & HC Tylor at OS Parcel 1424 Adjoining and Rear Of Jersey Cottage, Heyford Road, Kirtlington.

George King, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Will Twiddy, the agent for the applicant and David Pratt, Chairman of Kirtlington Parish Council, addressed the committee in support to the application.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the officer’s report, presentation and the address of the public speakers.

Resolved

That application 17/01688/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.               By virtue of its siting, scale, size and form the proposal fails to respect the traditional linear settlement pattern of Kirtlington extending well beyond its built up limits to the east into open countryside and into Kirtlington Park, resulting in an incongruous and inappropriate form of cul-de-sac development which would relate poorly to the remainder of the village, and cause demonstrable harm to the rural character and setting of the village and visual amenities of the area. Therefore the proposal is contrary to saved Policies H18, C8, C27, C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Central government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.               The proposed development would by reason of its location, scale, and form cause considerable harm to the character and significance of the heritage assets of Kirtlington Conservation Area and the Grade II Registered Kirtlington Park, and would cause unacceptable harm to the settings of nearby listed buildings in particular Home Farm and the wider setting of Kirtlington Park House. Whilst, on balance, this harm is less than substantial the public benefits do not outweigh this harm. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework in particular paragraph 17 ‘Core planning principles’ and section 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, and the Planning Practice Guidance.

3.               In view of the harm identified in refusal reasons 1 and 2 above and in the context of the Council being able to demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year housing land supply, the proposal is considered to be unnecessary, undesirable and unsustainable new housing development that would conflict with the criteria for assessing proposals for minor development listed under Policy Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031. Therefore the proposal is unacceptable in principle contrary to Policy Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Central government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.               In the absence of a satisfactory planning obligation the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the infrastructure required to mitigate the impacts of the development on existing community infrastructure and services, along with the affordable housing directly required as a result of this scheme, will be delivered. This would be contrary to Policies BSC3 and INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and central government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.