Agenda item

Refused reasons to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 18/00249/OUT for a residential development of up to 10 dwellings at Fringford Cottage, Main Street, Fringford, Bicester, OX27 8DP for Mr Stuart Wright.

Ginny Hope, a neighbour to the application site and David McCullagh addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Sinead Turnball, agent for 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 address of the public speakers.

Resolved

That application 18/00249/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.               The development proposed, by reason of its scale and relative sustainability of Fringford, and taking into account Cherwell District Council's ability to demonstrate an up-to-date five year housing land supply, is considered to be unnecessary, undesirable and unsustainable development that which would undermine the housing strategy in the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 which seeks to distribute new housing to the most sustainable locations having regard to such matters as public services and facilities, transport and employment. Consequently the proposal is unacceptable in principle and contrary to Policies ESD1, Villages 1 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1, Saved Policy H18 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.               The development proposed, by virtue of its poorly integrated relationship with existing built development, its extension beyond the built limits of the village and its visual impact on the rural character and appearance of the locality, would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and the rural setting of the village and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness. It would also result in 'less than substantial' harm to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and the harm stemming from the proposals are not considered to be outweighed by any public benefits. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ESD13, ESD15 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1, saved Policies C8 and C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.               The submitted Drainage Strategy is inadequate and does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that a drainage strategy based on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems has been explored for the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD7 of the Cherwell Local Plan and advice in the Written Ministerial Statement on Sustainable Drainage Systems (Dec 2014).

4.               The development proposed, by virtue of the proposed access roads close proximity to Bakery Cottage and the likely level of vehicle movements, is considered to detrimentally impact on the amenity of Bakery Cottage in terms of noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.               In the absence of the completion of a satisfactory Planning Obligation, the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the necessary infrastructure directly required as a result of this development, in the interests of supporting the sustainability of the village and the development, and in the interests of safeguarding public infrastructure and securing on site future maintenance arrangements, will be provided. This would be contrary to Policies INF1, PSD1, BSC10 and BSC11 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.