Issue - meetings

Refused, against officer recommendation. Reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 21/04289/OUT, an outline planning application for the erection of up to 230 dwellings, creation of new vehicular access from Camp Road and all associated works with all matters reserved apart from access at OS Parcel 1570 adjoining and west of Chilgrove Drive and adjoining and north of Camp Road, Heyford Park for K & S Holford, A & S Dean, N Giles & A Broadberry.

Karen Mutton from Eversheds Solicitors on behalf of Dorchester Living, Gavin Angell from Dorchester Living and Martin Lipson on behalf of Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan (MCNP) Forum addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Alan Divall, agent for the application addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

Resolved

(1)      That application 21/04289/OUT be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, due to land being on greenbelt land and that the land is not allocated land for development with the Local Plan and lack of agreed section 106 with the exact wording of the reason for refusal delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Development.

1.         The site is located on greenfield land outside the Policy Village 5 allocation, therefore within an area of open countryside separate from the built-up area of Heyford Park. As a result, the development would have a poor and incongruous relationship with the form and character of Heyford Park, by reason of the site’s general openness. The site’s relationship to the RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area and the views into and out of the Conservation Area would cause harm to the setting of designated heritage assets. Such environmental harm is considered to be less than substantial, but the harm caused is not outweighed by the public social and economic benefits. In addition, the Council is able to demonstrate a 5.4-year housing land supply, and therefore the housing strategies in the Local Plan are up to date. It is considered that the development of this site would conflict with the adopted policies in the Local Plan to which substantial weight should be attached. The principle of this development is therefore unacceptable, as contrary to Policies PSD1, ESD1, ESD13, ESD15, and Policy Villages 5 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, Policy PD4 of the Mid Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan, Saved Policies C8, C30, C33 and H18 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         In the absence of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking or any other form of Section 106 legal agreement, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development provides for appropriate infrastructure contributions or transport mitigation required as a result of the development and necessary to ensure modal shift to sustainable transport modes and make the impacts of the development acceptable in planning terms, to the detriment of both existing and proposed residents and workers and contrary to policy INF 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015, CDC’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140