Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

8. Land North West Bicester Home Farm, Lower Farm and SRG2 Caversfield.

Councillor Les Sibley, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Bicester Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

Councillor Lynn Pratt, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Bicester Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

13. Windrush Surgery, 5A Bradley Arcade, Bretch Hill, Banbury, OX16 0LS.

Councillor Adam Nell, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of the Executive and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor Andrew Beere, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Banbury Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

Councillor Barry Wood, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of the Executive and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor Colin Clarke, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of the Executive and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor Ian Corkin, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of the Executive and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor Lynn Pratt, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of the Executive and would leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor Matt Hodgson, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Banbury Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

14. 4 Grimsbury Square, Banbury, OX16 3HX.

Councillor Andrew Beere, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Banbury Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

Councillor Matt Hodgson, Other Registerable Interest, as a member of Banbury Town Council which had been consulted on the application.

The Chairman to report on any requests to address the meeting.

Please note that the deadline for requests to address the meeting is noon on the working day before the meeting. Addresses can be made virtually or in person.

The Chairman advised that requests to address the meeting would be dealt with at each item.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive communications from the Chairman.

The Chairman advised the Committee that there were two agenda items which were not planning applications for Committee determination and officer’s would advise accordingly when presenting the items.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Committee to consider requests for and proposed pre-committee site visits.

Any requests or recommendations for site visits will be published with the written update.

There we no proposed Pre-Committee site visits.

Against officer recommendation, the Committee resolved that they would have refused the application.  Reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 21/01630/OUT, an outline planning application for up to 530 residential dwellings (within Use Class C3), open space provision, access, drainage and all associated works and operations including but not limited to demolition, earthworks, and engineering operations, with the details of appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale reserved for later determination, at land at North West Bicester Home Farm, Lower Farm and SGR2 Caversfield for Firethorn Developments Ltd.

Rob Fellows, local resident and on behalf of on behalf of Elmsbrook Residents, Gagle Brook Primary School, the Perch Eco Business Centre, Bucknell Residents and Elmsbrook Traffic & Parking Group and Peter Turner, on behalf of Bicester Bike Users’ Group addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Rob Bolton, on behalf of the applicant, Firethorn Trust, Mark Kirby, highways consultant for the applicant and Hannah Leary, agent for the applicant,  addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members were asked for their observations regarding what their determination would have been, had an appeal against the non-determination of the application not been lodged.

It was proposed by Councillor Pratt and seconded by Councillor Sibley that the

application would have been refused the applications for the following reasons, which on being put to the vote, was agreed by the Committee:

·         The proposal would not achieve true zero carbon development taking into account the Council’s Climate Emergency declaration and the Policy requirements for NW Bicester in seeking to achieve Eco Town Development.

·         The proposed changes to Charlotte Avenue would negatively impact the integrity of the area, would be dangerous for the users of the highway and footways particularly close to Gagle Brook School, have not been proven to be feasible and would result in the loss of trees. It would contravene OCC, CDC and National Planning Policies.

·         The proposal fails to show that the impact upon the highway at the junction of the B4100 and Charlotte Avenue would not be severe with congestion predicted within the peak hour.

·         There are errors with the applicant’s financial viability appraisal and this results in the development not being able to achieve the True Zero Carbon requirements and deliver a minimum 10% affordable housing against the required Local Plan level of 30%.

·         The lack of an agreed S106 or other legal obligation to secure required infrastructure to mitigate its impacts.

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

Resolved

(1)      That against officer recommendation, had the power to determine application 21/01630/OUT continued to rest with the committee, the committee would have refused application 21/01630/OUT for the following reasons.

1.         The development, when set against the viability of the scheme, would not go far enough in trying to achieve the True Zero Carbon requirements for NW Bicester, as set out by Policy Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031. This would undermine the Council’s strategy for achieving an Exemplary Eco Town development at NW Bicester which sets this site apart from others  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Application withdrawn from the agenda

The Chairman advised that application 21/00517/F had been withdrawn from the agenda by the council because interested parties were advised late in the process that public speaking rights would be allowed. The application would be submitted to a future Planning Committee meeting.

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.

Refused, in line with the officer recommendation. Reasons to be sent out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 23/00065/OUT, an outline application for up to 30 dwellings including access off Ells Lane and the demolition of the existing stabling on site with all matters reserved except for access at Os Parcel 0006 adjoining the north side of Ells Lane, Bloxham for Deeley Homes.

David Bunn, Chairman of Bloxham Parish Council, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Dean Waldon, on behalf of the applicant and Angela Brooks, agent to the  applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

Resolved

That the authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Development to refuse permission for application 23/00065/OUT subject to:

i)             No further objections from the Council’s Environmental Protection team raised by the expiry of the consultation period.

ii)            The reasons for refusal set out below (and any amendments to those reasons for refusal as deemed necessary)

iii)           That authority be delegated to officers to add or remove refusal reasons, in the event of an appeal being lodged against the refusal, in light of new evidence becoming available.

1.      By reason of its location, the proposal would have a poor and incongruous relationship with the form, character and pattern of the existing settlement.  Its development would therefore have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. This harm would be emphasised by the proposed improvement works to Ells Lane - required to make the highway safe for additional residential development – which would in themselves have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policies ESD13, ESD15 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, saved Policy C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.    By reason of its location more than 800m walking distance from the village centre and any key amenities in the village (e.g. food shop, post office, primary school, GP surgery, public house), the proposal would be poorly connected to existing development, such that future occupiers would not have a realistic choice of means of travel, and would not be sustainable development. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policies ESD1, ESD15 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. 

3.    By reason of the siting and size of the development and the resulting loss of grade 1 agricultural land, and taking into account the Council’s ability to demonstrate an up-to-date 5.4 year housing land supply across the District and having delivered in excess of 750 dwellings at Category A villages under Policy Villages 2, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Approved, in line with the officer recommendation, subject to conditions and S106 legal agreement, details to be set out in the minutes and delegation of powers officers to agree the optimum longstop date for the upward only viability review to take place

The Committee considered application 22/00017/F for the demolition of an existing vehicle showroom and associated garages and the erection of 2 new housing blocks containing a total of 15 flats including car parking and ancillary supporting uses with landscaping at Kidlington Garage, 1 Bicester Road, Kidlington, OX5 2LA for Sweetcroft Homes.

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

It was proposed by Councillor Middleton and seconded by Councillor Mawson that application 22/00017/F be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, due to the lack of affordable housing provision.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost and the motion subsequently fell.

It was proposed by Councillor Corkin and seconded by Councillor Wood that application 22/00017/F be approved, in line with the officer recommendation,  including the viability review mechanism after the implementation of the scheme.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officers report, presentation and written update.

Resolved

(1)      That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Development, or an officer nominated by them, to grant permission, for application 22/00017/F, subject to:

i)          The conditions set out below (and any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary) and

ii)         The completion of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to secure the heads of terms set out in the annex of the Minutes as set out in the Minute Book (except for affordable housing contribution) and including viability review mechanism.

Conditions

Time Limit

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Compliance with Plans

2.         Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans and documents:

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Landscaping

3.         A scheme for landscaping the site shall be provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include:-

(a) details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their species, number, sizes and positions, together with grass seeded/turfed areas and written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment i.e. depth of topsoil, mulch etc),

(b) details of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as well as those to be felled, including existing and proposed soil levels at the base of each tree/hedgerow and the minimum distance between the base of the tree and the nearest edge of any excavation,

(c) details of the hard landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Approved, in line with the officer recommendation, subject to conditions to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 22/03821/F for the change of use of a former doctors surgery to Class E to facilitate the expansion of the Londis shop and for minor internal alterations at Windrush Surgery, 5A Bradley Arcade, Bretch Hill, Banbury, OX16 0LS for Mr F Sharma.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officers’ report and presentation.

Resolved

(1)      That permission be granted for application 22/03821/F subject to the following conditions.

Conditions

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.         Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documents: Site location plan 1:1250, Elevations/Proposed, Ground floor/Proposed and car park plan.

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Approved, in line with the officer recommendation, subject to conditions, details to be set out in the minutes

The Committee considered application 22/03180/F for a single storey rear extension at 4 Grimsbury Square, Banbury, OX16 3HX for Ms Fazal Bibi.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officers’ report and presentation.

Resolved

(1)      That permission be granted for application 22/02491/CDC subject to the following conditions (and any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary).

Conditions

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.         Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the information contained within the application form and drawings numbered P.01 and P.02

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Report of Assistant Director Planning and Development

Purpose of report

To keep Members informed about planning appeal progress including decisions received and the scheduling of public inquiries and hearings for new and current appeals.

Recommendations

The meeting is recommended:

1.1         To note the position on planning appeals contained within the report.

Resolved

(1)          That the position statement be accepted.

The Assistant Director Planning and Development submitted a report which informed Members about planning appeal progress including decisions received and the scheduling of public inquiries and hearings for new and current appeals.

Resolved

(1)          That the position statement be accepted.