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.
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 to result in the unnecessary and unjustified loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policies BSC2 and Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. 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 Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
5. 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 required as a result of the development and necessary to 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 Planning Obligations SPD 2018 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate surface water drainage strategy for the site utilising sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) can be delivered nor that the proposed development would increase the risk of flooding. A such the proposal is contrary to policies ESD6 and ESD7 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework