Agenda item

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

The Committee considered application 21/03522/OUT, an outline planning application for the erection of up to 540 dwellings (Class C3), up to 9,000sqm GEA of elderly/extra care residential floorspace (Class C2), a Community Home Work Hub (up to 200sqm)(Class E), alongside the creation of two locally equipped areas for play, one NEAP, up to 1.8 hectares of playing pitches and amenity space for the William Fletcher Primary School, two vehicular access points, green infrastructure, areas of public open space, two community woodland areas, a local nature reserve, footpaths, tree planting, restoration of historic hedgerow, and associated works with all matters are reserved, save for the principal access points at OS Parcel 3673 Adjoining And West Of 161 Rutten Lane Yarnton OX5 1LT for Merton College.

Dave Thornhill and Steve Smith, on behalf of Yarnton Flood Defence Group and Yarnton Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Robert Davies, on behalf of the agent for the applicant, Gerald Eve, 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.

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

Resolved

That, in line with the officer’s recommendation, had the power to determine application 21/03522/OUT continued to rest with the Committee, the Committee would have refused application 21/03522/OUT for the following reasons.

1.         The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that the application will deliver the public open space in the form of an informal parkland as specifically required by Policy PR9 which is required as a consequence of removing the allocated land from the Green Belt. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy PR9 of the Cherwell Local Plan Review 2020, the approved Development Brief and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.

2.         The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that the development would not impact existing flora and fauna and that ecological mitigation would successfully deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity and to ensure the protection, enhancement and connectivity with the local green infrastructure network alongside the successful delivery of the Local Nature Reserve. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policies ESD9, ESD10 and ESD13 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, Policies PR5 and PR9 of the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review 2020, the approved Development Brief and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.

3.         The application proposal has failed to secure an appropriate safe and convenient access from William Fletcher Primary School to the new school playing fields as required by Policy PR9 which is contiguous with the existing school boundary. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PR9 of the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review 2020, the adopted Development Brief and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.  Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.

4.         The proposed development, when set against the financial viability of the scheme, would fail to provide an adequate level of affordable housing provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PR2 and PR9 of the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review 2020 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.

5.         In the absence of a satisfactory Planning Obligation, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would provide for appropriate on-site infrastructure or infrastructure contributions towards offsite mitigation 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 contrary to Policy INF1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, Policies PR2, PR9 and PR11 of the Cherwell Local Plan Review 2020 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.