Agenda item

Refused in line with the officer recommendation, reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 23/02471/F, for the erection of 14 two storey dwellings and upgrading of existing access onto the Heyford Road, together with garaging and parking, footpath link, the removal and re-instatement of a section of existing wall and its repair along the Heyford Road frontage, and landscaping and all enabling development at OS Parcel 0622 South of Jersey Cottages and East of Heyford Road, Kirtlington for Abbeymill Homes.

Pete Shaw, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Tim Northey, on behalf of the applicant, Abbeymill Homes, and Briony Enser, Vice-Chair of Kirtlington Parish Council, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

Resolved

That, in line with the officer’s recommendation, application 23/02471/F be refused for the following reasons:

1.         By virtue of its siting, scale, size, layout and form the proposal fails to respect the traditional settlement pattern of Kirtlington, extending beyond its built up limits to the east into countryside and into Kirtlington Park, resulting in an incongruous, contrived and inappropriate form of cul-de-sac development which would relate poorly to the remainder of the village, and cause demonstrable harm to the rural character and setting of the village and visual amenities of the area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies PSD1, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, saved Policies C8, C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, Policies PD1, PD4, PD5 and PD6 of the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031, Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide.

2.         The proposed development would, by reason of its location, scale, layout and form, cause considerable harm to the character and significance of the heritage assets of Kirtlington Conservation Area and the Grade II Registered Park and Garden at Kirtlington Park, and would cause unacceptable harm to the settings of nearby listed buildings, in particular Grade II Home Farm, Grade II 3-4 Foxtownsend Cottages and the wider setting of Grade I Kirtlington Park house. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies PSD1, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy PD1 of the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 and Government advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         The proposed development would fail to achieve a satisfactory standard of development on highway grounds due to the inability to achieve a satisfactory visibility splay to the north and the inability of a refuse collection vehicle to achieve satisfactory tracking within the site. In addition, in the absence of the failure to submit a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, these three concerns would result in the potential for highway safety to be compromised. The development therefore conflicts with Policies PSD1, ESD15 and SLE4 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy PD1 of the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The proposed development fails to address the need for a safe layout to prevent the risk of crime and disorder occurring. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policies PSD1, ESD15 and BSC11 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy PD5 of the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.         The proposed development would occur on land classified as Grade 2 BMV agricultural land, in conflict Policy Villages 2 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy PD1 of the of the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.         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 INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, CDC’s Planning Obligations SPD 2018 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.