Agenda item

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

The Committee considered application 24/00245/OUT, an outline application for the demolition of existing structures and erection of up to 99 dwellings, access, open space and associated works with all matters reserved except for access at South Lodge, Fringford Road, Caversfield, Bicester, OX27 8TH for Richborough Estates

Councillor Alan Tennant, on behalf of Caversfield Parish Council, Judy Kleinman, local resident and Alan Brooks, local resident addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

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

Resolved

That, in line with the officer’s recommendation application 24/00245/OUT be refused for the following reasons, with delegated authority to the Assistant Director Planning and Development to keep, amend or remove Reason for Refusal 2, the highway reason for refusal, following the formal consultation response from the highway authority in respect of the further information received, prior to the issuing of the decision:

1. The proposals by reason of their loss of gap between Caversfield and Bicester would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and Aunt Ems Lane in particular and setting of the wider heritage landscape of RAF Bicester Conservation Area. The field is considered an important feature and visual gap for the area, the identity of Caversfield, historic setting and the proposals would result in unsustainable growth with a limited relationship to the existing built form. As such the proposals would be contrary to Policies Villages 1, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and saved policies C8, C15, C23, C28, C30 and C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposals would result in a severe impact on the capacity and functioning of the highway in particular the B4100/Aunt Ems Lane and A4421/Skimmingdish Lane junctions and severe traffic congestion impact at the junction of Bucknell Road and the A4095 and having regard to the impact of committed developments and capacity in these junctions for further movements. As such the proposals are contrary to Policy SLE4 and INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework

3. The highway mitigation considered necessary to make development acceptable, in particular proposed footways to Aunt Ems Lane and to Fringford Road/Banbury Road would create an urbanising effect to the development and the surrounding area which would result in a detrimental impact to the peri-urban character and result in loss of trees and landscaping with further impacts to heritage assets. As such the proposals would be contrary to Policies Villages 1, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and saved policies C8, C15, C23, C28, C30 and C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework

4. Caversfield is a designated Category C village as set out in Policy Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015. Due to the very limited facilities and opportunities for day-to-day services or the opportunity to access alternative modes of transport, the village is only considered appropriate for limited growth and the proposals are significant in the context of the scale and character of the village. The proposals would be distant from the principal area of the village and unsustainable in relation to Local Plan Policies BSC1 and Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and saved policies C5, C8, C15, C23, C28, C30 and C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework

5. In the absence of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure education, sport, open space, community facilities and highway contributions, it is not considered that the development would mitigate its impacts and as such would be contrary to the requirements of Policies BSC3, BSC7, BSC10, BSC11, BSC12, SLE4 and INF1 Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework