Agenda item

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

The Committee considered application 24/00375/F for the formation of two fishing lakes, two nursery lakes, the siting of 15 accommodation lodges, 8 pods, a management building and ancillary vehicular access, parking, and landscaping at Os Parcels 7685, 6871, 8775, 1582, 3675, 3173, 1865, 0250, 8545, 7331, 1724, And Part 0006 Adjoining Stratford Road A422 Wroxton, for ATE Farms.

John Offord, Chair of Hornton Parish Council and Dr James Hartley a Councillor on Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council, addressed the meeting in objection to the application.

Lance Wiggins, Agent, addressed the meeting in support of the application.

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

Resolved 

That, in line with officers’ recommendation, authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Development to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below (and make minor amendments if required).

1.         The proposal is in a location that is reliant on the private car for access and no specific need for the facility has been identified to meet the requirement of paragraph 89 of the NPPF. Further, there is no identified functional need for the proposal to be located in such an inaccessible rural position. Therefore, the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development in the open countryside that is contrary to policies SLE3 and ESD1 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 88 and 89 of the NPPF.

2.         By virtue of the significant mass of the proposed development, created by it is the engineering work involved, location of structures within the site, it is considered to have an unacceptable urbanising effect on the rural landscape and would appear as an isolated addition to the landscape. The harm is exacerbated by the footpaths running through the site. Taken altogether Officers consider the proposed development would therefore unacceptably harm the rural agricultural character of the area and this would be contrary to policies ESD13 and 15 of the CLP 2015, saved policies C8 and C28 of the CLP 1996 and paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

3.         Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal on highway safety, therefore it is considered to be contrary to Policies SLE4, ESD15 of the CLP 2015 and paragraph 115 of the Framework.

4.         In the absence of any drainage documents, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be adequately drained and therefore it is contrary to policies ESD6 and ESD7 of the CLP 2015.

5.         Due to the absence of an appropriate protected species surveys as highlighted within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report by Ramm Sanderson dared October 2023, the impact of the proposals on protected species cannot be assessed. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority cannot be certain that the proposals would not harm any protected species. As such the scheme is contrary Policy ESD10 of the CLP 2031 Part 1, advice contained in the PPG and Natural England’s Standing Advice, and section 15 of 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. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, CDC’s Planning Obligations SPD 2018, Policy BL9 of the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan 2015 - 2031 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for Refusal 5 and 3 may be removed/altered subject to the Local Highway Authority and Ecology removing their objection.