Agenda item

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

The Committee considered application 25/01346/OUT, an outline application with All Matters Reserved (except means of access) for up to 340 dwellings (Use Class C3), land for local community use and pavilion, landscaping, public open space, and associated infrastructure, including demolition of 162 The Moors to enable all modes of access at Part OS Parcel 0006 North Of The Moors Kidlington for Harper Crewe Bloombridge Ltd.

Councillor Dorothy Walker addressed the Committee as a Local Ward Member.

Professor Daphne Hampson, on behalf of Campaign to Save the Land Behind the Moors, David Robey, Vice-Chair of Kidlington Parish Council and Dr Lisa Smith, on behalf of Campaign to Save the Land Behind the Moors, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Laura Bisbey, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor McLean and seconded by Councillor Broad that application 25/01346/OUT be refused, against the officer’s recommendation, as the application site strongly contributes to the purposes of the greenbelt and the development would be inappropriate development, and due to substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets close to the application site and to the character of the landscape which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and therefore would be contrary to policies BSC3, BSC7, BSC8, BSC10-12, SLE4, INF1 ESD13, ESD14, ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2015), and saved policies H18, C23 and C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996). (exact wording for reasons for refusal to be delegated to officers).

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

Resolved

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, application 25/01346/OUT be refused for the reasons below.

1.  Green Belt

The proposed development is unacceptable in principle because the site strongly contributes to the Green Belt and to purposes a and d of paragraph 143 of the NPPF, and the application of heritage policies would provide a strong reason to refuse the development. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to meet the definition of Grey Belt and the proposal cannot therefore be considered appropriate development under paragraph 155 of the NPPF.  There are no other exceptions to Development in the Green Belt set out in local and national policies that would enable the development to be considered appropriate, and the proposal also conflicts with purpose c of paragraph 143 of the NPPF. In the absence of a very special circumstances case, the development is considered to be inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and harm to openness and the proposal is therefore, contrary to Section 13 of the NPPF, Policy ESD 14 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2015) and Policy COM 12 of the Cherwell Local Review (2042).

2.  Heritage and Landscape

The proposal introduces an urban form of development that would significantly erode the established rural and historic setting and character of the site’s existing countryside landscape. The site lies within open countryside characterised by undeveloped rural arable and publicly accessible land providing views towards the Grade I Listed St Mary’s Church and the adjacent church street conservation area, therefore, contributing significantly to the significance of adjacent heritage assets. The introduction of a large scale urban development would significantly alter the site’s rural character and historic landscape setting, resulting in significant harm to the landscape and heritage assets. The development would therefore fail to enhance and preserve the setting of heritage assets, and it would also fail to protect or reinforce the intrinsic character of the countryside landscape. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies ESD 13 and ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2015), Policies C23 and C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan Saved Policies (1996) and Policies LEC 7, COM 10, COM 26, 27 and 28 of the Cherwell Local Plan Review (2042) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. The Local Planning Authority consider that such harmful landscape and heritage impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the proposal.

3.  Infrastructure

In the absence of a signed 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 provisions and contributions related to affordable housing, open space, highways, education, health and other social infrastructure, necessary to make the impacts of the development acceptable in planning terms. The proposal therefore runs contrary to Polices, BSC 3, BSC 7, BSC8, BSC 10-12, SLE 4   INF1 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2015) and Polices CSD 22-23, COM 2, COM 15 -17 COM 20-21, COM 23-24 of the Cherwell Local Plan Review (2042), Cherwell District Council’s Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.