Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/01177/FUL Land East of Wroslyn Road

Minutes:

Stephanie Eldridge, the Principal Planner, presented the application for development of 78 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), allotments and site access, plus open space, drainage, landscaping and associated engineering works (reserved and additional information received).

 

Dawn Taylor of Friends of Freeland, and Robert Crocker, spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: Many objections to the site had been made, the application failed on all three NPPF sustainability objectives, the plan included a sewage pump placed next to adjacent housing, there would be an impact on the outlook of heritage buildings, the site was of importance for connectivity of habitat for species survival.

 

Peter Foster, Chair of the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: The application was speculative development, objections were raised over issues such as: distinct green gaps that characterise the village visually and for wildlife would be lost, the development would add 13% to the population, the layout and building design was unimaginative and at odds with surrounding dwellings, the biodiversity net gain was obtained through offsite mitigation.

 

Frances Keenan, Planning Manager for Spitfire Homes, spoke on behalf of the applicant and raised the following points: The proposal would deliver specific and positive benefits to Freeland and West Oxfordshire, Policy OS2 of the Local Plan allowed for limited development that would respect the village character, there were no defined settlement boundaries in Policy OS2 or H2, a 13% increase was considered limited, the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing supply, less than significant harm to listed buildings, the proposal increased market and affordable housing, provided allotments, public open space and improved bus services.

 

At the Chair’s discretion, Councillor Liam Walker spoke in his capacity as County Councillor in objection to the application and raised the following points: A similar application had been rejected previously and concerns raised on that previous application had not been addressed, the site was unsuitable, there would be an unsustainable impact on infrastructure, the applicant has had no meaningful engagement with the community, the density and design of the application did not reflect the village character, there had been a disregard to Local Plan and principles of sustainable growth, more traffic would be introduced on Wroslyn Road and Pigeon House Lane.

 

The Planning Officer’s presentation addressed the following points:

 

  • Members visited the site in January 2025. It had been originally intended to consider the application in February, however this was delayed in order to allow time for the applicant to submit additional technical information.
  • There were a number of listed buildings near the site including the Chapel. The site was in the Wychwood Project area.
  • The application followed a previous application for eighty houses refused by members in 2023 for reasons related to a number of technical issues around drainage, transport and biodiversity. The previous application was not considered to be limited, in an accessible location, reflecting the village’s character, of an appropriate scale, forming a logical compliment to the existing scale and pattern of development, protecting the local landscape and would result in the loss of an important area of open space and of the harm caused to the setting of the nearby listed buildings. With the previous application paragraph 11.d of the NPPF members was in play, however the adverse effects of the development were not considered to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
  • The key differences in the current application were the removal of two dwellings, removal of the community shop and replacement with community orchard and the configuration of houses in relation to Pigeon House Lane.
  • There was a mixture of one-bed, two-bed, three-bed and four-bed properties proposed. The proposal also included affordable housing.
  • The applicant had satisfied the Highways Authority’s concerns, therefore refusal reason 2 should be dismissed.
  • The Council’s ecologist had significant concerns around the loss of biodiversity despite additional submissions and so recommended a number of updated refusal reasons set out in the additional representations report which should replace refusal reason 3 in the officer report.
  • The Council’s Conservation Officer had raised concerns.
  • There were no other technical objections subject to conditions and financial contributions.
  • The Officer raised significant concerns around the impact on character and setting of Freeland and heritage assets and could not consider the development to be limited.
  • The layout was considered poorly designed, resulting in a car dominant development.
  • Paragraph 11.d of the NPPF was engaged in this case. Benefits must be weighed against adverse impacts in such cases. The benefits considered were a modest contribution to the housing supply, short and long term economic benefit, footpaths and allotments. However, moderate weight was attributed to these. Adverse impacts were an unacceptable urbanising effect, impact on heritage assets and ecological impact.
  • The Officer considered that the significant impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the moderate benefits of application.
  • Refusal was recommended for reasons one and four set out in section six of the Report, and the ecology reasons in the Report of Representations.
  • The Officer also recommended that a final additional refusal reason should be included to address the lack of a legal agreement submitted to secure the necessary financial contributions and other matters that would usually be secured via a S106 agreement.

 

The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss this application, which raised the following points:

 

  • Freeland was a small village of 750 households and did have a deficit of affordable housing. The proposal did have benefits already mentioned.
  • Freeland was a dark sky village.
  • The development would impact heritage sites.
  • The local housing need was 590 houses per annum, and this would go some way towards that number.
  • Highway works to create site access would include traffic calming measures on Wroslyn Road which would require lighting.
  • Thames Water had requested a Grampian Condition as they did not have capacity. This should be added as a reason to refuse. The capacity of Church Hanborough sewerage treatment works was discussed. It was noted that there was no objection from the Environment Agency as the statutory body.
  • The list of objectors was substantial.
  • The application was not very different to the previously refused application.
  • The use of the wording, “modest contribution to housing shortfall”, in the Report should be used carefully. Any housing was considered a contribution.
  • The housing mix was discussed with particular reference to size and affordability.
  • The bus routes to the village were limited.

 

Councillor Lidia Arciszewska proposed refusing the application. Councillor Roger Faulkner seconded the proposal.

 

Voting record – The vote was unanimous.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

 

  1. Refuse the application in line with officer recommendations and to include an informative outlining concerns of the Council and EA regarding impact on water quality/network capacity.

 

Councillor Andrew Beaney left the meeting at 16:26.

 

Related Pages