Agenda item
24/00769/OUT Land South of Charlbury Road, Chipping Norton.
Minutes:
Mike Cassidy, the Principal Planner, presented the application for an outline planning application, with all matters reserved other than principal means of access to the highway, for the construction of up to 104 residential dwellings, together with the provision of open space, landscaping and infrastructure.
The Principal Planner confirmed that no further additional representations had been received. The Principal Planner drew Member’s attention to a handout from George Hayman, an objector who spoke at the Uplands Sub-Committee meeting on Monday 17 March. George Hayman was not present at the meeting. The handout, circulated by public speaker Kat Boylan, did not raise any new issues or information.
The Planning Officer’s presentation addressed the following points:
- There were 2 key plans submitted: Parameter Plan and Illustrative Master Plan.
- The Parameter Plan showed key elements including access to the site from the highway, Burford Road, the residential development area and landscaping. The public right of way would be retained and there would be improvements to the footway on Charlbury Road.
- The Illustrative Master Plan showed the capacity of the site, the proposed up to 104 dwellings of low to medium density, community growing space and sustainable urban drainage.
- Illustrative Design and Access Statement images showing the overall intended proposed development slides were shown to the Sub-Committee.
- The site was located Southeast of Chipping Norton and was bordered by a sports club to the South, farmland to the allotments to the North and Cotswold Gate development to the West.
- A public right of way was diagonally across the site to Charlbury Road in the southeastern corner. There were no designated heritage assets within the site.
- There was a listed building (Oldner House) some 240 metres to the east of the site and the Chipping Norton Conservation area was some 550 metres to the northwest.
The application had come before the Sub-Committee on Monday 17 March 2024 and had been deferred for written responses to be requested from Oxfordshire County Council Highways (OCC Highways), to explain why a contribution towards Strategic Highway Infrastructure at Chipping Norton (referred to as the link road) had not been sought, and from the NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board, as to whether a contribution towards primary health care was required to be secured by S106 legal agreement.
The Principal Planner drew Members attention to the response received from OCC Highways included on page 16 of the report in the agenda pack.
It was explained that due to the discovery of the Roman/archaeological remains and scheduling by Historic England, the alignment of the north – south link road had been cast into significant doubt. The developer had demonstrated that the traffic impact of the proposed development would not be severe. In accordance with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the Local Highway Authority would not be able to seek contributions toward the link road to offset the traffic impact of the proposed development as this would not pass CIL tests set out in the NPPF.
The Principal Planner drew Members attention to the response received from the NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board included on page 17 of the report in the agenda pack.
It was explained that there was no objection from the NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board subject to a contribution of £89,856 towards primary health care being secured by a S106 legal agreement in any permission granted. This had been agreed by the applicant.
Kat Boylan spoke as a member of the public in objection to the application and raised the following points:
The noise impact from the Chipping Norton Rifle and Pistol Club situated next to the proposed development, increase in traffic on the Lidstone / Enstone single track road, management of sewage with reference to the Environment Agency’s statement that the sewage treatment plant is upgraded before the commencement of the development, the impact on the local countryside and the use of agricultural land for development. Ms Boylan asked to play a recording of the noise from the rifle and pistol club. The Chair explained that this was not common practice at the Sub-Committee and was not agreed.
The Principal Planner continued with his presentation which addressed the following points:
· The conclusion and planning balance, as set out in the original Officer report in Appendix One, remained substantially unchanged.
· Applying the planning balance set out in the NPPF, Officers considered the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harms identified.
· With the agreed additional contribution towards primary health care requested by the NHS, the application was recommended for approval.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:
- Concerns that the proposed land to be developed was greenfield land extended the curtilage of the town towards Burford.
- Concerns there would be a limit on the number of houses that could be built due to the sewage upgrade needed by Thames Water.
- Concerns the traffic would be increased due to no link road, and an increase in traffic from the proposed dwellings. There was no bus stop located near the site.
- Members felt that the contribution offered to the NHS would barely cover a GP salary for a year.
- Concerns regarding the sewage treatment and adverse impact on the environment.
- Concerns regarding the public right of way and safety of pedestrians crossing busy roads, no continuous pathways or footpath or crossing to Millennium Woods.
- Concerns that the landscape and character of would be impacted and was not in keeping with policies H2, EH2, OS2 and OS4.
- Members highlighted that the Roman archaeological findings had impacted the possible construction of a link road.
- It was highlighted that there were conditions regarding sewage and no objections from Historic England.
- Members asked if there was provision for solar panels, in the report page 26, point 6 the applicant had been encouraged to minimise energy and carbon emissions.
Councillor Geoff Saul proposed the application be refused against officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Rosie Pearson.
Voting record – 3 for the proposal, 3 against and 3 abstentions. The proposal was not carried on the Chair’s casting vote.
Members asked if condition 16 on page 23 of the report relating to foul water capacity could be amended to a pre-commencement rather than pre-occupation condition. The Principal Planner advised that this could be amended.
The Chair proposed to approve in line with the officer recommendation subject to an amendment to Condition 16 – Foul Water Capacity requiring this to be a pre-commencement rather than pre-occupation condition to read as follows:
FOUL WATER CAPACITY
16. No development shall be commenced until confirmation has been provided that either:- 1. Foul water Capacity, including at the Chipping Norton STW, exists off site to serve the development, or 2. A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan, or 3. All Foul water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.
REASON: Network reinforcement works may be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.
This proposal was seconded by Councillor Tim Sumner and was put to the vote.
Voting record – 4 Votes for the proposal, 0 votes against and 5 abstentions.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Approve in line with officer recommendation subject to an amendment to Condition 16 – Foul Water Capacity requiring this to be a pre-commencement rather than pre-occupation condition to read as follows:
FOUL WATER CAPACITY
16. No development shall be commenced until confirmation has been provided that either:- 1. Foul water Capacity, including at the Chipping Norton STW, exists off site to serve the development, or 2. A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan, or 3. All Foul water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.
REASON: Network reinforcement works may be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.
Members asked that the Chair of the Sub-Committee write to OCC highways to express the Sub-Committee’s disappointment with the responses and the information provided which had resulted in local residents being impacted and not benefiting from the development. The Chair agreed to this request with guidance from Officers.