Agenda item
23/01422/FUL Land West Of Greenwich Lane Leafield
Minutes:
Stephanie Eldridge, Principal Planner, presented the application for the development of seven houses and a two-storey block of four flats and associated works to include widening of Greenwich Lane. The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points:
- The application was submitted to the Council in 2023. At that time Leafield Parish Council had raised some concerns but had not objected. The Officer recommendation had been to approve the application subject to a s106 agreement. This would have been a delegated decision in accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegation because the Parish Council had not objected to the proposals. The delegated report was drafted by officers and the legal team were instructed to draft the S106 agreement. This had been carried out over the last year and was ready for completion.
- However, within the last couple of months local concerns had grown. In particular around works being undertaken on the site prior to permission being granted and insufficient capacity in local water infrastructure.
- The Parish Council had subsequently written to Officers to update their response to object to the application.
- Since the 2023 application there had been changes in the planning approach and conditioning of matters around water infrastructure. In addition, the Council could no longer demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, which it could at the time of the initial application.
- For these reasons, in accordance with the scheme of delegation, the application had been brought before Members of the Sub-Committee.
- The scheme was for 100% affordable housing.
- Works would be undertaken to widen Greenwich Lane to improve access to the site.
- The site was within the Cotswold National Landscape. There was one Listed Building near the site, however this would not be impacted. The rest of the existing housing in the vicinity was relatively modern.
- An additional planting area would be provided.
- Materials would be reconstituted stone and Cotswold tiles.
- There was one public right of way within view of the site however there would be limited views of the development from it.
Mike Nelson spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:
- The scale and content of residents’ concerns had been underestimated.
- The Officer report was misleading in relation to Policy EH1 and EH2 and the identification of exceptional circumstances and special protection.
- The development would not enhance and preserve the protected landscape, instead it would destroy it.
- Unless water infrastructure improvements were made before construction commenced the fresh water supply in the village would get worse with the development.
- An explanation of the historic applications and objections on the site was given.
- Work had now begun on the site and some of the key features that the objectors were seeking to protect had been destroyed.
The Principal Planner continued with her presentation which addressed the following points:
- Due to the scale of the proposal this site was not considered major development in the Cotswold National Landscape and therefore the exceptional circumstances test did not apply.
- As the Council did not have a 5-year housing supply the proposal should be considered in the context of the tilted balance set out in paragraph 11d in the NPPF. This involved determining if there were any demonstrable harms that would have outweighed the benefits of the application.
- There was a clear demonstrated need for the affordable units the scheme would provide in Leafield and the wider District. This was supported by the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer.
- Despite the site falling in the Cotswold National Landscape, this site was a small, enclosed field and the development would follow the established linear and clustered pattern of development seen in the village. It would not detract from the established character of the village or wider landscape.
- The surrounding houses were relatively modern and did not contribute to the historic character of the village.
- There were no objections from the Council’s Conservation Officers.
- There would be a low level of less than substantial harm to Heritage Assets and the Conservation Area which was outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. These benefits included affordable housing, short-term economic benefits and biodiversity net gain.
- Distances afforded in the plans meant that acceptable levels of amenity were achieved and the development would not be overbearing on neighbouring properties.
- There had been no other technical objections to the proposal.
- Concerns around Thames Water had been addressed through the imposition of a Grampian condition that meant network improvements would need to be completed before occupation and plans would need to be agreed with the LPA in consultation with Thames Water.
- Members were asked to note that there had been a change to Condition 29 to replace the word “southern” with the word “eastern” in relation to the boundary.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:
- Whether the new access road left space on the remainder of the field not used for this application for a sister development. The Officer noted that the potential for further development would be considered on its own merits if an application was made, and did not form a consideration of the current application.
- It was noted that there were eighty people in the Leafield area in need of affordable housing. Members suggested that building sympathetic flats was an elegant solution to this need.
- The submission from Leafield Parish Council in 2023 was informative. It was noted that the Parish Council was objecting on grounds of water pressure and sewerage in 2025. This had been addressed by conditions in the report.
- Conditions 18 and 19 were clarified and it was noted that the development would not be occupied until water network improvements had taken place. Members suggested that the works could potentially improve the conditions for the village.
- Councillor Arciszewska requested that condition 18 be amended so that it included the wording ‘confirmation to be provided to the LPA’. The Officer agreed that this was an acceptable change.
- The site was visually contained. It was suggested that there would be no significant prominence on the wider area. Only the view from the south could be changed but this may be softened with landscaping.
- The positive sustainability of the development that included solar panels and air-source heat pumps was highlighted.
- The road widening and footpath were considered to be vital. The Officer explained that this work was included as an obligation in the legal agreement with Oxfordshire County Council (OCC).
- The siting of the 20 mph signs was a matter for OCC.
- It was clarified that this site was classified as a rural exception site. This was noted to be positive as was the 100% affordable housing offer.
Councillor David Jackson proposed approving the application in line with Officer recommendations as detailed in the report, subject to the amendment to condition 18 suggested by Councillor Arciszewska.
This proposal was seconded by Councillor Geoff Saul, who noted that this was a rural exception site which it was policy to support, the site consisted of 100% affordable housing, 66% social-rent housing, and therefore the benefits clearly outweighed the harm. This was then put to the vote.
Voting Record – 9 votes for the proposal, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.
The Sub-Committee resolved to:
1. Approve the application in line with Officer recommendations, subject to an amendment to Condition 18 to include the wording ‘confirmation provided to the LPA’, and an amendment to Condition 29 to replace the word “southern” with “eastern” boundary.