Agenda item
23/03071/FUL Land South of Forest Road, Charlbury
Minutes:
Mike Cassidy, Principal Planner, presented the application for the erection of thirty-seven dwellings including access road, landscaping, and associated earthworks. The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points:
- Amendments had been made to conditions 8 and 9 relating to cycling and car parking as set out in the additional representations report.
- The application was initially brought to the Sub-Committee in May 2025 where it was deferred. The Report had subsequently been updated to address the matters raised at that meeting.
- The application site was to the west of Charlbury, it adjoined the development to the rear of the Railway Station. Rushy Bank Ancient Woodland marked the western boundary. The site was within the Cotswold National Landscape. Charlbury Conservation Area was on the opposite side of the railway line. Charlbury Railway Station was a Grade 2 listed building approximately 350 metres from the site.
- A material consideration for this application was the lapsed permission granted in January 2020. Part of this permission included a five-metre ecology buffer zone between the development and ancient woodland.
- The current application proposed 37 new dwellings. This was the same number as previously approved, albeit in a differing arrangement and lower form of development, with single storey bungalows and two-storey buildings proposed.
- All existing trees were being retained, additional woodland was proposed with a five-metre landscape buffer zone between the development and existing ancient woodland and a further ten metre zone kept free from development.
- Improvement to the footpaths on Forest Road were proposed.
- The proposal was a mixture of one to four bedroom dwellings. Twenty-one affordable units were proposed (57% of the total), and these included seven assisted living bungalows.
- The proposed parking and garages on the site were in accordance with OCC Parking Standards.
- The dwellings would have a simple massing and a vernacular in keeping with the area.
James Whitehead spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:
- There were no extant planning consents for development.
- Weight could not be given to previous approvals as they predated the Neighbourhood Plan, ignored harm to ancient woodland and the conservation area and were for a dementia unit not housing.
- The site did not adjoin the settlement.
- With regard to the Woodland, National Policy and Guidance was being set aside and the proposed mitigation could not be considered acceptable.
- The pedestrian connection did not meet policy requirements and was dangerous and unsustainable.
- The National Landscape Board had identified the proposal as a major development due to its detached and elevated position.
- The “tilted balance” was not engaged due to the understated protected harms.
Laura Bisby spoke on behalf of Harper Crewe Ltd in support of the application and raised the following points:
- The benefits of the scheme had been provided to Members previously.
- King’s Council opinion had been sought on the principle points raised at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee and had found the following: there was no fall-back position following the previous judicial review decisions; those decisions did not stray into the planning merits of the scheme; consistency in decision making was a key planning principle and clear reasons should be provided for departure from previous decisions.
- Technical concerns previously raised by the Sub-Committee were controlled by the planning conditions proposed in the Officer Report. Examples were provided.
- The Officer considered the proposal minor development in the Cotswold National Landscape. However, the scheme also met the exceptional circumstances test set out in the NPPF and Planning Policy.
- The proposals had taken on board Natural England Guidance regarding the ancient woodland and buffer zones.
- The development aimed to provide housing which met the need of the local community and included 57% affordable homes and assisted living bungalows.
The Principal Planner continued with his presentation and addressed the points raised by the public speakers:
- The concerns raised by Objectors regarding: the tilted balance not applying; there being no “exceptional circumstances” for the development; and questioning the assessment undertaken in relation to impact on the National Landscape, were covered in the report. The report had been reviewed by an external planning solicitor and the Council’s legal team, who were satisfied the planning assessment undertaken by Officers was sound.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:
- The development sat on the outskirts of town and therefore would need to have good connectivity for walking and cycling.
- The footpath needed to be widened, and consideration given to making it easier for people to cycle.
- The degree of impact of the development of the site on the views from Grammer School Hill and Dyers Hill which had been cited in objections was explored.
- It was suggested that some of the language in the representation from Campaign to Protect Rural England could have been considered emotive. In particular given the business development that existed near the site.
- The Sub-Committee noted the number and sources of objections to the scheme.
- The proposed buffer zone to the ancient woodland may not be satisfactory. Queries were raised as to whether the inclusion of gardens as part of the buffer zone was acceptable. It was noted that ancient woodland was irreplaceable habitat.
- The benefits of the scheme included: providing much needed affordable housing in Charlbury which was a town with high demand for this; specialist housing; contributions to the local economy: biodiversity net gain; and a contribution to custom build housing.
- There was no objection from the Biodiversity Officer or Natural England.
- The development had energy and water saving features.
- The buffer zone at the far corner of the development was, as previously presented by the Officer, a total of 15 metres.
- The relationship of the Condition 22 (Means of Enclosure) and Condition 26 (Removal of Permitted Development Rights) was explored.
- Consideration was given as to whether the development should be considered major development in the AONB or alternatively was it constrained and therefore not major. The discussion explored if exceptional circumstance would justify the development if it was considered major development. Some Members noted that the location and setting were considerations with regards to the classification. Clarification was sought as to the Planning Solicitor’s view on this.
- There was evidence that the development fitted Policy H2 of the Local Plan regarding housing needs.
- The NPPF applied, with the presumption of sustainable development unless policies protected assets of particular importance, or the adverse impacts outweighed the benefits of the scheme.
- Thames Water’s Charlbury sewerage treatment works capacity and recent spills from this facility. An additional condition was proposed that would not allow occupation of the development until the necessary capacity was reached. It was advised that Thames Water had scheduled works to be completed by summer 2026.
- The use of the railway bridge within the Travel Plan would be explored with an informative suggested linked to condition 4.
- Members requested that as part of the off-site highway works (secured under Condition 5 Offsite Highway Works) consideration would be given to the feasibility of installing a chicane in the road leading to the railway bridge.
- Members sought assurance from Officers around section 6.157 of the Officer Report that required a S106 legal agreement with a management company to maintain the buffer zones. It was noted that while this was positive it was important to ensure that the company was qualified to manage ancient woodland.
The Principal Planner addressed the Members’ comments as follows:
- The Planning Solicitor was comfortable with the Officer’s view that this scheme did not constitute major development.
- The scheme could also have been considered acceptable if it was considered major development as there were exceptional circumstances.
- Travel Plan Condition 4 sought to maximise links to Charlbury, and the Section 278 off street highway works looked to maximise the width of pavements. It was acknowledged that some sections of pavements could not be expanded due to physical restrictions, however OCC Highways had raised no concerns.
- Condition 12 was a pre-occupation condition which would control the sewerage concerns raised.
- The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment was very detailed and had considered views of the site from Grammer School Hill and Dyers Hill.
- Legal advice could be sought to ensure management of the buffer zones was correctly undertaken and secured in the s106 legal agreement.
Councillor David Jackson proposed approving the application in line with Officer recommendations as detailed in the report.
This proposal was seconded by Councillor Geoff Saul and put to the vote.
Voting Record – 6 for the proposal, 1 against and 2 abstentions.
The Sub-Committee resolved to:
1. Approve the application in line with Officer recommendations, subject to an additional Informative advising that when discharging Condition 4 (Travel Plan), the LPA would expect the applicant to consider the feasibility of using the footbridge by Charlbury Railway Station and provide detail of how this could be used. The LPA would also expect the off-site footpath improvement works (secured under Condition 5 Offsite Highway Works) to consider the feasibility of a chicane being installed in the road leading to the railway bridge, similar to other parts of Charlbury, to provide more space to make it easier for pedestrians, cyclists, and those with mobility issues, to get to and from the station.