Agenda item
25/01897/OUT Land West of Combe Road
Minutes:
Mike Cassidy, Principal Planner, presented the application for the outlined planning application with some matters reserved for the erection of 20 dwellings within a nature enhancement scheme.
The principal planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:
· The site was in the Stonesfield Conservation Area and in the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL). The site comprised of a grass meadow with two coppices of trees which were to be retained and two wooden stable buildings in its western corner.
· The site was bound to the northeast, southeast and southern part of the southwestern boundary by hedgerow trees. Stonesfield Manor a Grade II listed building was to the north of the site. The site was surrounded by a mixture of agricultural land as well as a number of residential properties. The Stonesfield Roman villa was outside the site boundary on the opposite side of Combe Road.
· The proposal for the site was for the erection of 20 dwellings with an access road onto Combe Road. The application was in outline form with means of access and site layout only to be considered.
· The proposed dwellings would consist of 20 units, 10 affordable and 10 market. Affordable dwellings would include 1, 2 and 3 bed homes and the market would include 3 and 4 bed homes. The homes would include air source heat pumps, solar panels and EV charging points.
· The Council’s housing officer has identified a significant need for affordable housing in the Stonesfield area. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.
· A Visual Impact Assessment had been undertaken, and it was found that there would be limited impact to the surrounding area. The site would retain the existing tree coverage and would be contained by boundary hedgerows. Limited trees would be removed for access to the site.
· The site was located in flood zone 1, was not prone to flooding and had sustainable drainage. The extension of the footpath by 2 metres and additional planting would be part of the development. The construction of the site would bring economic and employment opportunities. When considering the tilted balance, the harms did not outweigh the benefits of the proposal.
The Principal Planner recommended the application for approval subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 legal agreement and subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.
John Ashmore spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:
- There were significant numbers of objections to the application.
- There was no demand for market housing within Stonesfield, and a housing needs assessment was not included in the application.
- There was limited transport links via buses and no train station.
- There were concerns about the road safety for pedestrians, especially near the war memorial and the junction there could not be improved.
- There were concerns regarding water pressure and sewage spills.
Councillor Lowe from Stonesfield Parish Council spoke in objection and raised the following points:
- The Parish Council strongly objected to the application.
- The Neighbourhood plan (which was in the process of being examined), Independent landscape assessment and housing needs assessment had not been considered.
- The data for housing need was flawed and most people who applied for housing via the Homeseeker’s system were in the bronze category and of low housing need.
- The harms outweighed by the benefits and harm would be done to the landscape of the area.
Councillor Michele Mead declared an interest that members of the sub-committee knew the next speaker Mr Bill Oddy but did not have a prejudicial interest.
Bill Oddy and Ben Tomlin of Independent Futures spoke in support of the application and raised the following points:
· The application would provide affordable housing for essential workers such as teaching staff, council workers and veterans.
· There were 13 people on the housing waiting list for the Stonesfield area.
· Affordable housing would enable people to remain in the village as private rental properties was expensive.
· The housing would also meet the needs of disabled residents.
· It was acknowledged that not all residents were in support of the application.
The Chair invited the members of the sub-committee to debate the application. The following points were raised.
- Concerns over the housing assessment and need for housing in the village of Stonesfield.
- The use of versatile and arable land for development. The officer confirmed that there was no policy to consult with DEFRA and part of the site would be retained as a meadow.
- Harms to the historical surroundings including mines and felling of trees. The officer confirmed there was limited harm identified to historical buildings due to the distance of 110 metres from the nearest building to the site. There was no evidence to suggest there were mines in the area. There would be limited removal of trees to create access to the site.
- The neighbourhood plan had not been adopted and was of very limited material consideration.
- Concern about the path being extended by 2 metres on one side of the road only and it was noted on the opposite side of the road there was a bus stop with no capacity to extend due to the trees. The officer confirmed that Oxfordshire County Council Highways had not objected to the application.
- Members suggested a site visit would be helpful to be able to look at the location and get a better understanding of the site.
Councillor Sarah Veasey proposed a site visit on Thursday 2 July at 9.30am. This was seconded by Councillor Michele Mead. This was put to the vote and agreed unanimously.
The Sub-Committee resolved to:
1. Attend a site visit on Thursday 2 July at 9.30am.