Agenda item
24/03100/OUT, Land (E) 438356 (N) 212268 Common Road, North Leigh
Minutes:
James Nelson, Principal Planner presented the application for an outlined planning application for a residential development for up to 80 dwellings (Use Class C3), including vehicular access and pedestrian link from Common Road, public open space, car parking, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure. All matters reserved for access.
2.04pm Councillors Liam Walker and Jan Lund joined the meeting.
The Principal Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:
The main constraints identified on the south-western edge of North Leigh were:
- heritage designations at Grim’s Ditch scheduled ancient monument, which must be protected.
- public access routes of which several public footpaths ran close to the site which would need to be considered in any development proposals.
- and the nearby listed historic park and garden Eynsham Hall listed park and garden andany potential impacts on its setting and significance.
The details of the site were:
- The site was located off Common Road close to the Junction with the A4095.
- The site surrounded existing buildings associated with Common Farm and a residential property. Vehicular access to the development would be from Common Road at the southern part of the site.
- The site comprised of agricultural land divided and enclosed by hedgerows with mature tree planting along the western boundary which was in keeping with the site’s appearance and landscape characteristics.
- The application was for up to 80 dwellings with houses that would face southward adjacent to the site access. The Planner had sought to reduce the extent of development into the western corner of the site in response to landscape comments and not to extend the site so far into the countryside. Significant areas would be retained through a legal agreement and would include interpretation boards for the scheduled monument and provide greater public access to the historic area.
- It was clarified that the application had been submitted for 115 dwelling and covered both parcels of land, the application had been amended to reduce the proposed number of dwellings to 80.
The Principal Planner brought member’s attention to the Additional Representation report which proposed minor changes to the conditions and ensured that the planning conditions and Section 106 obligations reflected the amended number of houses proposed.
The merits of the application:
· The site was not allocated for development and the proposal conflicted with the Local Plan 2031 spatial strategy however, officers considered that substantial weight should be given due to the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
· The development would provide up to 80 homes which included 32 affordable homes. This would contribute to both market and affordable housing needs and addressed the need for affordable housing in the area.
· Officers acknowledged that the development would extend the village into open countryside and have some harm to the rural setting of North Leigh. An independently commissioned landscape review had informed amendments to the application, including restrictions on development in the southern field and reduction in its spread westwards.
· Planting and green infrastructure would help reduce visual impacts and integrate the development into the existing settlement. It was recognised that there would be moderate harm however officers did not consider this unacceptable due to the design changes and need for housing.
· The scheme had been moved away from land closest to Grim’s Ditch and preserved the open views to protect and maintain the setting of the monument. Officers concluded that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to both Grim’s Ditch and Eynsham Hall Park and Gardens. The developer would enhance public access to the land and interpretation of the scheduled monument.
· The technical consultees had raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and legal obligations. Concerns related to flood risk had been addressed through drainage proposals. Water supply and waste management would be managed through Grampian style conditions.
· The additional benefits of the proposal were biodiversity net gain, onsite public open space with play facilities, sustainable transport measures with significant contribution through a S106 agreement.
The Principal Planner concluded that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, in line with paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and therefore recommended approval of the application subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and the proposed planning conditions.
Adrian Watts represented North Leigh Neighbourhood Plan Committee and spoke in objection to the application. Mr Watts expressed that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan represented the most comprehensive evidence of local opinion. The Neighbourhood Plan was currently being revised before submission, and it was anticipated that it would be adopted early 2027. Mr Watts emphasised that national planning policy allowed decision-makers to give weight to emerging neighbourhood plans, depending on their stage of preparation, unresolved objections, and consistency with national policy. They therefore urged the committee to take the emerging plan into account when determining the application. Mr Watts advised that there had been extensive community engagement and a survey had achieved a 37% response rate with residents not in support of more development.
Paul Evans, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Evans highlighted that he lived 300 yards from the proposed development. Recently built developments to the village had created more traffic, and greater pressure on the water and sewage infrastructure. There had been a lack of improvements to the road capacity, services and village amenities, school capacity and library opening hours, there was also only one pub left to serve the village. Mr Evans raised concerns that with the 122 houses that had already been approved but were yet to be built with more potential development on Common Road. Mr Evans highlighted that these additional houses would place more strain on the village’s infrastructure and services.
Councillor Andy Clements from North Leigh Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. Councillor Clements highlighted that there had been over 150 objections from residents and objections from the statutory consultees, and the failure to acknowledge the draft neighbourhood plan going through the regulatory process. Since 2015 181 new houses had been built with a near 50% increase in the size of the village. Concerns were also raised regarding utilities and drainage. Thames Water reportedly advised that it could not confirm sufficient foul water capacity and indicated that upgrades to the water supply network may be required. The Parish Council's position was that the proposal conflicted with several policies in the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031, including policies relating to housing, environmental protection, sustainable development and transport. Councillor Clements concluded that the application should be refused due to the housing benefits not outweighing the policies within the Local Plan 2031, lack of infrastructure and the harms to the character of the village.
Harry Ramsey of Savills and Rachel Bibby of Lioncourt Homes, the applicant, addressed the sub-committee. The speakers highlighted that the scheme had been significantly reduced to 80 houses following discussions with the council and statutory consultees. The development would reflect the existing pattern of growth in the village. A landscape-led approach had been adopted including substantial planting along the western boundary to ensure minimal impacts. A key benefit of the proposal was the protection and enhancement of Grim’s Ditch which would be retained in open public space, supported by interpretation boards. The proposed drainage strategy included sustainable features such as swales and an attenuation basin. Foul drainage would be connected to the existing sewer network via a pumped connection. Further engagement planned with Thames Water would ensure sufficient network capacity before homes are occupied. This would be secured through planning conditions. Regarding transport, there would be new access to Common Road, raised table crossing with traffic calming to enforce the 20mph limit, new footpath, two new bus stops and cycle parking facilities. The speakers highlighted the delivery of much needed housing including affordable housing in on a sustainable site and asked members to support the officer recommendation.
The Chair clarified that Councillors Liam Walker and Jan Lund were not able to vote, due to joining the meeting late, but would be able to take part in the debate.
The Chair asked members for any questions of clarification and invited members to debate the application. The following points were raised.
- Members asked if work had already begun on the site as they had driven past the site and seen earthworks being carried out. If this was the case what action could be taken. The Principal Planner was not aware of any work being started on the site and if there was it would be a matter for the enforcement team.
- Members asked what percent of the orchard would be lost and what protection was in place for the rest of the orchard. The Principal Planner highlighted the area on the presentation slides and advised that the maintenance of the land would be secured through S106 agreement.
- Members asked when the first house would be occupied. The Principal Planner explained that, if permission were granted, a number of planning conditions would need to be complied with, including the submission of any required reserved matters applications within the prescribed timescales of 2 years and meeting all pre-commencement requirements. However, it would be a question for the applicant to answer regarding first occupants.
- Members asked for clarification on funding and how much of the developer contributions would be ring-fenced for the village. The Principal Planner explained that a review was in progress of how Section 106 contributions interact with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which has recently been introduced. The proposed development would be liable for CIL and funding could be used towards community infrastructure projects however the Council’s leisure team had not requested funding for projects in North Leigh. The Principal Planner confirmed that leisure infrastructure contributions would likely be delivered through CIL rather than the Section 106 agreement. The Parish would receive 15% from the development in accordance with the CIL regulations.
- Members also raised concerns about the lack of capacity at the Church Hanborough sewage treatment works. They note the Environment Agency's view that the facility has not been upgraded as required and cannot adequately support additional development. If the application is approved, the speaker believes a stronger Grampian condition should be imposed, preventing any above-ground development until the sewage treatment works has been upgraded and sufficient capacity is available.
- Members recognised the significant housing need and the benefit of delivering 32 affordable homes, which carried substantial weight in planning considerations. They also acknowledged the risk that a refusal could be overturned on appeal. Members agreed that the sub-committee found itself caught between the current planning framework and the emerging Local Plan 2043.
Councillor Sarah Veasey proposed that the application be refused against officer recommendations due to 1. Conflict with OS2, 2. Impact on landscape and historic landscape character, 3. impact on heritage and 4. No clear S106 agreement. This was seconded by Councillor Roger Faulkner and put to the vote.
Voting Record: For 5 Against 0 Abstention 2.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
Refused the application as contrary to the following policies.
- Conflict with OS2
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form and siting on unallocated greenfield land adjoining the built-up area of North Leigh, would not constitute ‘limited’ development appropriate to a village within the settlement hierarchy of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031. The proposal for up to 80 dwellings, when considered in combination with recent completed, permitted and committed development within North Leigh, would result in a level of growth that is not proportionate or appropriate to its context having regard to the cumulative impact of development in the locality. Furthermore, the proposal would not form a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development, resulting in a backland extension into open countryside that would erode the historic linear form and character of the settlement. The development would fail to protect or enhance the local landscape and setting of the village, would involve the loss of open land that makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, and would fail to conserve and enhance the natural, historic and built environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OS2, OS4, H2 and EW10 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
- Impact on Landscape and Historic Landscape Character.
The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, extent, siting and encroachment into open countryside on the south-western edge of North Leigh, result in unacceptable harm to the landscape and visual characteristics of the area. The development would result in the loss of agricultural land that currently contributes positively to the rural setting of the village, would extend built form beyond the established settlement edge and into the surrounding countryside, and would materially increase the prominence and perceived extent of the settlement in views from the surrounding landscape and public rights of way. The proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area and would harm the distinctive historic landscape character of North Leigh through the erosion of its traditional linear settlement pattern and the introduction of an overly urban form of development in a rural landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OS2, OS4, EH2 and EH13 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031, the West Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
- Impact on Heritage.
The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, siting and urbanising effect within a currently open agricultural landscape, cause harm to the significance and setting of the Scheduled Monument known as the North Oxfordshire Grim's Ditch west of Common Farm and to the significance and setting of the Eynsham Hall Registered Park and Garden and associated listed buildings. The development would diminish the ability to appreciate Grim's Ditch within its historic rural context and would erode the agricultural and rural landscape setting that contributes to the significance and appreciation of the Eynsham Hall estate. The proposal would therefore fail to conserve or enhance the significance, setting and appreciation of these designated heritage assets and the Local Planning Authority considers that the public benefits arising from the development would be insufficient to outweigh the identified heritage harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EH9, EH14 and EH15 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
- No clear S106 agreement.
In the absence of a completed planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Planning Authority has not secured the provision of policy-compliant affordable housing nor the infrastructure, mitigation and community benefits necessary to offset the impacts of the development, including measures relating to transport, education, healthcare, public open space, recreation, biodiversity management and other supporting infrastructure. As such, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would provide the necessary mitigation to make it acceptable in planning terms. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 Policies OS2, OS5 and H3 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.