3 to 5 homes at Banbury Road, Pillerton Priors

The site and its setting

The site is a large rear garden within Pillerton Priors, with mature boundary trees, access from a lay-by and public footpath SS11 nearby.

“When considering the visibility of the development close views of the site are available from Public Right of Way SS11 and from the road located to the southwest of the site, albeit at a distance of roughly 100m across agricultural land and with mature trees growing along the plot boundaries. The access to the site would be visible from the A422 to the north, however, any new dwellings would be obscured to a certain extent by the built form of Edoras itself.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for one, two and five dwellings had mixed outcomes, including refusals and an appeal dismissal for the two-dwelling scheme.

“Appeal dismissed 01/03/2024 21/01649/FUL Erection of five detached dwellings with associated infrastructure and the erection of a new pitched roof double garage to serve Edoras. Refused 22/12/2021 17/02500/LDP Confirmation of lawful implementation of planning permission 14/01799/FUL for the erection of a 'Proposed erection of one detached dwelling' through the carrying out of a material operation in accordance with Part C of Section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the housing benefits would not be substantially outweighed by harm despite significant character and landscape concerns.

“Adverse Impacts The proposed development would be positioned on land within the rear garden of the host property, Edoras. NDMP L2 (1)(d) states that the development of additional units within residential curtilages should retain at least 50% of the non-developed area within the curtilage of the existing buildings. The proposal would not accord with this and as a result, I have identified that harm would be caused to the character of the area.”

“There is therefore a clear Policy conflict with NDMPs DP3 and N2, Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy and Parish Plan in respect of design, character and landscape harm. I afford this conflict significant weight against the application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council spoke against the proposal, while the agent, applicant and ward member also addressed the committee.

The committee vote

Councillor Jones proposed refusal, seconded by Councillor Ballinger; seven members supported it and one abstained.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of REFUSE, for the reason detailed below, was proposed by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Ballinger.”

“Thereafter, by 7 votes in favour, with 1 abstention, it was…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application, delegating the detailed wording of the refusal reasons to officers.

“That Planning Application 26/01894/PIP be REFUSED subject to the following/for the following reasons (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The committee considered that harm associated with design, character and landscape policies substantially outweighed the benefits of the development.

“In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the reason for refusing this application was that the harm associated with (NDMPs DP3 and N2, Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy and Parish Plan??) substantially outweighs the benefits of the development.”

Minutes