160 homes with open space at Land off the B480, Chalgrove

What was proposed

The outline scheme sought up to 160 homes, including affordable housing, with open space, landscaping, drainage and access from the B480.

“PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is made in outline with access to the site not reserved. All other matters (appearance, layout, scale, landscaping) are reserved for later consideration. The proposal is for a residential development including the following: - up to 160 dwellings including a policy compliant level of affordable housing, - 6.6ha of open space - drainage and road infrastructure.”

“Access to the site is included in detail as part of this outline application, with one vehicle access point proposed taking access from the B480 to the northern edge of the site, in the form of a T-junction, requiring a right-turn lane on the B480.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar 2022 application was refused and dismissed on appeal, while a 2023 repeat application was declined for determination.

“A planning application for up to 160 dwellings was submitted pursuant to this site in April 2022 (P22/S1381/O). This application was refused under delegated powers in October 2022. An appeal was submitted against the refusal, which was dismissed by on 5th May 2023 following a public inquiry. The appeal decision is a material consideration in this current application. The previous application and appeal are described in section 3 below.”

“A further application was submitted for the same development on the same site in October 2023. However, in December 2023, SODC published a section 70A notice stating that the Council declined to determine the application, as it was judged there had been no significant change in the relevant considerations since the Secretary of State had dismissed the appeal for a similar development on the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing and affordable housing benefits outweighed the combined harms from landscape, schools, connectivity and development-plan conflict.

“The proposal conflicts with Local Plan policies STRAT1 and H1, as well as Neighbourhood Plan policy C1. However, the weight to be given to this conflict is reduced given that the council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, and policies for the supply of housing are therefore considered by the NPPF to be out-of-date.”

“In dismissing the appeal in 2023, the Inspector gave very significant weight to the conflict with the development plan and the harm that flows from that. However, two years on from that decision, the Local Plan is due to be replaced by the emerging Joint Local Plan, and the Chalgrove Neighbourhood Plan is more than 5 years old. The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing and the tilted balance applies.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, flood and environmental consultees largely raised no objection with conditions, but education officers objected because primary school capacity could not be secured.

“- In terms of the capacity, the proposals are the same in highway terms as those previously submitted, which were acceptable to the Highway Authority. Oxfordshire County Council – lead Local Flood Authority No objection Active Travel England No objection - Standing advice issued…”

“Oxfordshire County Council - Education Objection - There is insufficient primary school capacity to meet the needs of primary school aged children likely to be generated by the proposed development site, and no confirmed viable and sustainable means of mitigating this demand in a timely manner having been identified.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council representative, an objector, a supporter and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned housing need, the tilted balance, sustainability, school capacity, services, sewage, the brook, transport and landscape harm.

“Members asked about the need for housing in Chalgrove and were advised that the housing supply need was considered at a district level as opposed to a village level.”

“Members argued that they felt the site was not in a sustainable location, considering the concern over school places and also the accessibility to other services, employment etc. and that this, combined with the landscape harm and loss of agricultural land did outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused outline planning permission because the proposal conflicted with the development plan and harmed landscape, school capacity and transport connectivity.

“A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the outline planning application was carried on being put to the vote.”

“RESOLVED: to refuse the outline planning permission on the grounds that it was contrary to the Development Plan, the harm to the landscape, the lack of school places and the poor transport connectivity.”

Minutes