6 homes at Middle Farmhouse, Crowell Road, Chinnor

What was proposed

Six new houses of varying sizes on a site within the village, opposed by the parish council despite officers recommending approval.

“Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history, were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.”

“The application had been brought before members due to the Parish Council’s objection, which conflicted with the officer recommendation for approval.”

Minutes

Whether the principle was acceptable

Officers found the site within the settlement boundary complied with infill policy, despite concerns raised about access, biodiversity and character.

“It was explained that the site lay within the built-up limits of the village and was enclosed by existing residential development. A number of concerns had been raised through consultation responses, including the principle of development, highway access and pedestrian safety, impacts on biodiversity and drainage, effects on neighbouring amenity, and the character of the area.”

“The planning officer confirmed that the principle of development was acceptable as the site fell within the settlement boundary and complied with policies supporting infill development. In design terms, although some reservations had been raised by the Heritage Officer, it was considered that the site’s limited visibility, relationship with nearby modern development, and additional landscaping would ensure that any harm to character or the conservation area would not be…”

Minutes

Amenity and highway safety

Officers judged the layout gave acceptable separation and amenity, and found a solution to concerns about refuse vehicles and the pedestrian crossing.

“In terms of residential amenity, the layout was considered acceptable, providing appropriate separation distances and private amenity space without resulting in unacceptable overlooking or loss of amenity.”

“The planning officer acknowledged concerns regarding highway safety, particularly in relation to refuse vehicles and the nearby pedestrian crossing. However, it was advised that an acceptable solution could be secured and that the development would not result in a severe impact on highway safety. Adequate parking and turning space would also be provided.”

Minutes

Ecology and drainage

The scheme would protect ecological features, deliver biodiversity gains and provide appropriate drainage, subject to conditions.

“Members were informed that, subject to conditions, the development would protect existing ecological features, deliver biodiversity enhancements, and provide appropriate drainage arrangements. The scheme also included policy-compliant carbon reduction measures.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

With no five-year housing land supply, officers concluded the scheme's benefits outweighed any harm and recommended approval.

“The planning officer highlighted that the council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied. It was concluded that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh any identified harm, and the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A parish council representative and the applicant's agent spoke on the application.

What members debated

Members questioned biodiversity offsetting, the neighbourhood plan, cumulative housing growth, waste collection and affordable housing requirements.

“Clarity was sought regarding the relationship with the neighbourhood plan and whether the site’s lack of allocation affected its acceptability. The planning officer confirmed that, although the site was not allocated, it fell within the settlement boundary and met the criteria for infill development, and was therefore compliant with both the local plan and neighbourhood plan.”

“Members asked whether affordable housing was required. The planning officer confirmed that, due to the scale of the development, there was no policy requirement for affordable housing provision.”

Minutes

A refusal motion failed

Members raised cumulative development and infrastructure concerns, but a motion to refuse was not carried as there were no robust grounds.

“Members moved to the debate and a motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded.”

“In support of refusal, members raised concerns about cumulative development within the village, pressure on infrastructure, highway safety, waste collection arrangements, and the perceived overdevelopment of the site.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee then approved the application in line with officers' recommendation, subject to the conditions listed.

“A subsequent motion to approve the application in accordance with the officers’ recommendation was then proposed and seconded. Members acknowledged the challenges associated with the decision but recognised that there were no robust planning grounds for refusal.”

“RESOLVED: to approve planning application P25/S2264/FUL subject to the following conditions: Commencement 3 years – Full Planning Permission 2. Approved plans 3. Archaeology (Submission and implementation of WSI) 4. Archaeology Watching Brief 5. Construction method statement (CEMP) 6. Ecology – HMMP 7. Surface water drainage works (details required) 8. Foul drainage works (details required) 9. Tree Protection (Detailed) 10. Schedule of Materials 11.”

Minutes