80-home housing development at Land North Of Holliers Crescent, Middle Barton

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 80 homes, including access, roads, green infrastructure, drainage and other infrastructure.

“Outline planning with some matters reserved for residential and associated development (up to 80 dwellings) including means of access, access roads, green infrastructure, drainage and other infrastructure (additional info received)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The undeveloped elevated greenfield site lies beside Holliers Crescent and sports grounds, with public rights of way and the conservation area nearby.

“The site is an undeveloped, greenfield plot located on the northern edge of the village adjoining Holliers Crescent to the south and the Barton Memorial Sports Ground to the west. A bridleway (365/11/20) passes along the eastern boundary running north to south and a public footpath (365/13/10) runs through the western part of the site again running north to south. The site occupies an elevated position above the village.”

“The Bartons Conservation Area lies to the south of the site the other side of the properties in Holliers Crescent, Dorn Close and Kirby Close. The boundary of the Conservation Area typically includes the properties that face onto North Street.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for up to 80 homes was refused for landscape, biodiversity, transport, archaeology and missing legal agreement reasons.

“23/00818/OUT - Outline planning with some matters reserved for residential and associated development (up to 80 dwellings) including means of access, access roads, green infrastructure, drainage and other infrastructure - Refused for the following reasons:”

“The development site is in an area which is does not benefit from a commuter frequency public transport service. This will result in heavy reliance on private vehicles for journeys to destinations outside of Middle Barton. In transport terms the development site is therefore considered to be in an unsustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies OS2, T1 and T3 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing, affordable homes, biodiversity and community benefits outweighed the identified harms.

“On balance, the benefits of the proposed development are considered to outweigh the modest level of harm identified. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and planning obligations.”

Officer report

What people said

Most letters opposed the scale, landscape, traffic, flooding, ecology and infrastructure impacts, while supporters cited affordable housing, services and school benefits.

“Concerns that the scale and density of the proposed development (up to 80 dwellings) is disproportionate to the size of Middle Barton. • Fears that the development would urbanise a rural village, harming its character and setting. • Visual intrusion into the open countryside, especially from elevated viewpoints. • Increased traffic volumes on Holliers Crescent and surrounding roads, which are narrow and already congested.”

“Need for additional housing in the area, particularly affordable homes for young families and local residents who are currently priced out of the market. • New housing could help sustain local services and amenities, such as shops, schools, and public transport, by increasing the population and demand. • Inclusion of green infrastructure, open space, and landscaping within the proposal are beneficial to the community and environment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative objected, the ward member raised flooding concerns, and the applicant’s agent supported the scheme’s housing and community benefits.

The committee vote

A refusal proposal was tied and fell after the Chair voted against it; a tied approval proposal carried after the Chair voted for it.

“Councillor David Jackson proposed that Sub-Committee refuse the application as it did not meet policies T1, EH3, OS2 and OS3. This was seconded by Councillor Genny Early and put to the vote. The Sub-Committee voted on the proposal to refuse the application as follows; Voting Record – 4 for, 4 against and 0 abstentions. As the vote was tied, the Chair used their casting vote to vote against the proposal to refuse. The proposal to refuse fell.”

Minutes