Single detached dwelling at Land South Of The Paddocks, Aston, Bampton

The site and surroundings

The site was a paddock at the village’s southern edge, within the conservation area, beside housing and open countryside.

“This application seeks consent for the erection of a single detached dwelling and associated works at Land South of The Paddocks, Aston.”

“The application site is located at the southern edge of the village to the south of a residential close (The Paddocks), accessed off Bull Street. The site is within the Aston Conservation Area ('CA') and borders residential development to the north and east with open countryside to the south and west.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions included four dwellings, while an application for one dwelling and a garage was refused.

“W2000/0576- Erection of four dwellings and garages (amendment to planning permission approved under reference W99/0401) part retrospective- Approved.”

“W2000/0686- Erection of one dwelling with double garage & repositioning of garden boundaries- Refused.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, drainage, archaeology and ecology consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while Thames Water made no comment.

“WODC Drainage No objection subject to condition.”

“OCC Highways No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector opposed the proposal, while the applicant addressed sewage, drainage, housing supply and a possible independent treatment system.

Members’ debate

Members discussed sewage information, traffic, the lack of Environment Agency comments and whether the development would extend the village boundary.

“Members raised concerns that this would increase traffic to the site, the applicant confirmed that a risk assessment had not been done however on an average of 15 households a tank would be emptied twice a year. The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points: • The proposed development was a residential house and complied with policy H2 of the Local Plan.”

“The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application which raised the following points: • Members were concerned there were no comments from Thames Water and no Environment Agency (EA) report. The Principal Planner explained that the scale of the proposed site and dwelling did not identify a meaningful impact on the sewage system. The EA were not statutory consultees.”

Minutes

The votes

A motion to refuse the application fell, while a later motion to approve it with additional sewage measures passed.

“Councillor Steve Cosier proposed the Sub-Committee refuse the application against officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Dan Levy and put to the vote. Voting Record – 4 For, 5 Against, 3 Abstentions – the vote fell.”

“The Chair proposed the Sub-Committee approve the application as per officer recommendations with 1. additional condition to require foul water to be disposed by septic tank, 2. to add an informative to suggest that the Committee did not see the use of septic tanks as an appropriate long term solution. This was seconded by Councillor Alistair Wray and put to the vote. Voting Record – 7 for, 4 against, 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee approved the application as recommended, adding a condition requiring foul water disposal by septic tank and an informative about its long-term use.

“The Sub-Committee Resolved to: Approve the application as per officer recommendations with additional condition to require foul water to be disposed by septic tank.”

“Add an informative to suggest that the Committee did not see the use of septic tanks as an appropriate long term solution.”

Minutes