Planning Meeting Minutes
held on Monday 4th February 2019 at 7:00pm in the Caudwell Day Centre, Gravel Lane, Drayton, OX144HF
Present:
- Richard Williams (Chairman)
- Matthew Lowy (Vice Chairman)
- Colin Arnold
- Patricia Athawes
- Richard Wade
Not Present:
All Councillors were present.
In attendance:
- Christopher Price (Deputy Clerk and meeting administrator).
Public:
2 members of the public were present.
[Clerk’s note: There was no Planning meeting last month due to a lack of planning applications.]
1/2019 Apologies for Absence.
None.
2/2019 Declarations of Interest, Dispensations and Use of Delegated Powers.
None.
3/2019 Public Participation.
None.
4/2019 Minutes of the Previous Parish Council Planning Meetings
were confirmed with no amendments. Richard Williams signed the minutes as a correct record.
- Proposed: Colin Arnold
- Seconded: Matthew Lowy
- Resolved: Unanimous
5/2019 P18/V2931/FUL
Removal of condition 14 (age restricted units) – on application ref. P15/V2077/O Outline application on Land to the Rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton to provide up to 28 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access. Land to the rear of 10 Halls Close Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LU. The Parish Councils response was noted – see Appendix A.
6/2019 Planning Applications.
It was agreed to authorise the Clerk/Deputy Clerk to respond to the VWHDC with Support/Respond/Object to the following planning applications, with reasons or comments agreed at the meeting, in accordance with material planning considerations and the Drayton NDP planning policies.
P18/V3147/N4B.
Conversion of existing kennel building into 5 x 2 bed dwellings. Acremead Boarding Kennels Old Farm House Milton Road Drayton OX14 4EZ. It was noted that the VWHDC are unfortunately unable to take into account any comments on this notification from us. It was also noted that we have asked Stuart Davenport (VWHDC) to ‘call in’ this application.
ACTION: Deputy Clerk to email Stuart Davenport again and follow up on our request to ‘call in’ this application and request to comment. Depending upon response, Richard Williams to discuss application with Adrian Duffield (Head of Planning, VWHDC).
P19/V0001/O.
Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings, erection of a new office/retail use building and up to 10 new dwellings with provision of associated access, parking and public open space. All matters are reserved for later consideration. Norrington House 22 High Street Drayton Abingdon OX14 4JL.
PC: Support:
The Parish Council would like a retail or a commercial outlet on this site with traffic calming at the junction with the High Street.
ACTION: Richard Williams to draft Parish Council’s response.
P19/V0110/HH.
Single storey extension of the kitchen to the front elevation of the property, with flat roof with glass roof light. Single storey front porch extension. Deconstruct existing conservatory and replace with single storey Orangery with glass roof light. Single storey workshop and carport to side elevation connected to the proposed Orangery. 26 Corneville Road Drayton Abingdon OX14 4HN.
ACTION: All Councillors to consider this application and comment via email. Deadline is 20th February 2019.
7/2019 Date of the next Meeting.
4th March 2019. 7:00pm. Caudwell Day Centre.
The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 7:34pm
Signed:…………………………..
Name:…………………………..
Date: 4th March 2019.
Appendix A
Response to Planning Application No: P18/V2931/FUL
Removal of Condition 14 (age-restricted units) from original application P15/V2077/O Land Rear of 10 Halls Close (Blue Cedar)
P15/V2077/O was the outline application on Land to the Rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton to provide up to 28 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.
Drayton Parish Council OBJECTS to the removal of Condition 14, on the grounds that the existence of this provision in the original application was material in the Planning Inspector’s decision to uphold Blue Cedar’s appeal. The company’s own Planning Manager claimed in an E-mail to the Vale’s Planning Dept. that Blue Cedar are ‘a specialist retirement house builder’ (see below) and could therefore offer housing specifically designed for the elderly. He emphasises that no other local developer was attempting to make such provision. The removal of Condition 14 will effectively render this a false prospectus.
DPC believes that Condition 14 should either remain in place, or the Vale should consider requesting a new planning application, in which Blue Cedar explain more fully their reasons for abandoning this condition and detail any changes in layout which may follow from their decision.
1 Preamble
DPC notes that the original planning application to which this condition was attached has a chequered history, and was contentious from the very start. As we understand, the case officer who dealt with the original application has now left the Vale’s employ, and other officers have also moved on in the last 3 years. It is therefore possible that the current issue may be dealt with by officers who are not necessarily acquainted with this previous history. The remainder of this section is intended to provide both background and context.
The Drayton Neighbourhood Development Plan successfully passed its referendum in March 2015. Local support for three housing sites identified as potential development sites in the Plan was affirmed by a 90.8% ‘Yes’ vote. The NDP was subsequently adopted as part of the Vale’s Local Development Plan, and was ‘made’ in July 2015.
This site at the rear of Halls Close is NOT one of the three sites in Drayton village identified in the Drayton Neighbourhood Development Plan as being suitable for housing development within the Plan period. These 3 sites (clearly specified in the Plan, in Policy P-H1 – Scale of Development and Site Allocation) were subjected to, not one, but two statutory periods of public consultation in Jan/Feb 2014 and June/August 2014. The second period was required only because in Feb 2014, publication of the updated SHMA led the Vale to substantially increase its long-term housing targets.
In late June 2014, a public exhibition of the 3 sites named in the NDP was displayed in the Village Hall. It was not until after this exhibition, in July 2014, that Blue Cedar even announced their intention of developing the Halls Close site. Their application for planning permission was not submitted until October 2015, long after the (second) statutory consultation period had ended.
The point is that such a late application effectively circumvented all the consultation processes which Neighbourhood Planning was designed to put in place. In contrast, many meetings with the developers of the 3 allocated sites took place, resulting in modifications to layout, access, building materials, provision of amenities etc. which, in the PC’s view, clearly resulted in improved outcomes for the new residents and existing residents alike.
Despite objections from the Parish Council and eventually from the Vale (after the application had been rejected by the Vale Planning Committee) a public hearing was called and a Planning Inspector ruled in favour of the application. However, it seems clear that two factors were particularly significant in this application gaining planning permission. One was that it contributed (albeit in a small way) to the Vale’s need for a 5 year land supply, which it lacked at that time. The second was that Blue Cedar promised to provide a number of houses (11 out of the proposed 28) that would be specifically designed for residents over the age of 60, and only available to house-buyers in that age group.
2 The current housing picture in Drayton
As to the 5 year land supply, it was confirmed some time ago that this has been more than met by sites currently being developed or in the pipeline. It was estimated in late 2016 that the land supply in the Vale was now closer to 7 years. It is a fact that between 2015 and 2020, Drayton is on course to expand in size by at least 280 new homes (on the 3 allocated sites, plus another at Eastway). Add in Halls Close and infill sites, and that figure rises to over 300, which represents 30% growth of the village. If this rate of growth were maintained for the rest of the NDP period, than by 2031, the village would double in size, which is clearly unsustainable, in terms of the current road capacity and the growth in traffic volumes alone.
In actual fact, the housing provisions in the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan, as the Vale’s Planning Policy Officer observed in an internal memo on September 18th 2015, actually allocated ‘more housing than was previously proposed through an earlier consultation draft of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1, which sought to allocate 200 dwellings in the village’. The obvious question arises – is there any compelling reason to develop the Halls Close site at all at this time?
3 The rationale for Condition 14
The second factor was Blue Cedar’s proposal to provide a quota of age-restricted housing.
Simon Tofts, the Planning Manager for Blue Cedar wrote to the Halls Close case officer at the Vale on 1st December 2015 as follows:
‘In paragraph 7.35 of the Examiner’s report for the Drayton Neighbourhood Development Plan, dated December 2014, it is noted that: “Whilst there is evidence from the community questionnaire and the VOWDC’s SHMA that there is a need for retirement accommodation, I heard at the hearing that this type of accommodation has been incorporated into the site South of the High Street, based on this evidence.”
I have reviewed the current full planning application South of the High Street by Bloor’s (Application No. P15/V2447/FUL and note there is no mention of retirement accommodation being proposed. As you know, Blue Cedar Homes are a specialist, retirement house builder and our proposal will assist in meeting the Council’s need in Drayton. Indeed paragraph 21 of the NPPG notes that “The need to provide housing for older people is critical given the projected increase in the number of house-holds aged 65 and over” and “Plan makers will need to consider the size of dwellings needed in the future in order to free up houses that are under occupied”
In addition, our proposal will respond directly to the Examiner’s report. No allocated site in the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan that has come forward to date, has provided retirement accommodation.’
Also stressing the benefits of the age related scheme were
- Blue Cedar’s Planning Supporting Statement of August 2015 (Para 17.5)
- The Vale Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Committee (Para 6.42)
- The Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision Report dated 2 November 2016 (Para 64)
The three sources quoted above have all been cited by other respondents to this consultation so are not repeated here. But in his letter of 13th December 2018, asking for Condition 14 to be rescinded, Des Dunlop, representing Blue Cedar, says,
‘However, since the passage of time and the considerable uncertainty in the housing market, the applicant now wants to have flexibility going forward with the development and so would want the restriction on these properties lifted’.
It is unclear what is meant by the reference to ‘considerable uncertainty’. Despite Government assurances, it is true that the policies of austerity are still very much being applied to the British economy. The prospect of Brexit has added to the general uncertainty. However, of the four housing sites currently under construction in Drayton, one was completed and fully occupied many months ago (73 houses). Sites at Manor Farm (57 houses), South of High Street (140 houses) and Eastway (10 houses) are well under way and apparently selling well too.
Are Blue Cedar aware of a downturn in the demand for retirement properties? This seems unlikely as there are plenty of retired people who are comparatively well-off and many more who would welcome the opportunity to downsize. Or do Blue Cedar believe that with four other sites currently being developed, the housing market in Drayton is temporarily saturated – and therefore any of their properties may be difficult to sell?
Whatever Blue Cedar’s motivation, these are not planning reasons for lifting the restriction. More to the point, Drayton does not ‘need’ another 28 houses at this time, if none of them offer anything different to its existing sites. Remove Condition 14 and it would seem much of the raison d’etre of the whole site is removed. As indicated above, this might be a good reason to delay the project altogether until the market ‘settles’ – whatever that may mean.
However, if the project is to go ahead, then Drayton Parish Council would urge that Planning Officers and OCC look closely at the following:
- If Condition 14 is removed, what changes (if any) in layout of the site will result from this? The typical template for Blue Cedar’s retirement homes appears to be a small number of houses clustered around a central green featuring a summerhouse. Will this (not unattractive) arrangement be retained? If it is not, and no gates are envisaged, the PC would expect all roads on the site to be offered for adoption.
- The appropriate Section 106 or CiL payments towards Drayton 2020 projects, with special reference to Education (bearing in mind the likely increase in the number of school-age children who will live on the site), Transport (the X1 service no longer exists and no buses serve the High Street) and village amenities. There should be no question of these payments being reduced or waived for any reason.
- Contribution towards the traffic calming scheme (a Drayton 2020 project) elements of which are greatly needed in this area to improve parking arrangements along High Street and slow the speed of traffic. Other respondents have contributed information about the alarming number of near misses and actual crashes caused by two-way drivers weaving in and out amongst parked vehicles.
- The access arrangements to the development via Halls Close. A pavement down at least one side of Halls Close is considered essential for safe passage of pedestrians, school children etc between the development and the High Street.
- Possible alterations to the junction of Halls Close/High Street to improve visibility for traffic emerging from Halls Close.
- Provision of a zebra or pelican crossing across the High Street in a suitable location to facilitate safe crossing of what is becoming an increasingly dangerous road for all users.
- Previously voiced concerns about the drainage arrangements on the site must be confirmed by Thames Water as being satisfactorily resolved
- Appropriate arrangements should be made to preserve biodiversity on the site or compensate for any losses in that regard.
Listed below are all the relevant policies in the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan.
PLANNING POLICY P-LF2: BOUNDED DEVELOPMENT
Development that does not extend the village’s boundaries (see Figure 4) through ribbon development along roads to the adjacent settlements of Abingdon, Steventon, Sutton Courtenay and Milton, will be supported, subject to compliance with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.
PLANNING POLICY P-LF3: BUILDING DESIGN GUIDANCE
New development will be supported where it is designed to a high standard which responds to the distinctive character of Drayton and reflects the guidelines and principles as set out within the Drayton Design Guide (see Annex D).
PLANNING POLICY P-LF4: CONSERVATION AREA
Any development in or adjacent to the Drayton Conservation Area should conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting.
PLANNING POLICY P-LF5: THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
The Parish’s designated historic heritage assets and their settings, both above and below ground including listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. Proposals for development that affect non-designated historic assets will be considered taking account of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
PLANNING POLICY P-LF6: ADDITIONAL GREENERY – NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Proposals for new development should wherever possible include tree and shrubbery planting to reduce the impact of the built form and ensure that development is in keeping with the existing rural character of the village. Due note should also be taken of the VWHDC’s Adopted Local Plan 2011 Policy DC6 and any updating of this policy in the VWHDC’s Local Plan 2031. (see http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Contents.pdf)
PLANNING POLICY P-LF7: A34 NOISE REDUCTION
Development proposals to the north-west, south-west or west of the village (see Figure 6) should include (where appropriate) measures to alleviate noise from the A34 such as the protection of amenity spaces from excessive noise levels and orientating rooms away from the roadway.
WORK AND PLAY PLANNING POLICIES PLANNING POLICY P-WP1: CONNECTED DEVELOPMENT
Proposals for new housing must ensure that the new homes are well connected both within the site and with the rest of the village by way of footpaths and cycle ways (especially to amenities such as the school, bus stops and shops).
PLANNING POLICY P-WP2: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Proposals for B1 and B2 uses offering local employment are supported particularly on sites which have been considered for residential development but have not been specifically allocated for that purpose. Proposals should ensure that there is no adverse effect on local traffic volumes, amenity of neighbouring properties, the character of the area, air quality or noise levels. Change of use of retail or employment development to alternative uses will be resisted.
PLANNING POLICY P-WP3: RETAIL PARKING
Any new retail or business development must include adequate parking provision in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council’s standards. Proposals to improve car parking facilities to serve existing retail establishments will be supported.
TRANSPORT PLANNING POLICIES PLANNING POLICY P-T1: TRAVEL PLANS
Development proposals which give rise to an increase in traffic will be required to put in place detailed Travel Plans. Developers are required to provide robust evidence that each and every proposal, as set out in their Travel Plan, is feasible and will significantly reduce traffic volume. Direct mitigation measures such as car sharing and car pooling will be positively encouraged.
SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING POLICIES PLANNING POLICY P-S1: BIODIVERSITY
Development proposals are required to protect and enhance biodiversity. Any loss or degradation of habitats arising from new development will need to be offset by for example, funding environmental improvements elsewhere in the Parish.
HOUSING PLANNING POLICIES PLANNING POLICY P-H1: SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATION
The Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for residential development on the following sites:
- Manor Farm (3.98ha) for approximately 50 dwellings (actually 57)
- North of Barrow Road (8.17ha) for approximately 65 dwellings (actually 73)
- South of the High Street (9.64ha) for approximately 140 dwellings All dwelling numbers are approximate and will be reviewed at the planning application stage based on the need to provide smaller homes. Each of these three sites is described in the Plan (below) with their site requirements.
PLANNING POLICY P-H2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Developments must meet the minimum requirement for Affordable Housing set out in the VWHDC Local Plan to meet District-wide need. All such Affordable Housing should be visually indistinguishable from and fully integrated with other housing in that development.
PLANNING POLICY P-H3: CONTRIBUTIONS All
eligible development will be required to make contributions to secure improvements to existing Parish infrastructure (both on and off site) through a Section 106 agreement or when introduced, the Community Infrastructure Levy, or by other relevant means, subject to the development remaining viable.