Councillors present: Mr C Lakeland, Mrs J Gibson, Ms V Fox (VF), Ms M Jacobs. Also present: Mrs Elaine de Ridder (clerk).
1. All payments were approved
P15/V3038/O Land west of Bessels Way Application for outline planning permission for the erection of 28 new dwellings with associated parking and amenity provisions, on land on the western side of Bessel’s Way. (As clarified by Location Plan Drawing No: FSW14 1152 50 Revision B and subsequently amended by Application Forms, Drawings and Information accompanying agent’s email of 25 July 2016 and applicant’s email of 3 August 2016)
Blewbury PC objects. See planning report for full response.
P16/V1938/FUL Westbrook Farm, Westbrook Street Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement dwelling with carport and landscaping
BPC has no objection
P16/V1832/T56 Radio Mast, Churn Hill, Woodway Road Installation of 3 x antennas and 1 x cabinet.
BPC has no objection
P16/V1726/FUL Blewbury Centre, Besselsway Agricultural building
BPC has no objection
New Premises Licence Application Savages, The Nurseries, London Road, Blewbury, OX11 9HB
BPC has no objection
|E de Ridder (salary and expenses)||£938.32|
|D Hollick (salary and expenses)||£478.76|
|NEST (pension contribution)||£54.01|
|BT Payment Services Ltd (direct debit)||£25.44|
|White Horse Horticulture||£200.00|
|Biffa Waste Services Ltd||£56.83|
|Lister Wilder Ltd||£16.28|
|Payments relating to Village hall refurbishment|
|West Waddy ADP||£2,855.52|
Invoices too late for inclusion on the agenda:
Total Pest control £60.00
New total £5055.36
All payments were approved.
MJ reported that she and Mrs Norma Bird met with Beeswax on 11th July, and that together with a few other residents they plan to continue to have informal meetings with Beeswax, and inform each other of relevant activities. Beeswax agreed to put up signs when spraying the fields to alert dog walkers etc, and that they would contact nearby horse owners who keep horses in adjacent fields, directly.
The clerk reported on recent correspondence about the problems barriers cause on footpaths.
Ms Fox confirmed her intention to stand down as councillor and confirmed her resignation. The Parish Council wishes to thank Ms Fox for her dedication and hard work, especially in collating planning responses in the past few years.
Meeting closed 12h35
Planning report for Parish Council – July/August 2016
All Blewbury planning applications, decisions and Parish Council responses, including items under consideration, can be found in the ‘Parish’ section of the Blewbury website
(http://blewbury.co.uk/parish/planning/), which is updated once a week. Links are also provided to the main Vale Planning site, where full details can be obtained.
Responses from the Parish Council:
P16/V0236/A – Ashbrook Lets – BPC objects. The size and modern design of the sign will detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the surroundings. Your attention is drawn to Policy P15 – Highways and traffic principles of the Blewbury Neighbourhood Development plan, which has reached its final stages. Policy 15.3 reads – Street furniture and signage should be kept to a minimum and be practical, of modest scale and in keeping with local surroundings.
P16/V0192/FUL – Westbrook Farm – BPC objects to this application, as before. It is contrary to the saved policy of the Vale Local Plan DC1 Design and the emerging Blewbury Neighbourhood Plan Part 7 – Housing Design and Village Character Assessment. The design (including detailing and materials) of Plot Number 1 is out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing local properties and the other plots in the proposed development. A higher standard of design is expected in a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It stands in a very prominent position, as seen from across the fields and from the A417.The previous version of this application was more visually acceptable.
P16/V0888/HH – Pilgrim’s Way, Pilgrims Way – Extension to the side and addition of an upper storey. Raising of chimney, and rendering and cladding of the exterior. Blewbury Parish Council objects as before. We repeat our concern about the rendering and cladding, which is out of keeping with surrounding houses.
P16/V1695/HH – Hill View, Bessels Lea Road. Erection of 2m close-boarded fence. BPC objects as it is out of keeping with the street scene both in height and material. Residents have complained about the safety aspects, especially when turning from Bessels Way into Bessels Lea Road.
P16/V0904/HH – Sheencroft Cottages – Proposed garage conversion and extension. BPC has no objection.
P16/V1545/HH – Cleve Cottage, Chapel Lane – Increase the height of a chimney at east end of the building. BPC has no objection.
P16/V1726/FUL – Blewbury Centre, Bessels Way. New agricultural building. BPC has no objection.
P16/V3038/O – Land to west of Bessels Way: amendment. 28 new dwellings. BPC objects. Detailed response below.
Decisions from the District Council:
P16/V1106/FUL – Alden Farm – Change of use for milking parlour to three dwellings. GRANTED.
P16/V0834/HH – Hill View, Bessels Way – Two storey side and rear extension (a separate application will be put in for the fence along Bessels Way). GRANTED
P16/V0904/HH – Sheencroft Cottages – Proposed garage conversion and extension. GRANTED.
P16/V0192/FUL – Westbrook Farm – Demolition of farm buildings and construction of four houses. GRANTED.
P16/V1545/HH – Cleve Cottage, Chapel Lane – Increase the height of a chimney at east end of the building. GRANTED.
Enquiries regarding planning in the parish may be sent to email@example.com
Detailed response to Application P15/V3038/O
Application for outline planning permission for the erection of 28 new dwellings with associated parking and amenity provisions, on land on the western side of Bessel’s Way. (As clarified by Location Plan Drawing No: FSW14 1152 50 Revision B and subsequently amended by Application Forms, Drawings and Information accompanying agent’s email of 25 July 2016 and applicant’s email of 3 August 2016)
Location: Land west of Bessels Way
Blewbury Parish Council objects to this application as it did to the previous version and for the reasons contained in our original response which you have on record. We are assured by yourselves that existing objections will considered relevant to the revised application.
The latest iteration of P15/V3038/O comes as no surprise as it follows the well tried practice by developers and agents to influence the sound judgement of planners by apparently reducing the number of dwellings but with no guarantee against further expansion in the future.
With the intention of circumventing the necessity to comply with the rigorous implications of NPPF guidance at paragraph 116 requiring exceptional circumstances, the agents suggest that the reduction in dwellings to 28 would result in the development being considered as minor. This is totally wrong
This is especially true if the cumulative impacts of this development, possible further applications by the applicant and the Chailey House development, already taking place, are taken into account.
As you are aware and we quote from the Department for Communities and Local Government ‘a small scale major development is one where the number of residential units to be constructed is between 10 and 199 (inclusive). Where the number of dwellings to be constructed is not given in the application a site area of 0.5 hectare and less than 4 hectares should be used as the definition of a small scale major development.’ On both counts this is still a major development.
It is totally misleading to present this latest amendment as a final solution as the developers own the whole of the land and it would be naive to think that further expansion would not be their ultimate aim.
The developers appear proud of the fact that they have been able to reduce the proportion of affordable housing, and increase the number of 5 bedroom houses, apparently on advice from yourselves that ‘over provision of affordable housing would be unlikely to receive significant weight as a material consideration’. If evidence were needed of their social credentials we now have it.
They also propose locating the affordable housing together in a small area close to Cossicle Mead whereas the accepted policy as we understand it is to fully integrate affordable housing in the general mix of properties.
Although I accept that you can only attach limited weight at the present time, under the Blewbury Neighbourhood Development Plan, now submitted for independent examination and soon to be ratified, this proposal should be rejected as it is outside the village envelope. It also exceeds the housing capacity mentioned in our Landscape Assessment which states the capacity as low.
Much of the documentation submitted has not been updated beyond just altering the date. For example, the discussion of public transport links (i.e. bus service)
takes no account that the reduced service we now have is on a
one-year trial and will be lost if it doesn’t pay its way.
Their flood risk assessment has not been updated for the new proposal; it still refers to 57 houses etc. It says a study is needed to assess possible groundwater flooding but this has not been done. Nor do they reply to the comments made by Thames Water regarding both fresh water and sewerage capacity problems, as well as sewage flooding.
Surely it would be correct to refuse this application until the effects on the overloaded sewers and water network as a consequence of the Chailey house development are assessed.
As stated before this application would represent major development in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In line with the requirements of Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , the applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in the public interest that would justify this development. This site is not allocated for development and the proposal would represent an extension of development into open countryside.