The Development Management Sub-Committee of West Oxfordshire Council approved an application for 37 new dwellings on land south of Forest Road in Charlbury. This decision was made after extensive debate regarding the development's impact on the Cotswolds National Landscape, ancient woodland, and local housing needs. The committee also discussed highway access and the provision of affordable housing.

Land South of Forest Road, Charlbury

The committee considered a full planning application for the erection of 37 dwellings, including an access road and landscaping, on land south of Forest Road in Charlbury. This application had a complex planning history, including a previously granted permission that was later quashed by the High Court.

Decision: Approved, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

Arguments for Approval:

• Housing Need: The council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which engages the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This means permission should be granted unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
• Affordable Housing: The proposal significantly exceeds policy requirements by offering 57% affordable housing (21 units), including social rent and discount market sale tenures. This addresses a clear and evidenced local need for affordable housing in Charlbury, with over 100 applicants on the council's waiting list expressing a preference for the area.
• Specialist Accommodation: The development includes seven assisted living bungalows, replacing a previously approved care home. This provision is designed to meet identified local care needs, particularly for older people and those with disabilities, offering flexibility for care delivery within the home.
• Custom and Self-Build: The scheme includes 12 custom-build plots, exceeding the policy requirement and addressing identified demand for such housing.
• Sustainability: The development is located in a sustainable location, within walking distance of Charlbury's amenities and railway station. The proposed dwellings will incorporate energy-efficient measures, including photovoltaics, electric vehicle charging points, and air source heat pumps.
• Biodiversity Net Gain: The proposal is expected to achieve a biodiversity net gain of 20.06% in habitat units and 78.34% in hedgerow units, exceeding the required 10% net gain.
• Previous Approvals: While not legally binding, the fact that similar schemes were previously approved on this site was considered a material consideration, indicating a past planning judgment that development was acceptable.
• Public Benefits: The overall public benefits, including housing provision, affordable housing, specialist accommodation, ecological enhancement, and contributions to local infrastructure through Section 106 agreements, were considered to outweigh the identified harms.

Arguments Against Approval:

• Impact on Cotswolds National Landscape: Objectors, including the Cotswolds National Landscape Board and the Charlbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee, argued that the development constitutes major development within a nationally protected landscape. They contended that exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated and that the harm to the landscape and the setting of the Conservation Area outweighed the public benefits. Concerns were raised about the visual impact from key viewpoints, such as Grammar School Hill, and the potential for urbanisation in an area designated for its natural beauty.
• Ancient Woodland Impact: Despite a 5-metre ecological buffer zone and a 15-metre setback for built structures, objectors argued that the development would cause deterioration to the adjacent ancient woodland, contrary to NPPF paragraph 193(c). Concerns were raised about light pollution, noise, and potential encroachment from domestic pets. Natural England's guidance recommends a 15-metre buffer, although officers concluded that site-specific factors justified a 5-metre buffer in this instance.
• Princ of Development: The site is located outside the defined built-up area of Charlbury and is considered open countryside under Policy H2 of the Local Plan. Objectors argued that development should only be permitted in such locations if there is a specific local need that cannot be met elsewhere, and that alternative sites within or adjoining Charlbury could meet this need.
• Highway and Pedestrian Access: Concerns were raised about the adequacy of pedestrian access to Charlbury station, particularly for those with mobility impairments, due to the narrowness of the footway and bridge. While Oxfordshire County Council, as the highway authority, raised no objection and considered the access acceptable, objectors felt this did not fully address the needs of all users.
• Loss of Potential Car Parking: Great Western Railway (GWR) objected on the grounds that the development would preclude future expansion of car parking at Charlbury station, potentially impacting the use of sustainable transport by rail. Officers noted that GWR does not own the site and there is no safeguarding for this land for transport infrastructure.
• Neighbourhood Plan Compliance: Objectors, including Charlbury Town Council and Friends of Evenlode and West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, argued that the development did not comply with policies in the Charlbury Neighbourhood Plan, particularly concerning development outside the built-up area and the protection of important views and the Evenlode Valley.

Key Discussions and Considerations:

• Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): A significant portion of the debate focused on the council's discharge of its PSED obligations, particularly concerning accessibility for individuals with protected characteristics. Officers presented detailed assessments from both the council and Oxfordshire County Council, concluding that the proposed development and associated highway improvements met the required standards for safe and suitable access.
• Tilted Balance and Housing Land Supply: The council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply was a crucial factor, triggering the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development. However, the committee also had to consider whether policies protecting areas of particular importance, such as the Cotswolds National Landscape and ancient woodland, provided a strong reason for refusal.
• Major Development in National Landscape: The committee debated whether the proposal constituted major development under paragraph 190 of the NPPF. Officers concluded it did not, based on its contained nature, scale, and design, and consistency with previous assessments. However, they also outlined that if it were deemed major development, exceptional circumstances and public interest would be demonstrated through the housing benefits.
• Ancient Woodland Buffer: The adequacy of the 5-metre buffer zone was a point of contention. While Natural England's guidance suggests a 15-metre buffer, officers, supported by ecological and arboricultural assessments, concluded that site-specific factors justified the 5-metre buffer, coupled with robust boundary treatments and a long-term management plan.
• S106 Contributions: The development would secure significant contributions towards local infrastructure, including sports and recreational facilities, primary healthcare, public transport improvements, special education, and household waste recycling.

Outcome:

Following extensive debate, the committee voted to approve the application by four votes to three, with three abstentions. The decision was made subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure various contributions and management plans.

Other Matters:

• Site Visit: A site visit was scheduled for 2 July for the Stony application on Coombe Road.
• Planning Website Maintenance: Councillor Genny Early raised concerns about the planning website being unavailable during committee meetings, requesting that such maintenance be avoided on those days. The explanation provided was that this is managed by a national company and is outside the council's direct control.
• Voting Clarification: A minor clarification was made regarding the Chair's voting rights.