Cherwell District Council's Planning Committee met to discuss two planning applications, ultimately approving both, subject to conditions and the completion of section 106 legal agreements¹. The approved applications were for the construction of up to 150 dwellings at Land At Hanwell Fields, and for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of retirement living apartments at Glebe House.

Land At Hanwell Fields, Dukes Meadow Drive, Banbury

The Planning Committee approved the recommendations for outline planning permission for up to 150 dwellings and associated open space at Land At Hanwell Fields, Dukes Meadow Drive, Banbury, with all matters reserved except for access. This decision is subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The application site, comprising 7.1 hectares of fallow agricultural land north of Dukes Meadow Drive, is described as 'Phase 3' of a larger development, with previous consents granted for 78 and 114 dwellings to the southeast and east, respectively.

The committee considered the following key issues:

• Principle of Development: The site is not allocated for development in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2015) or emerging local plan. However, given the council's current housing land supply of 2.3 years, the 'tilted balance'² is engaged, creating a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposed development is considered to be in a sustainable location, close to a range of facilities and transport links.

• Landscape Impact: The committee acknowledged the potential for severe landscape harm, particularly in the short term, until screen landscape planting matures. The site is visible from several vantage points, and the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) concludes that there would be significant landscape harm when viewed from some viewpoints, particularly from the north towards the south. The committee noted that the site is identified as Banbury L1 within the Landscape Evidence Base Site Landscape Assessments prepared by LUC, and the assessment concludes that the majority of the site would have a moderate sensitivity to residential development as is proposed. The committee noted that the parameters plan shows that built form of development would avoid the most visually harmful northern and eastern edges of the plot where the land is most elevated and so would have the most views from surrounding vantage points. The committee agreed that appropriately worded landscape conditions securing the strengthening and depth of planting to the site's boundaries in line with the Landscape Strategy Plan are proposed which should minimise the harm caused to the wider landscape.

• Heritage Impact: The site is within the wider setting of the Hanwell Conservation Area. The heritage statement submitted with the application states that the proposed development would not be perceived in views from Hanwell Conservation Area. The level of heritage harm likely to be experienced would be less than substantial.

• Ecology Impact: BBOWT raised a number of objections regarding the ecology on the site, including the potential impact on the Hanwell Brook Wetland. The committee noted that the current site boundary is located approximately 600m from Hanwell Brook Wetland and there is no permanent watercourse connecting the site with Hanwell Brook Wetland. The committee also noted that the site is separated from any drainage features by the retained grassland areas and further permitted residential development schemes as such officers consider that the proposals would result in adequate hydrological separation to the Hanwell Brook Wetland. The committee agreed that the proposals have been designed in order to avoid the majority of the areas of grassland recorded to contain Adder's Tongue Fern, and accordingly, the proposals represent the opportunity to incorporate specific long-term management measures within the offsite grassland and this can be secured via an appropriately worded condition and within the S106 agreement. The committee agreed that the submission documents have given consideration to BNG and Officers are confident that the documents show that at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain can be achieved at the site, and a strategy has been submitted as to how this could be achieved.

• Highways and Vehicular Access: Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) Highways raised no objections, subject to conditions and contributions, including the provision of a TOUCAN³ controlled crossing of Dukes Meadow Drive, financial contributions towards Banbury Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) enhancements, and contributions towards public rights of way improvements.

The committee balanced the benefits of the scheme, including boosting the local housing supply and providing affordable housing, against the identified landscape harm. Ultimately, the committee concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm, subject to appropriate conditions and Section 106 obligations.

Glebe House, 8 Mill Street, Kidlington, OX5 2EF

The Planning Committee approved the recommendations for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of retirement living apartments at Glebe House, 8 Mill Street, Kidlington, with associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary facilities and associated works. This decision is subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The application site comprises approximately 0.48ha of land in the north east of Kidlington supporting an existing, disused, single storey building that was formerly a care home.

The committee considered the following key issues:

• Principle of Development: The committee agreed that the application site is in a highly sustainable location in close proximity to services and facilities and with excellent public transport links, and the proposed development would make effective and efficient use of a brownfield site.
• Design and Impact on the Character of the Area: The committee agreed that the design of the proposed development, including the built form, site layout, and hard and soft landscaping, is considered to respond appropriately to the site context. The committee noted that the overall massing of the building is broken up by the modulation of the footprint and roofs, with additional visual interest provided through the use of materials and architectural detailing, and the site layout and landscaping, including boundary treatments, respect the open, verdant character of the streetscene.
• Heritage Impact: The committee agreed that the proposed development is considered not to result in unacceptable adverse impacts on designated or non-designated heritage assets.
• Residential Amenity: The committee agreed that the proposed development would result in a degree of harm to the residential amenity of the occupants of Frank Cook Court, resulting in some conflict with the amenity requirements of CLP 2015 Policy ESD15 and CLP 1996 Policy C30.
• Affordable Housing: The committee agreed that the proposed development would not be able to provide a policy-compliant commuted sum towards the provision of offsite affordable housing, in light of which it fails to accord with the relevant provisions of CLP 2015 Policies BSC3 and BSC4.
• Ecology Impact: The committee agreed that the proposed development is subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements and the Council's Ecologist confirms that the submitted details demonstrate that 10% BNG can be achieved.
• Highways Impact: The committee agreed that the proposed development is considered to integrate well with existing streets and routes, and to be well-connected and accessible with a range of sustainable travel options.
• Flood Risk and Drainage: The committee agreed that the proposed development would not result in an increase in flood risk within the site or to other nearby properties.

The committee balanced the benefits of the scheme, including contributing to the District's housing stock and addressing the critical national need for housing for older people, against the harms arising from the identified conflicts with CLP 2015 Policies BSC3 and ESD15 and CLP 1996 Policy C30. Ultimately, the committee concluded that the benefits outweighed the harms, subject to appropriate conditions and Section 106 obligations.