The publicly available minutes of the meeting give a very balanced and useful account of the discussion and the democratic way that these issues are handled:
Land South of Forest Road, Charlbury
"The proposed layout of the site was shown and amendments to the previously submitted scheme were outlined. In particular it was noted that there was a smaller number of units and the layout on site changed.
Mr Rod Evans addressed the sub-committee in objection to the application. A summary of the submission is attached as Appendix E to the original copy of these minutes. Mr Evans, in response to Mr Beaney, clarified that he was not against development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but any growth needed to be sustainable.
Councillor Liz Leffman, local ward member, addressed the sub-committee in support of the application. A summary of the submission is attached as Appendix F to the original copy of these minutes. Mr Cotterill asked Ms Leffman if she considered the site suitable for dementia care. Ms Leffman indicated that the facility would provide support and help for residents and would be well managed.
Mr Jeremy Smalley, agent for the applicant, addressed the sub-committee in support of the application. A summary of the submission is attached as Appendix G to the original copy of these minutes.
The Development Manager continued his presentation and advised that the main issues for consideration were principle, precedent, siting design and form, landscape impact, highways, amenities, archaeology, benefits and S106 contributions.
The sub-committee noted there was an element of self-build in the application and that the development was considered sustainable in the proposed location. It was acknowledged that it was an on balance decision relating to aspects of sustainability.
The Development Manager concluded by recognising there was a range of views both for and against the proposal. It was highlighted that the scheme was being locally led and the amendments to the previous scheme were an improvement and acceptable in their own right. The Development Manager suggested that the benefits accruing from the development outweighed the harm when the relevant policy and other tests were applied and as such an on balance approval could be recommended.
The Development Manager advised that consultation responses were still awaited from Oxfordshire County Council in respect of highways and archaeology. The recommendation was therefore for approval subject to clarification of the legal agreement and the receipt of responses in respect of highways and archaeology. It was confirmed that if the outstanding responses raised objection then it would be referred back to members.
Mr Graham highlighted concerns about the previous application but acknowledged the considerable amount of consultation since then. Mr Graham suggested that it was still a difficult decision.
Mr Graham acknowledged that the development was on the edge of Charlbury and the changes that had been made to reduce the impact on the AONB. Mr Graham advised that, on balance, the development was acceptable and the increased buffer zone would help reduce the impact.
Mr Graham then proposed the officer recommendation and this was seconded by Mr Owen.
Mr Owen indicated that the scheme had been developed over some time and was a local project that showed innovation and vision and was well designed.
The Development Manager, in response to Mr Cotterill, confirmed that the road within the site would predominantly remain private.
Mr Colston expressed concern that the houses were an adjunct to the main development and probably would not be acceptable on their own. Mr Colston suggested the dementia unit was some distance from the town and sought clarification on whether there would be time limits on construction of the self-build units.
The Development Manager indicated that there was a waiting list of people wanting to construct their own homes and whilst there were some legal options it was likely that applicants would have a financial imperative to complete as soon as possible.
Dr Poskitt indicated concern at the location of the footpath and access to Charlbury. Dr Poskitt advised that it was important that the archaeology situation was clarified on site and asked about the moving of the speed limit on the road. The Development Manager reiterated that if there were any issues relating to archaeology then the application may need to be referred back to the sub-committee. The Senior Planner advised that it was proposed to move the speed limit further away from the access.
Mr Saul, in supporting the proposal, asked if the footpath would also access the railway station. The Senior Planner indicated that this could not be confirmed.
Mr Cottrell-Dormer suggested the scheme was too remote from Charlbury and it was wrong for dementia patients to be placed that close to a river and railway line. The Development Manager reminded members that residents safety was primarily an issue for the operators of the home and they had a management plan in place.
On being put to the vote the proposition was carried.
Permitted, subject to a legal agreement, conditions and no objection being raised in respect of highways and archaeology."
No comments:
Post a Comment