I wish to register my objection to this outline planning application for the following reasons:
WODC’s 2014 SHLAA,and 2016 SHELAA
In 2014 WODC determined that this site was not suitable for development. The reasons given were: ‘it was relatively distant from village facilities; its impact on local roads was unacceptable; it was intrusive in the landscape; and its access was via a bridleway’.
The amended SHELAA 2016, designating it as “part suitable …for 10–15 houses”, was subject to achieving suitable access and pointed out that the site may be prevented from coming forward by the access limitation.
WODC assessment of the site states that: “Village roads and some approach roads are narrow and unsuitable for a material increase in traffic. There is no road frontage to the site with access only onto Farley Lane,via an unmade bridleway.” Farley Lane is particularly narrow with no apparent scope to widen without the removal of an entire length of hedgerow.
Nothing has materially changed between 2014 and 2017. There have been no infrastructure improvements in the village. However, since 2014, 50 new houses have been built, 13 of which are in Farley Lane, adjacent to North Farm. Additionally there are planning applications for a further 68 houses by CALA Homes, Woodstock Road,and 17 houses in Phase 2 of Pye’s Charity Farm development. The impact of 135 new houses on the local roads is actually worse now than when the SHLAA assessment was made. A further 34 houses from this application inevitably makes the situation worse.
AONB
I object to the proposed development because it would be an incursion into open countryside on a greenfield site outside the envelope of the village. Stonesfield and its surroundings are in the AONB where development is restricted and where great weight has to be placed on the AONB status when considering planning applications.
The NPPF says “planning permission should be refused for major developments in the AONB except in exceptional circumstances.” The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 defines a “major” development as one where the number of dwelling houses to be provided is 10 or more. This proposal is for34 houses. There are no exceptional circumstances with regard to this site.
WODC previous statements on this site remain relevant since there have not been any material changes:
1Policy NE4 of the WODC Local Plan 2011 states “the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be given great weight when determining development proposals within or impacting upon the AONB.”
2WODC SHELAA describes the site: “This site is located within the AONB and WychwoodProject area. This part of the District is within the open limestone wolds of the Lower Evenlode Valley where landscapes are very visually exposed and particularly sensitive to development (WOLA). The site itself is in a relatively flat open landscape and development would form a conspicuous intrusion into the countryside.”
Sustainability
WODC’s emerging Local Plan states:… it is reasonable to suggest that achieving sustainable development for West Oxfordshire is likely to mean:
Reducing the current reliance that is placed on the private car for journeys into, within and away from the District by promoting opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of public transport; Reducing current levels of out-commuting and increasing ‘self-containment’…
Stonesfield isn’t a rural service centre. It has negligible employment opportunities and shopping facilities, it doesn’t have a doctor or dentist or secondary school. Therefore further development in Stonesfieldcannot meet policies CO4 and 11; people must commute to work and the majority of these journeys are by car as there is only an hourly bus service to Oxford. The local roads are narrow unclassified roads, not conducive to walking or cycling.
Housing Mix and Layout
The original application was for 16 houses, giving half the site to the village in lieu of affordable housing. Because it failed to meet the 50% affordable housing criteria the developer is now proposing to develop the whole site for 34 houses when the 2016 SHELAA specified the site was only suitable for 10–15 houses.
The application states that the proposed layout demonstrates that the site can deliver a mix of up to 34 new homes, 50% affordable housing, including larger homes to meet the needs of growing families, enhancing the diversity of available housing and complementing the housing mix of other planned developments nearby.
The layout shows a block of 10 one-bedroom flats with a large car park surrounded by 10 four-bedroom houses and the remaining houses fitted in between. The mix and layout is totally out of character with Stonesfield.
The village does not need 10 four-bedroom houses; it already has enough new 4-bedroomhouses that the developers are struggling to sell. It does not need 17 intermediate houses to add to the 59 affordable houses of other planned developments.This application should not be considered in isolation – there are two other major planning applicationsin Stonesfield. Should all the proposed planningapplications in Stonesfield be approved, thevillage will contribute76 affordable houses if Charity Farm is included, which is anearly10% of the entire WODC target of at least 800 in the period 2015 to 2020.
Sewerage
There is no indication that Stonesfield’swaste-water sewers would be able to serve this site adequately. The cumulative impact of this and 4 other new developments on the existing infrastructureis likely to cause capacity problems in the sewers and result in sewage overflows. It should not be permitted without an upgrading of the sewer system.