Drayton Parish Council Minutes
of a meeting held on Monday 5th August 2019 at 7:30pm in the Caudwell Day Centre, Gravel Lane, Drayton, OX14 4HF
Drayton Parish Councillors Present:
- Tamsin Crane (Chairperson)
- Matthew Lowy (Vice Chairperson)
- Patricia Athawes (Vice Chairperson)
- Pervin Shahin (arrived at 7:41pm and left at 9:19pm)
- Graham Webb
- Shane McAleavey (left at 8:40pm)
- Colin Arnold
- Garin Schoonhoven (left at 9:46pm)
- Irma Vastakaite (left at 9:46pm)
- Claire Woollard (co-opted item 153/2019)
- Richard Wade (co-opted item 153/2019)
Drayton Parish Councillors not Present:
All Councillors were present.
In Attendance:
- Lorraine Watling (Parish Clerk/Responsible Financial Officer)
- Christopher Price (Deputy Clerk)
- Adrian Cooke (VWHDC) (left at 8:40pm)
- Richard Webber (OCC) (arrived at 8:34pm and left at 9:19pm)
Public:
15 members of the public were present (2 were co opted onto the Council).
153/2019 Co-option of Additional Councillors.
It was resolved to co-opt the following people.
- Claire Woollard.
Proposed: Tamsin Crane Seconded: Shane McAleavey Resolved: Unanimous
- Richard Wade.
Proposed: Tamsin Crane Seconded: Colin Arnold Resolved: Unanimous
Drayton is entitled to 11 Parish Councillors so there are currently no vacancies. The two co-opted Councillors signed the acceptance of office register and joined the meeting.
154/2019 Apologies for Absence.
None.
156/2019 News from OCC Councillor.
Item deferred until Richard Webber’s arrival (see item 159/2019).
157/2019 News from VWHDC Councillor (Adrian Cooke).
- Cala Homes, Manor Farm, Gravel Lane Footpath. Adrian Cooke has spoken to local residents and planning enforcement about the site boundary, the movement of soil levels and the damage to the Gravel Lane footpath and hedge. It was noted that Cala Homes will be submitting a retrospective planning application.
- Miller Homes, Walnut Meadow. Adrian Cooke and Richard Webber have requested a full legal audit of the Walnut Meadow site by VWHDC and OCC so that a comparison can be made between what was promised or planned and what has been delivered. This will take some time but Councillor Cooke expected that a report would be produced that would form the basis of enforcement action. It was noted that ideally any fines arising from this action would come to the parish to off-set the cost of the expired planning application etc. Matter continued under 159/2019 News from OCC Councillor (c).
- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78. P18/V2931/FUL. Land to the rear of 10 Halls Close Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LU. Removal of condition 14 (age restricted units) – on application ref. P15/V2077/O. Outline application on Land to the Rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton to provide up to 28 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access. It was noted that Blue Cedar have appealed the VWHDC’s refusal to remove the age restriction. It was noted that the district council now has a 5 year land supply. It was noted that Richard Williams has submitted written representations on behalf of the Parish Council – see Appendix D
Pervin Shahin arrived at 7:41pm.
158/2019 Public Participation.
- Pond at Sutton Wick. A parishioner reported that there is about 4′ of silt in the pond and explained the history of the pond. The pond is fed by rainwater that flows into it from at least three gullies from the main road and the drain inflow which runs down Sutton Wick Lane. An outflow was created a decade ago. There is a circulation pump that is an essential part of the operation as it circulates the water. In summer there is usually more evaporation than inflow and so the pond needs topping up. A local farmer and others helped to dredge the pond in the 1990s as was several feet deep in mud. At various times over those 30 years the pond was either covered with water lilies or home to fish and various wildlife and ducks.
The Chairperson asked the Council if they would agree to bring forward agenda item 16 and they agreed to do so. During the subsequent discussions it was confirmed that the outflow pipe flows into a sewer and that the pond has flooded at least twice. It was noted that:
1. the pond is a key feature of Sutton Wick
2. topping up the pond from Thames Water via a hose is not sustainable
3. the silt will probably contain various heavy metals as these are inherent in the grit used by OCC for winter road gritting. This will be raised with Thames Water as these will go into the sewer when the pond floods
4. the maintenance cost of the pond could be high and so will require careful consideration
5. a local resident offered to pay for the electricity required to run an aerator if the PC agreed to install one
ACTION: Clerk to procure warning signs. Tamsin Crane to write to Thames Water about use of pond as run off, and OCC Highways.
- GARD (Group Against Reservoir Development). Derek Stork reported on the reservoir and provided an update; the key point being that Theresa Coffee at DEFRA had indicated that she had received ‘excellent advice’ which led her to suggest the reservoir plans will receive a ‘warm welcome’ ACTION: Tamsin Crane to submit freedom of information request from the Minister requesting information on this “excellent advice”.
- s137 Grant Application – Stonehill Community Gardens. It was resolved to approve this grant application to the sum of £349.00 for a water purifier.
Proposed: Tamsin Crane Seconded: Richard Wade Resolved: 10 for and 1 abstention
- Public Transport Liaison. Daniel Scharf reported on poor bus service and misleading real time information. Daniel Scharf said that he wished to pass this role back to the PC and councillor Irma Vastakaite offered to take on this task. It was agreed to appoint Irma Vastakaite as the PC’s Public Transport Liaison representative.
- P19/V1669/FUL. Variation of Condition 2 of P16/V1705/FUL to allow the substitution of plan 2904.P.215A with PL.03A to simplify and improve the parking arrangements for the public open space. Land at Manor Farm Drayton. The possibility of a keeping the temporary parking spaces was discussed. A parishioner has expressed a wish to keep the car park at the entrance to Manor Farm development, but others expressed opposing views. It was noted that the VWHDC website says: Withdrawn prior to determination on 30th July 2019.
ACTION: Tamsin Crane to clarify the status of this planning application with Cala and if necessary VWHDC.
Richard Webber (OCC) arrived at 8:34pm.
Shane McAleavey and Adrian Cooke (VWHDC) left at 8:40pm.
159/2019 News from OCC Councillor (Richard Webber).
- Highway Officers. It was noted that there is a shortage of highway officers.
- Councillor Allowance. Richard Webber’s proposed £8k funding in Drayton forms part of £30k which has been set aside for highways issues. He has had to prioritise his projects, and the Marcham to Abingdon road currently takes priority over Drayton proposed traffic calming measures including White Lines, Barrier at the end of FP14 where it meets Henleys Lane/Church Lane, Pedestrian Crossing on the Abingdon Road (B4017) at Manor Farm/Hilliat Fields and the Proposed Pedestrian Crossing for the High Street (B4016).
- Miller Homes, Walnut Meadow. Richard Webber spoke about the legal audit of Walnut Meadows that was mentioned earlier in the meeting by Adrian Cooke (VWHDC). This will form the basis of possible enforcement action against Miller Homes. It was noted that there is a meeting on 30th August with Miller Homes. Richard Webber noted that there is a new organisation comprising 40 parishes across Oxfordshire who have developed neighbourhood plans but feel let down by the current lack of support from the district and county councils
ACTION: Colin Arnold, Tamsin Crane and the Deputy Clerk to conduct a Parish Council audit.
160/2019 Minutes of the Previous Parish Council Meeting.
The minutes of the previous Parish Council meeting were approved and signed by the Chairperson.
Proposed: Colin Arnold Seconded: Graham Webb Resolved: Unanimous
161/2019 Public Art Working Group.
Pervin Shahin noted that she had sent emails to the VWHDC and the artists proposed and awaited a response from them.
Pervin Shahin and Richard Webber (OCC) left at 9:19pm.
162/2019 Action Checklist from the Previous Meeting – Appendix A.
The action checklist was noted and specific issues reported below:
Additional Consecrated Land.
It was noted that there is a covenant that effects the parish council burial land.
ACTION: Graham Web and Tamsin Crane to confirm the implications of this on site.
Dog Faeces.
It was noted that the VWHDC have decided not take on any new litter or dog bins that third parties propose to fund and install on ‘relevant land’ – land that the district council has responsibility for cleansing e.g. highways. The VWHDC now assess the need for bins in the proposed areas, and if agreed there is a requirement, and there was a suitable location identified to site the bin, they would supply, install and empty the bins as part of the waste contract. An officer from the VWHDC waste Team, visited the sites where the PC proposed installing new dog bins but didn’t see any loose or bagged dog waste.
ACTION: Chairperson to monitor the situation to determine if further communication required to VWHDC needed about this. Adrian Cook to follow up with Biffa / Vale.
163/2019 Finance & Personnel Committee – Appendix B (Patricia Athawes).
- Payments. The list of payments circulated prior to the meeting was approved. The 2 councillors nominated to approve online payments were Patricia Athawes and Matthew Lowy.
- Bank Reconciliation. The Council noted the bank reconciliation that had been circulated prior to the meeting.
- Disposition of Council Funds. The council noted the disposition of council funds that had been circulated prior to the meeting.
- s137 Grant Application – Stonehill Community Gardens. Request for a £349.00 s137 grant. This had been discussed and approved under item 158/2019 Public Participation (c).
- Arboriculturists Quotations. Removal of Conifer Trees that are on the boundary with 85A Barrow Road and reducing the hedge height at the cemetery / allotment. Item deferred to the next meeting as further clarifications have been sought from the potential contractors.
- RoSPA Inspections. It was noted that the annual RoSPA inspections have been undertaken and the report already circulated to all Cllrs and the Village Caretaker. No significant risks have been identified.
164/2019 Rights of Way & Conservation Working Group (Graham Webb).
A parishioner reported a number of issues regarding overgrown footpath. It was noted that the Village Caretaker has been asked to clear the overgrown footpaths, and the Parish Council will issue letters to homeowners asking them to cut back their hedges.
165/2019 Auto Reply for Drayton PC email Account for Emergencies.
It was noted that there was an issue with setting up out of office for the Clerks email which is currently being rectified. In an emergency, if the Clerk is unavailable, emergencies will be dealt with by the Chairperson.
166/2019 Street Side and Verge Parking on High Street.
It was noted that dangerously parked cars should be reported on fix my street and to the PCSO.
Garin Schoonhoven and Irma Vastakaite left at 9:46pm.
167/2019 Projects Board Committee (Colin Arnold).
- Manor Farm Car Park. Matter discussed under 158/2019 Public Participation (e).
- Miller Homes, Walnut Meadow. Matter discussed under 157/2019 News from VWHDC Councillor (b) and 159/2019 News from OCC Councillor (c).
- Projects Board Membership. It was agreed to appoint Janet Manning to the Projects Board.
168/2019 Planning Committee – Appendix C. (Matthew Lowy).
It was noted that there was no Planning Committee meeting held this month.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78. P18/V2931/FUL. Land to the rear of 10 Halls Close Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LU. Removal of condition 14 (age restricted units) – on application ref. P15/V2077/O. Outline application on Land to the Rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton to provide up to 28 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access. It was noted that Richard Williams has submitted written representations on behalf of the Parish Council – see Appendix D.
169/2019 Procedure for Unauthorised Caravans / Camper Vans on Parish Council Land.
ACTION: Tamsin Crane will draft template letters for issue to trespassers on Parish Council land.
170/2019 Extra Bins at the Church.
It was noted that St Peter’s Church has issued a statement about the diocesan policy to no longer allow the use of non-degradable materials or any type of plastic at the churchyard. Residents have been asked to use the bins provided for compostable waste and to take everything else home with them. It was noted that the Parish Council compost bins are often full and that people put plastic in them although two general waste bins are provided. It was also noted that the bins may need to be relocated if this area around them is designated for use for new burials.
ACTION: All Councillors to consider Drayton Parish Council’s policy on plastic. Deputy Clerk to empty the compost bins with the Village Caretaker.
171/2019 Pond at Sutton Wick.
This agenda item was discussed earlier in the meeting under item 158/2019 Public Participation (a).
172/2019 Correspondence.
- Vale Community Awards Lunch. 28th September 2019. Nominations by 9th August 2019.
ACTION: Councillors invited to comment via email.
- Deep Clean Vale of White Horse. 28th November 2019 until 4th December 2019. Litter picking, sweeping and removing weeds/moss on pavements. Is there is anywhere in particular, in the parish, that the PC would like to be cleaned?
ACTION: Tamsin Crane to ask for residents views on Facebook or via the Drayton Chronicle.
- Bees and Trees. A project with Drayton primary school.
ACTION: Response to be sent suggesting the Lyford Close BMX track.
- Free Installation of Full Fibre Broadband (HMG).
ACTION: Clerk to propose the Village Hall, Caudwell Day Centre and St Peter’s Church.
173/2019 Items to be noted from Parish Councillors.
None.
174/2019 Dates of the next Meetings.
- Planning Committee. 2nd September 2019. 7:00pm Cauldwell Day Centre. Tbc.
- Parish Council. 2nd September 2019. 7:30pm Cauldwell Day Centre.
- Finance and Personnel Committee. 16th September 2019. 7:00pm Cauldwell Day Centre.
- Projects Board Committee. 23rd September 2019. 7:30pm Cauldwell Day Centre. Tbc.
The Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 10:06pm.
Signed:
Name:Tamsin Crane
Date: 2nd September 2019
Appendix A
Action Check List
Additional Consecrated Land.
Clerk working with the Diocese office to process the application for the Bishop of Dorchester to consecrate additional land at the existing burial ground. Graham Webb and Tamsin Crane to assess the potential implications of the newly discovered covenant on the burial ground.
Conifer Trees that are on the boundary with 85A Barrow Road.
Clerk has sought quotes for the removal of the trees. Potential contractors have visited the site and quotes have been submitted. The PC is currently awaiting further clarification from contractors before decision can be made on which to use.
Seating at Bus Stops.
Council investigating. Meeting held. Shane McAleavey to report.
Dog Faeces.
Clerk ready to order 3 new bins but project stalled due to VWHDC refusal to empty bins at the proposed sites as they do not agree that they are required. Chairperson to monitor the situation to determine if further communication required to VWHDC needed about this. Adrian Cook to follow up with Biffa / Vale.
Pedestrian Crossing for the High Street (B4016).
Shane McAleavey, Garin Schoonhoven, Irma Vastakaite to liaise with Cllr Webber re suggested locations.
Pond on Sutton Wick Lane.
Clerk to procure warning signs. Tamsin Crane to write to Thames Water about use of pond as runoff, and OCC Highways.
Miller Homes, Walnut Meadow.
Colin Arnold, Tamsin Crane and the Deputy Clerk to conduct a Parish Council audit.
Bins for the Churchyard.
All Councillors to consider Drayton Parish Council’s policy on plastic. Deputy Clerk to empty the compost bins with the Village Caretaker.
GARD.
Tamsin Crane to submit freedom of information request from the Minister responsible for dealing with the Water Resource Management Plans, requesting information on the ‘excellent advice’ she has received on the reservoir, which leads her to suggest the plans will receive a ‘warm welcome’.
P19/V1669/FUL. Variation of Condition 2 of P16/V1705/FUL to allow the substitution of plan 2904.P.215A with PL.03A to simplify and improve the parking arrangements for the public open space. Land at Manor Farm Drayton.
Tamsin Crane to clarify the status of this planning application with Cala and if necessary VWHDC.
Procedure for Unauthorised Caravans / Camper Vans on Parish Council Land.
Tamsin Crane to draft template letter for issue to trespassers on Parish Council land.
Vale community awards lunch.
Councillors invited to comment via email.
Deep clean Vale of White Horse.
Tamsin Crane to ask for residents views on Facebook or via the Drayton Chronicle.
Bees and Trees.
Response to be sent suggesting the Lyford Close BMX track.
Free Installation of Full Fibre Broadband (HMG).
Clerk to respond to OCC proposing the Village Hall, Caudwell Day Centre and St Peter’s Church.
Appendix B
Finance & Personnel Committee
PAYMENTS: £500 or more
Disposition of Council Funds
Appendix C
Planning Committee Report
P18/V2563/FUL.
Proposed change of use from agricultural to retail business and repair of garden machinery and accessories. Milton Garden Machinery Milton Road Drayton Abingdon OX14 4EZ.
PC: Objection:
The Parish Council would like clarification about whether the track that runs to this business is a bridleway or a byway (open to all traffic).
VWHDC: Pending.
P18/V2563/FUL Amendment: No. 1 – dated 23rd October 2018.
Retrospective application for the proposed retention and change of use of an existing building currently used as a dwelling to a lawnmower retail showroom to be used ancillary to the existing authorised lawnmower repair business use. Change of use of agricultural land to business use with additional car parking. Erection of an assembly workshop for mowers and an open framed storage area for mowers. (Description amended 23.10.2018). Milton Garden Machinery Milton Road Drayton Abingdon OX14 4EZ.
PC: Objection:
The Parish Council would like clarification about whether the track that runs to this business is a bridleway or a byway (open to all traffic).
VWHDC: Pending.
P19/V0001/O.
Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings, erection of a new office/retail use building and up to 10 new dwellings with provision of associated access, parking and public open space. All matters are reserved for later consideration. Norrington House 22 High Street Drayton Abingdon OX14 4JL.
PC: Support:
See March’s Planning Minutes for details.
VWHDC: Pending.
P19/V0859/HH.
Demolish existing single storey side extension. Erect two storey side extension. 73 Abingdon Road Drayton Abingdon OX14 4HW.
PC: Support.
VWHDC: Pending.
P19/V1006/HH.
New Conservatory to rear. 13 Whitehorns Way Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LJ.
PC: Support.
VWHDC: Planning Permission on 5th July 2019.
P18/V2563/FUL Amendment: No. 3 – dated 15th May 2019.
Retrospective application for the proposed retention and change of use of an existing building currently used as a dwelling to a lawnmower retail showroom to be used ancillary to the existing authorised lawnmower repair business use. Change of use of agricultural land to business use with additional car parking. Erection of an assembly workshop for mowers and an open framed storage area for mowers. (Description amended 23.10.2018) (Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment received 25 March 2019) (Amended location and block plan received 15 May 2019, correcting the red line, to include the highway) Milton Garden Machinery Milton Road Drayton Abingdon OX14 4EZ. Dead line: 31st May 2019.
PC: Objection:
see June 2019 Planning Minutes for details.
VWHDC: Pending.
P19/V1251/HH.
Proposed first floor extension over existing garage and internal alterations 3 Whitehorns Way Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LL.
PC: Response:
No Objection.
VWHDC: Pending.
P19/V1669/FUL.
Variation of Condition 2 of P16/V1705/FUL to allow the substitution of plan 2904.P.215A with PL.03A to simplify and improve the parking arrangements for the public open space. Land at Manor Farm Drayton.
PC: Pending.
VWHDC: Withdrawn prior to determination on 30th July 2019.
Appendix D
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78. P18/V2931/FUL.
Land to the rear of 10 Halls Close Drayton Abingdon OX14 4LU. Removal of condition 14 (age restricted units) – on application ref. P15/V2077/O. Outline application on Land to the Rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton to provide up to 28 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access.
Dear Planning Inspectorate,
I am writing to you on behalf of Drayton Parish Council to oppose Blue Cedar’s attempt to drop Condition 14 – the age-restriction on 11 of the above dwellings. I was, until May 2019 when I stood down from the post, Chairman of the Parish Council, and also Chair of its Planning Committee.
In Blue Cedar’s submission (dated May 2019), they say, in para. 1.5 , the following: This statement will demonstrate that the decision to refuse planning permission was ill founded by the Planning Committee who ignored their professional officer’s advice to approve the application. Furthermore, the reason for refusal is vague in that it quotes the lack of technical evidence provided to justify the removal of the condition. However, nowhere has the Planning Committee indicated (e.g. the minutes) what technical evidence was lacking. This is a typically disingenuous comment by Blue Cedar. The company’s sole stated reason for wanting this condition dropped is this statement: ‘Since the passage of time and the considerable uncertainty in the housing market, the applicant now wants to have flexibility going forward with the development and so would want the restriction on these properties lifted’. This ‘explanation’ is entirely unsupported, and the issue is not about a lack of technical evidence as such (the word ‘technical’ being simply a red herring introduced by Blue Cedar) – it’s the lack of any sort of evidence. One would expect, for example, that BC would have carried out a marketing survey, or produced some figures to indicate a slowdown specifically in the retirement housing market.
Although Brexit may have had some impact on overall house sales, it would seem that the market in retirement housing is actually fairly buoyant. For good reason, because its target demographic are not generally first-time buyers, and usually they either have an equivalent sized property to sell, or they are aiming to downsize. The parish knows of several local towns where retirement apartment complexes are currently being built. All of these are reportedly selling well, and evidently there are similar sites all over the south of England. The Blue Cedar model does not include support or care services, but neither do many of the above-type developments. Frankly, this does not look like a market plagued with uncertainty. At the Vale’s Planning Committee in April 2019, the Blue Cedar representative, Simon Tofts, was asked why he believed the market to be unfavourable. What was BC’s evidence for a decline in demand? To which Mr Tofts replied, ‘Well, we didn’t think we’d need to provide any’. This response was not well received. Blue Cedar claim to be specialists in building retirement housing. Their website shows that all of their listed sites are, without exception, designed either wholly or mainly for older persons.
Not a single one of their sites consists solely of housing aimed at unrestricted age-groups. So why is a company of self-declared specialists in building housing for older people now asking the inspectorate to allow it NOT to build housing for older people at a time when the government is saying that the need for specialist housing for older people is ‘critical’? To quote from the Government website: People are living longer lives and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing. In mid-2016 there were 1.6 million people aged 85 and over; by mid-2041 this is projected to double to 3.2 million. Offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems.
Still more relevant, although you would not know it from their statement of case, Blue Cedar made a point in their original application of stressing how, as specialists in retirement housing, they were offering something which none of the three designated sites in the Neighbourhood Plan were providing. I refer you to the highlighted passage in Mr Tofts’ letter (attached as Item 1) to Planning Officer Peter Brampton. Actually, Mr Tofts’ observations about the Bloor Homes site South of the High St are incorrect. The Bloors site includes 6 bungalows, which though not formally age-restricted, are clearly aimed at older buyers. They were included at the suggestion of the NDP Steering Group, and are deliberately located near to the High St to facilitate access to local amenities.
Blue Cedar are guilty of consistent misrepresentation in their appeal case. To read this document, you would think that Drayton Parish Council has quite unfairly imposed a condition (i.e. of supplying housing for older persons) on Blue Cedar which it did not apply to any of its three allocated sites in the Neighbourhood Plan. This is to turn the true situation on its head. The fact is that Blue Cedar announced its interest in the Halls Close site well after the statutory consultation period for the Neighbourhood Plan had taken place. In fact, after two consultation periods had taken place – the second being required after the Vale upped all its housing targets following publication of the SHMA in Feb 2014. In order to further their chances of approval, Blue Cedar made much of their USP as specialists in retirement housing. Condition 14 was not ‘imposed’ upon them – it’s there because retirement housing is what Blue Cedar do! But the Parish still contested the Halls Close development, and it was subsequently thrown out by the Vale’s Planning Committee, only to be rescued on appeal.
This lengthy saga is explained in items 2, 3 and 4 attached, which are the official Parish Council responses to a) BC’s second planning application (largely identical to the first) – Item 2, and b) the proposed removal of Condition 14 (Item 3). I would ask you to please read these documents carefully as they put the case in ite wider context. Item 4 is a simplified timeline which shows how Blue Cedar missed the deadline for inclusion in the NDP. There is no dispute about the suitability, in principle, of the Halls Close site for housing. However, just because multiple sites in a village may be ‘suitable’ for development does not mean they all have to be built on at once. There is an issue of how much growth a village can reasonably absorb in a limited period of time. In the case of Drayton, there are more serious issues concerning the capacity of the local roads, and it makes no sense to keep giving planning permission to more and more major sites when the infrastructure can barely cope now. In paragraph 5.6 of their case, Blue Cedar quote paragraph 64 of the Planning Inspector’s report. They say: By way of background, Condition 14 was imposed by the appeal Inspector but it was not requested by the Planning Authority at the appeal.
The appeal Inspector imposed the condition because he stated at paragraph 64 of his decision that: – (Appendix 1) “In principle, a condition to control the range of the use that would be permitted in 11 of the proposed dwellings, including occupancy of those units as per the details set out in the planning application, would be necessary as the proposal has been assessed and considered on that basis. For instance, unconstrained use of those dwellings would be likely to increase the school-aged population of the development thereby altering the education requirements that would result from the development…” Two comments on this. 1) Of course the Planning Authority did not request Condition 14 at the appeal. They had no reason to do so, as it was Blue Cedar themselves who undertook to build the 11 houses for over 60s, all the while boasting about their unique expertise in this area. Indeed this promise was central to their application! 2) BC imply that concern about increasing the school-aged population of the development was the ‘only’ problem issue mentioned by the Inspector. From the passage above it is clear that this was just a ‘for instance’. The operative phrase in the Inspector’s remarks is that Condition 14 was necessary because ‘the proposal (and therefore the decision to grant planning permission for the development) has been assessed and considered on that basis’.
The Planning Officers Committee report dated 17th April 2019, which recommended removal of Condition 14 states in para 4.20 the following: Officers consider that the use of these dwellings as elderly accommodation only is not a prerequisite for allowing planning approval and removing condition 14 does not prevent elderly people from buying the dwellings. This statement surely misses the point that a development designed specifically for older people is presumably aimed at buyers who are probably looking for a quiet life, surrounded by others of similar age, who do not necessarily want as immediate neighbours, younger people who might have different aspirations, noisy children, etc. As to the second part, Blue Cedar’s houses are, according to them, purpose-designed to facilitate living for older persons. They say: ‘Our internal floor plans are spacious with extra-wide doorways and adaptable features to accommodate single-floor living’. In addition, Blue Cedar offer estate maintenance, assistance with gardening- both communal and private areas, external window cleaning, external painting every 5 years, waste management and a sense of general security and well-being. These things are facilitated by a dedicated Estates Manager, who does not live on site, but who co-ordinates the work and is available to deal with any problems. Being able to delegate such tasks to an external agent is obviously part of the attraction of these sites (albeit with a service charge attached), but it is a feature obviously not on offer in a more conventional development. The issue here is NOT one of Drayton trying to block development. The NDP will obviously have to be reviewed at some point, but since it covers a 15 year period, it seems entirely reasonable that the 3 allocated sites should have been fully built out, and their impact assessed before further large sites were contemplated. Which brings us back to the rationale for building at Halls Close. Contrary to Blue Cedar’s assertions, there are 2 main reasons why their original application was granted planning permission. One is the provision of housing for over 60s, secured by Condition 14. The other (and more important of the two) is that, at the time, the Vale was deemed not to have a 5 year land supply. It was assessed as having only 4.2 years, and on that basis, the presumption in favour of sustainable development kicked in. Crucially, the Vale’s Committee Report of 27th January 2016 includes the following passage (from paragraph 6.39): Thus, overall, the judgement on the acceptability of the principle of this case is very finely balanced. Paragraph 198 of the NPPF states, “Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.” It is of course the case that, were it not for the fact the DNP policies relating to housing are out of date, this scheme would be refused. The ‘case’ in question is Blue Cedar’s original application to build 28 houses: P15/V2077/O. In the sentence highlighted, the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan policies were deemed out of date only because at that time, the Vale did not have a 5 year land supply. This no longer applies. The Vale’s latest 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement, dated April 2017, and covering the period 2017/18 to 2021/22, states, in para. 3.2: The district’s housing requirement, as set out in Core Policy 4 of the Part 1 plan, is 20,560 dwellings. This equates to 1,028 dwellings per annum. This will ensure the Council meets its objectively assessed housing needs in full, as identified in the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014.
The table in Appendix 1 of this document – ‘Housing Trajectory’ indicates that completions for the 5 years covered (already completed and projected) are as follows: 2017/18 – 1447 homes. 2018/19 – 1996 homes. 2019/20 – 2400 homes. 2020/21 – 1920 homes. 2021/22 – 1671 homes. In short, the target figure of 1028 homes per annum is comfortably exceeded in each of these years. The projected figure does not fall below 1028 until the year 2024/25, but no doubt by that time, further sites will have come on stream. There is no longer any shortfall in the 5 year land supply, not now and not until 2023/24. So the question surely has to be asked, if this scheme would have been refused in 2016 had the Vale had a 5 Year land supply back then, why should it be given the go ahead now when there is clearly no pressing need for it. The only remaining justification for the Halls Close site is its provision of some housing specifically for older persons. Remove that condition, and the rationale for building at Halls Close disappears. Or at least it does until 2024/25, at which point a new application could certainly be considered. The current application was granted planning permission in November 2016. It therefore expires in November 2019 if building has not commenced, which to date, it hasn’t. Although perhaps the on-site archaeological diggings count as building work?
Even so, in the Parish Council’s view, removal of Condition 14 should invalidate that planning permission, which means that Blue Cedar ought to submit a new and revised application. There remains the mystery as to why a specialist retirement housing company should want to abandon the very type of housing it specialises in. The only conclusion we can come to is that Blue Cedar have lost interest in the site and intend to sell it on to another developer. The removal of Condition 14 would make it far easier for them to do this. They have the right to sell the land, of course, but NOT, in our view, with extant planning permission attached. Any new developer should have to submit a new planning application, given that they almost certainly would want to change layout, housing mix etc. Any new application would, I believe, be opposed by Drayton Parish Council at the present time.