Gladmans Planning Application refused by AVDC

I was pleased to see that AVDC have refused the planning application by Gladmans for 80 homes off North End Road.

The reasons for refusing the application are are as follows:

1 The proposal would conflict with policy GP35 of the Aylesbury Vale District Plan and would not constitute sustainable development. It would fail to comply with the core planning principles of the NPPF to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, to conserve and enhance the natural environment and to reuse land that has been previously developed. The development is of a scale and nature on a greenfield site in the open countryside which would cause harm by the significant adverse visual and landscape character impact on the area of the development site and its surrounding landscape and to the settlement identity of the village of Steeple Claydon which is contrary to the Development Plan and the NPPF.

2 The applicant has not made any provision for a footway between the application site and Steeple Claydon Village Centre along North End Road and therefore the absence of footways would lead to conditions of danger to pedestrians walking to or from the proposed development. The development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would not promote sustainable transport and the aims of Buckinghamshire's Local Transport Plan 3

3 The location of the site is such that it has only limited access by non-car modes of travel. The absence of adequate infrastructure and the sites remoteness from major built up areas is such that it is likely to be reliant on the use of the private car contrary to local and national transport policy. The development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would not promote sustainable transport and the aims of Buckinghamshire's Local Transport Plan 3

4 The Design and Access Statement refers to the development as including 2.5 storey dwellings with a height of 10.5m and a span depth of upto 12.5m. Buildings of this height and scale are not a feature of the village and taking into consideration the prominent edge of village location, such buildings would be visually intrusive and lend the development an urban appearance not in keeping with its rural location. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to policy GP.35 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan and paragraph 56,57, 58, and 64, of the NPPF.

5 Had the above reasons for refusal not applied, it would have been necessary for the applicant and the Local Planning Authority to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of 30% affordable housing on site, a financial contribution towards off site sport and leisure facilities as well as the maintenance of on site open space, the provision of a financial contribution towards additional grammar school facilities, and off site highway measures. In the absence of such a provision the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of policy GP2 and the Affordable Housing Policy Interim Position Statement (June 2014) and policy GP94 of Aylesbury Vale District Plan and the NPPF.


Congratulations to all residents who actively opposed the application.