Councillors criticise new homes plan for third time

PLANS to demolish a house in Henley and replace it with new homes have again been opposed by the town council.

Kingerlee Homes, of Kidlington, wants to demolish the Mount in Rotherfield Road which it says is dilapidated and replace it with two new houses.

There would also be associated landscaping, including two swimming pools, and a wooded area.

The site is currently home to a single, three-storey, Arts and Crafts style Edwardian dwellinghouse built in 1906.

The developer says the house is in a dilapidated state and that there had been no objection to the removal of the building.

But the first application, to build three houses in its place, was rejected by South Oxfordshire District Council, the planning authority, in January 2023.

The district council argued the development would erode the undeveloped, rural character and appearance of the hillside south of the road.

Now Kingerlee Homes has reduced this to two homes and included a wildlife area on the plot.

A new application was submitted in January this year and was further amended in July, which reduced the width of the second dwelling by 1.5m and it has been relocated 5m further to the north.

The size of its swimming pool has been reduced and a line of trees has been included to separate the blocks.

In its planning statement, the developer argued the new house will be informed by the Arts and Crafts style of the existing house and the other homes in the locality.

But at a meeting of Henley Town Council’s planning committee on Tuesday last week, neighbour Peter Erskine, who lives opposite the site, said that while he was conflicted in opposing the scheme the house at the top of the plot was still too big.

He said: “When I saw the latest proposal I frankly was puzzled in terms of opposing it but not wanting to. Yes, there have been changes. They have done ecological work, they have done work on the drainage.

“But the key matter is the house of the two that will stand on the top of the valley. It is ever so slightly smaller but it’s still three storeys. It’s still 921 sq m and that does not include the flat over the garage.

“In 2006, when I gather my home had planning permission, there was a very, very long debate and trees had to be planted so it couldn't be seen from the road. The proposed house is considerably taller.”

Councillor Michelle Thomas proposed the council recommend the application for refusal based on the grounds that the amended plans have not done enough.

She said: “I’ve looked at every single other submission on the planning portal and everyone is saying the same thing, which is they haven't addressed any of the concerns that we had previously. They haven’t gone far enough.

“But I would argue that two [houses] is just not necessary. The whole plot, plot two, is the problem.

“It’s not about shifting it here or shifting it there or reducing it by one metre or whatever. The whole plot needs to be eradicated from that plan.”

Councillor Laurence Plant agreed and said he was worried about what kind of precedent approving the application would set.

He said: “I couldn’t agree more with Cllr Thomas and Mr Erskine. It just changes the character of the lane.

“I know it has happened in one or two there, but we’ve seen what happens in Shiplake and other areas if you let garden developments or even back plot developments. They destroy all the amenity space.

“We’ve done it with many properties on that road over the last few years where we're protecting the character of that road for the size and massing of the properties. Rather than letting people put properties in the back garden to make a buck, we don’t want to set a precedent.”

Councillor Tom Buckley, who chairs the committee, agreed with Cllr Thomas that the development would be “imposing”.

Councillor Gill Dodds said she was concerned that other properties on the road, which were built in a similar Arts and Crafts style, were not protected.

She said: “I would just like to say there’s an Arts and Crafts style which I think is just delightful. And there were quite a few houses down there of that 1900-ish style. They’re not protected. They’re not listed. It’s a huge pity we will lose them and they’re very special houses.”

The committee agreed to stick by its previous objections that the scheme was a backland and infill development, would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and would not be delivering high-quality development.

The district council will make a final decision.