Margaret Crick and Andy Foulsham


David Wilson Homes


Land North West of Dunmore Road, Abingdon Oxfordshire


Reserved Matters application following Outline Approval P17/V1336/O for residential development for 200 dwellings, together with associated access, landscaping and public open space, infrastructure (utilities) and biodiversities enhancements.


Adrian Butler




It is recommended that reserved matters are approved subject to the following conditions:


1.    Approved plans


Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions

2.    Parking provision before occupancy of each dwelling

3.    Electric car charging points for each house with on plot parking

4.    Boundary treatments provision

5.    Implementation of noise mitigation

6.    Provision of five secure cycle parking stands beside the MUGA before its first use

7.    Landscaping scheme to be approved before any development above slab level


Post Occupancy Monitoring and Management Conditions

8.    Implementation of landscaping

9.    Any piling to be first agreed

10.  Garage retention for parking



1.Superfast broadband


1            Introduction, Site Location and Proposal  

1.1         The application is brought to planning committee at the request of Councillors Emily Smith and Catherine Webber as given the public interest in this application it can be ensured all concerns are addressed in public and any additional conditions can be discussed in an open forum.

1.2         On submission of the application the site was in St Helen’s Without Parish. However, recent boundary changes mean the site is now within Abingdon town’s boundaries.


1.3         This is an application seeking approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission for up to 200 dwellings under application no. P17/V1336/O. The reserved matters are appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Access from Wootton Road was approved as part of the outline permission. An emergency access point was proposed to Dunmore Road and has since been agreed by the County Council under section 278 of the Highways Act.


1.4         The outline planning permission established the principle of providing up to 200 dwellings on this site which is allocated for housing in the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (the LPP1). The outline permission secured an affordable housing mix, and financial contributions towards infrastructure improvements as follows:

·         The Lodge Hill southern slip roads

·         Public transport improvements

·         New bus stops

·         Cycle parking at Radley station

·         Primary school education

·         Public art, bin provision and street naming

·         A 3m wide pedestrian/cycle link and bridge over the River Stert and through Tilsley Park

·         A LAP, LEAP and MUGA on site together with public open spaces

·         35% affordable housing – 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership and a specific percentage mix of house sizes


1.5         This scheme if approved would also be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy.


The Site Location

1.6         This relatively flat and open field is located at the north western edge of Abingdon. The A34 is immediately north of the site on an embankment. To the west is Tilsley Park. Dunmore Road and a recreation ground form the southern boundary. Wootton Road is to the west. The site location plan is shown in the image below:



The Proposal

1.7         The proposal has been subject to eight sets of amendments or additional information in revising the design of the scheme and in seeking to address previous objections from consultees e.g. a 2020 noise survey has been conducted and a revised noise assessment submitted, the open space within the developed areas is enlarged, houses have been moved away from Wotton Road, the alignment of the boulevard has been adjusted.


1.8         Vehicular access is from Wootton Road and includes a right hand turn lane. This was considered and agreed at outline stage. Forming the access arrangements leads to relocating the existing watercourse on the western boundary into the site and there is some loss of mature trees on the western boundary whilst other mature trees are to be retained.


1.9         The proposal includes a series of connected streets with a central boulevard which has tree lined verges and a footway/cycleway separated from the road. There are open spaces predominantly at the edges of the site but also one within the developed areas, and play areas (LAP, LEAP and MUGA). A mix of dwellings sizes are proposed with houses being 2 or 2.5 storeys buildings and flats in 3-storeys buildings (parameters set at outline stage allow building heights to 12m).


1.10      There is a pedestrian and cycle connection to Tilsley Park with this route due to link with a route through Tilsley Park from the north Abingdon development site as required by the s106 agreement associated with the outline permission. Pedestrian and cycle links are provided to Dunmore Road including one close to a proposed controlled pedestrian crossing. A pedestrian and cycle route is provided on the western side of the site and connecting to Wootton Road at the northern and southern parts of the site’s Wootton Road frontage.



2.1       A summary of the latest material responses received to the proposal is below.  A full copy of all the comments made including those in respect of previous iterations of the proposals can be seen online at


Abingdon Town Council

No objections

However, the Council  re-iterates all applicable comments previously made in relation to this application and in relation to P17/V1336/O and asks that these are taken in to account.


(Planning officer note:

In responding to previous iterations of this application the Town Council had no objections.


In response to application P17/V1336/O the Town Council had no objection. However, it pointed out that if a condition in respect of the A34 south facing slip roads is not part of the conditions for

any approval then the Town Council would object. The Town Council’s other comments made in respect of the outline permission were:

·         Reiterate local resident concerns about increased traffic

·         Cumulative impacts of other housing sites e.g. North Abingdon need to be considered

·         Without the south facing slip roads at Lodge Hill the traffic situation would deteriorate

·         Consider the south facing slip roads at Lodge Hill should be in place before this development is commenced. (If this condition is not imposed the Town Council should be recorded as objecting).

·         Support other conditions and s106 financial contributions requested by the highway authority

·         Suggest a condition requiring the speed limit on Dunmore Road to be reduced from 40mph to 30mph

·         Support the conditions recommended by this council’s air quality officer.


St Helen Without Parish Council

No objection

·         Pleased that the applicant has listened to many of their previous remarks enabling the Parish to change its opinion from object to no objection

·         Changes to the design and building materials are more in keeping with the local area

·         Much enhanced green space provided

·         A better mix of market and affordable housing is provided

·         Better designed houses to shield noise from the A34 and Wootton Road

·         A completely new noise report is provided but the district council needs to decide if it is technically valid and fit for purpose

·         Better paths/cycleways

·         Sympathetic landscaping

·         Parking meets OCC standards


The Parish Council still have some concerns which planning officers should take into account:

·         The outline is for 200 dwellings. Please ensure the number built is correct for the size of the site and each dwelling has correct space as set out in guidelines. Do not wish to see living standards compromised for volume

·         Some concerns over noise levels due to the position of the site being below the level of the A34 at this point and the direction of the prevailing wind blowing across the site from the West/South West thereby magnifying traffic noise. We still believe the use of deflective barriers along this stretch of the A34 should be considered and the opinion of Highways England sought

·         Consider there will be parking issues on the site due to the width of the roads and, in our view, insufficient visitor parking. We understand the road widths meet planning guidelines but that will be compromised by any on street parking or vehicles parking on cycleways and footpaths which is bound to happen on a development of this size

·         Consideration of these points and perhaps further amendments to the site plan could further enhance the overall standards of this development.


Sunningwell Parish Council


No comments received

Councillor Smith

Comments – March 2019


  • One and two bed dwellings are needed for those down sizing. No bungalows shown and no one bed units for shared ownership or market sales which is contrary to the SHMA
  • The affordable dwellings will not be affordable to those on mean incomes
  • Water displaced from the site will be a risk to occupants of dwellings south of Dunmore Road
  • A culvert previously shown in the north of the site is missing from this scheme. This would enhance flood prevention measures
  • The drainage assessment seems to relate to a previous scheme
  • An opportunity exists to re-design the access and improve Wootton Road roundabout. The final design must have pedestrian and cycle safety at its heart
  • A cycle track is required from Wootton into Abingdon to ensure safe cycle access to Abingdon schools
  • A 30mph speed limit should be applied to Wootton Road
  • No assessment of the A34 expansion and impacts for the site and Wootton Road
  • Bus services need to be enhanced
  • Real risk that the Lodge Hill slip roads will not be in place in time and therefore, traffic assessments need to be reconsidered
  • Triple glazed windows needed for houses closest to the A34 to block noise
  • Air quality will be poor and could cause poor health. The Ox-Cam expressway may result in A34 widening bringing pollution and noise closer
  • No construction management plan provided
  • Lack of ambition on environmental sustainability. Opportunity exits to design to maximise potential for solar energy, and provide energy saving features
  • Support the air quality officer request for electric charging points
  • While there is a plan for the larger development of 900 homes at North Abingdon to include shops, a primary school and branch GPs surgery, this application is independent and should be assessed as such
  • The Long Furlong medical centre cannot take more patients. Where will the residents be registered?
  • The play areas are better located. A baby swing should be provided
  • The play area must be completed early in the scheme
  • Financial contributions should be provided towards a cycle track from Wootton to Abingdon, bus services along Dunmore Road and Wootton Road


Councillor Mrs Webber

Concerns – June 2019

·         Too many houses which leads to narrow roads, not enough green spaces, reduced garden sizes (as recommended in the Vale’s guidelines) and still not enough parking spaces (33 instead of 38)

·         The data used for assessing noise pollution is out of date - (2014-2015)

·         There is no air quality assessment

·         Cycle paths and footpaths do not flow consistently through the site

·         The design and layout is poor e.g. the play area is fitted into a corner of the development instead being in an easily accessible place for all.


Local residents

13 letters of objection including one on behalf of the Long Furlong Medical Centre have been received. The objections and comments made may be summarised as follows:


Traffic and Highways

  • Increased traffic congestion from this proposal and that associated with land to the west and the North Abingdon housing site (900 dwellings)
  • Incidents on the A34 have a massive impact on local junctions and this has not been considered
  • Introducing slip roads on the A34 will not improve flows on the main carriageway
  • Why is a two-lane access to the Wootton Road/Dunmore Road roundabout reintroduced? It was reduced to a single lane access some years ago in the interest of safety
  • Widening the roundabout will increase speeds and result in increased risk of collisions with cyclists (the accident records already show the majority of accidents at this location involve cyclists)
  • More commitment is needed from the applicant towards sustainable modes of travel
  • Reintroducing bus services cannot be guaranteed as bus companies are private enterprises. Financial contributions should be sought towards improved services
  • The 4B bus service along Wootton Road does not operate at weekends
  • No measures proposed to encourage greater use of public transport such as buses along Dunmore Road and bus lanes on the A34
  • Improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities are needed along the length of Wootton Road to the Long Tow junction
  • A footway/cycleway is not clearly shown on the Wootton Road edge of the site. A high quality continuous facility is needed linking to the Dunmore Road pedestrian crossing
  • A raised platform should be provided across the site access for pedestrian and cyclist crossing
  • A toucan crossing should be provided on Wootton Road and possibly incorporated into a signalised junction with Long Tow.
  • Road speeds in the locality need reducing from 40mph to 30mph

·         How will the emergency access to Dunmore Road be used and controlled?

Flood Risks

  • Parts of the site are flood zones 2 and 3
  • Increased flood risk which could impact on existing housing with surface water drained to the River Stert

Services/Infrastructure Impacts

  • No consideration given to capacity availability at local schools
  • New housing is placing significant pressure on local health services

Design and Layout

  • Bland housing layout like many others in the town and across the UK. It is a missed opportunity to create a quality urban design project.
  • The design and access layout describes varied and high quality architectural character of housing and urban design in Abingdon but this has not influenced the proposal
  • Does not optimise use of the site. Three storey development could be included to the Dunmore Road frontage raising the profile of this ‘ring road’
  • Opportunity to re-design Dunmore Road as a main street
  • The proposed central boulevard could connect directly to Wootton Road without the pointless dog leg
  • Would be a better scheme if the design followed guidance in the council’s design guide
  • Other good examples of layout and appearance which could have been followed e.g. Fitzharris Estate and Long Furlong Estate which are well landscaped, distinctive in the way materials are deployed
  • The report Building Better, Building Beautiful commends mixed use places at ‘gentle density’ creating streets, squares and blocks with clear backs and fronts
  • The Building Better, Building Beautiful report has many examples showing what is wrong with the proposed layout which is typical developer led standard house types along roads built to highway authority standards which will encourage car use deterring pedestrian and cycle use
  • The scheme is solid blocks of standard housing with no interest or variation in the street scene and no permeability
  • Little variation in road frontages with some houses set back and a sense of enclosure with houses ‘turning’ corners
  • An unofficial path between an adjacent recreation ground and Tilsley Park should be retained penetrating the blocks under oversailing first floors
  • Standard highways are dull and boring and a waste of space with no benefit visually. In terms of safety or in maintenance costs
  • More compact layout could be achieved by eliminating some roads and reducing widths of others
  • Central open space is pointless and unlikely to be used due to passing traffic
  • Lack of linkages to local facilities by cycle or walking
  • Gap between proposed housing and the A34 should be widened to provide earth bunding and acoustic fencing with planting
  • Community space  and connections to neighbouring housing areas should be provided to minimise the feeling that the site is cut off from existing areas by Dunmore Road.

Other Matters

·         Noise impacts for future houses

  • Self build plots should be provided
  • Loss of green space/green field land
  • There are no measures to ensure this housing does not meet more than the minimum environmental standards. More should be done to reduce CO2 emissions e.g. making more use of renewable energy and waste water, communal composting of waste, car club on site to reduce car ownership, dedicated on plot cycle parking and a potential bike sharing scheme
  • Electric charging points should be provided

·         No consideration given to air quality which will worsen from increased idling traffic

·         Bungalows are needed for persons looking to down size later in life


Oxfordshire County Council


No objection:

·         The layout is generally acceptable

·         The proposals provide some 30 visitor parking spaces which is below that normally required. However, there are a significant number of dwellings, which exceed the council’s maximum parking requirement. As a result, the number of unallocated/visitor parking spaces as proposed, is considered acceptable in this instance

·         In terms of cycle parking, the amount and specific details are unclear from the information submitted. While clarity has been previously sought, this can be addressed by way of a suitable planning condition. Nevertheless, the applicant should be aware that all resident cycle parking will be required to be provided secured and undercover


Suggested Conditions

  • Vision splays for internal accesses to accord with the approved plans
  • Garage accommodation to be retained for parking
  • Estate road construction in accordance with OCC residential road design guide
  • Estate roads, footways and street lighting to be provided prior to occupation
  • Bicycle parking to be provided for each dwelling


Lead Local Flood Authority

No comment

  • Consultation should be undertaken with the district council’s drainage engineer.




  • Consent P17/V1336/O has been granted with conditions (9 and 10) attached that require a phase of archaeological mitigation in advance of development. The applicant should be aware that these conditions will need to be discharged.



Housing Officer

No objection

·         The application submitted is in line with the S106 agreement of the outline application P17/V1336/O. The tenure and mix are also consistent as per the agreement.

·         The table below sets out the mix for 70 affordable housing units across both Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership



1bed /2p


3bed /5p

3bed /6p 

4bed /6p

Affordable rented






Shared ownership







·         The plan submitted with the application H7787/AP/01 J, now identifies the correct mix and tenure of the affordable housing units

·         The affordable houses appear to be distributed across the site

·         The parking provision also appears adequate.


Drainage Engineer


No objection.

·         The proposed drainage scheme has been developed on the lines of the strategy presented in the approved Flood Risk Assessment.

  • Further information has been provided on the attenuation basin confirming access, amenity and biodiversity proposals and we are supportive of the approach taken. We note that a watercourse along the western boundary will be diverted through an open channel within the site to provide space for carriageway adjustments and have no objection to this approach.
  • It is understood that conditions attached to the outline application require a detailed scheme to be submitted and it is therefore expected that more detailed proposals will be submitted with any discharge application.


Environment Agency (EA)

The EA advise they are not a statutory consultee for reserved matters applications. Please take account of any conditions, informatives or advice that we provided in our response to the outline application when making your determination of this reserved matters application.


Thames Water


No objection

·         With regard to foul water sewage network infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection based on the information provided

·         The application indicates that surface waters will not be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection


·         Thames Water is currently working with the developer to identify and deliver the off site water infrastructure needs to serve the development. Thames Water has identified that some capacity exists within the water network to serve 49 dwellings but beyond that upgrades to the water network will be required. Thames Water feel it would be prudent for an appropriately worded planning condition to be attached to any approval to ensure development doesn't outpace the delivery of essential infrastructure.


Other Comments:

·         The proposed development is located within 5m of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 5m, of strategic water mains and request a condition to deal with this

·         The proposed development is located within 15m of a strategic water main. A condition should be imposed to address any piling


Suggested Conditions

·         There shall be no occupation beyond the 49th dwelling until confirmation has been provided that either:- all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows to serve the development have been completed; or- a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow additional development to be occupied.

·         No construction shall take place within 5m of the water main. Information detailing how the developer intends to divert the asset / align the development, so as to prevent the potential for damage to subsurface potable water infrastructure, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water

·         No piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimises the potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water


Previous Comments – January 2020

No objection

  • With regard to foul water sewage network infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection based on the information provided.
  • The application indicates that surface waters will not be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection.


Countryside Officer

No objection.

·         The submitted CEMP, BEP, LEMP and River Protection and Management will need to be updated to reflect the new layout.

  • Following the original holding objection raised the applicant has submitted further information and amended details. Taking each of the issues in the holding objection in turn:
  1. Lack of proposals for de-culverting watercourse:

Following discussions with the applicant’s ecologists it appears that there is no evidence of a watercourse running under the site. This has apparently been confirmed by the DWH drainage engineers. If it can be confirmed that there is no culvert then clearly this objection would fall away.

  1. Potential for badger sett to be impacted by the proposed bridge link to Tilsley Park:

Further surveys within the River Stert corridor have conducted to address condition 22 of the outline permission. These surveys have provided more details of the badger setts and provide confirmation that the bridge would not impact on any of the identified setts. The surveys have also confirmed the likely absence of species such as water vole and otter from this stretch of the Stert. As a result, I can withdraw my holding objection to this aspect of the scheme.

  • The applicant has also submitted details sufficient to address conditions 17 (CEMP Biodiversity), condition 18 (Biodiversity Enhancement Plan) and Condition 19 (LEMP) of the outline permission.


Landscape Officer

April 2020 amendments:

Holding objection:

·         Additional information is required with regards to the changes in levels and the appropriateness of the 2.5m high retaining brick wall. At this height a fall barrier or similar may be required to the top of the wall, therefore it may be more appropriate to have a lower retaining wall with an acoustic fence set back from the wall within the planting to give the same amount of acoustic screening without the issues raised by a 2.5m wall. A slightly lower wall could also be used as a youth facility if fitted with climbing holds to create a bouldering traversing wall. This could be linked to an arts project

·         The new noise assessment indicates that the POS on the western side including the LEAP ranges from 60 to 65dB. Ideally external amenity areas should not be above 50-55 dB. There is no information submitted about the noise levels in associated with play area

·         Clarification is required if a barrier will be required between the path and the ditch along the western side of the site? (Officer note: a barrier is shown on the plans)

·         Trees and planting have been lost from areas where parking is clustered, this does not follow our Design Guidance standards. I also note that predominantly the areas of concern are those of affordable housing raising issues that the scheme is not tender blind. Key areas of concern are plots 34 to 38, 45 to 50, 80 to 85, 86 to 91, 164 to 169 and 195 to 197 (officer note: this has been addressed in the latest plans)

·         The amount of street trees has been highlighted as an issue throughout the planning process for this application. It is therefore disappointing to see that there has been a further reduction in the amount of street trees proposed. Trees have been lost from both the main streets but also from parking areas on the side streets. There are places where additional trees could be added such as plots 1, 12, 17, 76, 129, 139, 182 and 185

·         Previous comments relating to the play areas and POS have been addressed

·         Recommend the scheme is revised to address the comments made above.


Forestry Officer


·         The latest arboricultural method statement submitted 12/06/2020 has set out all possible tree protection measures to minimise the harm caused by the creation of the access. However, the impact on the landscape will still be considerable given the amount of tree loss required for the drainage strategy.

·         Even with the proposed tree protection measures, the trees shown for retention along the highway frontage are very likely to be harmed by the widening of the carriageway, resulting in their premature decline. Would OCC highways be satisfied with the new widened road positioned so close to the trunks of the trees. The kerb edge will be within 0.5m from the trunk of T18 and only slightly further away from the other three trees. Is this acceptable from a highway safety perspective? (Officer note: OCC advise that it has given technical approval to the details under s278 of the Highways Act)

·         The proposed tree planting between the carriageway and the drainage feature proposes a significant amount of new tree planting, however the type of trees need to be amended to include a much wider range of large canopy, long lived tree species such as Oak, London Plane, Lime, Beech, Pine (Scots, Corsican etc), Douglas Fir etc. The planting plans also fail to provide any replacement trees lost on the recreation ground, needed to mitigate the trees lost for the drainage works.


Urban Design Officer


·         The amendments have mitigated and resolved key issues previously raised

·         The scheme has evolved with a comprehensive design approach, considering the site principals and both emerging and exiting site constraints/opportunities. The proposed vernacular, materials and detail for its character is of a good design quality and relevant to the schemes development context.

·         The current application’s design principals maintain the core elements of the associated outline application along with consideration for the key emerging issue of noise across the site. This has been mitigated, whilst altering some character areas, this works successfully utilising the landscape strategy and massing of the built form.

·         The principles, as previously stated, are now working successfully to achieve Core Policy 37 of the LPP1 from an urban design perspective.


Crime Prevention Officer (Thames Valley Police)


·         The proposals have improved once more with a reduction in the number of parking courts. However, the applicants have still not provided a commitment to achieving Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. Given the size of the development and the amount of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) it could attract over its lifetime I believe this is imperative.

·         Concerned that there appears to be no lighting provision for the ‘private drives’ in the western half of the site or within the remaining two parking courts. Add to this that some house types have recessed front entrances and that car ports are also proposed and it is evident that more work is needed to create a safe and sustainable development. In this vein, I also refer the applicants to my previous advice and those aspects not yet incorporated in the hope that they will still address the outstanding issues.



·         SBD accreditation


Environmental Protection Team (Noise)

No objection

·         Subject to the full implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the acoustic report.


Air Quality Officer


No objection

Contaminated Land Officer


No objection

Waste Management Team


Comments – January 2020


  • All the refuse vehicle tracking plans use a mixture of vehicle lengths. These need retracking using a waste collection vehicle 11.6m long rather than 10.6m that has also been used in some places (Officer note: the plans now track this council’s 11.6m refuse vehicle)
  • There is a bin collection point for plots 84-89 showing the bulk waste bins presented. Theses bins must not be moved by the residents. They are collected and returned by our crew. The bin store must be within 25m of the collection vehicle access please ensure this is possible.


Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and Partners at the Long Furlong Medical Centre


  • The large scale of housing across the district is placing extra pressures on overstretched GP services. The proposal could result in an extra 480 patients. There needs to be extra financial support for the local health economy from the developers of the scheme.


3.1         P18/V1670/RM - withdrawn (05/10/2018)

Development of up to 200 dwellings, means of access and associated works.


3.2         P17/V1336/O - Approved (13/02/2018)

Development of up to 200 dwellings, means of access and associated works, with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved. (As amplified by additional information received 28 July and 8 August 2017 and amended site access plans and alterations to Wootton Road roundabout).



4.1         The outline application was subject to an Environmental Statement that addressed transport, noise and air quality. The environmental information already provided is considered adequate to assess the significance of effects of the development on the environment. This information has been taken into consideration in considering this application.


5            MAIN ISSUES

5.1         Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this case comprises of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (the LPP1) and the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (the LPP2).


5.2         The principle of up to 200 dwellings on this site with access to Wootton Road is established through the extant outline planning permission (P17/V1336/O) and the allocation of the site for housing in the LPP1. The main planning considerations for this reserved matters application are:

1.    Housing mix – affordable and market housing

2.    The design of the development including the reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)

3.    Residential amenity

4.    Noise

5.    Highway matters and parking


Housing Mix

5.2         The s106 agreement accompanying the outline permission contains a mix of dwelling sizes and floor areas for the affordable housing which was specifically agreed with this applicant. The proposal accords with the s106 mix and is therefore satisfactory. Affordable housing is evenly distributed within the site and accords with core policy 24 of the LPP1.


5.3         Core policy 22 of the LPP1 expects the market housing mix to be in accordance with the council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) unless an alternative approach can be demonstrated to be more appropriate through the Housing Register or where proven to be necessary due to viability constraints. The proposed market housing mix compared to the SHMA estimate is as follows:


No of beds















* Rounded up or down to the nearest whole number


5.4         The market housing mix accords with the SHMA and with core policy 22 of the LPP1. In addition, the sizes of the 1 and 2 bedroom market dwellings meet the adopted space standards and is compliant with policy DP2 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (the LPP2). The affordable dwellings meet the minimum floor spaces required by the s106 agreement. I give greater weight to the s106 as it was agreed prior to the adoption of policy DP2 of the LPP2 and because it is a legally binding document agreed by this council.


The Design of the Development

5.5         Core policy 37 of the LPP1 expects all proposals for new development to be of high quality. To inform developers and as a tool for considering planning applications the council has an adopted Design Guide. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF advises that “the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development….”.


5.6         The adopted LPP1 allocates the site for housing. It also sets out requirements that a development will be expected to meet (Appendix A: Site Development Templates no. 3). The proposal provides:

·         Appropriate setbacks from all physical barriers along the boundaries of the site.

·         Access to the adjacent recreational ground.

·         A sufficiently wide corridor with some planting and retention of the existing hedge (but for connections to Dunmore Road) along the southern boundary to link the playing fields with the Sports Centre.

·         A woodland belt and copse along Wootton Road to prevent visual intrusion on views through the A34 bridge in the approach from Wootton.

·         Improved tree cover along the A34 boundary to screen the road and mitigate noise.

·         Protection and enhancement of existing boundary features with the exception of some trees on the Wootton Rad frontage to form the vehicular access. Replacement planting is proposed

·         Delivery of a high quality and sustainable urban extension to Abingdon.


5.7         The application has been subject to a number of revisions and the latest plans have the support of the council’s urban design officer. The proposal is now considered to accord with the Design Guide and core policy 37 of the LPP1 as explained below.



5.8         The message given by Principle DG52 of the Design Guide is “Keep it simple!” In accordance with Principle DG52 and DG57 the house types have a simple form with rectangular floor plans and pitched roofs. Some corner plots are ‘L’ shaped, again according with Principle DG52. In turn the corner plots have windows in their return frontages as recommended by Principle DG53 of the Design Guide. The house types have simple and reasonably balanced elevations in accordance with Principle DG61 of the Design Guide. Some dwellings have projecting gables to break elevations. Some house types include rooms in the roof lit by dormer windows. Entrances to houses directly face the street and are clearly visible in the public realm. The scale and form of entrances relate to their function. The proposal accords with Principle DG56 of the Design Guide. In the site context which comprises dwellings of a uniform appearance, the articulation of the proposed houses types provides visual interest. The appearance of the house types is acceptable and accords with the Design Guide.



5.9         Landscaping will be the subject of a planning condition requiring details to be submitted and agreed. This is because the landscaping scheme has not been updated to reflect the current proposals and the scheme submitted with the application is not satisfactory as explained by the forestry and landscape officers in their comments above. It also needs to provide the woodland belt and copse along Wootton Road which is expected by the LPP1 site design template. Furthermore, even though most of the Wootton Road frontage trees are to be retained (the highways authority has no objection and has advised that it has given technical approval to the details under s278 of the Highways Act), the landscaping scheme should provide long term replacement trees.


5.10      The current landscaping plans although not entirely acceptable, show bunding in the north eastern corner of the site to provide a landscape noise buffer and seating. This concept is agreeable and should be incorporated. A condition can be imposed requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted and agreed and a condition can be imposed requiring implementation of an approved landscaping scheme.



5.11      The proposed site layout is shown on the plan at appendix 1. 200 dwellings on this 9.73ha site amounts to some 20.6 dwelling per hectare (dph). Subtracting the public open spaces of some 3.3ha leaves a developed area of approximately 6.4ha giving a density of 31.25dph. Core policy 23 of the LPP1 recommends a minimum density of 30dph subject to the character of the area. For the reasons below this density is considered acceptable.


5.12      Core policy 38 of the LPP1 requires proposals for housing allocation sites to be accompanied by a site-wide design strategy. This was contained in the design and access statement (DAS) submitted with the outline application. It analysed the existing built environment near the site to provide inspiration and to help shape a locally distinctive development. The DAS submitted with the outline application detailed principles for developing this site. The proposals respond positively to these principles. For example:

·         A central square acting as a focal point for the new community is provided with the space well connected to all parts of the development

·         The streets provide variation. For example there is a wide main boulevard through the centre of the site with houses set back behind verges and front gardens, from which narrower secondary streets with pavements either side are accessed and there are streets of short length without pavements

·         There are links to the boundary of the recreation ground to the south

·         A circular cycle/walking route is provided through the open spaces

·         A positive frontage to the recreation ground to the south is provided


5.13      The proposal provides in excess of 15% public open space plus a LAP, LEAP and MUGA. They are set back from the nearest proposed houses in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD (June 2017). They are all readily accessible by walking and cycle routes with secure cycle parking proposed at the play areas. The proposals comply with development policy 33 of the LPP2 and Principle DG37 of the Design Guide.


5.14      The design parameters for this site sought green edges to the northern parts of the site with development being of a more dispersed and lower density. This is now achieved. Higher density development is primarily within the central parts of the developed areas rather than at the edges which allows for softening landscaping and appropriate setbacks from roads (including the A34) and from the River Stert which is on the Tilsley Park boundary.


5.15      As already mentioned the proposal provides an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes and these comprise a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses and some flats. These are arranged in connected blocks with clear fronts and backs as recommended by the Design Guide (and the Building Better, Building Beautiful report). Existing development in the locality consists of either  detached houses in unconnected, lengthy cul-de-sacs  served from a spine road which houses back on to or large blocks fronted by semi-detached or terraced houses with frontage parking.  This proposal responds positively to the Local Plan policies and Design Guide with a mix of house sizes and types, a hierarchy of connected streets including cycleways and footways with these in turn providing links to existing cycleways and footways. The proposal accords with Principles DG23 and DG24 of the Design Guide.


5.16      The streets are connected with focal points, there is enclosure and passive surveillance of streets and open spaces due to the orientation of dwellings fronting streets and those at the edges fronting the open spaces. There is variation in the set back of dwellings many with front gardens. There remains scope for tree planting in the streets with hedges defining front gardens. As already mentioned corner plots ‘turn’ the corners. The proposal is considered to comply with core policy 37 of the LPP1 and the Design Guide including Principles DG28, DG29, DG31, DG32, DG35 and DG36.



5.17      Scale is defined by the PPG as “the height, width and length of each building proposed within the development in relation to its surroundings”. The heights of dwellings are up to 10m  (3-storeys flats) which is beneath the maximum height of 12.5m set in the outline permission. Heights are reasonably consistent with development to the south of Dunmore Road. House spans are between 9m and 11m with frontages ranging between 6.3m and 11.2m. Again, these are considered a reasonable reflection of development south of Dunmore Road. The scale of development is acceptable.


Residential Amenity

5.18      The Design Guide recommends a minimum distance of 21m between facing habitable windows to prevent unreasonable overlooking. All the proposed dwellings are over 21m from existing dwellings which are all on the southern side of Dunmore Road. No unreasonable overlooking of existing dwellings results. Likewise proposed dwellings are at least 21m apart ‘back to back’ as required by the Principle DG64 of the Design Guide.



5.19      The council’s environmental protection team initially objected to the application on noise grounds as gardens would be subject to unreasonable noise levels from traffic using local roads including the A34. The application is now supported by an updated noise assessment with noise surveys undertaken in January 2020 rather than being reliant on the noise assessment from the outline application. In addition, the scheme has been revised. This ensures all gardens are no longer subject to unreasonable noise levels and internal spaces can be mitigated for noise by appropriate glazing e.g. double glazing. The environmental protection team no longer objects and a condition is  recommended to ensure noise mitigation is provided prior to the occupation of each dwelling. The proposal is compliant with development policy 24 of the LPP2.


Highway Matters and Parking

5.20      Traffic generation matters were considered reasonable at outline stage and this application is not an opportunity to reconsider this matter. A financial contribution was secured towards providing the southern slip roads at the Lodge Hill A34 junction.


5.21      Access to Wootton Road was also agreed as part of the outline permission. The details of this access are reasonable with adequate vision splays and retention of most of the road side trees. Improvements to the Wootton Road roundabout were also agreed as part of the outline planning permission.


5.22      The outline permission secures a cycle and footway connection into and through Tilsley Park to link with the North Abingdon strategic housing site. It also secures a cycle lane beside Wootton Road south into Abingdon. Cycle/footways are proposed through the site and around its edges linking to Tilsley Park. These paths will make future facilities at the North Abingdon strategic site accessible and provide improved links towards Radley railway station. The proposal also provides cycle links to Wootton Road and Dunmore Road providing access to existing cycleways alongside these roads.


5.23      The proposal provides 486 on plot parking spaces and 25 unallocated parking spaces. The on plot parking exceeds the parking standard requirements (which are 384 on plot and 84 unallocated), because they provide on plot parking for visitors as well as occupants.  This amount of parking is considered reasonable and I note the highway officer considers the amount and distribution of parking acceptable. I am also mindful of the outline permission requirements to improve cycle links in to Abingdon and to the North of Abingdon housing site plus bus services thereby improving the accessibility of the site. The parking standards allow exceptions to the standards to secure appropriate design as well. Taking these matters into account it is considered the parking provision is acceptable and accords with core policy 35 of the LPP1.


Other Matters

5.24      The outline application was supported by an air quality assessment. It is considered that assessment remains applicable to this development. I note the air quality officer does not object. A condition on the outline permission seeks to control dust during construction. A proposed condition seeks electric charging points for dwellings with on plot parking.


5.25      Flood modelling work undertaken at outline application stage demonstrated that the proposal will not be at risk of flooding and that mitigation can be included and it also concludes that the modelling work indicates none of the site should be classed as flood zone 2; it should be flood zone 1. The Environment Agency accepted this position. The drainage strategy accompanying this application includes an attenuation basin that can store surface water run-off with it gradually released at greenfield run-off rates. The drainage officer is satisfied with the proposals and it is concluded the proposal accords with core policy 42 of the LPP1.


5.26      The outline applications plans suggest a watercourse exists in a culvert beneath the northern parts of the site. This was to be de-culverted. However, site investigations now reveal this alleged culverted watercourse does not exist. The site is an arable field with limited biodiversity interest. This proposal can provide biodiversity enhancements with the open spaces, landscaping and the attenuation basin. The proposal accords with core policy 46 of the LPP1.


5.27      The outline permission secures a number of financial contributions towards infrastructure improvements as listed in section 1 of this report. This scheme if approved would also be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy which may be available to support medical services improvements.


6            CONCLUSION

6.1         This application has been considered in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.


6.2         The principle of up to 200 dwellings on this site and means of access to it plus works to the Wootton Road roundabout have already been permitted through the grant of outline planning permission. This application is not an opportunity to reconsider these matters.


6.3         The proposal provides an acceptable housing mix with the houses and layout being acceptably designed in accordance with the Local Plan policies and the council’s Design Guide.


6.4         There are no unreasonable impacts for existing local residents and future residents can be reasonably protected from traffic noise.


6.5         The proposal is considered to accord with development plan policies and consequently a recommendation of approval is made.


The following planning policies have been taken into account:


Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031: Part 1:

CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development

CP2 - Cooperation on unmet housing need for Oxfordshire

CP3 - Settlement hierarchy

CP4 - Meeting our housing needs

CP7 – Providing supporting infrastructure and services

CP8 - Spatial Strategy for Abingdon-on-Thames and Oxford Fringe Sub-Area

CP22 – Housing mix

CP23 – Housing density

CP24 – Affordable housing

CP33 – Promoting sustainable transport and accessibility

CP35 – Promoting public transport, cycling and walking

CP36 – Electronic communications

CP37 – Design and local distinctiveness

CP38 – Design strategies for strategic and major development sites

CP39 – The historic environment

CP40 – Sustainable design and construction

CP42 – Flood risk

CP43 – Natural resources

CP44 - Landscape

CP45 – Green infrastructure

CP46 – Conservation and improvement

CP47 – Delivery and contingency


Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031: Part 2

CP4a – Meeting our housing needs

DP2 – Space standards

DP11 - Community Employment Plans

DP16 – Access

DP17 - Transport assessments and travel plans

DP20 – Public art

DP21 – External lighting

DP23 – Impact of development on amenity

DP25 – Noise pollution

DP26 – Air quality

DP27 – Land affected by contamination

DP28 – Waste collection and recycling

DP30 - Watercourses

DP33 – Open space

DP36 – Heritage assets

DP39 – Archaeology and scheduled monuments


Neighbourhood Plans

Abingdon on Thames is not preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.


Wootton and St Helen’s Without Parish Council’s have an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. However, this site is not included in the Plan area as it is allocated for housing in the LPP1 and more related to Abingdon and Shippon. Therefore, the Neighbourhood Plan does not apply to this application.


Adopted Guidance

Vale of White Horse Design Guide 2015

Developer Contributions – Delivering Infrastructure to Support Development SPD – June 2017



Other Relevant Legislation and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Community & Infrastructure Levy Legislation

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990

Human Rights Act 1998

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998





Case Officer:  Adrian Butler


Tel:                  01235 422600