|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
SITE |
Land North of Dunmore Road, Abingdon, OX14 1PU |
|
PARISH |
ABINGDON |
|
PROPOSAL |
Reserved Matters Application (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout, Scale) - Residential development for erection of 425 dwellings within 3 phases of the North Abingdon Development: Western Parcel Area A & B and Central Parcel Area A. Associated landscaping and infrastructure works together with additional details as required by conditions attached to outline planning permission (Ref: P17/V0050/O)(as amended by drawings and information received 21 December 2020). |
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Margaret Crick Andy Foulsham |
|
APPLICANT |
David Wilson Homes Southern |
|
OFFICER |
Hanna Zembrzycka-Kisiel
|
|
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that reserved matters are approved subject to the following conditions:
Pre-Commencement Conditions
Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 3. Parking provision before occupancy of each dwelling 4. Acoustic bund: submission of geotechnical details 5. Acoustic bund: full details of drainage and its location 6. Submission of detailed noise mitigation scheme 7. Detailed planting scheme to be approved 8. On-plot landscape details to be approved 9. Details of childrens’ play areas to be approved
12. Lodge Hill Park Area: design and footpath location to be approved 13. Boundary Treatments to be approved
15. Detailed lighting scheme to be approved 16. PV scheme to be approved
Post Occupancy Monitoring and Management Conditions
19. Entrance feature walls
Informatives
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION, SITE LOCATION AND PROPOSAL |
|
1.1 |
This application seeks approval of Reserved Matters for 425 dwellings across three parcels of the North Abingdon strategic housing site. Outline permission was granted in 2017 under application ref. P17/V0050/O for up to 950 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
|
|
1.2 |
At the time of submission, the application site was partially located in Sunningwell Parish Council. However, following boundary changes in 2019 the site is now wholly located within Abingdon on Thames’ administrative boundary and the application is brought to Planning Committee as Abingdon on Thames Town Council objects to the proposal.
|
|
1.3 |
The reserved matters for consideration are appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Access is from Dunmore Road and was approved as part of the outline permission. |
|
|
|
|
1.4 |
Site Location This relatively flat and open field is located at the northern edge of Abingdon. The A34 is located immediately to the north-west of the site and Dunmore Road to the south. To the west is Tilsley Park. A detailed layout plan is attached at Appendix 1 and also illustrated on the image below:
|
|
1.5 |
The Proposal |
|
|
The application area covers three parcels: Western Parcel A, Western Parcel B and Central Parcel A, as illustrated on the image below.
|
|
1.6 |
The proposal has been subject to amendments and additional information in revising the design of the scheme and in seeking to address previous technical objections from consultees (e.g. the built form not being compliant with the Design Code and parameter plans approved under outline permission; inadequate quantity and quality of the public open space; location and design of the acoustic bund; inadequate landscaping and tree planting scheme which did not follow the scheme agreed under planning application ref. P18/V1622/DIS).
|
|
1.7 |
The proposal includes 276 private units in a mix of 1 bed & 2 bed apartments, 2 bed, 3 bed, and 4 bed houses, as well as 149 affordable units (35% in accordance with the S106 agreement) comprising 1 bed & 2 bed apartments, 2 bed, 3 bed, 4 bed houses with private gardens and a mix of both affordable rent and shared ownership.
|
|
1.8 |
A detailed layout plan is attached at Appendix 2. The layout is designed with a series of connected streets off a central Spine Road which has tree lined verges and a footway separated from the road and provides four character areas to accord with the approved site Design Code. This document has also established the vision, mandatory principles and design specification for the development which is assessed later in this report.
|
|
1.9 |
Proposed dwellings will be 2 storeys in height with 2.5 and 3 storeys units along the main primary road. Two play areas (LEAP and NEAP) are located to the north-east of the Western Parcel B and within the northern part of Central Parcel A. |
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
2.1 |
A summary of the latest 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 www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk |
Abingdon on Thames Town Council |
Amended proposal Objection
o Housing mix has been changed and does not follow the approved SHMA Mix; o Ambiguity in the plans illustrating the details of the proposed acoustic bund; o All buildings shall be constructed to the highest environmental standards; o Concerns regarding the proposed junction design (access point from Dunmore Road); o Infrastructure to be provided prior to housing units are occupied; o Local traffic will be worsened by the proposal; o Delivery of the proposed uses (within the central part of the allocated site)- there is ambiguity regarding the timescales for these uses to be delivered; o The proposal will increase pressure upon the local GP surgeries;
o There is no clear justification for the expansion of the development o Parking provision is not made at the maximum standard o Delay on the delivery of the of the play equipment o There is a risk that a new school may not be delivered, and the Town Council would like to see confirmation that the school will be delivered before the commencement of development; o A condition restricted the number of occupations before the Lodge Hill interchange is delivered, should be imposed.
Original proposal Objection o Housing mix has been changed and does not follow the approved SHMA Mix; o Ambiguity in the plans illustrating the details of the proposed acoustic bund; o All buildings shall be constructed to the highest environmental standards; o Concerns regarding the proposed junction design (access point from Dunmore Road); o Infrastructure to be provided prior to housing units are occupied; o Local traffic will be worsened by the proposal; o Delivery of the proposed uses (within the central part of the allocated site)- there is ambiguity regarding the timescales for these uses to be delivered; o The proposal will increase pressure upon the local GP surgeries;
|
Sunningwell Parish Council
|
Amended proposal No comments received
Original proposal No comments received
|
St Helen Without Parish Council |
Amended proposal No comments received
Original proposal No comments received
|
Radley Parish Council |
Amended proposal No comments received
Original proposal Objection · Housing mix has been changed and does not follow the approved SHMA Mix
|
Residents |
27 letters of objection were received during the initial consultation and a further 16 letters of objection in relation to the amendment. The objections and comments submitted for both, original and amended proposals are summarised as follows:
Traffic and Highways
Flood Risks
Services/Infrastructure Impacts
Design and Layout
Other Matters
· Housing mix has been changed and does not follow the approved SHMA Mix;
The following issues have also been raised, but these matters were considered at outline stage and were found acceptable:
Comments from North Abingdon Local Planning Group Comments
Generally, the proposals seem designed to improve the quality of the estate and its environment, so NALPG is supportive of that. However, the NALPG raised the following issues:
|
Oxfordshire County Council |
Amended proposal No objection, subject to conditions
Original proposal Holding objection · Site layout The carriageway section still only details 2 No. typical cross sections and therefore it is unclear what the proposed street dimensions and footways widths are for differing scenarios throughout the site.
Indicative dimensions, particularly in relation to cycle and footways, to be applied to the appropriate plans
· Swept path analysis The submitted swept path analysis for an 11.6m RCV and 7.9m fire tender have been submitted and together with the submitted indicative school coach swept path analysis in the locality of the proposed school, it can be confirmed that the swept path analysis is considered to be acceptable.
· Parking Provisions The provision of unallocated/visitor parking spaces, based on the number of allocated spaces serving individual dwellings, was previously considered and accepted. With regard to the on-street parallel parking bays indicated on the layout, these now indicate suitable hard standings behind them and are now considered to be acceptable too.
· Other points Any proposed trees must not conflict with streetlights and must have a minimum of 10m separation. Trees that are within 5m of the carriageway or footway will require root protection.
The 3rd previously agreed access point serving the proposed school football pitch has been omitted, as indicated on the detailed landscape area (3 of 5) plan (Dwg. No. DE187A-L-004 REV F). A plan illustrating this access point should be submitted.
|
Housing Officer |
Amended proposal No objection
Original proposal Objection - Distribution of affordable houses does not comply with s106 (clusters were more than 15 units)
|
Drainage Engineer
|
Further to clarifications submitted to the amended Proposal No objection
Amended Proposal Holding objection · Further information should however be provided on this element to confirm modelled extents and proposed locations of any compensatory flood plain storage required. The information presented should confirm that the proposed layouts submitted can be delivered within the space designated as currently it would appear that there is an unknown constraint associated with space required for flood plain compensation
Original proposal Holding Objection · The proposed drainage provision has not been developed in accordance with the requirements, the local standards and the approved Flood Risk Assessment; · Conveyance features have been omitted and it is not clear from the overall site plan or materials layouts how porous paving will be incorporated; · A pumping station and substation have been located in one of the key surface water management corridors with SUDS features removed; · At this stage the layouts should demonstrate that sufficient space has been made available for sustainable drainage in accordance with the requirements of the outline consent and previously approved conditions.
|
Environment Agency (EA) |
Amended proposal No objection Subject to any conditions or informatives that were imposed to Outline Planning Permission being taken into account/implemented
Original proposal No objection Subject to any conditions or informatives that were imposed to Outline Planning Permission being taken into account/implemented
|
Highways England |
Amended proposal No objection, subject to the following conditions:
· Prior to the commencement of construction of the proposed bund, geotechnical submissions (in accordance with DMRB Standard CD622) relevant to the construction of the 3m high earth bund and 2m fence (set out on drawing A216-RM-65 Revision 5) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Highways England and requiring certification by Highways England).
· Prior to the installation of any drainage systems in relation to proposed bund, full details of drainage and its location shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (in consultation with Highways England). The development shall thereafter be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and retained in accordance with the agreed specification. No surface water shall be permitted to run off from the proposed bund on to the Strategic Road Network or in to any drainage system connected to the Strategic Road Network. No drainage connections from any part of the development hereby permitted may be made to any Strategic Road Network drainage systems.
Original proposal Holding objection · Highways England are unclear as to the location of proposed noise bund and we are therefore unable to assess if there is likelihood of any impact/risk to the safe and efficient operation of the A34.
|
Thames Water |
Amended proposal No objection
Waste · Thames Water are aware of some network constraints in the vicinity of the proposed development. We are however confident that should the planning application be approved, any investigations to understand the network performance in more detail and if required, associated upgrades can be delivered in time to serve the development. We will therefore not be seeking a planning condition relating to foul water network matters.
Water
Original proposal No objection
Waste · Thames Water are aware of some network constraints in the vicinity of the proposed development. We are however confident that should the planning application be approved, any investigations to understand the network performance in more detail and if required, associated upgrades can be delivered in time to serve the development. We will therefore not be seeking a planning condition relating to foul water network matters.
Water · The application indicates that SURFACE WATER will NOT be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection, however approval should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. Should the applicant subsequently seek a connection to discharge surface water into the public network in the future then we would consider this to be a material change to the proposal, which would require an amendment to the application at which point we would need to review our position.
|
Countryside Officer |
Further to clarifications provided on the amended proposal No objection
Amended proposal Clarification needed on discrepancies amongst the submitted plans
Original proposal Holding Objection · CEMP: a specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for biodiversity should be submitted (condition 39, subsections J and K), detailing all of these measures in one coherent document, is submitted to address this requirement; · BEP: It is recommended that plan is amended to specific whether or not the feature will be refugia wood pile, or hibernacula rubble pile. This detail should be provided. · LEMP: The landscaped areas of the development site have been diminished, with a reduction in quantity and quality. The landscaping proposals, and therefore associated detail contained within the LEMP, need to be revisited in light of the feedback provided and amended accordingly. · Watercourse Protection Plan: Further detail, including cross sections and structural drawings of the bridges/culverts used in the vehicular and pedestrian crossings of the watercourse will need to be provided, in addition to construction methods statements for these features. - Details and suitable mitigation should be provided to minimise impacts of the development in, over and directly adjacent to the watercourse.
|
Landscape Officer |
Amended proposal No objection, subject to conditions
Original proposal: Holding objection:
· Wider Layout: In numerous places the RM scheme extends housing development outside Residential development parameter area · Areas of this RM development extend into the wider areas of POS at the corners of the site. · RM scheme extends development closer to an already narrow corridor area of POS parallel to the eastern side of the retained woodland block (plot 194 northward). · RM scheme pushes development westward towards the A34, reducing amount of POS. The proposed footpath is now predominately located at bottom of acoustic bund slope, meaning the only available POS is isolated small areas between the footpath and the development area, considerable reducing the usability of the space, the majority of the open space is now road verges. · RM scheme pushes development southward, reducing amount of POS in areas the proposed footpath now abuts the development area. This southern corridor of POS considerable reduced in width and the usability · Area of POS are blocked both visually and physically by the placement of substation at their entrance. The location of the proposed pumping station also detrimentally impacts on the accessibility and character of the POS.
· Play area: The proposed application changes the style of play provided on site. Details of the play areas and associated POS where covered as part of P18/V1622/DIS Condition 16- Development Delivery Strategy and also with the Outline DAS these details should be applied to the site. · The RM scheme pushes the NEAP back into boundary vegetation and over an easement.
· SUDS: The RM scheme proposes a series of highly engineered basins. The outline and P18/V1622/DIS SUDS proposed basins and swale which integrated into design of POS.
· Housing Layout: The proposed planting scheme along the spine road is different to that proposed as part of the P18/V1622/DIS Condition 16- Development Delivery Strategy. · The Outline DAS contains different types of streets; however it is hard to pick up the differences in the submitted RM application. · Throughout the scheme, with the exception of the spine road very few street trees have been proposed. · The proposed species for street trees and hedgerows do not follow the Outline DAS. · There are numerous places through the scheme, were parking areas are not satisfactory broken up and are bookended with unsoften rear garden walling.
|
Forestry Officer |
Amended proposal No objection, subject condition
Original proposal Holding objection · The proposed layout has significantly reduced the areas of open space limiting the opportunity for a high quality a landscaped scheme to be achieved. · No detailed arboricultural information has been provided relating to the impact of the proposal. · A comprehensive arboricultural method statement (AMS) is needed, detailing suitable tree protection measures across the site.
|
Natural England
|
Amended proposal No objection
Original proposal No observations
|
Urban Design Officer |
Amended proposal No objections
Original proposal Holding objection · The RM layout plan does not follow the approved parameter plans; · Built form encroach into the areas of POS; · Clusters and distribution of Affordable Housing should be revisited; · The design and character of the spine road should follow the details approved in the Design Code · Position of street lights and trees should be revisited;
|
Crime Prevention Officer (Thames Valley Police)
|
Amended proposal No objection
Original proposal No objection
|
Environmental Protection Team (Noise) |
Amended proposal No objection, subject to condition · No development shall take place until a scheme to protect the new dwellings from traffic noise has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
Original proposal No objection subject to condition
|
Air Quality Officer
|
Amended proposal No objection
Original proposal No objection
|
Contaminated Land Officer
|
Amended proposal No observations
Original proposal No observations
|
Conservation Officer |
Amended proposal No objection
Original proposal No objection
|
Waste Management Team
|
Amended proposal No observations
Original proposal No objection Please ensure that all access paths between the bin stores and the collection vehicles (particularly between parking spaces eg plots 294-302) are wide enough to accommodate the bulk bins.
|
Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and Partners at the Long Furlong Medical Centre |
Amended proposal Objection · The proposal could result in an extra 1,020 patients. There needs to be extra financial support (s106/CIL) for the Abingdon Central PCN practice expansion plans.
Original proposal Objection
|
SGN Plant Protection Team |
Amended proposal No comments received
Original proposal No objection, draw attention to the gas supply infrastructure in vicinity of the site.
|
Community Infrastructure Officer |
The outline application was pre-CIL and we have a S106 Agreement in place. Unless a S73 or FUL application is submitted there will be no CIL to pay.
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
3.1 |
P18/V0846/PEJ – Officer advice (30/10/2020) Reserved Matters submission for 425 dwellings from outline planning approval (P17/V0050/O). Development parcels western area A, B and central area.
P19/V1607/DIS - Approved (15/07/2019) Discharge of Condition 20 - Archaeological programme of work to be agreed to application P17/V0050/O.
P19/V1374/DIS - Approved (11/06/2019) Discharge of condition 19 Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation on application ref P17/V0050/O
P18/V1622/DIS - Approved (28/05/2019) Discharge of conditions on application ref. P17/V0050/O: 16 - Development Delivery Strategy; 17 - Housing Delivery Document; 18 - Phasing Plan; 30 - Super-fast Broadband Strategy; 31 - Community Employment Plan; 37 - Travel Plan and Travel Information Pack; 47 - Air Quality Monitoring. (As per amended documents and plans submitted on 1 May 2019 and 22nd May 2019)
P18/V0021/PEM - Officer advice (26/04/2018) Development of a new two storey Marston's family pub and restaurant with associated access, parking and landscaping within the Local Centre area of the approved outline planning application (P17/V0050/O).
P17/V0050/O - Approved (27/10/2017) Outline application (with all matters reserved except for principal means of access to the highway) for residential development of up to 900 dwellings and 50 retirement homes (use class C3), together with a local centre, (including: 2.2HA site for a 1.5fe primary school, community hub, care homes comprising up to 80 beds, children's nursery, public house/restaurant, retail and other services (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C2, D1 and D2) public open space, recreation areas and sports pitches (including sports pavilion and multi-use games area) play areas, acoustic bund with fencing, and associated infrastructure including roads, sewers and attenuation ponds (As amended by drawings and information accompanying agent's letter dated 2 May 2017)
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
4.1 |
The original application (P17/V0050/O) was supported by an Environmental Statement that can be viewed on the Council’s website (www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk). The Environmental Statement is considered comprehensive, with the main issues discussed where relevant in this report. The Statement includes the following assessments:
1. Chapter One – Introduction 2. Chapter Two – Methodology 3. Chapter Three – The Existing Site 4. Chapter Four – Site Alternatives 5. Chapter Five – The Proposed Development 6. Chapter Six – Planning Policy 7. Chapter Seven – Socioeconomic 8. Chapter Eight – Transport 9. Chapter Nine – Air Quality 10. Chapter Ten – Noise 11. Chapter Eleven – Hydrology and Flood Risk 12. Chapter Twelve – Ecology 13. Chapter Thirteen – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 14. Chapter Fourteen – Summary of Impacts 15. Non-Technical Summary
The development proposed by this application is considered to fall within the ambit of the ES and no further addendum is required. |
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
5.1 |
The main issues for consideration in this application are:
|
5.2 |
The principle of development 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). There is no neighbourhood plan for Abingdon on Thames and no other Neighbourhood Plan covers the site.
|
5.3 |
The principle of up to 950 dwellings on this site with access to Dunmore Road is established through the extant outline planning permission (P17/V0050/O) and the allocation of the site for housing in the LPP1.
|
5.4 |
Reserved Matters |
|
Policy CP37 of the LPP1 states that new development must demonstrate high quality design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings, creating a distinctive sense of place through high quality townscape and landscaping that physically and visually integrates with its surroundings. It sets out further design criterion for streets and movement, green infrastructure, social inclusion and safe communities, climate change resilience and that development must be visually attractive, with scale, height, massing and materials appropriate to the site and surrounding area. Policy CP38 of the LPP1 sets out more detailed design criterion required for strategic and major development sites.
|
5.5 |
Density |
|
Policy CP23 of the LPP1 requires a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) unless local circumstances indicate that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the area, highway safety or the amenity of neighbours.
|
5.6 |
The proposed densities are compliant with the density parameter plan approved by the Outline application and achieve housing to be designed to a density appropriate for the location and vary from lower density areas of up to 30dph at the edges of the development to 40 dph and above in the central, more urbanised part of the larger allocation. Officers consider this is acceptable and compliant with Policy CP23 of the LPP1.
|
5.7 |
Layout The proposal responds positively to the Local Plan policies and Design Guide with a mix of house sizes and types and these comprise a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced town houses and some flats. These are arranged in connected blocks with clear fronts and backs.
|
5.8 |
There is a clear hierarchy of the connected streets including cycleways and footways. The streets are connected with focal points, and with corner plots that adequately ‘turn’ the corners. 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.
|
5.9 |
Access to the site is provided via Spine Road that runs through the centre of the development, with appropriate landscaping and mature trees along it.
|
5.10 |
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. The proposal is considered to comply with core Policy CP37 of the LPP1 and the Design Guide Principles.
|
5.11 |
Scale and Appearance |
|
Policy CP38 of the LPP1 requires proposals for housing allocation sites to be accompanied by a site-wide design strategy. This was contained in the Design Code and the design statement approved under the outline application. It analysed the existing built environment near the site to provide inspiration and to help shape a locally distinctive development. It is considered that the proposal responds positively to these principles.
|
5.12 |
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 12m (3-storeys flats). House spans are between 9m and 11m with frontages ranging between 6.5m and 11.2m. These are considered a reasonable reflection of development south of Dunmore Road. The scale of development is acceptable.
|
5.13 |
The design parameters for this site sought green edges to the western and northern parts of the site with development being of a more dispersed and lower density. Higher density development is primarily within the central parts of the developed areas (and along the Spine Road). This approach allows for softening landscaping and appropriate setbacks from the roads.
|
5.14 |
In order to minimise the visual impact of new development, additional areas of buffer planting have been provided to reinforce the existing woodland blocks and hedgerow corridors and provides integrated SUDS system along the southern site boundary. These areas of additional green spaces would also provide the ecological resources as well as would serve as the informal public open space.
|
5.15 |
The design and appearance of the development reflects the elements of traditional architectural features as well as offers the elements of modern and contemporary architecture. Likewise, the palette of materials proposed to be used during construction includes both traditional and contemporary building materials.
|
5.16 |
The house types have reasonably balanced elevations, which vary from character area to character area. Some dwellings have projecting gables and dormer windows. Some of these dormer windows are of a contemporary design and provide aesthetical breaks in the elevations. 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
|
5.17 |
The proposal is considered to comply with core Policies CP37 and CP38 of the LPP1 and the Design Guide including Principles DG28, DG29, DG31, DG32, DG35 and DG36.
|
Landscaping and Open Space |
|
|
Policy CP44 of the LPP1 confirms that key features that contribute to the nature and quality of the district’s landscape will be protected from harmful development, and where possible enhanced. Where development is acceptable in principle, proposals will need to demonstrate how they have responded to landscape character and incorporate appropriate landscape proposals. Policy DP33 of the LPP2 requires major development to provide 15% of the site as public open space.
|
5.19 |
Further to the initial objections raised by the Landscape Officer a set of amended plans has been submitted for further assessment. As originally submitted the proposal did not accord with the Design Code and parameter plans approved at outline. This has been now addressed by the amended plans.
|
5.20
|
The submitted plans indicate the provision of public open space will now meet this requirement. The proposal includes a number of linear green urban spaces that vary in scale and the proposed use with all areas of Public Open Space being readily accessible by walking and cycle routes with secure cycle parking proposed at the play areas.
|
5.21 |
It is considered that the location and amended quality and quantity of the public open spaces and the proposed green corridors would enhance the overall quality of the proposal and would increase the opportunities for formal and informal recreation.
|
5.22 |
The proposal aims to deliver a variety of native species if a form of trees and hedgerows. The proposed SUDS is considered to be adequately integrated into the overall design and the wider landscape scheme. The SUDS system would serve a dual function of being a part of the drainage scheme as well as by providing a habitat network for species and a residential amenity space (outside of peak rainfall).
|
5.23 |
It has been agreed with the Landscape Officer that the design and the exact details of the LEAP and NEAP can be secured by conditions as there is adequate space available for their provision within the proposed layout of the development.
|
5.24 |
The proposal therefore complies with the Policy CP44 of the LPP1, Policy DP33 of the LPP2 and Principle DG37 of the Design Guide.
|
5.25 |
Residential Amenity |
|
Policy DP23 of the LPP2 seeks to ensure that development proposals demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses when considering both individual and cumulative impacts in terms of loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight or outlook, or through noise disturbance.
|
5.26 |
Noise pollution The site is affected by noise pollution from the A34. A number of mitigation measures was identified at the outline stage. One of those mitigations was an acoustic bund, that would be located along A34. The council’s environmental protection team, the landscape officer and Highways England initially objected to the location and design of the proposed acoustic bund. As a result of these objections its design has been revised, together with an updated noise assessment.
|
5.27 |
Dwellings are set back from the A34 (c.30-40m), in line with the approved Design Code and the parameter plans. The proposed green corridor provides a visual buffer between the housing and the highway.
|
5.28 |
As illustrated on the amended plans approximately 25m of the green corridor along A34 will now consist of a suitable acoustic bund, which is “softened” by additional woodland planting, an informal, linear public open space along with the tree and shrub planting. The informal footpaths will meander through this green corridor, connecting to other footpaths and cycleways to create circular recreational routes through the development envisaged at the outline stage.
|
5.29 |
The environmental protection team, landscape officer and Highways England no longer objects to the amended scheme. Officers consider the bund is
acceptable subject to conditions requiring further detail on its construction and timing of delivery.
|
5.30 |
The noise mitigation conditions require a detailed specification for the acoustic fence, acoustic facade treatments and protection of amenity spaces in order to demonstrate that the findings from the Environmental Statement on noise are achieved and to ensure noise mitigation is provided prior to the occupation of any dwelling affected by noise.
|
5.31 |
Officers are satisfied that the amenity standard within the new development are acceptable in line with the Design Guide. Officers consider that the proposal (as amended) is compliant with Policy DP24 of the LPP2.
|
5.32 |
Affordable Housing and Housing Mix Affordable Housing The s106 agreement accompanying the outline permission contains a mix of dwelling sizes and floor areas for affordable housing. The proposal accords with the s106 and is therefore satisfactory. Affordable housing is evenly distributed within the site and accords with the requirements of Policy CP24 of the LPP1.
|
5.33 |
Market housing and mix Policy CP22 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.
|
5.34 |
It has been raised in the Abingdon Town Council’s comments and objections received from residents that the housing mix does not accord with the SHMA nor the mix agreed at outline stage.
|
5.35 |
An alternative housing mix to SHMA was agreed at the outline stage. Condition 5 of the Outline Planning Permission secured the following for the wider site:
· 5.5% one bedroom · 16.3% two bedrooms · 43.7% three bedrooms · 34.5% four (or more) bedrooms
|
5.36 |
In order to secure compliance with this mix of housing across the whole site, a further pre-commencement condition (Condition 17) was imposed at outline stage that required a submission of a Housing Delivery Document (HDD). This document was submitted and agreed under application ref. P18/V1622/DIS in May 2019 and demonstrates how the scheme accords with the agreed mix and illustrates the exact distribution of both market and affordable housing across parcels of development within the site. Further to that, condition 17 requires every Reserved Matters application containing residential dwellings to be accompanied by an updated HDD. This is to allow flexibility on mix between parcels as the site is designed and developed.
|
5.37 |
The layout proposed in this application originally sought to vary the location of some of the units set out in the HDD. However, following amendment the overall housing mix across these three parcels has been retained to accord with that previously approved in May 2019 including total numbers, and the provision of dwellings that meet the requirements of Cat M4 (2) and Cat M4 (3) (former Lifetime Homes standard).
The housing mixes for both market and affordable housing is set out in the table below:
|
5.38 |
The proposed changes are considered acceptable as they are in line with Condition 17 of the outline permission, which allows for the revised HDD to be provided with each reserved matters application.
|
5.39 |
The sizes of the houses meet the adopted space standards and are compliant with Policy DP2 of the LPP2. Further to that 10% of the proposed dwellings meets the Category M4 (2) and Category M4 (3) (former Lifetime Homes standard). |
|
|
5.40 |
Flood Risk and drainage |
|
Core Policy 42 of theLPP1 seeks to ensure that development provides appropriate measures for the management of surface water as an essential element of reducing future flood risk to both the site and its surroundings.
|
5.41 |
The outline application was supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that showed the vast majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, the area at least risk of flooding. A small part of the western parcel falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3.
|
5.42 |
The drainage engineer initially raised an objection and requested further information to be provided to confirm modelled extents and proposed locations
of any compensatory flood plain storage required can be achieved within the layout proposed.
|
5.43 |
The amended plan and an updated drainage technical note have been submitted which demonstrates that the proposed flood storage can be delivered within the space designated. The drainage officer is satisfied with the proposals and it is concluded the proposal accords with core Policy 42 of the LPP1.
|
5.44 |
Traffic, parking and highway safety |
|
Access to Dunmore Road and 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 and to upgrade the local transport.
|
5.45 |
Vehicular access is from Dunmore Road. Forming the access arrangements leads to some loss of semi-mature trees on the southern boundary of the application site whilst other mature and semi-mature trees along that boundary are to be retained. This aspect of the proposal was considered and agreed at the outline stage and will not be re-considered under current reserved matters.
|
5.46 |
Encouraging walking and cycling has been a central theme in designing the different types of streets within the development. A comprehensive network of footpaths, cycleways and bridleways have been integrated into the development to ensure access to public open space, local facilities and the wider countryside.
|
5.47 |
Across the site, a full network of dedicated cycleways and footways links the key facilities of the site, reducing the need to travel by car. A continuous footpath and cycle path also link the proposal with Tilsley Park. The proposal makes provision for a footpath and cycleway link through to the south western edge of the development, to link in with the footpath route within the grounds of Tilsley Park. A section 106 contribution have been made to facilitate the upgrading of the footpath through Tilsley Park to provide a consistent surface including a cycleway.
|
5.48 |
The Transport Engineer has initially objected to the proposal as there were several design issues that required further work to be submitted to the Local Highway Authority for consideration. Further to the submission of the amended plans the initially raised objection has been removed. Subject to the recommended conditions there are no objections to this proposal on highway grounds.
|
5.49 |
The proposal provides a total of 877 of allocated parking spaces and 52 of unallocated parking spaces which is acceptable. Whilst on-plot parking exceeds parking standard requirements, the highway officer does not object to the amount and distribution of parking spaces. Parking standards allow exceptions to secure appropriate design and on plot parking can accommodate
visitors as well for occupant of the respective dwellings. This amount of parking is considered acceptable.
|
5.50
|
Taking all of these matters into account it is considered the proposal is acceptable in highway terms and accords with Policies CP35 and CP37 of the LPP1.
|
5.51 |
Biodiversity |
|
Policy CP46 of LPP1 requires development to avoid losses in biodiversity and actively seeks net gains.
|
5.52 |
The Countryside Officer initially objected to the proposal and requested additional information to be submitted for further assessment. The objections related to a lack of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for biodiversity; landscaped areas of the development site being diminished for biodiversity enhancement from that envisaged at outline stage and lack of detail and suitable mitigation to minimise impact over and directly adjacent to the watercourse.
|
5.53 |
Further to the initial objection raised by the Countryside Officer, a set of amended plans and additional documents have been submitted. The requested cross sections and structural drawings have been prepared and the discrepancies identified by the Countryside Officer have been addressed. The seating spaces within the Lodge Hill Park area have been relocated, so they no longer are within the 10m buffer zone. It is considered in the Officers opinion that the concerns raised by the Countryside Officer have been satisfactorily addressed.
|
5.54 |
As such, officers are satisfied that subject to conditions the development accords with Policy CP46 of the LPP1. |
6.0 |
CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE |
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 950 dwellings on this site and means of access from Dunmore Road have been established through the grant of outline planning permission in 2017 (ref. P17/V0050/O).
|
6.3 |
The proposal provides an acceptable housing mix with the houses and layout being acceptably designed in accordance with the Local Plan policies, the s106, and the council’s Design Guide, the site Design Code and parameter plans.
|
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. |
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.
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
Contact Officer – Hanna Zembrzycka-Kisiel
Email – planning@southandvale.gov.uk
Tel – (01235) 422600