|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
Former Seven Acres Nursery Site, Faringdon Road, Stanford in the Vale |
|
|
PARISH |
STANFORD IN THE VALE |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Full planning permission for 82 dwellings with associated access, roads, infrastructure, open space and landscaping (As per amended plans and documents received 12 January 2022 and 8 March 2022). |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Nathan Boyd |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Carter-Francis & David Wilson Homes |
|
|
OFFICER |
Hanna Zembrzycka-Kisiel |
|
It is recommended that authority to grant planning permission is delegated to the head of planning subject to:
|
|
3. The following planning conditions:
Standard 1. Commencement of development – three years 2. Development in accordance with approved plans
Pre-commencement 3. Biodiversity Offsetting 4. Surface drainage scheme 5. Foul water drainage scheme 6. Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (incl. wheel washing facilities and dust management) 8. Tree Protection 9. Detailed mitigation scheme (noise) 10. Wildlife Pond Details
Pre-occupation 11. Contaminated Land – Unexpected Contamination 12. Access, Parking and Turning in Accordance with Specified Plan 13. Cycle Parking Facilities 14. Travel Plans 15. SUDS Compliance Report 16. Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Noise Assessment 17. Water supply network capacity
Compliance 18. Ecological mitigation 19. Biodiversity enhancements
Informatives 1. Road Agreements Team (S278) 2. Planning Obligations 3. Superfast Broadband |
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
||||
|
1.1 |
This application is presented to planning committee due to an objection from Stanford in the Vale Parish Council.
|
|
|||
|
1.2 |
The application site, approximately 3.11 hectares in size, comprises land at the former Seven Acres Nursery and forms part of a wider housing allocation known as Land West of Stanford-in-the-Vale, in the Local Plan 2031 Part 1. This strategic site was allocated for around 200 dwellings.
|
|
|||
|
1.3 |
To the south and east of the application site is 78 dwellings consented in 2018 (ref. P18/V2031/RM). To the north is 100 dwellings, also consented in 2018 (ref. P18/V2056/RM). Both schemes form part of the same strategic allocation and are currently under construction.
|
|
|||
|
1.4 |
This application is effectively the third phase and seeks full planning permission for 82 dwellings with associated access, roads, infrastructure, open space and landscaping. Vehicular access will be taken from Faringdon Road and through the consented scheme for 100 dwellings to the north.
|
|
|||
|
1.5 |
Pedestrian access points are proposed in the south-east corner of the site from Faringdon Road with additional footpath connections on the northern boundary of the site.
|
|
|||
|
1.6 |
A map below illustrates the location of the application site in relation to the previously consented schemes: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1.7 |
Amendments to the scheme Since submission of the application in August 2021, there have been several amendments submitted by the applicant to address technical issues raised by the landscape architect, drainage engineer, environmental protection officers, countryside officer, forestry officer, waste team and the Stanford in the Vale Parish Council.
|
|
|||
|
1.8 |
As a result of these amendments the number of the proposed houses has been reduced from 87 to 82 and changes to the proposed layout and design have been made.
|
|
|||
|
1.9 |
The amended layout plan is attached at Appendix 1. All other plans and technical documents are available to view online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
|
|
|||
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
||||
|
2.1 |
A summary of the most recent responses received is below. All comments can be viewed in full online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
|
||||
|
|
Re-consultation (March 2022) Comments to be provided at the meeting Re-consultation (February 2022) Objection, the amendments have not overcome the parish Council's previous objections:
· The proposed 2.5 storey dwellings are out of keeping with the local vernacular · Housing mix: proposed home offices are simply renamed bedrooms; this will have an impact upon SHMA mix and is considered unacceptable · There are still 20 plots which do not have EV parking provision · Some architectural elements of the proposed dwellings are at odds with the Design Guide and the limited local examples that can be found within the village · Although we have been supplied with a bat survey as private correspondence, we note that it has not been submitted as part of the application and has a number of methodological shortcomings · The applicant has failed to demonstrably integrate sustainability within their housing designs · Local sewage works is already over capacity, and in addition there are numerous issues with the existing foul sewer along Faringdon Road (A417)
First Consultation (October 2021) Objection, for the following reasons:
· Housing mix is not SHMA compliant · Unsatisfactorily amenity space & density · Visitor parking spaces are below OOC standards · Poor quality of the site design · House design out of character of the village · Loss of habitats and ecology · No play provision or LEAP · Poor Landscaping · Detracts from rural setting · Lack of community engagement · The applicant has failed to demonstrably integrate sustainability within their housing designs · Local sewage works is already over capacity, and in addition there are numerous issues with the existing foul sewer along Faringdon Road (A417)
|
|
|||
|
|
Residents |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No further comments received
First Consultation (September 2021) One letter of support and three letters raising the following concerns have been received:
· Potential loss of mature trees · Impact upon the wildlife · Loss of habitats · Increased traffic and noise generation · Increased pressure on local services and amenities
|
|
||
|
|
Oxfordshire County Council – Transport Development Control |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection subject to financial contributions towards local infrastructure (s106) and conditions:
First Consultation (October 2021) No objection subject to financial contributions towards local infrastructure (s106) and conditions:
· S106: o Public transport services (£98,356.98) o Travel Plan Monitoring (£1,446.00) · Travel Plan and Residential Travel Information Pack · Cycle Parking Facilities · A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) · New estate roads · Turning Area & Car Parking · No Garage conversion into accommodation
|
|
||
|
|
Oxfordshire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection
· The proposals appear to meet the LLFA's requirements and there are no further comments.
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection
|
|
||
|
Oxfordshire County Council – Education |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to financial contributions:
· Primary and nursery education (£489,525) · Secondary education (£519,840) · Total: £1,009,365
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection, subject to financial contributions:
· Primary and nursery education (£626,592) · Secondary education (£519,840) · Total: £1,146,432
|
|
Oxfordshire County Council – Archaeology |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection
|
|
Countryside Officer |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to a successful submission of GCN district licence documents, prior to the determination of the application, and conditions:
· Ecological mitigation as described in the PEA · Delivery of BEP · Biodiversity offsetting (4.36 units) · GCN DL conditions
Re-consultation (February 2022) No objection, subject to conditions:
· Ecological mitigation described in the PEA · Delivery of BEP · GCN District License being successfully entered before the planning permission is granted · Biodiversity offsetting (4.36 units)
First Consultation (October 2021) No objection, subject to further information being provided:
· GCN district licence documents being submitted to support this application, prior to determination. · he full biodiversity metric should be submitted for review · Wildlife pond details can be conditioned.
|
|
Drainage Engineer |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No Objection subject to conditions:
· Submission of a detailed sustainable drainage scheme · Submission of a SUDS Compliance report · Submission of a detailed foul drainage scheme
First Consultation (September 2021) Holding objection
· Local standards require at least one surface feature to be deployed for water quality improvement purposes prior to final discharge · Currently, proposed highway drainage discharges directly to crate type soakaways without any upstream SUDS features such as porous paving, swales or basins proposed · The strategy should therefore be amended to ensure that the requirements of the local standards can be maintained · Justification is also required for the use of crates given the maintenance burden and lack of benefits when compared to more natural SUDS.
|
|
Forestry officer |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection subject to condition:
· Tree Protection (Detailed)
First Consultation (October 2021) Holding objection
· Concerns with the proximity of the proposed development to the existing · Trees adjacent to the East boundary (G5, G25 G27) · More detailed levels drawings are required, particularly adjacent to the trees to be retained adjacent to the boundaries to ensure that level changes are not proposed in their root protection areas · A larger buffer is required between them and the proposed buildings, roads and parking areas · Details of all highway works required should be submitted, including under section 278 so that an assessment of impact on trees can be made
|
|
Environmental Health Protection Team -Air Quality |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to condition
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection, subject to condition
· An air quality assessment in accordance with the Vale Developers Air Quality Guidance is required to be submitted
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection, subject to condition
· An air quality assessment in accordance with the Vale Developers Air Quality Guidance is required to be submitted
|
|
Environmental Health Protection Team - Contaminated Land |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to condition
· Unsuspected Contaminated Land Condition
Re-consultation (January 2022) Holding objection: Comments submitted in September still apply.
First Consultation (September 2021) Holding objection: Further information is required on:
· An asbestos survey · Further soil sampling · Phased risk assessment · Remediation strategy
|
|
Environmental Health Protection Team -Noise |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to condition
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection, subject to condition
· Submission of a scheme of noise mitigation
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection, subject to condition
· Submission of a scheme of noise mitigation
|
|
Landscape Architect |
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to conditions:
Re-consultation (January 2022) Holding objection
· A Levels Strategy Plan has been provided; however, it is still unclear how level changes are being accommodated · I am concerned with regards to offset distances from the kickabout space to adjacent properties · The applicant states that there is an area of land between this site and the adjacent site to the west which means the sites cannot be connected. Can the details of this be submitted to the Council for record, so that there is a clear understanding which area of land does not fall under the maintenance of the two site areas · An updated lighting plan to cross reference to the tree planting locations is required · Pond design should be re-considered/re-designed to comply with guidance in Freshwater Habitats Trust
First Consultation (September 2021) Holding objection
· There are issues with the site layout which makes areas of the proposed POS unusable, especially on the north boundary and the western boundary · The proposed built form and hard surfacing along the eastern boundary of the site practically abuts the redline with no space to plant any trees to supplement the existing trees and gap up the hedgerow within the site · No details of site levels or sections have been provided · Although labelled as Public Open space, there is not a continuous footpath corridor along the western edge of site · The layout of the north-eastern section of the site is poor, the building and parking extends close to the site boundary · Two visitors parking spaces terminate the vista of the view down the central road to the kick about area of POS · There is limited street tree planting and trees proposed within the area of POS are not appropriate species for that space · Timber knee rail is not an appropriate boundary treatment, estate rail should be used to delineate the POS especially on the western boundary of the site
|
|
Thames Water |
Re-consultation (December 2021) No objection, subject to previous conditions
Re-consultation (August 2021) No objection, subject to previous conditions
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection, subject to condition:
· No occupation until confirmation has been provided that either:
o all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows to serve the development have been completed; or o a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow the development to be occupied.
· Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.
|
|
Waste Management Officer (District Council)
|
Re-consultation (March 2022) No objection, subject to financial contributions
· Section 106 Contributions: Bin provision £186 per dwelling
Re-consultation (January 2022) Holding objection
· The vehicle tracking plan shows the waste collection vehicle having to reverse into trees marked G3. The turn is not acceptable if the vehicle has to drive into vegetation
· Section 106 Contributions required
First Consultation (September 2021) Holding objection
· The proposed vehicle tracking plan and bin storage area shall be re-designed. The bin collection points must be within 25m of the vehicle. · Section 106 Contributions required
|
|
Urban Design Officer (South and Vale)
|
Re-consultation (January 2022) No comments received
First Consultation (September 2021) No comments received
|
|
Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group |
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection, subject to financial contributions:
· Financial contributions towards health provision £80,316
First Consultation (October 2021) No objection, subject to financial contributions:
· Financial contributions towards health provision £80,316
|
|
Housing Team
|
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection, subject to legal agreement s106 securing affordable housing
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection, subject to legal agreement s106 securing affordable housing and switching allocated spaces for plots 33 and 32
|
|
Community Infrastructure Officer & 106 Officer
|
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection
First Consultation (September 2021) No objection
|
|
Crime Prevention Design Adviser
|
Re-consultation (January 2022) No objection
· The rear access route for plots 28/51 shall be secured in line with the front of the secure building line to remove the recessed area to the vulnerable rear of plots 27/28
First Consultation (September 2021) Comments received:
· Visitor parking area opposite plots 10 & 36 no natural surveillance so open to criminal activity and antisocial behaviours · Access routes vulnerable - rear access routes and side/rear boundaries provide escape routes for offenders, · excessive permeability between plots 27/28 & 53/54.
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P19/V3237/RM - Withdrawn (20/03/2020) Reserved Matters application following outline approval P16/V1589/O for residential development for up to 100 dwellings with associated access - Land West of Faringdon Road, Stanford-in-the-Vale.
P20/V0031/A - Approved (19/03/2020) Erection of advertising/signage. (Number of flag poles reduced from seven to four as shown on drawing numbers H7902F-SLP-01 rev.A and H7902-SML-01 rev.A, received 17 February 2020).
P20/V0030/FUL - Approved (19/03/2020) Erection of temporary sales suite with associated planting, parking & advertising/signage. (Number of flag poles reduced from seven to four as shown on drawing numbers H7902F-SLP-01 rev.A and H7902-SML-01 rev.A, received 17 February 2020).
P18/V2056/RM - Approved (28/02/2020) Residential Development for up to 100 dwellings with associated access (as amended by drawings and information received 30 May 2019, 01 August 2019, 01 October 2019 and 18 November 2019).
P17/V0510/NM - Approved (03/03/2017) Non material amendment to application ref. P16/V1589/O - (Residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated access) to correct condition 9 to read "Prior to the commencement of the development above slab level, a fully detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme of the development shall be developed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment ref: 70019477 dated October 2016 prepared by WSP and submitted to, and approved in writing, by the District Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling to which the scheme relates and shall include a fully detailed management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development."
P16/V1589/O - Approved (22/12/2016) Residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated access (As amended by Drawing No: 16476-02a (Site Access) and Biodiversity Information accompanying agent's email of 10 August 2016 and further clarified by Flow and Pressure report accompanying agent's email of 8 September 2016 and Flood Risk Assessment and Utilities and Foul Drainage Assessment Issue 3 accompanying agents email of 6 October 2016.
|
|
3.3 |
Screening Opinion requests A screening opinion was carried out in 2014 for a larger site area which included the current application site. The negative screening opinion assessed 290 dwellings being delivered across three sites; the current proposal comprises 82 dwellings on the site. |
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
The proposal is below the EIA threshold of 150 dwellings and on a site area no greater than 5ha and is not located within a sensitive area. It is therefore considered the proposal is not EIA development. |
|
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.1 |
The main issues are:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principle of Development |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.3 |
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.
The development plan for this proposal currently comprises the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (the LPP1) and the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (the LPP2).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.4 |
There is currently no made neighbourhood plan for Stanford in the Vale.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.5 |
This 3.11ha site forms a part of a strategic allocation in the LPP1 for housing development. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.6 |
Affordable housing and market housing mixes |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.7 |
Affordable housing provision Core policy 24 of the LPP1 requires 35% of the proposed dwellings to be affordable dwellings. 35% of 82 proposed units equates to 28.7 units. The applicant proposes to deliver 29 affordable dwellings on site.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.8 |
The applicant has also introduced First Homes into the overall affordable provision, in accordance with Council policy as per the tenure and housing mix below:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.9 |
The affordable housing officer has assessed the proposal and is satisfied with the proposed provision of affordable housing. Affordable housing will be secured through a s.106 legal agreement.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.10 |
Market
Housing “A mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet the needs of current and future households will be required on all new residential developments. This should be in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment 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.”
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.11 |
The proposed market housing mix is compliant with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) estimate and is shown in the table below:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.12 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.13 |
Space
standards
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.14 |
In their comments, Parish Council raised concerns to the proposed size of the first-floor home offices and consider them to be renamed bedrooms. A single bedroom as defined by Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) has a floor area of at least 7.5m2. The amended plans illustrate that the first-floor home offices are smaller than a single bedroom as defined by NDSS.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.15 |
The proposed development conforms with the with the requirements under policies CP22, CP24 and DP2.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Design and Layout |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.17 |
Core policy 37
of the LPP1 states that new development must demonstrate
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.18 |
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. Core policy 38 of LPP1 sets out more detailed
design criterion required for strategic and major
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.19 |
The proposal has been amended to conform with planning design policies and to achieve a satisfactory level of urban design.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.20 |
Appearance Stanford in the Vale is a mix of house types and designs of varying ages with no one form dominating. There is no set pattern of dwelling form or arrangement. Materials are mixed comprising red/yellow brick, render and some natural stone. Housing densities are variable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.21 |
The Design Guide 2015 expects the form and massing of new development to reflect form, massing, and the architectural features present in the surrounding areas, as well as to be kept simple with a rectangular floor plan and pitched roof. It does also allow more complex forms such as ‘L’ shaped buildings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.22 |
The Parish Council raised concerns on the proposed architectural features and details, as it was deemed that the proposed features do not reflect the character of the prevailing village. The proposal is considered to comply with the Design Guide in having simple forms with rectangular floor plans, pitched roofs and balanced elevations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.23 |
There are however instances of taxed windows within the village, which do feature on visually prominent elevations. The proposed detailed architectural elements of design have been considered in line with the prevailing pattern of architectural features in the village and are considered acceptable. Some ‘L’ shaped dwellings are provided to turn corners with side windows providing surveillance of side roads and public open spaces.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.24 |
The scale of the dwellings is consistent with the variations in heights, widths, and lengths of dwellings on the adjacent site to the south and elsewhere within Stanford in the Vale.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.25 |
Proposed materials are Bekstone Tumble Blended Buff, dark red/orange red bricks under pitched slate grey/red/brown coloured tiled roofs. These are acceptable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.26 |
The appearance of the dwellings is considered to respond positively to Design Guide principles and general forms of dwellings and materials found in Stanford in the Vale and reflects the appearance of the approved neighbouring sites that are currently under construction.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.27 |
Layout A single access road obtained from the north, serves the site with cul-de-sacs leading off it. Houses face the roads providing enclosure. There is some scope for landscaping including frontage lawns, low-level shrubs, and some tree planting. The proposed development is relatively enclosed as the boundaries are strongly delineated by the existing vegetation that includes semi-mature trees and hedgerows. Dwellings turn corners by providing windows on the two street elevations and front open spaces providing passive surveillance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.28 |
Public Open Space Development Policy 33 states that proposals for major residential developments will be required to provide or contribute towards safe, attractive, and accessible open space in accordance with the open space standards as set out in Appendix K including:
i. children’s play and youth provision ii. public open space (15% of the residential area), and iii. allotments.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.29 |
Public Open Space provision meets the requirements of policy DP 33. Notwithstanding, the Landscape Architect advises that according to the space standards set out in the Appendix K, there is an expectation for this development to provide (or contribute towards) provision of 490m2 play space and 588m2 Youth Provision on top of the 15% POS provided by the site.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.30 |
The Developer Contributions SPD adopted in November 2021, states that provision of the play spaces should take account any existing play facilities within the local area, in order to avoid duplicating existing play equipment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.31 |
A LEAP is provided on Faringdon Road site to the north (ref. P18/V2056/RM) and on the Ware Road site to the south (ref. P18/V2031/RM). There is also an additional LEAP to the south of Ware Road site and a MUGA and skatepark located 200m north-east of the application site.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.32 |
Given the close proximity of these approved and existing LEAPs (within the adjacent sites to the north and south-east) it is not considered necessary by your officers to request further facilities within the application site, and officers consider the proposal to be acceptable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.33
|
Overall, the amended scheme is acceptable when considered against CP37 and CP38, DP33.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.34 |
Residential Amenity |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.35 |
Policy DP23 of the LPP2 seeks to prevent development that would result in a loss of privacy, daylight, or sunlight for neighbouring properties or that would cause dominance or visual intrusion for neighbouring properties and the wider environment. Design principles DG63-64 of the Design Guide pertain to amenity, privacy and overlooking.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.36 |
Given the existing vegetation along the eastern and southern boundaries of the application site and the distance between the properties located to the east of Faringdon Road, and to the south of the application site, it is not considered that these dwellings would be affected by a light pollution as a result of the proposed development It is considered that the proposal would not cause unreasonable overlooking or overbearing impact upon the residential amenities of future occupiers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.37 |
Landscape and Visual Impact |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.38 |
Core policy 44 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.39 |
The existing southern, eastern, and western boundaries comprise from semi mature vegetation, majority of which is to be retained.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.40 |
The Landscape Architect, in her initial comments has raised a holding objection as there were issues identified with the site layout and the proposed built-form that made areas of the proposed POS unusable, especially on the north boundary and the western boundary.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.41 |
Other concerns raised by the landscape architect related to lack of plans indicating site levels/sections and the proposed planting. The proposed built form and hard surfacing along the eastern boundary of the site (approximately that area that abuts the redline) left no space to plant any trees to supplement the existing trees.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.42 |
This has now been addressed through amended plans, and as a result of these amendments, the number of proposed houses has been reduced from 87 to 82, together with changes to the proposed layout and design and enhanced by additional hedge and tree planting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.43 |
The amended scheme has been assessed by the Landscape Architect, who confirms that subject to conditions the proposed development is now acceptable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.44 |
Overall, officers have no objections to the proposal on landscape and visual impact. The proposed landscaping scheme is considered acceptable and complies with policy CP44 of the LPP1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.45 |
Highway safety, traffic and parking |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.46 |
Core policy 33
of the LPP1 actively seeks to ensure that the impacts of new
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.47 |
Core policy 35 of the LPP1 promotes public transport, cycling and walking and together with policy DP17 of the LPP2 requires proposals for major developments to be supported by a Transport Assessment in accordance with OCC guidance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.48 |
Policy DP16 of the LPP2 requires evidence to demonstrate that acceptable off-site improvements to highway infrastructure can be secured where these are not adequate to service the development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.49 |
Vehicle and pedestrian access are proposed along the northern boundary, (through the consented scheme for 100 dwellings to the north, Land West of Faringdon Road ref. P18/V2056/RM), connecting to a Toucan crossing on Faringdon Road to the north- east of the site. A footpath is also provided along the western boundary of the site and links to the pedestrian/cycle access onto Faringdon Road in the south-east corner of the site. This footpath is also accessed from the central spine road through the site. An additional pedestrian footpath connection is provided in the north-west corner of the site providing access to the site to the north (application reference P18/V2056/RM). Officers consider access for all users into and around the site is acceptable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.50 |
Oxfordshire County Council as Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal in respect of traffic generation and highway safety, but requests conditions and financial contribution of £92,704.28 towards the local bus service. This can be secured by a S106 legal agreement.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.51 |
In response to the Waste Management Team’s comments, the proposed layout has been amended to provide manoeuvring space for waste vehicles, as well as improved access to the proposed bin collection points.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.52 |
Parking is set close to dwellings as expected by the Design Guide being to the sides of dwellings or in some cases their frontage. The proposed frontage parking spaces will be separated by proposed low-level vegetation and sporadic trees, which should help to soften the visual appearance of the street scene.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.53 |
The proposal is acceptable in respect of highway safety, traffic and parking.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.54 |
Flood Risk and drainage |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.55 |
Core Policy 42 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. Sustainable drainage methods, such as green roofs, ponds and permeable surfaces, will be encouraged, where technically possible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.56 |
The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application confirms that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is at a low risk of flooding.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.57 |
The District Council’s Drainage Engineer has initially raised a holding objection, As the proposed scheme was not in accordance with local drainage standards that requires at least one surface feature to be deployed for water quality improvement purposes prior to final discharge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.58 |
It was requested that the proposed drainage strategy is amended to ensure that the requirements of the local standards can be maintained, and a further justification for the use of crates is provided. The amended scheme and requested information were submitted for assessment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.59 |
The District Council’s Drainage Engineer and the LLFA have raised no objection to the amended scheme, subject to submission of a detailed sustainable drainage scheme, a SUDS Compliance report and a detailed foul drainage scheme. These will be secured by planning conditions imposed to planning permission.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.60 |
Thames Water advise that upgrades to the water network will be required. They recommend a Grampian condition, stating that
“No development shall be occupied 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 development to be occupied.
Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed housing and infrastructure phasing plan”.
This will be secured via planning condition imposed to planning permission.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.61 |
In overall, the proposal accords with policy CP42 of the LPP1 and is acceptable in drainage and flood risk terms.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Biodiversity |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.63 |
Core Policy 46 of the Local Plan Part 1 seeks to protect ecological receptors (designated sites, protected species, priority habitats, etc.) and secure net gains for biodiversity. Where adverse impacts are expected, the criteria under the policy must be met for development to be acceptable. Net losses of biodiversity will be resisted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.64 |
Ecological surveys have concluded that the habitats on site, apart from the southern/southwestern boundary hedgerow, are not priority habitats and are not constraints to development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.65 |
The primary habitats on site are neutral grassland and scrub. The southern hedgerow will be retained in the proposed scheme, apart from a small breach pedestrian access point in the southeast of the site.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.66 |
The site supports populations of reptiles (slow worms), common toads and great crested newts (GCN). Surveys have concluded that the site supports low levels of bat foraging activity and there are no potential roosts. Evidence of mammal burrowing on site is not attributed to badgers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.67 |
The submitted metric assessment has initially indicated a net loss of -4.52 units, however, following the amendments to the scheme, it has concluded a slightly smaller net loss than previously assessed -4.36 units.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.68 |
It is proposed to provide a dedicated wildlife pond on site (i.e. not a SUDS basin). Additional details regarding the profile, depth, lining, etc. of the wildlife pond will need to be provided; however, this can be secured via planning Condition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.69 |
Due to the suitability of habitats on site for GCN and known local populations, The Countryside Officer stated that it is recommended that the development is entered into the Great Crested Newts District Licence scheme (GCN DL). Great Crested Newts district licence documentation must be submitted as supporting documents as part of this application prior to the determination of the application.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.70 |
Therefore, the Countryside Officer agreed that the proposal can be recommended for a resolution to grant planning permission, subject to a successful submission of GCN district licence documents, prior to the determination of the application.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.71 |
Air Quality |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.72 |
Policy DP26 of
the LPP2 confirms that development proposals that are likely
to
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.73 |
The application site is not located within the Air Quality Management Area. The Environmental Health Officer has requested that an air quality assessment (in accordance with the Vale Developers Air Quality Guidance) is submitted for assessment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.74
|
The requested assessment has been prepared by the applicant and assessed by the Environmental Health Officer, who raised no objection to the proposal, subject to condition securing the submission of the dust management plan. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.75 |
The details of measures to control the emission of dust are required to be submitted with the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) that will be imposed to this planning permission, therefore the additional condition requiring a separate dust management plan is not considered necessary.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.76 |
Further to that the applicant confirmed that 8 additional Electric Vehicle Charging points have been proposed, therefore 70 plots (90% from 82 plots) have EVC points.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.77 |
Noise |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.78 |
Policy DP25 in the LPP2 states that noise-generating development that would have an impact on environmental amenity or biodiversity will be expected to provide an appropriate scheme of mitigation that should take account of:
i. the location, design, and layout of the proposed development ii. existing levels of background noise iii. measures to reduce or contain generated noise, and iv. hours of operation and servicing.
Development will not be permitted if mitigation cannot be provided within an appropriate design or standard.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.79 |
The applicant has submitted a Noise and Vibration Assessment. The report is based on monitoring and considers the impacts of traffic noise, noise from the White Horse Business Park and the quarry to the north of the site. It also identifies that there will be noise impacts which can be mitigated and suggests options to achieve this.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.80 |
A scheme of noise mitigation was requested to be submitted for further assessment. The applicant has provided additional information. The Environmental Health Protection Team has assessed the report and raise no objection subject to detailed scheme of mitigation to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development. This can be secured by condition to achieve compliance with policy DP25.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.81 |
Contaminated Land |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.82 |
Policy DP27 of
the LPP2 requires proposals for the development,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.83 |
In his initial comments, Contaminated Land Officer requested the submission of an asbestos survey further soil sampling, phased risk assessment and a remediation strategy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.84 |
The requested documents have been submitted and the council’s contamination officer is satisfied that subject to the unsuspected contamination land condition being imposed to planning permission there are no objections to the proposed development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.85 |
Subject to the recommended planning condition the proposal is considered to be in compliance with policy DP27.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.86 |
Other Considerations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.87 |
Archaeology
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.88 |
The application site has been extensively truncated through quarrying. As such there are no archaeological constraints to this application
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.89 |
Public Art Policy DP20 of the LPP2 requires proposals for all major development to provide public art that makes a significant contribution towards the appearance of the scheme or character of the area, or which benefits the local community.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.90 |
In accordance with the council’s Developer Contributions SPD a financial contribution of £306 per dwelling; plus a commuted sum for maintenance where the ownership of on-site art features is to pass to anyone other than the site owner / developer. This will represent 7% of the value of the works to cover the costs associated with monitoring, repairs, and maintenance over a 15-year period.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.91 |
Financial contribution requests The NPPF advises that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests in paragraph 204: I. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; II. Directly related to the development; and III. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Core policy 7
of the LPP1 will only permit development where the necessary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The Community
Infrastructure Levy will require contributions from the
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.93 |
Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (OCCG) requests improvements to primary healthcare. In this case and in accordance with the SPD, CIL contributions could be used by OCCG towards healthcare provision.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.94 |
Developers Contributions SPD 2021 (the SPD) In accordance with the SPD, a s.106 would be needed to secure affordable housing, provision of, management and maintenance of public open spaces, public art, street naming and bin provision for the dwellings, public transport service improvements, primary and secondary education.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following developer contributions are considered fair and proportionate and should be secured though a section 106 agreement:
|
|
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
|
|
6.1 |
This application has been assessed against the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and all other material planning considerations.
|
|
|
|
6.2 |
In considering the application, due regard has been given to the representations received from statutory and other consultees. These have been taken into account in assessing the overall scheme
|
|
|
|
6.3 |
The development has benefits including the provision of housing on an allocated site that will assist the council in meeting its identified housing need, as well as much needed affordable housing. Substantial weight is given to these benefits. Economic benefits would arise both during construction and through support for local services by way of the spend of the future occupiers. The mix of house types is policy compliant and affordable housing can be secured through a legal agreement.
|
|
|
|
6.4 |
The scheme is of an acceptable design with no unreasonable impacts on existing residents. Pedestrian connections to adjacent site and Faringdon Road are proposed. Suitable vehicular access can be provided without detriment to highway safety or severe impacts on the road network.
|
|
|
|
6.5 |
The site is in flood zone 1 which is the preferred location for housing development in terms of fluvial flooding. An appropriate drainage scheme can be delivered on the site.
|
|
|
|
6.6 |
Impacts of the development including those for education and public transport can be mitigated through financial contributions.
|
|
|
|
6.7 |
In conclusion, subject to the recommended conditions, successful submission of GCN district licence documents and completion of a s106 legal agreement for infrastructure improvements, education and affordable housing, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan.
|
|
|
|
POLICY & GUIDANCE
|
||
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1policies: CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP04a - Meeting our Housing Needs CP02 - Cooperation on Unmet Housing Need for Oxfordshire CP03 - Settlement Hierarchy CP04 - Meeting Our Housing Needs CP05 - Housing Supply Ring-Fence CP07 - Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services CP20 - Spatial Strategy for Western Vale 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 CP42 - Flood Risk CP43 - Natural Resources CP44 - Landscape CP45 - Green Infrastructure CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity CP47 - Delivery and Contingency
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 policies: DP16 - Access DP17 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity DP25 - Noise Pollution DP26 - Air Quality DP27 - Land Affected by Contamination DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling DP33 - Open Space DP34 - Leisure DP39 - Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments
|
||
|
|
Neighbourhood Plans A neighbourhood plan area was designated in 2014, but a draft plan has not yet been published. Accordingly, no weight can be given to this plan at this time.
|
||
|
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents |
|
||
|
Vale of White Horse Design Guide Developer Contributions (SPD)– Delivering Infrastructure to Support Development (November 2021) |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
|
|
||
|
Other Relevant Legislation |
|
||
|
Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
|
|
||
|
Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application, the Council has regard to its equality obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
|
|
||
Contact officer – Hanna Zembrzycka-Kisiel
Email – planning@whitehorsedc.gov.uk
Tel – 01235 442600