Agenda item

Development of roadside services and facilities and other appropriate development. (as clarified by drawing nos: 1433-10 Revision F and 1433-20 Revision A accompanying agent's email of 18 December 2015 and by technical notes on impact on Milton Interchange received June 2016 and December 2016).

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2888/O for the development of roadside services and facilities and other appropriate development at Milton Interchange Services, Milton, Abingdon.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Mark Smith of Milton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His points included the following:

·         The development would generate additional traffic;

·         There were already sufficient hotels and restaurants in the area; and

·         There was a lack of community facilities and green space.

Gareth Roberts, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His points included the following:

·         The site was allocated for service uses to serve the A34;

·         The proposal accorded with the aims and objectives of the Enterprise Zone;

·         The proposal complied with the Local Plan; and

·         The proposal would secure a significant number of jobs.

Mr Roberts requested the committee to amend the proposed condition to extend the deadline for the submission of reserved matters from three to five years. He also asked the committee to support the proposed layout.

The committee discussed the application, with clarification from officers where appropriate. Officers advised that:

·         An extended time period for submission of reserved matters was not appropriate as a delay in bringing forward employment on this site would harm the council’s aspirations for both the Enterprise Zone and the Didcot Garden Town project;

·         Had the applicant carried out traffic modelling when first requested then the application could have been submitted earlier; and

·         As detailed in the officer’s report, the proposed layout was not acceptable and, for clarity, an informative to that effect was proposed.

·         Subsequent to publication of committee papers, the applicant had confirmed its intention to submit a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the financial contributions outlined in the report to highway improvements and bus stops. As such, the officer recommendation needed to be updated to reflect this arrangement, as follows: “That authority to grant outline planning permission is delegated to the head of planning subject to: 1: The applicant providing a S106 agreement that secures contributions towards local highway infrastructure…”.

A motion, moved and seconded, to authorise the head of planning to grant outline planning permission with conditions was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning to grant outline planning permission for application P15/V2880/O subject to:

1.     The applicant providing a Section 106 agreement that secures contributions to local highway infrastructure; and

2.     Conditions as follows:

Compliance

1.     Submission of reserved matters within three years, commencement within two years of last reserved matter approval..

2.     Approved plans.

3.     Specified use within use class (see paragraph 1.7 of report).

4.     Permitted development restriction on entire site.

5.     Wildlife protection (mitigation as approved).

6.     Access as approved.

Details to be submitted prior to commencement

7.     On and off site highway works to be agreed.

8.     On site wheel washing facilities to be agreed.

9.     Surface water drainage details to be agreed.

10.  Foul water drainage details to be agreed.

11.  Tree protection to be agreed.

Details to be submitted prior to occupation

12.  Green travel plans to be agreed.

13.  Electric vehicle charging point provision to be agreed.

Informative – illustrative design and layout not acceptable for a subsequent reserved matters application.