Agenda item

Erection of 4no. commercial buildings for purposes within Classes B2 and B8 together with access and servicing arrangements, parking, landscaping, boundary treatment, gatehouse building, public art installation and associated works. (as per amendments received 30th November 2021 and Transport Assessment Addendum received 10 January 2022 and additional and amended information received 18 January 2022 ). 

The committee considered application P21/V1171/FUL for the erection of 4no. commercial buildings for purposes within Classes B2 and B8 together with access and servicing arrangements, parking, landscaping, boundary treatment, gatehouse building, public art installation and associated works. (as per amendments received 30 November 2021 and Transport Assessment Addendum received 10 January 2022 and additional and amended information received 18 January 2022) at the former Esso Research Centre, Abingdon Road, Milton Hill.

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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that the council’s conservation officer, senior countryside officer and the Oxfordshire County Council’s principal transport engineer were present at the meeting to answer any question from the committee. The planning officer also reported an incorrect date in paragraph 7.4; “Developer Contributions – Delivering Infrastructure to Support Development (2017)”; which should read “2021”.

The planning officer also reported that since submission of the application in May 2021, there had been several amendments submitted by the applicant to address technical issues raised by the landscape officer, drainage engineer, environmental protection officers, countryside officer, forestry officer, conservation officer, urban design officer and Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), the highways authority. These changes included landscape, drainage, environmental protection, conservation and tree issues. The latest amendments included a building extent reduction (unit 1), removal of two units to provide for the strengthening of a landscape buffer (units 3A, 3B), landscape buffer strengthening along western unit façade, and building extent reduction to avoid the root protection areas of two trees (unit 5). The Oxfordshire County Council did not object to the amended scheme. The conservation officer had withdrawn their adverse comments on the basis of the revised scheme. Overall, council officers considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable landscape, visual or arboricultural harm to result in a conflict with policy CP44.

The planning officer also reported that there was no Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Village.

With respect to the proposed conditions, the planning officer reported that condition 12, Landscape Management Plan, had originally been listed as a Pre-Commencement condition. It was now proposed to have this as a Compliance condition. This was acceptable to the committee. Additionally, officers considered that the applicant should aim to attain the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of Excellence and therefore a new condition dealing with this issue would be added.

The planning officer provided the committee with a slide presentation, giving an indicative three-dimensional view of the units, which included the access roads.  The applicants had worked with the OCC in respect of the content of the S.106 agreement. The committee were shown photo slides of the site, its access points and highways and the proposed landscaping scheme. The highways impact was acceptable, and officers had concluded that the application would benefit the local economy.

The speaker on behalf of Milton Parish Council was unable to address the committee but the parish council’s statement had been submitted to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Councillor Sally Povolotsky, Oxfordshire Councillor, spoke objecting to the application. Councillor Povolotsky’s statement had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Ms. Carole Hooper and Mr. John Seaton of Rowstock Residents Association, spoke objecting to the application. Statements by the Rowstock Residents’ Association had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Mr. Stephen Morgan-Hyland of Milton Hill House Hotel, spoke objecting to the application. A statement by Mr. Stephen Morgan-Hyland had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Mr. Richard Batham-Read, of Equation Properties, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. A statement by Equation Properties had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Mr. Tim Rainbird, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question from the committee regarding the height of the proposed development, the agent stated that 18m. high buildings already had permission and that tall buildings were necessary to facilitate vertical racking systems.

In response to a question from the committee regarding delivery timings and noise mitigation, the agent replied that 24-hour deliveries would be a feature of the operation. Also, noise consultants had been commissioned to undertake a backyard night-time survey.  Substantial mitigation would result from the operational management plan agreed with the environmental health officer, entailing, inter alia, acoustic alternatives on key boundaries.

Mr. David Frisby, by prior arrangement, responding on behalf of the developer, answered a question from the committee regarding roundabout traffic, stated that traffic surveys had been undertaken in consultation with OCC and that the Rowstock roundabout would be improved.

In response to a question from the committee regarding the reasons for including both B2 and B8 use, Mr. Rainbird replied that both use classes were important for the success of the development and its commercial operation, and that the two classifications maximised market attractiveness. Replying to a question suggesting inadequate parking provision, Mr. Rainbird replied that the OCC had agreed that the arrangements were fit for purpose and that overflow space was now provided where unit 3 had been removed from the final proposal. Generally speaking, B8 occupiers required fewer parking facilities.

The committee noted that the Operational Noise Management Plan, included in a proposed condition, relied on the co-operation of drivers and sought assurances as to its enforceability. Mr. Rainbird replied that as a planning condition, there would be an obligation in the site’s lease to comply with the Plan. Legal controls would therefore bind the occupier to the plan.

Councillor Janet Shelley, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Matthew Barber, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Providing clarification on queries regarding noise generation, Mr. Alick Natton, environmental health officer, reported that day and night movements of heavy goods vehicles were compared against existing figures and fed into a noise model, with impacts averaged over time. Mr. Ian Marshall stated that Rowstock Residents Association had requested traffic measurements to only be morning and evening movements, but that OCC were content with traffic flows being measured over a 24-hour period. OCC employed a robust methodology, used by all highways authorities.

In response to a question regarding public transport, Mr. Marshall reported that to promote cycling and walking, part of the highway mitigation works included a toucan crossing and an upgrade of the existing northbound footway on the A4130 (to a minimum 3m. width, to allow for a shared-use route for cyclists and pedestrians), from the Packhorse Inn bus stops/byway (299/13/30) up to the Steventon Lights Junction, without compromising the A4130 running lane widths. Also, the OCC would include improvements to the Rowstock roundabout to slow down traffic at this location and that the authority had an option for drawing down finance to fund improvements.

In response to a question from the committee concerning alternative sites, the planning officer reported that the market assessment made by the economic development unit and the policy team was up to date and had taken into account all relevant information.

Whilst acknowledging the work and details which had gone into formulating and amending the application, the committee had concerns in respect of scale, nature, overdevelopment and visual harm. Noise and disturbance at night were also concerns, as were apparently inadequate transport mitigation measures. The absence of a completed S.106 legal agreement also did not provide reassurance. In conclusion, the committee considered that the proposal did not comply with Core Policy 28.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote (Councillor Mike Pighills was unable to participate in the vote owing to technical difficulties).

RESOLVED: that planning permission for planning application P21/V1171/FUL is refused, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposal represents an overdevelopment and would result in a      visually harmful development which is not sympathetic to the semi-rural       character of the surrounding area by reason of the size, bulk, scale,   height and massing of the proposed built form. On this basis the         development conflicts with the Core Policies 28, 37 and 44 of the Vale       of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1;

2.       Due to 24hr operation of premises, the proposal would result in noise          and disturbance late at night in the vicinity of the site to the detriment of        the neighbouring properties and business. The location of the proposed      buildings and the nature of the proposed business operation (linked to           the Class B2/B8 uses), relative to nearby neighbouring properties and         businesses would be harmful to their amenity, contrary to Core Policy 28        of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Development          Policies 23 and 25 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2;           and Paragraphs 185 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.       The proposed development fails to provide adequate transport mitigation

          measures to ensure the development would not impact the highway network and highway safety and fails to deliver adequate sustainable        transport. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with   Core Policies 33 and 35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part         1 and Development Policies 16 and 17 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, as well as paragraphs 110, 111 and 112 of the National         Planning Policy Framework (2021).

4.       In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement relating to financial contributions towards traffic and air quality impact mitigation, public     transport and travel plan monitoring, the proposal would place increased        pressure on these facilities and fail to provide the environmental and       social services needed to support this development. This is considered           contrary to Core Policies 7, 33 and 35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Development Policies 16, 17 and 26 of the Vale of         White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2.

NB  Reason 4 could be overcome by entering into a section 106 agreement with Oxfordshire County Council.