|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
Land to the South of Hanney Road Cow Common, OX13 6AP |
|
|
PARISH |
STEVENTON |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Temporary Clay Compaction Trial (including compaction trials, pit, with associated stockpiles and topsoil mounds), construction compound, security fencing, access tracks and formation of access from Hanney Road, overground surface water drainage pipe, alongside other associated works (as amplified by landscape information received 18 January 2024 and amended / additional information received 14 February 2024). |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Sally Povolotsky |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Thames Water |
|
|
OFFICER |
Stuart Walker |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
It is recommended to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions.
|
|
|
1. Commencement 2. Temporary consent 3. Approved Plans 4. Surface Water management details 5. Lighting details 6. Archaeology 7. Visibility Splays 8. Construction Traffic Management Plan 9. Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) - Biodiversity 10. Noise mitigation 11. Hours of operation 12. Unexpected land contamination
Informative 1. Flood risk activity Permit 2. Discharge Permit 3. Highways advice
The full wording of conditions is attached at appendix 1. |
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
|
1.1 |
This application comes to Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Member. The application seeks temporary permission for engineering works to carry out a clay compaction trial on land to the south of Hanney Road, Steventon. Results from the trial will inform design work of the South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO), a new storage water reservoir proposed by Thames Water.
|
|
|
1.2 |
The application submitted does not consider the wider reservoir proposal as that will be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) to be considered separately under the Planning Act 2008 NSIP regime. The application is solely seeking temporary permission for preliminary trial works.
|
|
|
1.3 |
The trial site, relatively flat and approximately 11.36ha in area, is in agricultural use. The site is not subject to any landscape or ecology designations and there are no designated heritage assets nearby. Most of the site is in flood zone 1, save a small strip of land connecting to Cow Common Brook which is flood zone 3. There is an existing public right of way (bridleway) running along the north-west boundary. The location is shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4 |
The proposal, seeking consent for a period of up to 12 months to undertake the trial, will include compaction trials, pit, associated stockpiles and topsoil mounds, a construction compound, security fencing, an over-ground surface water drainage pipe draining to the Cow Common Brook, access tracks and the formation of an access onto the Hanney Road, together with other associated works. At the end of the temporary period the site would be returned to agricultural use.
|
|
|
1.5 |
The application has been amended to provide further information in reply to technical issues raised by the Highway Authority. Detailed plans of the proposal are attached at Appendix 2 and all plans and supporting technical documents accompanying the application are available to view online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk. |
|
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
A summary of responses received to the original proposal and to the amendments is below. All comments received can be seen in full online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P23/V1948/LDP - Withdrawn (18/10/2023) The Proposed Development relates to a Clay Compaction Trial, on land to the south of Hanney Road. The overarching purpose of the trial excavation is to provide information on the local clay qualities under compression. This survey work will be used to help inform the design of safe embankments for the wider future SESRO project.
P15/V0169/FUL - Refused (29/04/2015) - Appeal dismissed (23/11/2015) Construction of solar photovoltaic park with associated infrastructure
|
|
3.2 |
Pre-application History None.
|
|
3.3 |
Opinion requests P23/V1099/SCR – Not EIA (12/06/2023) EIA Screening Opinion Request. Formation of a clay compaction trial for a temporary period for up to 3 years, with associated works.
P08/V2558/SCO – Scoping Opinion (03/02/2009) Scoping Report for proposed Upper Thames Reservoir. |
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
A Screening Opinion request was submitted by the applicant in May 2023 (P23/V1099/SCR). A negative opinion was issued 12 June 2023 which confirmed the proposed development would not comprise EIA development. |
|
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
|
5.1 |
The main issues are:
· Principle of development · Highways - Highways impact - Access · Landscape and Visual Impact - Trees and lighting · Flood risk and drainage · Historic Environment - Archaeology · Ecology and biodiversity - Designated sites - Habitats - Species - Biodiversity net gain · Amenity - Air quality - Contaminated land - Waste management · Agricultural Land Quality · Urban Design · Financial contribution requests - Community Infrastructure Levy - S106 · Pre-commencement conditions
|
|
5.2 |
Principle of development Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission to 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.
|
|
5.3 |
The development plan for this proposal comprises the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1) and the adopted Local Plan 2031 part 2 (LPP2). There is currently no made neighbourhood plan in place for Steventon.
|
|
5.4 |
There are no policies in the development plan which relate specifically to the proposed development. In such circumstances the presumption in favour of development as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF and Policy CP1 of the LPP1 applies, which confirm planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
|
|
5.5 |
The site falls within land safeguarded for the reservoir by Policy CP14 of the LPP1, which seeks to prevent development which may prejudice the future implementation of a reservoir. Given the proposal is temporary in nature and consent is sought for a period of up to 12 months, officers consider there is no conflict with Policy CP14. In addition, land to the immediate west of the application red line is safeguarded under Policy CP32 of the LPP1 for the potential restoration of the Wilts and Berks Canal. Officers consider the proposal has no impact on the canal route. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.
|
|
5.6 |
Highways Core policy 33 of LPP1 actively seeks to ensure that the impacts of new development on the strategic and local road network are minimised, to ensure that developments are designed in a way to promote sustainable transport access and to promote and support improvements to the network that increase safety and improve air quality. Core policy 35 of LPP1 promotes public transport, cycling and walking. Policy DP16 of 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.
|
|
5.7 |
Highways Impact The application is supported with a Transport Statement which has assessed traffic generation accessing and departing the site per day on a worst-case scenario basis. The following peak daily trips will be generated by the temporary Clay Compaction Trial as a worst case:
- 60 HGVs (equating to 120 HGV movements). - Two LGVs (equating to four movements). - 17 staff vehicles (equating to 34 movements). - Three visitor vehicles (equating to six movements).
|
|
5.8 |
It has been considered that the greatest numbers of HGVs will be required during the first few weeks while the site is being established and the compound and haul roads on-site are constructed, along with movements required at the end of the trials when compounds and haul road are to be removed. It is estimated during this period (first 4 weeks and last 4 weeks on site) up to 60 HGVs could access and depart the site each day. In addition to HGVs, between one and two LGVs will be required to access and depart the site during this same period. Outside of site establishment and site removal typical vehicle movements would be workforce (estimated to be 17 employees) with occasional HGV / LGV deliveries.
|
|
5.9 |
It is anticipated that vehicles would arrive and depart from the site from the east using Hanney Road, the B1047 High Street and the A4130 Abingdon Road to access the A34 and Milton Interchange. This follows the routes identified for lorries on the Oxfordshire lorry route map.
|
|
5.10 |
Having assessed routing and traffic impact upon the highway network, OCC Highways do not consider the number of trips have a severe impact upon the highway network, especially as this is for a temporary duration of 12 months, with only 2 of those months being the worst-case scenario as set out above. Construction traffic management can also be secured by condition.
|
|
5.11 |
Access The application site is to be accessed directly from the Hanney Road. The existing access to the site will be retained and widened to provide access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists along with all other modes of transport. Two internal ‘loop’ haul roads will be provided within the site along with a compound location in the north of the site that will provide car parking (25 spaces) for staff and visitors.
|
|
5.12 |
The proposed access has been subject to a road safety audit and the Highway Authority is satisfied that the arrangement and location do not result in harm to highway safety or convenience of all users of the highway.
|
|
5.13 |
Subject to planning conditions on vision splays and construction traffic management, the proposal is considered to accord with policies CP33, CP35 and DP16.
|
|
5.14 |
Landscape and Visual Impact Policy CP44 of 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 DP21 of LPP2 seeks to ensure proposed external lighting does not have an adverse effect on transportation, the character of an area, amenity of neighbouring uses or on local biodiversity and is kept to the minimum necessary to undertake the task for which it is required.
|
|
5.15 |
The applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) which covers the expected potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed development upon the local landscape and visual receptors. The current land use is agriculture and the proposed development results in a localised temporary impact on Landscape Character. It is also noted the temporary works will predominately be undertaken in drier months more suitable for moving soils and subsoils (March to October).
|
|
5.16 |
The LVA assesses the site to have a magnitude of effect during construction as Negligible Adverse on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape and Medium adverse effect on the VL2 Grove to Steventon Lower Vale Farmland and LCA VL3 East Hanney to Abingdon Lower Vale Farmland and this impact is temporary and directly related to the proposed trial works. Once works have been removed and the ground restored to agricultural use there will be no expected residual impact, as the elements which make up the wider landscape character use such as hedgerows and trees are not proposed to be impacted by the development and the land within the redline will be returned to agricultural use with similar ground levels.
|
|
5.17 |
With regards to potential visual effects, the site has been assessed to have a small Adverse Effect to visual receptors using Steventon Road, users of Honeybottom Kennels and a Negligible Adverse effect to users of the Ridgeway. There would be a Medium Adverse effect to users of the bridleway (Prow 366/4) which runs along the northwestern boundary of the site and from Hanney Road, predominantly in the vicinity of the site. Again, these impacts will be temporary and once works are removed and land restored to agricultural use there should be no adverse impacts to views. The topsoil removed from the site to allow access to clay layers will be used to form a 2m bund around the site and this will reduce the visual impact of the activity of the site and associated parking of vehicles. The landscape and visual impact arising from the proposal is therefore acceptable and the Landscape Architect raises no objection.
|
|
5.18 |
Trees and lighting A tree survey has been submitted to support the application. Existing trees are located around the boundaries of the site. The risk of damage to existing trees on site is therefore very low and the Forestry Officer raises no objection. In terms of lighting, further detail will be required to ensure lighting outside of working hours is kept to a minimum. This can be secured by condition. The proposal is therefore compliant with policies CP44 and DP21.
|
|
5.19 |
Flood Risk and drainage Core Policy 42 of LPP1 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.
|
|
5.20 |
The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment. The site area for the trial is located within Flood Zone 1, which is the most appropriate zone for development in fluvial flooding terms. A small overground water drainage pipe connecting to Cow Common Brook will be within Flood Zone 3, but this is considered water compatible and not at risk of flooding. The council's drainage team and the Environment Agency have assessed the proposal and raise no objection.
|
|
5.21 |
A water management system will collect surface water run-off from across the site, with sediment removal prior to discharge to the nearby Cow Common Brook. Attenuation storage of 905m3 and treatment is proposed within the site compound. The proposed discharge flow rate will be limited to 38.81l/s (or 3353m3/day) which has been estimated using the 2-year return period storm event for surface water of 38.8l/s and an estimated 9m3/day of groundwater inflow. This flow does not exceed the greenfield surface water run-off rate which has been assessed to be 40.4l/s. It is considered that the size of attenuation required and agreed discharge rate can be managed by condition to accord with policy CP42 in respect of flood risk and surface water management.
|
|
5.22 |
Historic Environment Policies CP39 of LPP1 and DP36 of LPP2 state that proposals for new development that may affect heritage assets must demonstrate that they conserve and enhance the special interest or significance of the heritage asset and its setting.
|
|
5.23 |
A Heritage desk-based assessment has been provided to support the proposal. There are no designated assets within the application site or settings of listed buildings or conservation areas affected.
|
|
5.24 |
Archaeology DP39 of LPP2 states that development will be permitted where it can be shown that it would not be detrimental to the site or setting of Scheduled Monuments or nationally important designated or non-designated archaeological remains. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the application site or settings affected.
|
|
5.25 |
The site is in an area of archaeological interest. A geophysical survey has been undertaken which recorded a small number of potential archaeological anomalies and a trenched archaeological evaluation to investigate these features and to test the veracity of the geophysical survey has been agreed with the applicant’s archaeological consultant.
|
|
5.26 |
At the time of writing the findings of the evaluation have not been submitted. The County Archaeologist did however monitor the evaluation undertaken on site and has verbally confirmed there are no major showstoppers. Whilst there are archaeological deposits, these are in an area that will not be impacted by the proposals, as they are located on the edge of a field. Fieldwork is now complete, but a draft report has yet to be produced and agreed. This can be secured by condition should consent be granted to accord with policy DP39.
|
|
5.27 |
Ecology and Biodiversity Policy CP46 of LPP1 requires development to avoid losses in biodiversity and actively seeks net gains. Policy DP30 of LPP2 confirms development adjacent to a watercourse will only be permitted where it would not have a detrimental impact on the function or setting of the watercourse or its biodiversity. The application is supported by an ecology report and a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). Ecological surveys took place in May and September 2023. The site is not covered by statutory or non-statutory designations and comprises arable land under cultivation.
|
|
5.28 |
Designated sites The ecologist has confirmed they are satisfied that impacts on any statutory or locally designated sites are unlikely as a result of the proposed development.
|
|
5.29 |
Habitats Habitats to be temporarily lost as a result of these works are not a constraint to development (cropland and grassland). No trees or hedgerows are proposed for removal. These habitats will be reinstated once the temporary works are completed.
|
|
5.30 |
It is proposed to attenuate (in an impervious lagoon) and treat surface water prior to discharge into Cow Common Brook via an overland pipe. Following a request for further information, the applicant has provided details of the proposed above-ground outfall (a 4-inch HDPE pipe). The Ecologist is satisfied that the installation of this pipe is unlikely to have any appreciable negative impacts on the more ecologically valuable habitats it is to pass through (neutral grassland, and a small area of wet woodland at the bank of the Cow Common Brook) subject to supervision as detailed within the CEMP to ensure compliance with policy DP30.
|
|
5.31 |
Species Impacts on species are avoidable and temporary and are likely not to prejudice the long-term carrying capacity of the site. The CEMP secures measures set out within the Ecology report to minimise construction and operational impacts on protected species, in particular breeding birds, reptiles and aquatic mammals (otter/water vole).
|
|
5.32 |
The Ecologist advises that whilst food and breeding resource for birds will temporarily be reduced, these habitats will be reinstated. Sensitive working methods (to be secured by the CEMP) will ensure no offences are committed in the site mobilisation phase. Surveys have concluded that there is likely scope to avoid impacts on otters and water voles through the sensitive placement of the outfall under ecological supervision. The project ecologist has concluded that no Natural England licences will be required for this element of the works. Impacts on other species can also be adequately controlled through the CEMP.
|
|
5.33 |
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) As the proposed works would be temporary in nature (12 months), with the land reverting to agriculture after development ceases, it is considered appropriate to conclude that the development will not lead to any permanent habitat loss which requires assessment with a biodiversity metric. This approach is consistent with section 6 (page 32) of the statutory biodiversity metric user guide. The reversion of the site to its former condition no later than 24 months after of the commencement of works can be secured by condition.
|
|
5.34 |
Subject to conditions for implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the CEMP, the proposal accords with CP46 and DP30.
|
|
5.35 |
Amenity Policy DP23 of LPP2 requires development to demonstrate that it would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. Policy DP25 of LPP2 confirms noise generating development that would have an impact on environmental amenity or biodiversity will be expected to provide an appropriate scheme of mitigation.
|
|
5.36 |
A Noise Assessment has been provided to support the proposal. The nearest residential properties close to the site are Bramble Grange and Orchard Farm, and local concern has been raised by both residents and the Parish Council for potential noise and disturbance arising from the trial. The Environmental Protection Team have assessed the proposal and raise no objection subject to conditions securing implementation of noise mitigation identified in the noise assessment and a restriction of working hours.
|
|
5.37 |
The team recommend a restriction on construction hours where works only take place between the hours of 0730 and 1800(Monday to Friday), 0800 to 1300 (Saturday), and at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays. This is considered an acceptable compromise from the suggested restrictions by the Parish Council (8 – 6 weekdays) and residents (9 – 5 weekdays) to ensure the proposal accords with policy DP23.
|
|
5.38 |
Air Quality Policy DP26 of LPP2 confirms that development proposals that are likely to have an impact on local air quality, including those within relative proximity to existing air quality management areas (AQMAs) will need to demonstrate measures / mitigation to minimise any impacts associated with air quality.
|
|
5.39 |
The application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment. The site is outside designated AQMAs and dust management within the site can be managed through the mitigation outlined in the assessment. The air quality officer has been consulted and confirms ‘no observations to make’. The proposal is considered to accord with policy DP26.
|
|
5.40 |
Contaminated land Policy DP27 of LPP2 sets out measures to ensure land affected by contamination is appropriately remediated and mitigated. A preliminary risk assessment and Ground Investigation Report have been submitted. No potential sources for land contamination have been identified that could present a risk to the development and it is not considered that any further contaminated land assessments are necessary. A condition for unsuspected contamination found during work can also be imposed. The proposal is compliant with policy DP27.
|
|
5.41 |
Waste management Policies CP43 of LPP1 and DP38 of LPP2 seek development proposals to be consistent with the Council’s waste planning guidance and encourages the use of sustainable waste management to minimise waste. The site is considered to have sufficient space to store any waste produced on site during the operation of the trial and the application is supported by a waste management plan which encourages recycling, particularly of construction materials. The proposal is compliant with these policies.
|
|
5.42 |
Agricultural Land Quality Policy CP43 of LPP1 encourages the effective use of natural resources including avoiding where possible the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
|
|
5.43 |
Natural England land classification maps indicate the site is Grade 3 ‘Good to moderate’ but do not confirm whether the quality of the land is Grade 3a or Grade 3b, which would ultimately determine whether the site comprises ‘Best and Most Versatile’ Agricultural Land. Notwithstanding, officers consider as proposed development is temporary with land being returned to its existing agricultural state after 12 months, there is no requirement to undertake further assessment as it will not result in the permanent development or loss of any agricultural land. The proposal therefore accords with policy DP43.
|
|
5.44 |
Urban Design Policy CP37 of LPP1 states that new development must demonstrate high quality design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings. The applicant has provided a Design and Access Statement but given the temporary nature of the proposal officers do not consider it is necessary to assess this scheme in any detail against this policy or against established principles within the adopted Joint Design Guide.
|
|
5.45 |
Financial contributions Policy CP7 of LPP1 provides that development will only be permitted where the necessary physical infrastructure and service requirements to support the development can be secured. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF advises that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all the following tests:
a. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. b. Directly related to the development. c. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
|
|
5.46 |
Community Infrastructure Levy The site is not CIL liable.
|
|
5.47 |
S106 Legal Agreement There is no requirement for any financial contributions to mitigate this proposal.
|
|
5.48 |
Pre-commencement conditions In accordance with S100ZA(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (a), the pre-commencement conditions have been agreed with the applicant. A full list of the proposed conditions is attached at Appendix 1. |
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
6.1 |
The application has been assessed on its merits, against the requirements of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Part 2 and the National Planning Policy Framework. All relevant consultations have been undertaken and all responses received have been fully considered.
|
|
6.2 |
The application is considered acceptable. The scheme is of an acceptable design with no unreasonable impacts on existing residents, the highway network, heritage assets, landscape or biodiversity. An appropriate drainage scheme can be delivered on site and impacts of the development can be mitigated through conditions.
|
|
6.3 |
In conclusion, subject to the recommended conditions the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and should be approved. |
|
6.4 |
The following have been taken account of in assessing this application:
|
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031, Part 1 policies: CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP07 - Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services CP14 - Strategic Water Storage Reservoirs CP33 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP39 - The Historic Environment CP42 - Flood Risk CP43 - Natural Resources CP44 - Landscape CP45 - Green Infrastructure CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031, Part 2 policies: CP14a - Strategic Water Storage Reservoirs DP16 - Access DP17 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans 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 DP32 - Wilts and Berks Canal DP36 - Heritage Assets DP38 - Listed Buildings DP39 - Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments
Joint Local Plan Preferred Options The Council is preparing a Joint Local Plan covering Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire, which when adopted will replace the existing local plans. Currently at the Regulation 18 stage, the Joint Local Plan Preferred Options January 2024 has limited weight when making planning decisions. The starting point for decision taking will remain the policies in the current adopted plans.
|
|
|
Neighbourhood Plan A neighbourhood plan for Steventon has been submitted for independent examination following the conclusion of publicity on 1 February 2024. Until the examination has completed with the plan proceeding to referendum, the following draft policies have limited weight when making planning decisions.
Policy 3 – Transport and connectivity Policy 4(a) – Landscape and Environment Policy 4(b) – landscape and Environment - biodiversity Policy 4(d) – landscape and Environment - flooding
|
|
|
Adopted Guidance Joint Design Guide SPD 2022: The Joint Design Guide was adopted 24 June 2022 and sets out design principles to guide future development and encourage a design-led approach to development.
Developer Contributions – Delivering Infrastructure to Support Development SPD 2017: The Developer Contributions SPD was adopted on 30 June 2017 and provides guidance on how planning obligations will work alongside CIL to deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in the Vale.
|
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
|
|
|
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
|
|
|
Other Relevant Legislation
|