Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes:
Five members of the public made statements as follows: -
1. Stewart Lilly – Harwell Parish Council
Mr Lilly commented that Harwell Parish Council was coming to grips with the Great WesternPark which was imminent, noting that lots of the development was coming into the Parish. He noted that the extension of the Didcot area had been divided across two districts. He stated that the Parish Council’s objections were directed at the South East Plan as well as at the Vale and in particular at the lack of involvement with the village in this important expansion. He commented that the acceptance by the Vale of 50-50 around Didcot was taken after a meeting in January 2007 where the Parish Council had asked for liaison. He explained that the parish had heard nothing of the proposals until the Vale’s Officer had visited a few weeks ago. He stated that there had been little consultation or discussion. He reported that the Core Strategy stated in the Plan that separate identities of villages must be maintained with well landscaped areas between towns. He asked that these gaps should not be closed to avoid coalescence and that these proposals could result in this.
Mr Lilly referred to Planning Policy NE10 which identified the gap near Harwell as important open land. He emphasized that there were other areas which were not designated this way. He commented that the Parish Council was saddened that the landscape gap had been swept away.
He commented that infrastructure in all respects had come into consideration, especially sustainaibility issues. He stated that the Parish Council felt that too much emphasis had been placed on the Didcot railway as a solution to this area. He commented that he was aware that the railway companies would not consider another station at Grove because of capacity problems and he questioned how were those capacity problems to be resolved when Didcot station was already nearly at capacity. Finally, he asked the Council undertake positive close and proper dialogue with Harwell and other parishes affected by the proposals.
2. Norman Staples – Keep Harwell Rural Campaign.
Mr Staples commented that he appreciated the opportunity to comment, but realised that the LDF report was unlikely to be altered before approval tonight. He hoped that the consultation process would result in significant modifications. He reported observations at this stage as follows: -
1. Harwell Bypass. – He was concerned that both the report and the Halcrow SCOTS report made the assumption that traffic through Harwell would be relieved by just the A4130 to A417 link without a continuation south to the A34 at Chilton. He commented that this ignored the fact that the A417 went through Harwell, and thus the single link north of the A417 simply re-routed traffic from Harwell High Street to Harwell A417. It was an incomplete, unsatisfactory and unacceptable solution to growing traffic through Harwell. He therefore did not accept the Halcrow preference for the Rowstock bypass (estimated cost £6m) to the Chilton link with Featherbed Lane improvements (estimated cost £6.6m).
2. GreatWestern Park "Green buffer" – Mr Staples stated that the Vale's decision to provide 2,300 of the houses required had thus ruled out the previous "options" of sites other than the only land they could offer - namely that to the west of GreatWestern Park up to the A34. This effectively eliminated the gap between Didcot and Harwell (and would involve yet more building on best and most versatile land). He commented that what was so disturbing about this move was the effect on previous "commitments", namely the note in the report that this choice required the Green Buffer element of GreatWestern Park to be "revisited". He commented that we all knew what that meant, i.e. it was a euphemism for "abandoned". Therefore, what was a key requirement/commitment in plan 1 could now be abandoned in plan 2. He commented that the re-siting of the green buffer might be a good idea, but he queried the location of the spine road, whether it was the right walking distance from the new houses and so on.
Mr Staples explained that he had looked at the GWP exhibition in Didcot and had noted that infrastructure work was now scheduled to start in June 2010. By that time the status of this new project should be clear. He reported that Taylor Wimpey had options on some of the land now being considered and yet it seemed likely that GWP would go ahead largely as planned so that this new project would be an “add-on” rather than part of a fully integrated scheme for the total 5,500 houses. Indeed he questioned whether the outcome of infrastructure works would be quite different if the two developments were treated as one.
Finally, he stated that of course circumstances changed but this did not undermine confidence in the whole process of planning, consultation, Public Enquiries, Inspector’s Recommendations etc.
3. Frank Dumbleton – Chilton Parish Council
Mr Dumbleton reported that the Parish Council was disappointed to see at paragraph 5.3 on page 70 in the report - Main Proposals for Didcot that only two alternatives as a solution for congestion at Rowstock roundabout had been made, namely Rowstock bypass or Featherbed Lane improvements and link from A417 to the A34 at Chilton.
He commented that the link from the A417 over Hagbourne Hill to the A34 at Chilton would require upgrade to the existing road, which Chilton Parish Council vehemently opposed. The reasons were explained as follows: -
· Hagbourne Hill was a gateway to the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It provided glorious views across to the Ridgeway and looking from the Ridgeway it was a similarly prominent and attractive natural feature. Vale of White Horse Council was a custodian of part of the AONB and had a policy as well as a duty to protect it as did national government.
· Any upgrade of the road would be an unacceptable encroachment on this sensitive landscape, therefore Chilton Parish Council called for the discussion paper to include other alternatives to cope with the anticipated increase in traffic. Hagbourne Hill was a landscape equally as sensitive as Wittenham Clumps and any proposal to drive a bypass across the Clumps would be met with a justifiable outcry. He suggested the same applied to Hagbourne Hill. A bypass should be routed elsewhere and the rural character of Hagbourne Hill preserved.
· Apart from the detrimental effect on the AONB, there were practical reasons why Hagbourne Hill was not suitable for upgrade. It had very steep gradients on both sides and there was the additional hazard of a junction at its summit with the road from Upton. Moreover, this junction was also a crossroads for cycle route 44. Any measure to increase traffic on Hagbourne Hill would therefore increase the danger to cyclists crossing it on route 44. This was diametrically opposed to paragraph 4.11 in the report which stated that national and regional policies and the advice of the Highways Agency indicated the Council should give priority to measures that increased the use of public transport, cycling and walking. He commented that the crossing was well used by commuters cycling to Harwell Campus, which route 44 passes en route to Wantage.
· An upgrade to Hagbourne Hill would most likely require junction improvements, such as a roundabout or traffic lights, where cycle route 44 crossed it. This would no doubt require street lighting that would add light pollution on the top of this very visible landmark and would cause the hazard of queuing traffic on the steepest part of the hill.
· There would also be a detrimental effect on Chilton village. With the existing level of traffic over Hagbourne Hill in the morning peak it was very difficult to drive out of Chilton village. The proposal to direct more traffic over Hagbourne Hill would only add to the difficulties for Chilton residents.
· In addition the proposed 275 new houses on Chilton Field would have access to the A4185 on a blind bend between the A34 interchange and Harwell Campus. This junction was already hazardous because of the speed and volume of traffic. Conflicting flows of additional vehicles routed over Hagbourne Hill and headed for Harwell Campus meeting those from Chilton Field at this junction would add to the risk of accident.
Mr Dumbleton commented that other options for a Rowstock and Harwell bypass had been looked at recently, notably by consultants on behalf of UKAEA. Chilton Parish Council believed that a less environmentally sensitive route than Hagbourne Hill could be identified.
He reported that Chilton Parish Council therefore requested that the Preferred Options report was not approved for publication until additional options for a Rowstock/Harwell bypass had been researched and were included for consultation. The Parish Council asked the Committee to reject the report for this reason.
4. Tom Allen Stevens – Owner of Wicklesham Quarry, Faringdon
Mr Allen-Stevens introduced himself explaining that he was a third generation farmer to the south of Faringdon and owner of Wicklesham Quarry, from which extraction would cease in 2010 when Grundons lease terminated. He commented that as councillors and officers, those present would be aware of the journey Faringdon had gone through with the last Local Plan which had resulted in the successful allocation of much-needed B1/B2 employment land, now known as the 4&20 BusinessPark.
He commented that Faringdon businesses were grateful to the District Council for allowing the leeway in the last Local Plan for the 4&20 Business Park to progress. It was attracting a lot of interest from businesses looking to expand, relocate or come afresh to Faringdon, despite the credit crunch, which was great news.
He explained that whilst he welcomed the Preferred Options report and noted that much of it represented a good deal for Faringdon, there was one area that needed to be improved and again that was the allocation of employment land.
He stated that specifically no land had been allocated for businesses with B8 requirements or heavier industry and Faringdon desperately needed this. He reported that was why Faringdon Town Council, in its development strategy report, had suggested Wicklesham Quarry should be allocated for heavy industry and warehousing. He stated that the quarry sat below ground level; was well-screened and had its own access on to the A420. Yet it was only a five-minute walk from the town’s residential centre. He commented that it offered considerable advantages to be Faringdon’s industrial centre, not least because it would take heavy lorries away from Park Road, which was now the town’s main entrance road. If developed he would expect the current entrance to the site to be upgraded by way of a fourth leg to the roundabout on the A420 at Park Road to gain access to the quarry.
He commented that the Preferred Options report suggested that the quarry would take businesses out of Faringdon. However, businesses in Park Road and elsewhere had already outgrown their cramped and inadequate sites. He commented that he knew of at least five companies with B8 storage or distribution requirements that were seeking to relocate and were unsuitable for the B1/B2 4&20 BusinessPark. If no further B8 land allocation was granted, they would join the many businesses that had already relocated to Swindon and further afar, taking jobs with them.
Mr Allen-Stevens stated that the solution put forward in the Preferred Options report was for 4ha of B1/B2 employment land, included in a mixed residential/employment development to the south of Park Road. He commented that this would be a prominent development on Faringdon’s gateway, seen both from the A420 and Park Road. Mixing the residential and commercial development would mean the needs of residents would be compromised for business users and business users looking to develop and expand would continually come across barriers put up by residents, plus it would put heavy business traffic into a residential area.
He stated that by contrast the quarry offered a dedicated site for B8 and heavier industrial businesses to grow and prosper. He was keen to talk about improving the link of the site to the town and he welcomed the debate that was currently taking place on Faringdon.org’s talking point over the pedestrian footbridge. He commented that this would offer easy access not only to the quarry, but also to the network of footpaths and bridleways to the south of Faringdon for all town residents to enjoy. It would also open up brighter prospects for a cycle route that had long been an ambition for the town. Of course there was also the option to improve bus links with the site.
Mr Allen-Stevens recognised the Vale must concentrate its allocation of heavy industry to Milton Park on the district’s eastern fringe, in accordance with the South East Regional strategy. However this put Faringdon at a further disadvantage, being the only main town serving the west of the district. A lot of the larger town businesses had an element of B8 requirement within their business model.
He stated that as the Council was well aware, Faringdon did not fit the mould of an ordinary market town. Its aspirations were to develop further as a better service provider and employment zone for the town's people and rural hinterland. Faringdon was the only main town outside the central Oxfordshire zone that could do this. As such it was essential all sectors of its businesses were future-proofed, not just B1 and B2.
He stated that very few towns had such a golden opportunity as this to future-proof their industry, the life-blood of a community’s prosperity. He explained that Wicklesham Quarry could do this for Faringdon as: -
· it was located close to the town;
· it could reduce the visual impact of heavy industry that blighted many a townscapes;
· it could reduce the amount of lorry movements that conflicted with residential sites;
· it was supported by Faringdon Town Council in its report sent to the Vale’s planners; and
· it could secure jobs and fuel sustainable business growth for the next 20 years.
In conclusion Mr Allen-Steven asked the meeting and officers that when considering the Preferred Option Report they include Wicklesham Quarry in the Local Development Framework.
5. Keith Sadler – Milton Parish Council
Mr Sadler stated that he wished to focus his comments on the difficulties that existed within the Milton Parish area and what there was likely to be in terms of the detail of the Plan. He stated that the Parish Council’s main concern related to Milton Park in terms of the transport infrastructure, which was a concern for many. He referred to the consultation document, commenting that the detail of how these options, including others mentioned by the members of the public, were all going to be addressed and in particular how the major concerns of transport infrastructure were to be resolved. He stated that Milton Park employed 6000 people. Planning permission had been granted for expansion which included 1200 car parking spaces and more recently a hotel with a further 300 car parking spaces. The Parish Council recognised that there were constant changes to the Milton interchange, but parish councillors could not understand how these proposals would address the transport problems. He highlighted that at the moment there was a problem in terms of the egress at the Milton interchange, with traffic queuing back on the A34 to the Marcham interchange at peak times. He commented that given the additional employment which was progressing at present, let alone the additional housing from the Great Western estate, the Parish Council needed to understand how this road would be improved. The Parish Council therefore requested that given the adoption of this paper, there should be further detailed information relating to infrastructure including housing and local estate infrastructure which would then enable the Parish Council to reply to consultation over the next few months.
The Chair thanked all the speakers for their statements.