Agenda item

A hybrid planning application comprising: 

1) outline planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access, for development of up to 660 homes (use class C3), extra care development of up to 70 units (use class C2), a local centre of up to 0.5ha (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1(a), C2, D1 and D2) a one form entry primary school on an area for education provision of up to 2.2ha, playing field and car parking, informal open space, landscape and sustainable drainage areas, access, footpaths, cycle ways, infrastructure and associated engineering works (including a noise attenuation bund and acoustic fence) and 

2) full planning permission for construction of a three-arm roundabout to the A420 (Oxford Road), a four arm roundabout to the A415 (Abingdon Road) and link road between.

As amended by plans and information received 31 July 2020 and 12 November 2020.

Councillor Jerry Avery, a local ward councillor, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

Councillor Robert Maddison encountered technical communication problems during the presentation of this item. The councillor was unable to participate in or hear the whole debate and did not vote on this application.

The committee considered application P18/V2791/O for a hybrid planning application comprising: 

1) outline planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access, for development of up to 660 homes (use class C3), extra care development of up to 70 units (use class C2), a local centre of up to 0.5ha (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1(a), C2, D1 and D2) a one form entry primary school on an area for education provision of up to 2.2ha, playing field and car parking, informal open space, landscape and sustainable drainage areas, access, footpaths, cycle ways, infrastructure and associated engineering works (including a noise attenuation bund and acoustic fence) and 

2) full planning permission for construction of a three-arm roundabout to the A420 (Oxford Road), a four arm roundabout to the A415 (Abingdon Road) and link road between. As amended by plans and information received 31 July 2020 and 12 November 2020 on land east of Kingston Bagpuize. 

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 this application sought outline permission for up to 660 dwellings, which included a 70-bed extra care development, sports and playing fields, open space, a primary school, outside infrastructure and associated works. The application also sought full permission for the construction of a link road and two roundabouts. The principle of development was acceptable as the site was allocated in the Local Plan, and planning officers considered that the application would not cause unacceptable landscape harm or visual harm. All of the planning policy requirements relating to housing, including housing mix and space standards, could be secured by the development, and the building heights were acceptable. Additionally, the proposal was acceptable to planning officers in terms of flood risk, drainage, heritage and biodiversity perspectives. Notwithstanding, planning officers considered that highways and air quality issues arising from the proposal could frustrate approval.

The planning officer also advised the committee of a correction to the report; regarding the contributions in connection with the s.106 legal agreement, shown at paragraph 5.84 and associated table. The committee was advised that the public transport contribution figure was based on 700 dwellings, whereas the correct figure should be 660. The total figure for public transport should be shown as £708,271. Additionally, to mitigate the extra care element impact upon public transport, the Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) had requested a further £23,851, as it was considered that some residents, staff and visitors would make use of the public transport service.

Expanding upon his opening statements, the planning officer reported that council officers were satisfied that through detailed design the development can be integrated into the landscape without material harm, and through the development of appropriate landscape proposals at reserved matters stage. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), submitted with the application, confirmed that the site lay within Flood Zone 1 and was at a low risk of flooding. The council's drainage team raised no objection, subject to conditions requiring a fully detailed scheme based on the FRA be submitted and approved. 

The committee noted paragraph 5.35 of the report, which stated that the occupation of dwellings on the site would not commence prior to the completion of the upgrade to Frilford junction, unless an alternative phasing plan was agreed with the OCC and satisfactory air quality mitigation for Marcham was introduced. A representative of OCC Highways attending the meeting reported that a survey of the junction was to be undertaken and mitigation measures were possible, but were unknown at this stage.

The committee noted that Policy CP33 of Local Plan Policy 1 (inter alia) required developments to promote sustainable transport access, and to support improvements to the local road network which increased safety and improved air quality.  The committee also noted paragraph 5.38, which stated that three key locations, the Frilford Junction and the A34 interchanges at Botley (with the A420) and Marcham (with the A415) already had severe peak hour traffic congestion. The committee concurred with council officers in contending that the proposal would add to peak hour traffic queues, increasing the severity of congestion.  

The planning officer further reported that there remained some concern on the part of OCC Highways regarding the transport modelling that had been undertaken and that further information was requested. In the absence of information available on the detail of the mitigation requirement and the timescale for its delivery, officers considered that at the present time it could not be demonstrated that the development would be sustainable in terms of mitigating traffic generation and severe congestion to an acceptable degree.

The planning officer reported the latest situation, namely that further correspondence between the applicant and OOC had now taken place regarding some outstanding issues listed in the response in appendix 3 of the report. It was also confirmed that an optioneering study for Frilford junction, and in respect of air quality issues in Marcham, had now commenced. It was expected that it would take 12 months to identify options from the study. In respect of the Marcham interchange, the developer had undertaken further modelling on proposals for the western arm to mitigate the effect of development. The developer would be prepared to undertake the improvement themselves. OCC considered that this could provide mitigation to an acceptable level. However, at this stage, OCC were unable to confirm whether the developer would deliver the improvements direct or whether this could be facilitated by a financial contribution for a wider scheme. The planning officer reported that an OCC acceptance of any such measures did not affect the district council’s reasons for refusal on other items.

Councillor Julian Mellor, a representative of Fyfield and Tubney Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent Councillor Mellor’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Councillor David Warr, a representative of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent Councillor Warr’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

The committee expressed sympathy with the parish council and residents that the sewage smell in the Kingston Bagpuize environs continued to be an intermittent problem and that Thames Water should be pressed for a reliable infrastructure solution, which would be required in the event of development in Kingston Bagpuize.

Councillor Michael Hoath, a representative of Marcham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Dr. Paul Barrow, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Professor John Cobb, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Barnes. The democratic services officer had sent Councillor Warr’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Roger Smith, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ms. Vicky Bilton, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The democratic services officer had sent Mr. Smith’s and Ms. Bilton’s joint statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Councillor Eric Batts, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Jerry Avery, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee supported concerns raised that adequate highways improvements prior to development had not been demonstrated and that the impact of additional traffic movements associated with the proposed development would be severe and add to existing congestion. Also, Local Plan polices required that occupations of dwellings on this site would not begin until the completion of an upgrade at Frilford Junction. The Local Plan also stipulated that occupations of dwellings would not commence prior to satisfactory air quality mitigation for Marcham. Thus, air quality also remained an important concern of the committee that had not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P18/V2791/O for the following reasons;

It is recommended to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reason 1:

Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” Further, Development Policy 16 (ii) of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 requires evidence to demonstrate that acceptable off-site improvements to highway infrastructure can be secured where these are not adequate to service the development.

The proposal will generate additional traffic movements onto the highway network including through the A34 interchange junctions at Botley and Marcham and the Frilford junction which have been identified as operating over capacity in the peak hours. Based on the findings of the local highway authority the impact of additional traffic movements associated with the proposed development would be severe.

Paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: “it should be ensured that any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion) can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.”

The applicant has not been able to fully demonstrate that it is possible to mitigate the harm in terms of congestion, and the local highway authority has not yet been able to undertake the necessary studies to identify strategic schemes and calculate necessary contributions. Furthermore, the adopted site template under policy CP8a of Local Plan 2031 Part 2 confirms occupations of dwellings on this site will not begin until the completion of an upgrade at Frilford Junction.

In the absence of details of what mitigation is required and how this will be delivered at the Frilford junction, Botley and Marcham interchanges and notwithstanding the fact that the application site is allocated for housing development in the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2, the proposal does not amount to sustainable development and would be contrary to core policy 8a and development policy 16 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 2:

An air quality management area (AQMA) exists beside the A415 through Marcham village. The proposal would add traffic onto the A415 and through the AQMA. The additional pollution generated by the increased traffic flows in the AQMA would be detrimental to the living conditions and potentially the health of occupants of dwellings within the AQMA.

Furthermore, the adopted site template under policy CP8a of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 confirms occupations of dwellings on this site will not begin prior to satisfactory air quality mitigation for Marcham.

The applicant has not been able to fully demonstrate that it is possible to satisfactorily mitigate the harm arising from the development in terms of air quality for Marcham. This is considered contrary to core policy 43(vi) of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, core policy 8a and development policy 26 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, and to paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 3:

In the absence of a S106 legal agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing, a primary school and land for expansion, onsite play and sports provision and financial contributions towards traffic and air quality impact mitigation, public transport, travel plan monitoring, public art, street naming, waste bin provision, education and the management of public open spaces, sport and play areas, the proposal would place increased pressure on these facilities and fail to provide the environmental, social and recreational services needed to support this development. This is considered contrary to core policies 7, 22, 24, 33 and 35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and development policies 17, 20, 26, 28 and 33 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2.

Informatives:

1.  The applicant is advised this refusal is based on the following submitted plans:

DE214-100 Hybrid Site Location Plan

DE214-101A Outline Red Line Boundary Plan

DE214-102A Full Red Line Boundary Plan

DE214_L_001F Indicative Landscape Framework Plan

DE214-10H Indicative Development Framework Plan

DE214-30G Parameter Plan – Building Heights

DE214-31F Indicative Density Plan

DE214-32F Parameter Plan – Land Use

DE214-33G Indicative Movement Plan

DE214-34G Parameter Plan – Green Infrastructure

DE214 – Play Areas

0684-038 J Proposed Link Road 1 of 4

0684-039 J Proposed Link Road 2 of 4

0684-040 L Proposed Link Road 3 of 4

0684-052 E Proposed Link Road 4 of 4

0684-053 A Build out at SW corner of site across Abingdon Road

0684-050 Proposed Pedestrian Crossing at Fyfield – A420 / Digging Lane junction

2.  The third reason for refusal could be overcome by entering into a section 106 agreement(s) with the Vale of White Horse District Council and Oxfordshire County Council to secure the required infrastructure.