The Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) made the following changes to the Core Strategy Preferred Options report before public consultation commenced:
Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this item.
The Committee received and considered report 122/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which reminded Members that the Council had to produce a Local Development Framework which was a new style of development plan that would replace the Local Plan. The first document to be prepared was the Core Strategy and an important part of the process was engaging with the public. To this end a draft Preferred Options report had been prepared under the guidance of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group which Members had before them
It was noted that members of the Executive had been present at the Development Committee when it considered the report earlier in the evening and the Executive had regard to the comments made at that meeting.
One Member suggested that an explanation of what the Local Development Framework meant should be included in the Foreword to the document, to include an explanation of what the strategy was trying to achieve; an explanation of what the Council was required to do; details of the preferred option and the relevant legislation under which the strategy was required.
One member commented that a key element of the proposals was the requirement for adequate infrastructure and to this end there was a need to undertake technical feasibility assessments of the infrastructure and secure adequate funding towards those proposals. He expressed concern about raising expectations and emphasised that it was important that it be made clear that some proposals in the strategy were aspirational. He commented that dialogue with the County Council and the Highway Agency who were responsible for highways was needed and he asked that the Officers state this in the strategy advising that those discussions would take place. He sought further clarification on this, commenting that these prime discussions should be undertaken with the responsible Officer together with the relevant portfolio holder at the County Council. He stated that the commitment being given should be clear and the agreement for this was needed by the County Council also.
One Member expressed concern regarding a possible reduction in the provision of social housing and she asked that this should not be compromised when discussing section 106 contributions. In response the Officers reported that this was a matter for Members to consider in each case and that difficult choices would need to be made. It was emphasised that a development could not proceed if the right infrastructure was not in place. It was commented that further discussions were needed with the County Council regarding infrastructure requirements.
The Officers reported that the County Council had commissioned a central Oxfordshire transport strategy and that once this was available details would be reported to Members. It was commented that many of the issues raised in the discussion at the Development Control Committee meeting might be addressed in this document.
One Member commented that the most important map was that which classified the roads and he reiterated that dialogue between Members of the County Council and this Council was needed and he asked that this be phased into the process before the draft strategy was agreed. The Officers responded that they had been pressing for approval of the transport studies by the County Council to enable this Council to take forward the measures in the local development framework.
One Member referred to the comments made at the Development Control Committee regarding the possibility of reviewing the strategy in the future. The Officers confirmed that the strategy could be revised. It was considered that the Officers should emphasise that the strategy was the right strategy at this point in time having regard to how matters were seen now.
One Member considered that the proposal to concentration development in a few locations was more likely to secure financial contributions towards infrastructure.
One Member noted the comments made regarding the strategy needing review but stated that whilst there was a recession at present it was known that there was a still demand for housing in the south east and that that demand would increase.
In response to a question raised regarding the required number of new houses the Officers reported that there was a choice as to whether 1500 new houses should be allocated at Abingdon or at Wantage, although it was commented that this figure might reduce as there was still more work needed to assess development opportunities in the urban areas. It was noted that it was necessary to demonstrate that housing in urban areas would come forward. One Member commented that he was not sure that this was understood by members of the public generally. Another Member commented that both allocations could be agreed as the figures presented were based on the minimum requirement.
By 7 votes to nil it was
R E C O M M E N D E D
(a) that the Preferred Options report be approved for publication in January 2009 subject to the following amendments:
(i) reference to the names of special schools should be removed from the document;
(ii) Officers clarifying in the document the position of the Marcham Road improvements and those of Colwell Drive in Abingdon;
(iii) the need to make clear that the most likely section of the southern bypass at Abingdon would be the section over the river Ock and to this end the deletion of the last sentence in point 5 in paragraph 3.4;
(iv) reference to the Wilts and Berks Canal being added to paragraph 5.1 and that the canal should be depicted on the maps for Abingdon, Wantage and Grove;
(v) include a reference to the meaning of the Local Development Framework; an explanation of what the strategy was trying to achieve; an explanation of what the Council was required to do; details of the preferred option and the relevant legislation under which the strategy was required;
(vi) it being made clear that some of the infrastructure requirements are aspirational only and that it would be necessary to undertake technical feasibility assessments of the infrastructure and secure adequate funding towards those plans;
(vii) it being emphasised that the strategy is the right strategy at this point in time having regard to how matters are seen now;
(b) that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), be delegated authority to make changes to the report which do not alter the overall content and message of the report and if necessary in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group be delegated authority to agree more substantive changes to the report.
Councillors Margaret Turner, Jerry Patterson and Roger Cox had each declared a personal interest in this item.
The Committee received and considered report 122/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which reminded Members that the Council had to produce a Local Development Framework which was a new style of development plan that would replace the Local Plan. The first document to be prepared was the Core Strategy and an important part of the process was engaging with the public. To this end under the guidance of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group a draft Preferred Options report had been prepared, which Members had before them
It was noted that the Committee was asked to consider the report and make recommendations thereon to the Executive with a view to the document being published for consultation in January.
The Officers introduced the report making the following comments: -
Background
· Under the new planning system the Local Plan would be replaced by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and the Managing Development document.
· Officers were progressing work on the Core Strategy, which would establish the broad framework to guide development to 2026 and identify major sites for development.
· It had to comply with the policies and requirements in the South East Plan and government guidance and help deliver the priorities in the Community Strategy.
· The Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group had been guiding the work preparing the Core Strategy Preferred Options report. If Members agreed, this will be published for consultation in January.
Summary of the main points in the report
The structure of the preferred options report was set out in paragraph 5.1.
The reasons why a strategy of urban concentration was being recommended were set out in paragraphs 4.27 and 4.28 of the report. Urban concentration would locate people in places with the best range of services, facilities and infrastructure and where there was the best chance of securing new infrastructure and services.
· It would locate people where there were more opportunities for cycling, walking and using public transport which would reduce the need to travel by car and hence carbon emissions.
· It supported the vitality of the market towns.
· It was consistent with the policy of urban focus set out in the South East Plan.
· The urban areas had the most pressure for affordable housing.
· Development here was supported by the Primary Care Trust, the County Council as highway authority and the emergency services.
Key Elements
Paragraph 5.2 of the covering report set out the key elements of the preferred options report.
(a) Housing
· The draft South East Plan required that at least 11,560 new homes must be built in the Vale between 2006 and 2026.
· Government guidance indicated that the Council should have a 15 year supply of land when the plan is adopted. To make sure the Council has this, Officers are looking to provide sufficient land to 2027.
· Many sites already had planning permission or were identified in the Local Plan and the Council could be reasonably sure that other sites could be developed in settlements.
· To meet the target the Council had to identify land for some 4,470 homes. This was most likely to be on greenfield sites on the edges of the main towns (not green belt). The preferred strategy involved:
- 2,300 homes west of Didcot in Harwell parish – (A plan on page 129 showed the preferred site (site A) between the A4130 Didcot-Milton Heights link road and the B4493 Wantage Road. The outline of a policy for this site was on page 130).
- 250 homes at Wantage and Grove on sites of less than 200 homes – these would be identified in the Managing Development document.
- Either 1,500 homes south west of Abingdon or 1500 homes north east of Wantage in Grove parish. The preferred site at Abingdon was shown on the plan on page 114. The preferred site A was west of Drayton Road. The preferred site at Wantage was to the north east of the town within the line of the proposed relief road as shown on page 122 and the outline of a policy on page 123. It was reported that the County Council had not been able to progress the essential work and studies for the Local Development Framework due to other work priorities but it was hoped that this work would be completed in the new year.
- 420 homes south of Park Road at Faringdon. This was shown on the plan on page 137 and the outline of a policy on page 138.
· It was envisaged that there would be over 1400 homes built in the villages and on brownfield sites.
(b) For employment
· The Employment Land Review undertaken by consultants URS indicated there was enough employment land in the District to meet the needs of businesses to 2026.
· It was thought that the Council should locate most employment development at the existing large employment sites of Milton Park and the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, where an additional 12,000 jobs could be created.
· Some limited additional land could be identified close to where people lived at Wantage & Grove and Faringdon and at Abingdon if the site south west of the town was selected for housing development
(c) Population
· The number of people in the Vale was expected to increase from 115, 000 in 2001to 137,000 in 2026 – an increase of about 20%.
· Clearly there would be a need for more services and infrastructure to support them.
· Officers had tried to make sure that the most was made of the opportunities arising from new development.
(d) Shopping
· The retail study carried out for the Council by Savills showed a need for just over an additional 25,000 square metres of shopping floorspace by 2026 (Waitrose in Abingdon was 2,500 sq m).
· In line with government guidance the consultants had recommended that this should be located within the town centres. If new shopping centres grew up on the edges of the towns it would undermine the vitality of the existing centres and could lead to their decline.
· There were opportunities to redevelop the shopping areas built in the late 1960s to increase the floorspace and give retailers and shoppers a better environment. This would mean redeveloping: -
o Bury Street precinct and the Charter in Abingdon (plan on page 117 referred);
o Waitrose/Campbells Yard area in Wantage (page 125);
o West Way shopping centre and Elms Parade in Botley (page 134); and
o The area of Budgens store and Southampton Street car park in Faringdon (page 139).
(e) Roads
· Safeguarding land and seeking contributions where appropriate for new road construction. These were shown on the diagram on page 60.
· Those shown in purple had been identified in the draft Southern Central Oxfordshire Transport Strategy as being necessary to support the growth at Didcot, Wantage, Grove, Harwell and Milton Park to 2026. They included: -
· a relief road north east of Wantage shown as R4 on the diagram;
· (the requirement for the link road north of Grove needed in association with the development of the former airfield is unchanged R3);
· a range of road safety and junction improvements on the A417 east of Wantage and the A338 north of Grove;
· a link road from the A4130 to the A417 west of Didcot running more or less parallel with the A34 R8; and
· a link from the A417 to the A34 Chilton interchange and improvements to Featherbed Lane R7, or a southern bypass to the Rowstock crossroads R6.
· Improvements to the A415, including a new bridge over the Thames at Newbridge;
· a bypass for Marcham ; and
· a southern bypass for Abingdon (subject to further study).
· a Wantage western relief road (D1);
· land for a station at Grove (D2);
· the reopening of the A34 slip roads at Drayton (D3); and
· providing south facing slip roads at the A34 Lodge Hill interchange (D4).
Other Comments
· Some elements would take time to come to fruition. However, the Core Strategy was a long-term plan and it was important that the Council established what it wanted to achieve to guide future development and investment decisions.
· The Government made it clear that through core strategies Council’s must make difficult decisions and that all reasonable alternatives must be considered.
· This was a consultation document and Officers were asking Members to agree that it should be published for consultation so that people’s reactions and arguments could be fully assessed.
· The decisions on what to include in the Core Strategy would not be made until next year.
Consultation
It was explained that if approved by Council the report would be published and widely circulated in January. A series of exhibitions and workshops would be held from late January to the middle of February with comments being sought by the end of February.
The Chair thanked the Officer for a thorough presentation of the report.
In considering the matter Members had regard to the statements made earlier in the meeting by members of the public. The Chair specifically referred to a number of points highlighted by those speakers and he made the following comments: -
· The original decision to develop west of Didcot (the Great WesternPark site) was not a proposal which this Council had supported. The Council had sought development to the north. The decision had been made by the County Council and would cause development out towards Harwell.
· He referred to comments made regarding the parish of Harwell staying rural commenting that if it was meant that Harwell as a village could remain rural then this could be something which could be fought for. It was unlikely that Didcot would expand into the village of Harwell. It was accepted that this was not much comfort but the solid boundary could be helpful. He did not think that Harwell would coalesce with Didcot. He had hoped that Didcot west (GreatWestern Park) would be the end of the development. However, the government was asking the Council to look at more housing and that the Council would be remiss if it did not. He accepted comments about piecemeal development, but there was a chance to look at the development in its entirety before any houses had been built.
· He commented that one speaker seemed in support of a continuing bypass linking to the A34 and yet another seemed to be arguing the opposite, thus demonstrating the diversity of views and the difficulty faced by Members in agreeing any preferred options.
· The comments made regarding Wicklesham quarry have been noted and the officers will look at the benefits and dis-benefits of this proposal.
· In terms of the comments made regarding the existing problems at the Milton interchange, the proposals are not aimed at resolving existing problems but that any proposals would not make the existing situation any worse.
At this point in the meeting the Chair invited questions and comments from Members as set out below, together with the responses when given: -
|
Question / Comment
|
Response |
|
Not much mention was made to the A420 and any upgrade required as part of the Swindon expansion.
|
Page 15 paragraph 1.15 referred. There was a need to keep a watching brief on the eastern expansion of Swindon and its impact on the A420.
|
|
How would an ordinary member of the public who had not been involved in this matter be able to read and understand the document, for example looking at one of the road improvements referred to in the document, it referred to road junction improvements on the A338 and the question was what did that involve. This was the difficulty with a strategic document. There was no detail. It did not tell people what improvements would come along with the developments.
|
Core strategies were very high level and strategic. It was very difficult to ensure the public fully understood the detail. Lots of the detail would be evidenced which would be available on the Council’s website. The main problem areas were known such as Venn Mill and the A338 / A415 crossroads for example. These could be pointed to but it was recognised that a lack of detail would be frustrating for the public. This document was as clear as other similar documents and that it was difficult to determine how much detail was enough.
|
|
One Member had read and commented on many other strategic documents and in his view this document was very good. He thought it was easily readable and made lots of sense. He asked that members of the public note that the Council’s advisory group had spent considerable time considering the detail behind this document.
|
|
|
One Member considered that the chair had responded to the comments made by the speakers admirably but noted that they would be put forward for consideration with other comments received. The Officers undertook to ensure that the comments made were considered as part of the consultation process.
|
|
|
Another Member commented that the document was as excellent as it could be. She suggested that the public’s understanding of matters should not be underestimated and that many had a tight grasp on matters in their area. She noted that the main areas had been highlighted and she was confident that local people would come forward with their own solutions to local problems.
|
|
|
With regard to the main proposals for Abingdon, what plans were in place for the extra development and particularly in respect of development to the east as half a scheme?
|
The Officers clarified that the Member was asking what the thicker of the two lines would do if additional housing was on the housing site (page 63 referred). It was explained that lots of traffic would reroute to the new link road and thus there would be more capacity on the Drayton Road itself. In terms of a bypass for Abingdon, this was only part of such a proposal. However, the Council needed to start visioning now. The improvements introduced by the Abingdon Integrated Transport Study had bought some time but the advisory group had agreed that the Council should be pressing for the longer term solutions of a bypass.
|
|
With regard to the main proposals for Abingdon, if the eastern part of the relief road was phase 2, was an opportunity being missed to get development funding towards this and if there was funding for the western part then would the eastern part have less?
|
The Marcham Road – Drayton Road link would be costly and it was unforeseeable that there would be any funding remaining that could be put towards completing the bypass. One Member commented he was not sure that the housing would provide sufficient funding for the first part of the route anyway.
|
|
If the Swindon expansion went ahead, which was equivalent to the size of Abingdon then there should be something more in the plan.
|
Reference was made to paragraph 2.16 which set out additional comments. It was recognised that there was a need to thoroughly address and assess the implications of this development.
|
|
Could Officers provide any further information about the implications of the de-trunking of the A420 two years ago. |
One difficulty was that the impact on the A420 would be from development outside of the District and the correct process would be to secure funding from that development to address any impact on the A420.
It was suggested that it would be inappropriate for the County Council to fund any highway works arising from development outside of the County and that it was essential that this Council was proactive in seeking financial contributions in this regard. It was important for Officers to liaise with planners at Swindon Borough Council although it was unknown what the improvements to the A420 would be.
It was reported that Officers had raised concerns with the government that there had not been a detailed transport study in respect of the development east of Swindon.
|
|
Section 2 - Paragraph 2.8 - Education No reference was made to Kingfisher School in Abingdon which was a special school.
|
It was agreed that reference to the names of special schools should be removed from the document as it was not possible to list them all with certainty. |
|
Section 2 - Paragraph 2.9 – Employment and the Economy How confident were officers regarding the figures suggested for population and size of growth over the next 20 years.
|
Officers relied on outside sources. It was noted that the County Council had commissioned new population projections in the County based on housing growth.
|
|
Section 2 - Paragraph 2.11 – Employment and the Economy With reference to the types of skills levels needed in this area how was it anticipated that science and engineering would be promoted in schools?
|
This was a matter not within the remit of this document. However, there was a community strategy within which the Council and its partners were looking at this sort of issue, namely skills gaps. It was noted that other organizations would help tackle this types of issue.
|
|
Section 2 - Paragraph 2.16 – Transport and Accessibility With reference to the Didcot expansion, had any assessment been made in terms of people moving out of London to the area? |
Officers commented that this had not been factored into the strategy it being noted that there was nothing which could be done if people chose to live in Didcot, but commute to London. It was expected that people would make choices about whether they could afford to commute to London.
|
|
Second - Paragraph 2.33 - Abingdon Were the Marcham Road improvements still proceeding?
|
One Member commented that she thought that the Marcham Road improvements would be carried out in Spring 2009, but that the proposed filter lane and roundabout would not be progressed.
It was agreed that Officers would check the position of the Marcham Road improvements and those of Colwell Drive in Abingdon and update the document accordingly.
|
|
Section 2 - Paragraph 2.45 - Wantage The leisure centre belonged to King Alfred’s school and was not open to the public.
|
The leisure centre was known as the Wantage Leisure Centre and it had a dual use.
|
|
Section 3 – Paragraph 3.3 – Objectives for the Vale in 2026 – Point 8 – Railway Station at Grove What was the status of the Grove Station?
|
This was an aspiration. |
|
Section 3 – Paragraph 3.4 – Objective for Abingdon – Point 5 – Traffic Congestion The document should be realistic in terms of the southern bypass. |
It was agreed that this paragraph needed to be rationalised. It was suggested that the document should be clear and state that the most likely part of the southern bypass to be built would be the section across the river Ock. To this end it was agreed that the last sentence should be deleted.
|
|
Section 3 – Paragraph 3.9 – Objective for the Rural Areas – Point 6 – Countryside There was a need to depict the Wilts and Berks Canal on the maps. |
The Officers considered that the Wilts and BerksCanal should be added to Figure 5.1 for Abingdon and Figure 5.2 for Wantage and Grove and that the canal should be depicted on the maps in the Appendix.
|
|
Section 4 – Paragraph 4.10 – Shopping and Town Centre Uses Does this suggest that Wantage and Grove are going to become larger than Abingdon.
|
No. |
|
Section 4 - Paragraph 4.27 – More development on the edges of villages It was commented that by concentrating development more section 106 funding could be secured. However, the development at the GreatWestern Park had not resulted in provision of everything that had been wanted. Now with the recession, it was likely that the delivery of infrastructure would be even more difficult and there was real concern that this policy would not deliver the infrastructure which had been identified.
|
There was evidence that developers were looking to go back to section 106 negotiations, although in Faringdon developers had looked to defer payment rather than not pay at all. Deferral tied in with slower development. Officers did not know what the developers’ ability would be to meet section 106 requirements. In the past there had been a proportion of affordable housing. It was confirmed that infrastructure which was needed to meet the demands of any development would not be sacrificed.
A large amount of infrastructure would be needed wherever the housing was sited. The need for infrastructure would not be any less and the developers would not be able to argue otherwise.
|
|
It was noted that the Local Development Framework (LDF) was looking 20 years ahead. It was commented that if there was a long recession would the Council be able to revisit the document in the future and perhaps agree a review of the strategy?
|
Yes the Council could review the strategy but Officers did not consider that any review would lead to a radically different strategy, but rather different funding opportunities or different infrastructure could be considered.
One Member commented that if there was a recession or major infrastructure costs as part of any site, there may be less social housing although this was not supported by another Member.
|
|
Section 4 - Paragraph 4.30 – Housing Were any of the mineral reserves likely to be extracted beneath houses?
|
No. |
|
Section 4 – paragraph 4.35 – Abingdon , land to the south west of the town Would a Marcham Road – Drayton Road link road displace some of the problems. Could communication across the river Ock between the south and the north be better?
|
All the matters would be looked at. There were lots of issues around the Abingdon link road.
One Member commented that there was a fully funded footbridge across the Ock but this was not supported by the Town Council.
|
|
Section 4 - paragraph 4.43 – Faringdon south of Park Road This made reference to the potential for development at the Wicklesham Quarry.
|
- |
|
Section 4 – Figure 4.7 – Highway Improvements It was unclear which schemes were aspirations.
|
All those shown in purple (and marked R) were those which had been identified as required; green were those in the Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan; those in blue (and marked D) were desirable.
|
|
Section 5 – Figure 5.3 – main proposals for Didcot With reference to Didcot, what measures were proposed to address pedestrian traffic across the road and what consideration was being given to parish boundaries?
|
Pedestrian traffic would be considered and consideration of impact on parish boundaries was not within the remit of planning.
|
|
Section 5 – Paragraph 5.11 - Botley Could the Officers provide an update on progress with working with Thames Water in terms of the water problems at Botley and Cumnor?
|
The Officers referred to a recent appeal decision where the appeal had been dismissed mostly on drainage grounds. It was commented that this placed an onus on the Council to resolve the drainage problems. Officers had sought a meeting with Thames Water but it was noted that Thames Water had no funding for improvement works in this regard at present. Therefore there was currently a restriction on development on Cumnor Hill.
|
One Member commented that she was not happy with the document, particularly having regard to the area she represented. She noted the hard work of the Officers and the conclusions reached but expressed her strong concerns regarding the expansion of Didcot commenting that it would become larger than Abingdon. She expressed concern regarding the impact of development on the villages in her Ward. She stated that when the GreatWestern Park had first been proposed residents had thoughts of welcoming new residents into village life but the numbers had just grown and grown. She was concerned that the intention was that the surrounding areas would simply become part of Didcot. She expressed concern about the continual focus on development at Didcot on parish land and questioned why land in South Oxfordshire District could not have been found for further development of the town.
She commented that one of the few mitigation measures as part of the GWP development was the requirement for landscaping areas and she noted that this was to be revisited. She suggested that if other areas were put forward this continued expansion from Didcot towards the villages could be avoided.
The Chair commented that Members had a duty to do what was best for the district as a whole and that councilors should have regard to that when commenting on the strategy.
The Member replied that all councilors should be given an opportunity to express views on what was best for their Ward but that she had no objection to looking at the Vale as a whole.
The Chair replied that it had not been this Council’s choice to have development to the west of Didcot and he asked the Member to suggest where the proposed housing should go instead. The Member asked that the comments of the Chair be recorded in the minutes reiterating that she had no difficulties in considering the wider picture but that it was important for her to express the views of the local people from the area she represented.
Another Member commented that Members were here to shed light on local effects and local communities.
Immediately prior to consideration of the recommendations, the Chair was joined by all Members present in thanking all the Officers involved in the production of this excellent document.
In addition Members commended the Reprographics Team of the Council for the excellent quality of printing.
By 13 votes to 1 with 1 of the voting Members having left the meeting, it was
RESOLVED
(a) that the Executive be recommended to agree that the Preferred Options report be approved for publication in January 2009 subject to the following amendments: -
(i) reference to the names of special schools should be removed from the document;
(ii) Officers clarifying in the document the position of the Marcham Road improvements and those of Colwell Drive in Abingdon;
(iii) the need to make clear that the most likely section of the southern bypass at Abingdon would be the section over the river Ock and to this end the last sentence in point 5 in paragraph 3.4 should be deleted;;
(iv) the Wilts and Berks Canal being added to Figures 5.1 and Figures 5.2 and that the canal should be depicted on the maps in the appendices for Abingdon, Wantage and Grove.
(b) that the Executive be recommended to agree that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), be delegated authority to make changes to the report which do not alter the overall content and message of the report and if necessary in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group be delegated authority to agree more substantive changes to the report.