Site Address: Land at Howes Lane and Middleton 12/01153/OUT Stoney Road, Bicester
Ward: Ambrosden and Chesterton District Councillor: Andrew Fulljames
Case Officer: Andrew Bowe Recommendation: Refusal
Applicant: Albion Land
Application Description: The Erection of up to 70,767 sqm to be for B1 (b), B1(c), B2 and B8 use; access off the Middleton Stoney Road (B4030); internal roads; parking and service areas; landscaping and the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems incorporating landscaped areas with balancing ponds
Committee Referral: Departure from Policy
1. Site Description and Proposed Development
1.1 The application site is located on the north west side of Bicester and adjoins the Middleton Stoney Road (B4030) on its western boundary and Howes Lane (B4095) on its southern boundary. The site is approximately 20 Hectares (49.5 acres) and is currently in agricultural use.
1.2 The application proposes up to 70,767 sq m of employment floorspace comprising light industrial use B1(b), research and development B1 (c), general industrial (use class B2) and storage and distribution (B8 of the use classes order). The application is made in outline with all matters reserved except access, which is proposed off the Middleton Stoney Road. The indicative masterplan submitted in support of the application shows a total of 70,767 sq metres of employment floorspace comprising 19 individual units (seven separate buildings) ranging in floor area from 139 square metres (1,500 square feet) to 18,580 square metres (200,000 square feet); internal roads; parking and service areas; landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems incorporating landscaped areas with balancing ponds.
2. Application Publicity
2.1 The application has been advertised by way of neighbour letter, site notice and press notice. The final date for comment was the 21 st September 2012. The Environmental Impact Assessment has been advertised by way of neighbour letter, site notice and press notice. The final date for comment was 13 th February 2013.
2.2 96 letters including comments from landowners in the area such as the Thames Valley Police Authority and groups such as the Bicester Campaign to Protect Rural England. The developers and facilitators of the North West Bicester exemplar and masterplan also submitted consultation responses.
2.3 A petition with 114 signatures has been received as a result of this consultation process. A summary of the issues and comments is provided below:
North West Bicester eco town: Does not meet standards in the Eco Towns Planning Policy Statement (PPS); Could prejudice the masterplanning framework for North West Bicester; Principle of large scale commercial warehouse and distribution development is incongruous with the eco town principles; Needs to be tested through the masterplanning process for North West Bicester; Needs to address issues raised in developing the framework masterplan including: an access and movement strategy, landscape strategy, mix of uses; the form and function of Howes Lane; compatibility of non residential uses with adjacent land uses; Industry should be kept away from residential areas; Greenfield sites in open countryside should not be used for industry; Brownfield sites in the Bicester area should be used for industry including: existing units off Launton Road, sites close to A41 and A34, MOD Graven Hill, Gavray Drive, Business park on A41 and sites adjacent to distribution centres;; Isolated from HGV preferred routes.
Transport and Access: Increase in traffic on Howes Lane; Inability of Howes Lane to support increased traffic; Increased HGV traffic through rural villages route to J10 of M40; Need a HGV routeing agreement; Highways Safety and pedestrian safety; Need to improve junction on Howes Lane and Bucknell Road and railway bridge; Noise disturbance; Impact of HGV parking and car parking on surrounding roads; Impact on Police response times from Howes Lane Police facility. Need to provide an access and movement strategy that is consistent with the eco town criteria; Access from Middleton Stoney Road is supported and foot and cycle paths access from Howes Lane.
Employment use: Existing empty units in Bicester; Draft Bicester Masterplan identifies land for commercial uses in Bicester; 24 hour operations will affect residents’ quality of life; Need for ‘eco’ jobs and not warehouses.
Noise and Vibration: Increased noise levels from the site’s construction, operation and increased traffic; Impact of noise due to proximity to a neighbouring residential area; Some concern of potential damage vibrations could cause to properties.
Lighting and Security: Light pollution; Security risk to nearby homes.
Scale and Massing: Height of the proposed units; Overlooking and privacy of residents; Inappropriate for this location.
Landscape and Visual impact: Proposed landscaping is inadequate; Units will be visible from residential properties. Concerns about Landscape and Visual assessment report. Policy: Departure from Draft Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan allocation; Cumulative effect not considered; Not consistent with eco town principles or standards; Premature.
Flooding: Increase flood risk and drainage issues.
Air quality: Reduced air quality if the development is built. Smells.
Ecology: Potential threat to wildlife on site Need to protect wildlife adjacent to the site. Need to protect the protected trees onsite.
3. Consultations
3.1 Ambrosden and Chesterton Parish Council objects to this proposal. A summary of its comments is provided below: Location – warehousing is more suited to sites closer to the M40. Infrastructure – adequate highways infrastructure is not in place. Transport – impact of HGVs. Noise Bucknell Road – railway bridge is not suitable for HGVs. Impact on eco town proposals.
3.2 Middleton Stoney Parish objects to the application. A summary of the comments is provided below: Location is inappropriate for the proposed development; Increased traffic, particularly HGVs; Greenfield site - other employment land is available in Bicester such as Graven Hill and Bicester Business Park; Prematurity – in advance of eco town masterplan and adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan; Height; Lack of cohesion with emerging plans for NW Bicester.
3.3 Bicester Town Council objects to the proposals. A summary of the objection is provided below: Contrary to Local Plan policy; Transport impact; Other sites are more suitable for development.
3.4 Cherwell District Council Consultees
Strategic Planning and the Economy: 3.5 A summary of the comments is provided below and also referred to in Sections 4 and 5 below.
Cherwell Local Plan (Adopted Plan - Saved Policies) 3.6 The main policies on the Local Plan that should be considered are Policies EMP1, TR7, TR10, TR20, C7, C8, C10, C31 and ENV1. Other policies may apply. 3.7 The adopted Plan is now out of date as the land where the application proposal is situated is now identified as part of the wider Eco-town proposals set out in the Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013). Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 3.8 The main policies on the Non-Statutory Local Plan that should be considered are Policies EMP1, TR16, TR17, TR26, TR27, EN1, EN3, EN16, EN30, EN31 and EN34. Other policies may apply. 3.9 The Non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan is now out of date as the land where the application proposal is situated is now identified as part of the wider Eco-town proposals set out in the Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013). Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013) 3.10 The main policies that should be considered in the emerging Local Plan are Policies PSD1, SLE1, SLE4, ESD13, ESD16, Policy Bicester 1 and Policy Bicester 7. Other policies may apply. 3.11 Paragraph B.37 of the Local Plan applies and states that:
‘Where existing employment sites have good transport links for commercial vehicles and the use of these sites accords with the Local Plan we will encourage new development here to ensure the efficient use of land on these sites and in our towns, avoiding the need to use valuable countryside’...... Proposals should be directed to existing employment sites.
The Bicester Masterplan Consultation Draft (2012) 3.12 The role of the Masterplan has been to consider how the town might grow in a balanced, coordinated and integrated way. As the Masterplan cannot formally allocate sites its role has been to consider the issues which will arise from the quantum and strategic locations once the Local Plan has been adopted. While the Masterplan is supportive of the proposed location for employment use, this must be seen within the context set by the emerging Local Plan. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.13 Applications should be considered with regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which sets out ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. 3.14 The NPPF states that
‘ planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs…’
‘The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’.
‘The planning system should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area…..’. 3.15 The NPPF states that in drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: -set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period; - plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries; 3.16 To meet the requirements for economic growth the emerging Local Plan clearly sets out where new employment proposals should be located and the type employment that should be located there. 3.17 In determining the application regard should also be had to relevant guidance in Sections 1, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the NPPF. Eco-towns: Planning Policy Statement 1 (Supplement) 3.18 North West Bicester is identified in Annex A of the PPS as one of the Eco-town locations. 3.19 The PPS remains in force as policy guidance for the defined area of the Eco-Town and therefore sits alongside the NPPF. 3.20 The PPS states that it (the PPS) should be given weight in determining planning applications. It states ‘This PPS sets out a range of minimum standards which are more challenging and stretching than would normally be required for new development. The standards act to ensure that ecotowns are exemplars of good practice and provide a showcase for sustainable living and allow Government, business and communities to work together to develop greener, low carbon living’. Applications within the Eco-town site should meet these requirements of the PPS.
Design and Conservation Team Leader: 3.21 Detailed comments have been provided following meetings with the applicants. The Council’s Urban Design officer has confirmed they cannot support the proposals. A summary of the comments is provided below. Indicative layout and design is based on building templates placed on the site, rather than thinking through how the development can best relate to the site and its context.
Quality of final site design and potential to undermine quality of emerging NW Bicester masterplan.
Located at one of Bicester’s major landmark locations
Proposal should show it fits with the Local Plan, the Bicester Masterplan and the emerging masterplan for NW Bicester.
Role and function of this area should be compatible with NW Bicester Ecotown development as follows:
- Contribute to a net gain in biodiversity for NW Bicester site; - SUDS is an important themes in NW Bicester development; - Providing a permeable layout that encourages pedestrian movement; - The reconfiguration of Howes Lane; - The scale and form of development should be in keeping with the residential nature of adjacent area; - Commercial development should be of a human scale that creates a high quality environment; - Providing a landmark building on the junction of Middleton Stoney Road and Howes Lane Bicester - To support overall legibility of town and to provide a gateway into NW Bicester and - Establishing sustainable buildings
There is no site analysis set out in Design and Access Statement. It is important site conditions are considered, including issues such as: topography and hydrology; vegetation; ecological constraints; existing movement / street character and existing urban character. This is particularly important due to large scale units being proposed for site.
Access - through site is a critical feature of masterplan
Access routes as currently shown do not provide a high quality approach to the public realm
There is limited connectivity of the site to surrounding areas.
Parking and service yards dominate main route into site and would benefit from more efficient organisation.
Quality of public realm is weak, largely due to the car / HGV dominated roads and spaces.
Movement - Reference to promoting a well connected scheme, with good visual and physical connections to surrounding neighbourhood and attractive and successful streets and outdoor spaces where priority is given to the pedestrian and cyclist over vehicular traffic.
This is not followed through in the detail prepared as part of the application
Critical that high quality pedestrian and cycle routes will connect site with rest of Town and North West Bicester Ecotown.
If high quality connections are not part of development this development will form a barrier and limit sustainable movement connections through the town. Defining quality of connections goes beyond physical location routes take and consideration needs to be given to quality of environment.
In promoting pedestrian and cycle movement it is critical routes run through areas that are attractive, safe and secure
Potential connections are shown alongside details of the potential street design and this may not establish a pedestrian friendly environment.
Carriageway is large (7.3m) and designed to reflect HGV movements; a particular issue at crossing points
There are a number of junctions where large turning radiuses and roundabouts will inhibit pedestrian and cycle movement.
Form and building typologies means that active frontage will be limited to the locations of the office buildings, which form a small proportion of the development.
Scheme would have limited activity and surveillance from the buildings creating an environment that might not feel safe at all times.
Issue potentially compounded by landscape and public realm structure, where car parking forms a large interface between building and road structure and a hedgerow and planting separate parking area from footpath and cycleways.
Materials and Sustainability: Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns applies to the NW Bicester site. This guidance sets clear requirements that have not been considered in the current proposals.
Commitment to use of sustainable design principles has not been quantified by fixed standards
Major focus of sustainability on office element which will form only a small proportion of the final area of development.
Aboricultural officer:
3.22 No objection as summarised below (see also the appraisal in section 4 below)
Trees subject to TPO 13/2001 have been categorised as ‘B’
Maximum protection should be afforded to these trees
Indicative layout plan (AP 0/001) places unit 4 too close to tree No 2 with tree No 3 requiring removal to facilitate unit 3.
Arboricultural report notes ‘moderate’ quality of trees but also highlights amenity and habitat values
Consideration should be given towards level of root damage annually experienced by trees during management of adjacent agricultural land and of the potential for recovery following proposed change of land usage,
All three trees provide sufficient value to warrant being a constraint
Site contains either very little significant tree presence or no other trees which should be considered as a constraint apart from a small copse of aspen ( Populus tremula ) located within Hedgerow ‘D’ to the north-west corner.
Retention and improvement of remaining hedges should be sufficient in mitigating the loss of hedgerows ‘A’ and ‘B’ as identified within the arboricultural report.
Landscaping - Boundaries: Landscaping scheme reflects a good level of consideration towards importance of screening and softening development both visually and audibly from existing and proposed residential areas.
Further reduction of these issues may be achieved by making slight amendments towards species selection, locations and agreeing quantities of planting levels
Proposed topography of boundaries would appear to be adequate in providing a foundation structure for landscape planting as well as providing, connecting and integrating wildlife corridors.
Landscaping – hard surface areas: designated car parking areas and the proposed linear tree planting integrated into the identified bays.
Tree planting in these areas should be encouraged as it is essential in reducing urban temperatures, providing essential shade, reducing stormwater run-off etc.
Street and verge side plantings: There appears to be an adequate allocation of space for street and verge tree planting Public art
3.23 The Council’s Art and Visitor Services Manager has confirmed there would not be a requirement for contributions towards community safety, community buildings or offsite sports contributions. With respect to Public art there would be a requirement but given the employment potential of the site this will be scaled back to £0.75 per sqm. This represents a clear indication of Cherwell's desire not to overburden development sites aimed at generating employment.
Environmental Protection
3.24 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer was contacted during the preparation of the application and environmental statement and has not raised concerns relating to contamination or air quality.
Landscape Officer
3.25 The Council’s Landscape Officer is not able to support this planning application because of significant detrimental landscape and visual impacts. The officer’s comments are summarised below:
Disagree with the Landscape Visual Assessment (LVA) assumption in paragraph 5.5 that the ' surrounding urban influences' would make the site an appropriate location for this type of warehouse development.
Disagree that this development is appropriate in respect of existing residential development east of Howes Lane (Isis Avenue residences) and the potential urban edge of SW Bicester Phase 2 south east of the application site.
Scale and height of units is out of character with the scale and massing of existing and proposed urban edges mentioned above.
Visual impact on receptors will be quite significant in regard to localised and distant views due to relatively flat topography of site and its surroundings.
Zone of visual influence is extensive because site does not provide sufficient containment in both topography and vegetation on its north, south and east boundaries in which to successfully accommodate warehousing so up to 16.5m high.
Western boundary is contained by tree belts in Bignell Park preventing views from the western side of Bignall Park, road user receptors will impacted upon to some degree.
Landscaping proposed does not adequately address mitigation over a period of 0 to 15 years.
In order to achieve effective screening, with appropriate height and canopy density to mitigate landscape and visual impact, native woodland belts on north, south, east and west boundaries would have to be planted in 15 - 20 metres wide strips (with enough clearance space included between building and mature tree canopies).
Effective screening will be achieved over a period of 20 to 40 years of growth, depending on soil, climatic conditions and management regime. With present layout proposals there is insufficient space in which to achieve this.
The LVA does not consider exterior functions or specification of the development (finish, height, scale, etc) in order to evaluate development's landscape and visual effects on landscape character, its sensitivity and human receptors. It is difficult to accept LVA's assertion that development is acceptable in this location.
Oxfordshire County Council Consultees
3.26 The County Council cannot fully support the application due to the following concerns:
The development area forms part of the land allocated for the NW Bicester eco town development as set out in the Cherwell Local Plan Draft Submission.
The proposed development of this site does not meet the standards set out for the NW Bicester eco town site as set out in PPS 1.
The Development precedes the overall site masterplan for the NW Bicester eco town.
The County Council recommends that the applicant works with the developer of the NW Bicester eco town to incorporate their plans into the overall masterplan for the site.
Highways Liaison Officer:
3.27 Oxfordshire County Council made detailed comments on 5 October 2012 and recommended a holding objection pending the submission of further information. A summary of the comments are provided below: Access to appears to be via Howes Lane through a gap in the eastern boundary hedgerow
It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to increase number of recorded accidents in this area and submitted data remains satisfactory.
Capacity of local highway network has been tested and surveyed within submitted TA. Paragraph 4.2 within the TA provides an individual floor area breakdown of the expected uses of each of the proposed large five units and the smaller starter units
Total floor area uses quoted do not tally with following floor area breakdowns in paragraph 4.2 or with paragraph 1.3 of the Planning Statement, a clearer picture of what the actual floor area uses are to be is required.
Trip rates that have been quoted within TA for each proposed employment use have been checked and appear reasonable
There is a possibility that this site has the potential to become occupied only by B1(b) and B1(c) users , which are expected to generate a higher number of traffic movements in comparison to the current employment use breakdown provided.
Need to establish worst case scenario from traffic generation/movements to be able to assess if this proposal will have an acceptable or negative impact upon capacity of local highway network.
Traffic Distribution raised as a concern, especially paragraph 7.2.2 where it is considered necessary for a sensitivity test to be carried out against data quoted. It is hoped distribution of traffic generated will be associated with local traffic/a local workforce to achieve high levels of sustainable travel, however this cannot be guaranteed, so again a worst case scenario should be provided .
Paragraphs 8.4.2 to 8.4.6 analyse proposed Howes Lane/Bucknell Road mini roundabout improvement to be provided as part of North West Bicester Exemplar development and capacity improvements it offers to local highway network.
It has not been picked up in this planning submission that the mini roundabout improvement is only considered an “interim” improvement, and before any future phases of the North West Bicester site were to come forward a more comprehensive and long term mitigation scheme is required. Characteristics of the A4095 (Howes Lane & Lords Lane), itself were also to be investigated to ensure a comprehensive approach to North West Bicester development was secured to enable and fully assess delivering the necessary transport infrastructure required for this significant site. It has been agreed in principle that applicant/developer will dedicate a minimum 10m wide strip around the employment site to Oxfordshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority for future infrastructure improvements along Howes Lane and Middleton Stoney Road. This is confirmed in paragraph 4.44 of the submitted Planning Statement; however no actual dimensions have been quoted. Local Highway Authority will be seeking a Transport Contribution via a Section 106 agreement. Such a contribution will be towards sustainable highway infrastructure and services within Bicester, as part of the Transport Strategy for the town Requirement to provide two lay-by bus stops on Middleton Stoney Road (B4030), close to proposed site access.
Proposed parking levels being quoted are broadly in line with current adopted commercial parking standards, which is acceptable. However, if this site is to be in line with the aspirations of the North West Bicester development, lower levels of car parking would be desirable. Cycle parking is to be provided, but there appears to be no figure quoted. In the absence of such a figure I would recommend Oxfordshire County Council’s cycle parking standards are considered and used when a future reserved application is being considered. Any cycle parking to be provided will need to be sheltered and secure, with shower and changing facilities provided within all the employment units.
An internal roundabout to allow for future bus links, is welcomed. However, this makes this route very unattractive for future bus services and future car links to potential adjoining residential parcels. A master plan for the overall North West Bicester site would help avoid such a route being proposed.
Same issue for future pedestrian and cycle links to North West Bicester site.
There appears to be appropriate loading/unloading and manoeuvring areas being proposed for goods vehicles, including setting down and parking areas for waiting vehicles.
If the applicant is willing to enter into a Routeing Agreement specifically for HGV movements associated with the B8 land uses, then such a commitment would be welcomed by the Local Highway Authority.
An agreed route with the Local Highway Authority will be required as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan to ensure construction vehicles do not travel through residential areas and delivery times will be restricted i.e. no deliveries in peak (& school) times.
The framework travel plan, is suitable for the submitted outline application.
Local Highway Authority will be seeking a Transport Contribution via a Section 106 agreement.
Summary – taking the above into account, there a number of issues that require further information, amended plans and consideration before any support can be given to this application. Therefore as submitted, I recommend that a “holding objection” is imposed until the above issues are resolved to the Local Planning Authority and Local Highway Authority’s satisfaction.
Further information was provided in a submitted Environmental Statement dated December 2012. The additional information submitted with the Environmental Statement is deemed reasonable and enables the Local Highways Authority (LHA) to withdraw its holding objection to one of no objection subject to conditions subject to a competed section 106 agreement (securing transport infrastructure and service requirements) and recommends conditions. A response by OCC made on 7 March 2013 is summarised below
Separate pedestrian and cycle routes are to be incorporated within layout to provide access throughout the site. Such links are considered important but must also link up to the future parcels of the adjoining NW Bicester site. Such internal routes being offered by this application do not appear to consider the long-term planning of these internal routes and how they will join up to the rest of the NW Bicester development site.
Legal Agreement required to enhance public transport provision. £240,000 via a S106 Agreement will be sought to improve the 25A bus service, local services and the future bus services of the NW Bicester development.
The access arrangement continues to remain acceptable in principle
Separate pedestrian and cycle routes are to be incorporated within the layout.
Such links are considered important, but must also link up to the future parcels of the adjoining NW Bicester site. Unfortunately without having an approved overall master-plan for the NW Bicester site, such internal routes being offered by this application do not appear to consider the long term planning of these internal routes and how they will join up to the rest of the NW Bicester development site. The Local Planning Authority and the applicant is encouraged to ensure there is as much flexibility in future proofing these links and providing future alterations where necessary if/when reserved planning applications are submitted for this development site (and the future master plan for NW Bicester).
Traffic and Transport: Section 8 within the ES is to be read in conjunction with the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) which has been previously commented on by the LHA.
There were a number of issues that were highlighted within the TA by the LHA, which required further information and/or clarity Trip rates quoted within the TA for each employment use remain acceptable
Assumptions queried before have been justified; and are deemed reasonable Recommend a condition is imposed on each unit for their specified uses and floor area –required in absence of worst case scenario assessment of total floor area.
Traffic distribution information is now considered reasonable.
Essential that all HGV traffic associated with the proposed development must travel to/from the site via the perimeter road (Vendee Drive) to the A41 – and ideally towards junction 9 of the M40 with the A34.
A route restriction is required ( to be conditioned ) to ensure HGV traffic is kept away from the residential areas of Bicester and the surrounding villages.
Construction and site traffic has also been considered, and the findings within the ES (Section 8.4) are deemed acceptable.
A restricted route for HGV construction vehicles is required ( to be conditioned ).
Land dedication requirements stated within the LHA’s previous consultation response remains essential to safeguarding future highway improvements associated with the NW Bicester development along Howes Lane and Middleton Stoney Road.
Public transport requirements remain unchanged.
Archaeological Officer comments:
3.28 The site is located in an area of known archaeological potential, including a Bronze Age ring ditches, a Roman site and a Roman settlement
An aerial photographic survey has recorded a number of possible archaeological features, including a track-way and enclosures immediately NW of the site and a series of enclosures and linear features within the site itself.
A geophysical survey has been undertaken on the site which recorded a series of linear features and enclosures and confirmed the results of the aerial photographic survey. A trenched evaluation has also been undertaken which recorded a number of archaeological features across the site, mainly dating to the Iron Age and Roman periods. We have yet to receive the evaluation report and therefore cannot assess the significance of these features at this stage although there was nothing encountered that would appear to represent a significant constraint to the scheme we will need to wait for the final report before we can be certain. Drainage Engineer comments:
3.29 The proposed drainage scheme appears to be acceptable in principle. However a full drainage design will need to be agreed with the County Council and needs to be made a condition. The flood risk assessment states 20% climate change whereas it should be 30%. Other Consultees
3.30 Natural England: No objection.
3.31 Environment Agency : No objections subject to conditions.
3.32 Highways Agency advises the application should be refused or approved subject to conditions.
3.33 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) has no concerns.
3.34 Thames Water: A summary of the comments is provided below:
3.35 Waste Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application.
3.36 Surface Water Drainage It is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. It is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water.
Thames Valley Police
3.37 The Crime Prevention Design Officer has not reviewed the planning application or visited the site but did provide guidance for the applicants.
3.38 Thames Valley Police ask that concerns regarding road safety, potential rises in crime and antisocial behaviour be considered very strongly before the decision on granting planning permission is given.
4. Relevant National and Local Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.1 Applications should be considered with regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which sets out ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The NPPF states: ‘planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs…The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system…‘The planning system should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area…..’.
The NPPF states that in drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: -set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period; - plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries; To meet the requirements for economic growth the emerging Local Plan clearly sets out where new employment proposals should be located and the type employment that should be located there. In determining the application regard should also be had to relevant guidance in Sections 1, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the NPPF.
Eco-towns: Planning Policy Statement 1 (Supplement) 4.2 North West Bicester is identified in Annex A of the PPS as one of four national Eco- town locations. The PPS remains in force as policy guidance for the defined area of the Eco-Town and therefore sits alongside the NPPF. The PPS should be given weight in determining planning applications. It states ‘This PPS sets out a range of minimum standards which are more challenging and stretching than would normally be required for new development. The standards act to ensure that ecotowns are exemplars of good practice and provide a showcase for sustainable living and allow Government, business and communities to work together to develop greener, low carbon living’. Applications within the Eco-town site should meet these requirements of the PPS.
All the identified locations in the PPS Supplement were subject to a detailed strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process and the preparation of the national policy came through a full consultation process. Where endorsed by the Local Planning Authority under the terms of the PPS (see below) the national designations are a significant material consideration.
Cherwell Local Plan (Adopted Plan - Saved Policies)
4.3 The main policies that should be considered are set out below: EMP1: Allocation of employment sites EMP4: Employment generating development in rural areas The following policies are also relevant: TR7, TR10, TR20, C7, C8, C10, C31and ENV1
4.4 The adopted Plan is now dated and the land where the application proposal is situated is now identified as part of the wider Eco-town proposals set out in the Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013).
Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011
4.5 The main policies on the Non-Statutory Local Plan that should be considered are Policies EMP1, TR16, TR17, TR26, TR27, EN1, EN3, EN16, EN30, EN31 and EN34. Other policies may apply.
4.6 Policy EMP1 of the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan states that employment generating development will be permitted on the sites shown on the proposals map. The proposal (for employment uses) is on land not allocated (shown on the proposals map) in the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan and therefore proposals would be contrary to Policy EMP1 of the Non-statutory Local Plan.
4.7 The Non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan is now dated as the land where the application proposal is situated is now identified as part of the wider Eco-town proposals set out in the Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013).
4.8 The land where the application proposal is situated is identified as a commitment for formal sports pitches on the proposals map in the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011, reflecting the planning permission granted for use of the land for sports pitches in January 2002. Alternative provision has been secured as part of the new South West Bicester development.
Other Material Policy and Guidance Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013) 4.9 The Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013) is the latest iteration of the emerging Local Plan for Cherwell District.
4.10 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to certain criteria.
4.11 The main policies that should be considered in the emerging Local Plan are Policies PSD1, SLE1, SLE4, ESD13, ESD16, Policy Bicester 1 and Policy Bicester 7. Other policies may apply.
4.12 Paragraph B.37 of the Local Plan applies and states that: ‘Where existing employment sites have good transport links for commercial vehicles and the use of these sites accords with the Local Plan we will encourage new development here to ensure the efficient use of land on these sites and in our towns, avoiding the need to use valuable countryside’...... Proposals should be directed to existing employment sites.
4.13 The emerging Local Plan (Policy SLE1 and site specific policies) identifies new strategic sites at Bicester where employment generating development should be located, providing the opportunity for a mix of employment uses in a number of locations.
4.14 The Local Plan identifies the site at North West Bicester (Policy Bicester 1: North West Bicester Eco-town) for mixed use development and the Policy allows for employment uses on the site. However the Policy sets out requirements which mean that the application proposals would be inconsistent with this policy. Policy Bicester 1 states that : ‘A new exemplar zero carbon (as defined in the Eco Towns Supplement to PPS1) eco development will be developed on land identified at NW Bicester. ‘Planning permission will only be granted for development at NW Bicester following approval by Cherwell District Council of a comprehensive masterplan for the whole area. Development Briefs / Design Codes will be required for each phase of the site, to be prepared by the developer and approved by the Council. Cherwell District Council will expect the outline planning application and accompanying masterplan to meet the following requirements’.
4.15 The Policy therefore determines that the application proposals are premature until the approval of the masterplan.
4.16 In relation to employment Policy Bicester 1 states that approximately 5000 jobs (about 1,800 to be delivered within the plan period) should be provided and these should be B1, with limited B2 and B8 uses where it supports employment in businesses that contribute to the low carbon economy and does not adversely affect neighbouring uses.
4.17 Proposals are for B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 uses but with the majority of this being B8 uses. Proposals are therefore inconsistent with the type of employment uses specified in the Policy and there is little information in the application to demonstrate that there would be businesses that contribute to the low carbon economy.
4.18 The proposals could provide 1,200 jobs and these would contribute towards meeting the aim of Policy North West Bicester 1 in terms of securing 1,800 jobs within the Plan period and 5,000 in total. However the application precedes an approved masterplan for the North West Bicester site and in the medium/ long term could compromise the Policy aims as the application proposals may not represent the most efficient use of land on the site to secure 5,000 jobs in the context of the other uses that are needed on the site.
The Bicester Masterplan Consultation Draft (2012) 4.19 The Bicester Masterplan envisages 3,366 jobs will be provided from 67,320 sqm floor space at North West Bicester. It identifies the application site for B1(a) - offices and B1(c), light industry and the classification of employment as ‘sustainable lifestyle employment’. The application is therefore consistent with the Masterplan in terms of the site being a suitable location for employment but the use class proposed and type of employment is not the same as the Masterplan sets out meaning in this regard proposals would be inconsistent with the Masterplan. The Bicester Masterplan identifies land covered by the northern part of the application site for sports pitches and land covered by the western part of the application site for residential use meaning the proposal would also be inconsistent with the masterplan in this regard.
The Masterplan also identifies a new green link and indicative bus route through the application site.
The Masterplan identifies other sites in Bicester to accommodate; ‘General employment’, ‘office development’, ‘High tech knowledge industries’, ‘storage and distribution’, and ‘mixed use employment’,
The role of the Masterplan has been to consider how the town might grow in a balanced, coordinated and integrated way. As the Masterplan cannot formally allocate sites its role has been to consider the issues which will arise from the quantum and strategic locations once the Local Plan has been adopted. While the Masterplan is supportive of the proposed location for employment use, this must be seen within the context set by the emerging Local Plan.
5 Appraisal
5.1 The key issues for consideration in this application are:
Environmental Statement Compliance with Planning policy; Landscape and Visual impact Transport impacts Impact on North West Bicester eco town masterplanning Impact on nearby residential properties Other impacts raised by the proposal
These issues are considered in the following section.
5.2 Environmental Statement
5.2.1 The application was not accompanied by an ES. An ES was submitted in December 2012 following the Council’s screening opinion and scoping opinion dated 4 th September 2012 and 12 th November 2012 respectively. The ES contains information describing the project, outlining the main alternatives considered, aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development and measures to prevent or mitigate any identified impacts. Where an ES has been submitted with an application the Local Planning Authority must have regard to it in determining the application and can only approve the application if they are satisfied that the ES provides adequate information.
5.2.3 The ES covers the areas identified in the scoping report. The areas covered are socio-economics; landscape and visual impact; ecology; transport and access; soil and agricultural land quality; noise vibration and air quality; drainage and flood risk; archaeology and ground conditions
5.2.4 An addendum to the ES was submitted in March 2013 providing updated information on the original assessments of archaeology (desk based only), air quality (interim), noise and vibration (interim) and lighting. Since the Addendum an amended final archaeology assessment was submitted on 18 th March 2013.
5.2.5 The ES and Addendum for each chapter considers the impacts and the significance as well as the cumulative effects. It is not possible within this report to set out all of the impacts identified but below is a summary of the areas covered. The full ES and addendum can be viewed via the web site.
Landscape and Visual Impact – the ES concludes that with the implementation of the proposed landscape scheme as mitigation there will be no significant adverse effect on landscape or visual conditions.
Ecology – the ES concludes that bases on the evidence from the ecological survey and with the implementation of the safeguards/mitigation set out.
Agriculture and soil – The ES states the agricultural land classification is Grade 3b for the whole site, moderate agricultural land quality. Some damage to soil structure is inevitable but measures will be taken to ensure soil quality is maintained as far as practically possible
Archaeology – development of the site has potential to remove archaeological remains which may result in an impact. An archaeological evaluation of the site has confirmed the results of a geophysical survey with the identification of a small group of iron age features. Site investigations were severely hampered by wet ground conditions and flooded trenches
Transport – the development will not result in a significant impact on the local road network. The development will encourage travel by sustainable modes and will provide a benefit in terms of improving accessibility along Howes Lane for potential future development sites.
Air Quality – it is considered that air quality on the site is unlikely to exceed relevant air quality objectives. An air quality management plan (AQMP) will be prepared for the construction phase to control emissions of dust and pollution from construction activities.
Noise and vibration – noise arising from the operational traffic using the surrounding road network has been considered with its likely impact deemed to be negligible.
Flood risk - all potential impacts including flood risk can be mitigated as outlined in the ES and Flood Risk Assessment. Provided mitigation is provided during and post construction there should be no adverse impact on the environment
Lighting – a lighting assessment has been prepared and shows there will be no significant impact on the surrounding environment from lighting pollution.
Utilities – appropriate levels of supply to the proposed developments can be achieved without significant impact on the environment and there will be no cumulative impact on the locality. It is anticipated that offsite works required to reinforce the key public utility service networks will have no significant environmental impacts.
Waste and recycling – there will be a small adverse impact on the availability of landfill capacity, as the result of the disposal of non-recyclable waste from the development. This impact will include a reduction in the total landfill space available for other wastes. Waste materials from the development are likely to be disposed of to landfills in the local area. The details will be clarified in a waste management plan.
Socio Economic – the development can be expected to bring positive impacts in the form of 1200 jobs. Throughout the construction and operational phases of the development the scheme is likely to result in indirect and induced employment through the attraction of significant capital investment in the area.
All new development has some impacts. The ES has not identified major adverse impacts and where impacts, for example from construction, have been identified mitigation measures are proposed. The ES is considered to contain ‘adequate information’ to enable the determination of the application including alternatives and cumulative effects.
5.3 Principle of Development
Adopted Cherwell Local Plan
5.3.1 The adopted Cherwell Local Plan contains some relevant policies. These are considered together with other relevant policies below. Policy EMP 1 of the adopted Plan states that employment generating development will be permitted on the sites shown on the proposals map, subject to other policies in the Plan. The proposal (for employment uses) is on land not allocated (shown on the proposals map) in the adopted Plan and therefore proposals would be contrary to Policy EMP1 of the adopted Plan.
5.3.2 Policy C9 of the Cherwell Local Plan seeks to resist incompatible development beyond the existing or planned limits of a settlement as set out in that Plan, but whilst the principle contained in this policy is still relevant, the definition of “planned limits of a settlement” now needs to be considered in the context of a more up to date assessment of land requirements and allocations. The emerging Local Plan provides this by looking at the growth needed up to 2031 (see below) and it includes proposed new land allocations and consequential revised planned boundaries for the town.
The Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan
5.3.3 The adopted Cherwell Local Plan was due to have been replaced by the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan (NSCLP) but the plan was never formally adopted due to changes to the planning system. The plan has however been approved by the Council for development control purposes. This plan was produced to cover the period up to 2011. The proposed development departs from NSCLP however, the general policies remain relevant.
Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013)
5.3.4 The Proposed Submission Local Plan (Focused Changes March 2013) is the latest iteration of the emerging Local Plan for Cherwell District. The NPPF states that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to certain criteria. The emerging Local Plan (Policy SLE1 and site specific policies) identifies new strategic sites at Bicester where employment generating development should be located, providing the opportunity for a mix of employment uses in a number of locations. 5.3.5 The Local Plan identifies the site at North West Bicester (Policy Bicester 1: North West Bicester Eco-town) for mixed use development and the Policy allows for employment uses on the site. Policy Bicester 1 states:
‘A new exemplar zero carbon (as defined in the Eco Towns Supplement to PPS1) eco development will be developed on land identified at NW Bicester.
‘Planning permission will only be granted for development at NW Bicester following approval by Cherwell District Council of a comprehensive masterplan for the whole area. Development Briefs / Design Codes will be required for each phase of the site, to be prepared by the developer and approved by the Council. Cherwell District Council will expect the outline planning application and accompanying masterplan to meet the following requirements’.
The Policy sets out requirements which mean that the application proposals would be inconsistent with this policy. The Policy therefore determines that the application proposals are premature until the approval of the masterplan.
In relation to employment, Policy Bicester 1 states that approximately 5000 jobs (about 1,800 to be delivered within the plan period) should be provided and these should be B1, with limited B2 and B8 uses where it supports employment in businesses that contribute to the low carbon economy and does not adversely affect neighbouring uses. The application proposes B1 (b), B1(c), B2 and B8 uses, with the majority of this being B8 uses. The proposals are therefore inconsistent with the type of employment uses specified in the Policy. Moreover, there is very little information in the application to demonstrate that there would be businesses that contribute to the low carbon economy.
The applicant estimates the proposals could provide 1,200 jobs. These jobs would contribute towards meeting the aim of Policy North West Bicester 1 in terms of securing 1,800 jobs within the Plan period and 5,000 in total. However the application precedes an approved masterplan for the North West Bicester site and in the medium/ long term could compromise the Policy aims. The application proposals may not represent the most efficient use of land on the site to secure 5,000 jobs in the context of the other uses that are needed on the site.
Bicester Masterplan Consultation Draft
5.3.6 The Bicester Masterplan will establish the long term vision for the town and integrate committed developments with new proposals to contribute to the creation of a sustainable town. Using the masterplan framework developed for the North West Bicester site, it identifies 25.5 Ha in five employment sites throughout the proposed North West Bicester eco community for sustainable employment and business uses, that is uses within Classes B1 (a) offices and B1(c) light industry of the Use Classes Order. It does not include general industry (Use Class B2) or storage and distribution (Use Class B8).
The Bicester Masterplan envisages 3,366 jobs will be provided from 67,320 sqm floor space at North West Bicester. The application estimates 1,200 jobs from 70,767 sq metres. It is clear that the employment densities proposed are much lower than the expectations of the Bicester Masterplan which identifies the application site for B1a offices and B1c light industry and sustainable employment uses defined as ‘sustainable lifestyle employment’.
The application promotes the site as a suitable location for employment but the B8 use proposed is inconsistent with the Masterplan. The Bicester Masterplan identifies land covered by the northern part of the application site for sports pitches and land covered by the western part of the application site for residential use and the proposal would also be inconsistent with the masterplan in these areas.
The Masterplan also identifies a new green link and indicative bus route through the application site. Other sites in the Bicester Masterplan are shown with the potential to accommodate; ‘General employment’, ‘office development’, ‘High tech knowledge industries’, ‘storage and distribution’, and ‘mixed use employment’,
Two parcels of employment use are show on the western side of the NW Bicester strategic development adjacent to Middleton Stoney Road. These are approximately 5.2 Ha and 3.7 Ha in size and the smaller parcel is within the application boundary.
The Bicester Masterplan can be given little weight, however it does demonstrate the Council’s intentions for the land which reflects the evidence base and has informed the content of the Local Plan.
Cherwell District Council Employment Land Study
5.3.7 Turning to the nature of the employment use proposed, an Employment Land Study (2012) was undertaken to update the previous study and inform new planning policies in the Cherwell Local Plan. It included a demand forecasting exercise. In terms of the likely demand for warehousing land (Class B8 of the use classes order) up to 2026 in Cherwell, the study estimates it is likely to be between 25.9 ha and 38.5 ha.
Cherwell has a strong tradition of warehousing and logistic businesses due to its location on the M40, its workforce and the proximity of the District to the major markets of the Midlands and the South East. The significant projected demand for warehouses and logistics employment land to 2026 reflects the attraction to potential B8 occupiers of these positive characteristics. It also reflects the national economic trend of transition from industrial processes towards warehousing and logistics.
Historically Bicester and Banbury have also been able to offer large available development sites on the periphery of the settlements close to good transport links and the M40 which has stimulated the B8 warehouse market. The survey and consultation exercises uncovered that the supply of warehousing and logistics premises and land in Cherwell is relatively healthy.
The majority of B8 occupiers share sites with B2 operators and most of the sites share similar characteristics that could satisfy both use types depending on which type of demand arises. Many of the employment clusters assessed in Bicester and Banbury contain modern large sheds that meet the requirements of modern occupiers and vacancy levels are relatively low. However there are also some older premises that could be renovated or redeveloped if necessary to further meet those needs.
National Planning Policy Framework
5.3.8 With regard to the acceptability of the proposal in principle, the Framework states that the government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything that it can to support sustainable economic growth. It continues by stating that Local Planning Authorities should plan proactively and investment in business should not be overburdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations, and that potential barriers to investment should be addressed.
Eco Towns PPS
5.3.9 The site forms part of the North West Bicester strategic development site to be delivered as an eco town development as set out in Annex A of the Eco towns PPS. An application for the first phase of development on the North West Bicester site was approved in July 2012 (Application Ref: 12/01780/HYBRID). It included a framework masterplan for the wider eco town site which identified the land at Howes Lane and Middleton Stoney Road for employment uses. This application was considered in advance of a completed masterplan in the light of pressure from DCLG to enable a start on site and provided an opportunity to test the eco town standards and learn lessons for later phases. However, it was agreed that further standalone applications should not be submitted until an outline planning application for the eco town masterplan was approved.
The Eco towns PPS identifies the importance of creating mixed use communities and minimising unsustainable commuting. The application includes a mix of employment uses including B1, B2 and B8 floorspace. This is a greater level of employment use provision than is currently identified in the North West Bicester masterplan. It does not reflect the PPS requirement for mixed use and the need to encourage sustainable lifestyles and reduce the need to travel through the provision of local facilities.
The Eco towns PPS requires an Economic Strategy to accompany planning applications. The strategy should set out facilities to support job creation to achieve as a minimum access to one job per new dwelling that is easily reached by walking cycling and/or public transport. The application is not accompanied by an employment baseline report or strategy and it is therefore unclear how the proposals will relate to the employment requirements of the eco town.
The creation of jobs is not a straight forward matter. The application creates an opportunity for employment but does not show how this could develop as part of the proposed eco town development.
. The proposed development provides opportunities for employment on the eco town site, although the employment numbers are optimistic and do not relate to the economic strategy for the North West Bicester site as a whole.
. Cherwell District Council stated at the time of determining the proposals for the first phase exemplar at North West Bicester that planning permission will only be granted for development at NW Bicester following approval by the local planning authority of a comprehensive masterplan for the whole area, to be approved as a Supplementary Planning Document.
. The application and ES do not include an assessment of the Eco town standards set out in the PPS, nor do they demonstrate how the proposals will be developed through the masterplanning process.
In conclusion, the proposal will create jobs and create economic growth, which are key objectives of the Local Plan and the NPPF. However the emerging Local Plan (March 2013) does not identify this site for the type of employment development proposed and, considering the Plan led approach encouraged in the NPPF, there are other sustainable strategic sites identified in the emerging local plan in Bicester to accommodate employment needs. There also appears to be minimal consideration in the application of the requirements of the PPS, the emerging Local Plan Eco-town Policy requirements and masterplanning process for the whole site.
5.4 Landscape and Visual Impact
5.4.1 The Bicester Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment – Final draft has been prepared as part of the evidence base to support the Cherwell Local Plan. Paragraph 4.1.26 of the Study refers to the capacity of the North West Bicester site for employment uses and states:
“There is a medium – high capacity for commercial employment with the area as part of a mixed use development. The site should not however be developed solely for employment use as the development type would not be in keeping with the surrounding land uses. There is a medium potential for a limited amount of light industry employment although his would be most suitable located adjacent to the railway corridor and provide a buffer between the railway line and residential uses”.
5.4.2 This is consistent with the emerging masterplan for the North West Bicester eco town and economic strategy for the first phase of development on the site which does not identify logistics including large scale storage and distribution uses on the North West Bicester site. The proposed Eco Business site included in the exemplar proposals is characteristic of the scale and type of employment use likely to be developed as part of the eco town economic strategy.
5.4.3 This undeveloped site is visible from many vantage points, including from the adjacent countryside, local road network and properties to the south of Howes Lane.
5.4.4 In terms of landscape impact, policies in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan seek to protect the topography and character of the landscape and limit sporadic development beyond the built up limits of settlements. The scale and height of the proposed commercial units is out of scale with the existing urban edge of Bicester.
5.4.5 The site is situated beyond the built up limits of Bicester and will have a detrimental impact on the adjacent uses and is not supported by the Council’s landscape officer.
5.4.6 The zone of visual influence is extensive because the site does not provide sufficient containment in both topography and vegetation on its north, south and east boundaries in which to successfully accommodate warehousing so up to 16.5m high. Although the western boundary is contained by tree belts in Bignall Park preventing views from the western side of Bignall Park, the road user receptors will impacted upon to some degree by the proposals.
5.4.7 Design and Access Statement attempts to set out a flexible approach, whereby the detail and form of the layout and buildings is managed as development comes forward. This approach provides no definitive building types and sizes, or information on how they might relate to one another, the movement or landscape structure. As such it is very difficult to assess the masterplanning and design qualities of the scheme. The Design and Access Statement does not present a clear and logical set of design principles that have been used to structure the masterplan. This makes it difficult to establish a high quality masterplan for the site. The character of this route will set the scene for quality of development and provide one of the sites main structuring elements. Much of the site is given over to the movement network.
5.4.8 The proposal is for five large scale steel framed industrial units, alongside fourteen smaller units. Given the scale, form and function of these buildings it will be very difficult for development of this nature to relate to the form and structure of other buildings in the area. Furthermore, it is likely that the building form would be incompatible with the adjacent proposed uses.
5.4.9 The design approach and uses set out for this site will not produce a high quality solution for the site. Furthermore the development of the site, as proposed, will have a negative impact both on the setting of the existing neighbourhood and on the development of the North West Bicester Ecotown. The scale and massing is too high and will have a negative impact on the adjacent area. It will overwhelm the adjacent residential buildings and have an impact on the proposed masterplan for North West Bicester Ecotown. The proposed movement routes through the site will not support the integration of this area with the rest of the NW Bicester site and therefore will form a barrier between this area and the Town.
5.4.10 Turning to scale, the buildings immediately to the south are existing two storey residential properties within the existing urban area. The current site plan comprises five major buildings located in the centre of the plan and a handful of small scale units to the northwest of the plan. The nature and form of the typology proposed means that the environment established will not have the qualities that define a strong urban grain. The majority of buildings will be large scale warehouse buildings, with limited detail, fenestration. The development therefore will not provide positive frontage onto the existing and proposed routes, with limited surveillance and positive frontage internally within the site. The buildings as shown indicatively are particularly large; some of them shown with a significant footprint and scale out of character with the surrounding development and eco town proposals and the existing buildings. They are indicated as being up to 16.5 metres in height, which would dominate the scale of the surrounding buildings and views of the site. The majority of buildings will be large scale warehouse buildings, with limited detail, fenestration. The development therefore will not provide positive frontage onto the existing and proposed routes, with limited surveillance and positive frontage internally within the site.
5.4.11 The Council’s Aboricultural officer recognises the consideration and importance given to screening and softening the development both visually and audibly from existing and proposed residential area and such a scheme may be appropriate in other locations but again such an approach is not consistent with the objectives of the eco town masterplanning. Furthermore, the Landscape Officer’s comments raise concern over some of the assumptions in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The site’s zone of visual influence is extensive due to the lack of sufficient containment in terms of vegetation and topography on its northern, southern and eastern boundaries and as such it is considered that an effective landscape and planting scheme would take a long period (up to 40 years) to establish itself. The landscape scheme does not address mitigation over the period from construction up to 15 years resulting in a detrimental impact on the landscape visual amenity of the area and is therefore considered to be unacceptable.
5.5 Impact on masterplanning North West Eco town
5.5.1 To date, the masterplanning of the North West Bicester eco town has identified a number of issues in developing proposals that meet the eco towns standards. The masterplanning process is complex and requires careful consideration of the eco town principles and objectives in addition to meeting community aspirations. The main issues encountered that impact on the application site are movement and access strategy, the achievement of zero carbon development in the eco town, the integration of the new development with the existing town, landscape strategy and green infrastructure and the compatibility of non residential uses. These issues cannot be addressed on a small scale and require the critical mass of a large scale residential led mixed use development to achieve them. The application makes some reference to the eco town proposals and states that it will complement the adjacent North West Bicester development but it does not consider the eco town standards. The site is in a prominent and strategic location with the North West Bicester site and the proposals have the potential to harm the masterplanning process as they do not make adequate provision for the achievement of the eco town standards as described further below.
The principle of employment use on the North West Bicester is recognised and a framework masterplan submitted with the proposals for Phase 1 of NW Bicester sets out employment land uses across the site. These have been taken forward as the basis of the employment sites in the Bicester masterplan. The Proposed submission local plan identifies the eco town as a mixed use strategic allocation for housing and employment uses but does not identify specific sites for employment uses. However, the development of large industrial units in this location has not been considered through the masterplanning process and for this reason, together with the Council’s objective for employment generating development to be part of a masterplan for the site, such development and piecemeal approach is considered to be inappropriate.
The proposals comprise a significant amount of employment floorspace on a substantial site within the strategic development site of the North West Bicester eco town. At approximately 20Ha (50acres) the site forms a significant part of the North West Bicester masterplan. It is a significantly larger area than identified in any previous work either as part of the Local Plan, Bicester Masterplan or North West Biceter framework masterplan. These emerging documents set out proposals and policies for residential led mixed used development on the NW Bicester site including an element of employment generating development but exclude general industry and warehousing development within Class B2 and B8 of the Use Classes Order, as part of the land use mix. For the above reasons, it is considered that the application does not make effective or efficient use of land.
Consultees have raised concerns about the extensive B8 floorspace proposed and the impact on the surrounding area. It is estimated that 1,200 new jobs would be generated by the development but the precise type and amount cannot be confirmed. The Planning Statement provides supporting information which sets out an assessment of anticipated employment types, based on the indicative masterplan the UK distribution and logistics sector. This information supports a shift in the characteristics of B8 which have become more sophisticated (more skilled jobs) and requiring a greater number of employees. For this reason and in light of the current economic downturn together with the content of the NPPF, the Employment Land Review and the draft Cherwell Local Plan 2012 policy which all recognise the importance of creating jobs and achieving sustainable economic growth, Cherwell District Council has supported similar developments in Banbury. However, in Bicester the development strategy is for such uses to be located on sites to the south and east of the town as part of a balanced portfolio of employment sites in the area.
The creation of jobs and the subsequent strengthening of the employment sector is the key issue for the local authority and must be supported. However in this instance, it is considered that securing economic development and job creation should be secured through the comprehensive masterplanning and delivery of mixed use development at North West Bicester as set out in the Eco towns PPS and emerging Cherwell Local Plan.
For the reasons stated, officers consider that development for employment uses classed general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) is not acceptable in principle.
5.6 Transport
5.6.1 The site will be served by a priority access junction with separate right hand turn land from Middleton Stoney Road.
5.6.2 With regard to the impact of the development upon the existing network, given the characteristics of the proposed uses, B2 use would typically generate a greater number of vehicular movements and as such would have a greater impact upon the transport network. The Transport Assessment (TA) states there is unlikely to be an impact on local highway network due to capacity within network, with exception of the Howes Lane/Bucknell Road junction, which is proposed to be improved as part of North West Bicester Exemplar development (planning reference 10/01780/HYBRID). The mini roundabout improvement at the Howes Lane/ Lords Lane junction is an “interim” improvement and before any future phase of North West Bicester were to come forward a more comprehensive long term mitigation scheme is required.
5.6.3 However, it is likely to have an impact on the wider transport objectives of the eco town development such as modal shift. The TA gives consideration to the likely traffic generation arising from the site but does not consider the requirements for transport set out in ET11 of the Eco towns PPS. As such it is difficult to assess the impact of the proposals as part of the proposals for eco town development on the North West Bicester site.
5.6.4 The TA includes an assessment of the traffic impact at the proposed site access and a number of local junctions utilising a TA prepared for the NW Bicester first phase exemplar development. However, such an assessment needs to consider the issues identified through the North West Bicester masterplanning process.
5.6.5 Paragraph 6.4.1 of the TA states the Travel Plan is to include measures to ensure lorry drivers associated with the site are to use designated lorry routes to and from the site to the south at all times i.e. use the recently opened perimeter road. Such a route will provide direct access to the A41, the A34 and the M40, which is desirable and HGVs will be kept away from residential areas. However, there are no details on how this route is to be enforced by the applicant/developer and future occupiers. The site is not in a sustainable location for employment uses as a standalone development and should be considered as part of the overall proposals for the eco town site. However, the contribution the site makes to the eco town land uses is recognised and it should be developed as part of the proposed eco town at NW Bicester which provides the critical mass to sustain a local bus route and facilities and services as part of a genuine mixed use development.
5.6.6 The analysis which has been carried on the local highway network within the ES has confirmed that the proposed development will have an impact on the Howes Lane/Bucknell Road junction to the north of the site (paragraph 8.5.14).
The ES acknowledges that as part of the planning approval for the Exemplar site (10/01780/HYBRID) a mitigation improvement to this junction has been secured in the form of a mini roundabout, which reduces the traffic impact of the Exemplar development upon this junction; and also reduces the impact of the proposed development on this section of the local highway network. However, the ES does not mention that this mini roundabout improvement is only considered as an “interim” improvement by the LHA and does not solve the long term mitigation scheme which is required at this junction. To address this issue the developer has offered (paragraphs 8.5.18 and 8.5.19) to pay a S106 transport contribution towards a long term improvement scheme at the Howes Lane/Bucknell Road junction, which is welcomed by the LHA (figure yet to be agreed). A review being carried out by Oxfordshire County Council’s Infrastructure Development Team on the transport network of Bicester, which includes the secured Howes Lane/Bucknell Road mini roundabout interim/mitigation measure to be provided by the Exemplar development. At this time the County Council is still investigating alternative schemes which may replace the mini roundabout arrangement.
5.7 Impact on residential properties
5.7.1 The footprint and height of the buildings has generated much concern amongst consultees and third parties. The Council’s Design and Conservation Team Leader in particular has reservations about the scheme, raising concerns about the indicative density, scale and layout of the buildings given the prominence of the site, together with limited opportunities for comprehensive landscaping and masterplanning with the adjacent strategic development. The proposals also fail to achieve a successful transition between town and country. The Council’s adopted SPD ‘Design and Layout of Employment Sites’ gives guidance in relation to the height of buildings (16m as an absolute maximum) and their distance from the boundary (a ratio of 1:2 - height: distance to boundary).
5.7.2 The scale of the proposed buildings will dwarf the domestic scale of the adjacent residential development, reducing the visual quality of the adjacent area, Howes Lane and Middleton Stoney Road and the future development at NW Bicester. The form and scale of the buildings is out of context with the adjacent residential area and the future development at North West Bicester Eco town. While the structure of site is indicative and the form and location of the buildings will vary depending on end user requirements, the overall height of the majority of development will be up to 14 – 15 metres high, much larger in both height and mass to existing adjacent housing.
5.7.3 The proposals will also limit the future proposals of North West Bicester Eco town which is predominantly residential and currently being masterplanned. In addition, given the use classes proposed, it is likely that large areas of the site are likely to be warehousing with blank facades which have limited / no potential to promote diversity and interest onto public spaces.
5.7.4 Due to the site’s sensitive location adjacent to existing residential development and Bignell Park the extent of building coverage across the site is considered to be inappropriate. The height of the buildings is also considered inappropriate as it does respect the scale of the surrounding development.
5.7.5 With regard to layout, in particular the positioning of the service yards, the developer has provided a layout which indicates the service yards to the frontage of the buildings, however this would not improve or enhance the appearance of the site or the proposed adjacent wider exemplar eco town development.
5.7.6 The final size and layout of the buildings will be to meet occupiers’ specific requirements. However, given the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding area the scale and massing of the proposed buildings will be inappropriate in this location and have a detrimental impact on the landscape and residential properties in the area. Furthermore, the landscape scheme shown on the indicative masterplan does not ensure that the buildings will be integrated into their surroundings.
5.7.7 Comments from the Council’s Landscape Officer question some of the assumptions in the Landscape and Visual Assessment and conclude that the proposals cannot be supported. Officers consider that an appropriate scheme cannot be achieved in scale and design terms of the five large commercial buildings proposed.
5.7.8 The arboricultural report notes the ‘moderate’ quality of the three trees protected by a tree preservation order. It also highlights their amenity and habitat values. All three trees provide sufficient value to warrant being a constraint to the proposal. The remainder of the site contains either very little significant tree presence or no other trees which should be considered as a constraint apart from a small copse. To facilitate the proposal requires the complete removal of hedgerows ‘A’ and ‘B’ as identified within the arboricultural report. Although described within the report as being of ‘good condition’, the retention and improvement of the remaining hedges should be sufficient in mitigating their loss.
5.8 Other impacts
5.8.1 An assessment of the other impacts of the proposals is set out below
Flood risk and drainage A site specific flood risk assessment has been prepared. It confirms the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and at low risk of flooding.
Land contamination It appears from historical maps dating back to 1881 that the site has been used for agriculture as open fields and there are no significant contamination sources in the area.
Air quality The Council’s Environmental Protection has been in discussion with the applicant’s consultants in scoping the air quality assessment methodology. No concerns have been raised at this stage.
Noise The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Manager has been in discussions with the developer about the likely noise levels emanating from the site. It was confirmed: noise emissions from commercial elements of the scheme should be no greater than the background noise leave at any residential receptor when assessed in accordance with BS 4142; road traffic noise impacts arising form the operation of the development to be assessed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DRMB) and construction noise to be assessed in accordance with BS 5228 with a noise limit determined relative to the measured ambient noise level at any noise sensitive receptor and working hours restricted.
Archaeology An archaeological field evaluation was carried out in relation to the site in March 2013 2008 which revealed two distinct areas of archaeological activity: an area of Iron Age activity and an area of Romano-British activity dating to the first to fourth centuries. The County Archaeologist has not assessed the significance of these features at this stage although nothing encountered would appear to represent a significant constraint.
Biodiversity/Ecology With regard to biodiversity, the NPPF states that ‘LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity’ it also states that ‘if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’. The Eco towns PPS provides explicit requirements for biodiversity and eco towns must demonstrate a net gain in local biodiversity. Consultation responses from Natural England, the local wildlife trust (BBOWT) and Council’s ecology officer have not raised any constraints in terms of biodiversity or ecological impact from the application. However, it has not been demonstrated how the proposals could contribute to the achievement of net biodiversity gain across the wider eco town development site.
5.9 Engagement 5.9.1 With regard to the duty set out in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework, no problems or issues have arisen during the application. It is considered that the duty to be positive and proactive has been discharged through the efficient and timely determination of the application.
5.10 Conclusion 5.10.1 The development of a sustainable extension on land identified at NW Bicester is part of the Council’s strategy for accommodating necessary growth within the District, although it currently remains a departure from the development plan. It is therefore necessary for there to be material considerations in favour of grant planning permission contrary to the development plan.
Referring back to the content of the NPPF, whilst the proposal does not accord with the development plan (adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996), the advice is that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The key material planning considerations are summarised below:
The National Planning Policy Statement Eco town standards set out in the PPS, particularly E8 (employment) and ET 20 (masterplanning) but also ET1, ET2, ET7, ET8. The application is considered to be detrimental to the achievement of the eco town standards on the wider North West Bicester site. It does not demonstrate how the eco town standards will be achieved and sustained.
The principle of large scale warehousing in this location is not supported by the various adopted and emerging Local Plan documents and evidence base. Large scale commercial development for B8 use is inappropriate in this location. Moreover, the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the landscape and residential properties in the surrounding area. Other areas of the town are more appropriate and have the potential through the emerging Local Plan for commercial development of this scale and type of employment.
6. Recommendation
Refusal, on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development would be prejudicial to achieving an acceptable comprehensive development at North West Bicester as it does not take account of the need to meet the standards set out in the Eco Towns PPS, fails to demonstrate acceptable connectivity or acceptable long term relationships to existing and proposed development and as such is contrary to the Eco Towns PPS and does not deliver the high quality development sought by the NPPF.
2. The proposed development would have an adverse landscape impact due to the large scale of the proposed buildings and their location on the edge of the existing town and as such is contrary to Cherwell Local Plan policies C9.
STATEMENT OF ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No 2) Order 2012 and paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), this decision has been taken by the Council having worked with the applicant/agent in a positive and proactive way as set out in the application report.