County Council's Response To

COUNTY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

District: West Oxfordshire Application No: 18/00273/OUT Proposal: Outline planning application for the demolition of existing dwellings and farm buildings and the development of a new village, comprising the following, the erection of up to 3000 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), vehicle access from two new at grade roundabouts, improvements to the A40 (including dualling and new pedestrian/cycle crossing points along the site frontage) alterations to the existing single track lane to South Leigh/Church End, a neighbourhood centre comprising 4500m of floorspace within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, and D2 and a market square (including retail, a medical centre, pharmacy, community hall, nursery/creche facility and a pub) two primary schools 24700m floorspace science/business park (B1a and B1b uses) parking and a cafe, apartments with care (C2 use class), open space and landscaping, new community buildings, an 80 bedroom hotel and parking (C1 use class) land for a cemetery, acoustic mitigation and associated infrastructure including roads and sewers, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and associated engineering and earthworks. All matters reserved except for means of access. Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Response date: 6th April 2018

This report sets out the officer views of Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) on the above proposal. These are set out by individual service area/technical discipline and include details of any planning conditions or informatives that should be attached in the event that permission is granted and any obligations to be secured by way of a S106 agreement. Where considered appropriate, an overarching strategic commentary is also included. If the local County Council member has provided comments on the application these are provided as a separate attachment.

Assessment Criteria Proposal overview and mix /population generation

OCC’s response is based on a development as set out in the table below. The development is taken from the application form

Commercial – use class m2 A1 3000 A2 150 A3 200 A4 550 A5 150

B1 (A) 12350 B1 (B) 12350 C2 11500 D1 600 D2 750 Development to be built out and occupied out over

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Strategic Comments

Oxfordshire County Council objects to the planning application as presently presented due to omissions from, and issues with, the methodology of the transport appraisal. Please see the Transport Schedule (pages 6-34) for more detail.

Officer’s Name: Odele Parsons Officer’s Title: West Locality Lead (interim) Date: 6th April 2018

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

General Information and Advice

Recommendations for approval contrary to OCC objection: IF within this response an OCC officer has raised an objection but the Local Planning Authority are still minded to recommend approval, OCC would be grateful for notification (via [email protected]) as to why material consideration outweigh OCC’s objections, and given an opportunity to make further representations.

Outline applications and contributions The number and type of dwellings and/or the floor space may be set by the developer at the time of application, or if not stated in the application, a policy compliant mix will be used for assessment of the impact and mitigation in the form of s106 contributions. These are set out on the first page of this response.

In the case of outline applications, once the unit mix/floor space is confirmed by the developer a matrix (if appropriate) will be applied to assess any increase in contributions payable. The matrix will be based on an assumed policy compliant mix as if not agreed during the s106 negotiations.

Where unit mix is established prior to commencement of development, the matrix sum can be fixed based on the supplied mix (with scope for higher contribution if there is a revised reserved matters approval).

Where a S106/Planning Obligation is required:

➢ Index Linked – in order to maintain the real value of s106 contributions, contributions will be index linked. Base values and the index to be applied are set out in the Schedules to this response.

➢ Security of payment for deferred contributions – An approved bond will be required to secure payments where the payment of S106 contributions (in aggregate) have been agreed to be deferred to post implementation and the total County contributions for the development exceed £1m (after indexation).

Administration and Monitoring Fee - £34,559 This is an estimate of the amount required to cover the extra monitoring and administration associated with the S106 agreement. The final amount will be based on the OCC’s scale of fees and will adjusted to take account of the number of obligations and the complexity of the S106 agreement.

➢ OCC Legal Fees The applicant will be required to pay OCC’s legal fees in relation to legal agreements. Please note the fees apply whether an s106 agreement is completed or not.

CIL Regulation 123 Due to pooling constraints for local authorities set out in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), OCC may choose not to seek contributions set out in this response during the s106 drafting and negotiation.

That decision is taken either because: - OCC considers that to do so it would breach the limit of 5 obligations to that infrastructure type or that infrastructure project or - OCC considers that it is appropriate to reserve the ability to seek contributions to that infrastructure type or that infrastructure project in relation to the impacts of another proposal.

The district planning authority should however, take into account the whole impact of the proposed development on the county infrastructure, and the lack of mitigation in making its decision.

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Transport Schedule

Recommendation:

Objection for the following reasons: ➢ The applicant has not demonstrated that their proposals give sufficient weight to the emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan to 2031 in accordance with Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The transport assessment has not included the emerging Local Plan growth which results in the underestimate of the impact of the proposed development on the transport networks. ➢ The proposal does not support the proposals within the A40 Transport Strategy, some of which have central government funding and have been designed with West Oxfordshire District Council’s emerging Local Plan in mind. ➢ The location is not sustainable. The site can only be accessed from the A40. This is not suitable, as the only other alternative means of access in the event of the A40 being closed is a single track unclassified road with passing bays via South Leigh. The applicant intends to prohibit the use of vehicles along this road within the development. Therefore, the access proposal is contrary to OCC guidance which states up to 400 dwellings only should be served from a major access road which loops. ➢ There is no bus strategy for the site. This is important because no secondary school has been provided within it. When the development is fully built out, approximately 500-600 secondary school pupils will need to get to schools in either Witney or Eynsham. While these locations might be within the maximum acceptable walking distance to school, the applicant has not provided any surfaced, lit footway links to Eynsham. Therefore, pupils will be reliant on the public bus to get to secondary school. ➢ The site does not adhere to current design principles because it does not have a permeable network of streets to a wide range of routes. The only routes out of this development lead to the A40, plus unlit single-track roads that have no footways to Church End and South Leigh, two locations that have minimal amenities. ➢ The methodology used for assessing the traffic impacts of the entire site is not suitable for a development of this nature and size. The applicant has submitted a manual distribution of trips instead of using the Oxfordshire Strategic Transport Model, has not included all the strategic sites listed in West Oxfordshire District Council’s emerging Local Plan in their estimates of background traffic growth, and has not completed an adequate analysis of the relevant junctions and links within Witney.

➢ The applicant has not demonstrated that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be used on site to provide storage for surface water generated on site, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 103, that requires development to give priority to the use of SuDS. ➢ The applicant has not demonstrated that the increase in runoff volumes and rate arising from the site can be fully mitigated for all events up to and including the 1 in 100 chance in any year critical storm event, including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Consequently, runoff volumes leaving the site will increase, leading to increasing flood risk elsewhere. This is contrary to Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). ➢ The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed SUDS features are appropriately sized to manage surface water flood risk onsite for all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 chance in any year critical storm event, including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Consequently, the attenuation will not be able to cope with increased volumes, leading to increasing flood risk elsewhere. This is contrary to Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). ➢ The drawings which show the new highway works on the A40, including the new bus stop laybys and roundabouts need to be annotated to show that they comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and should include deflection lines, visibility splays for the two roundabouts, and tracking for an HGV.

If despite OCC’s objection permission is proposed to be granted, then OCC requires prior to the issuing of planning permission a S106 agreement including an obligation to enter into a S278 agreement and a S38 agreement to mitigate the impact of the development plus planning conditions and informatives as detailed below.

S106 Contributions Contribution Amount £ Price base Index Towards (details) Highway works £13,918,486 March Baxter Contribution towards 2018 two strategic transport projects which will form phase 2 of the County Council’s A40 Strategy, a) £2,633.220 towards the insertion of a westbound bus lane on the A40 between the Dukes Cut Canal Bridge and the existing Shores Green junction, and

b) £11,285,266 on-line widening of the A40 at the Dukes Cut Canal Bridge. Highway Works TBC based March Baxter A40 Shores Green on 2018 Interchange reassessment of the impact TBC based on at Witney. reassessment of the impact at Witney. Public transport £4,320,000 March RPI-x The implementation of services 2018 a new bus service linking all parts of the development with Oxford city centre and Witney town centre. This assumes that four buses per hour will be needed per hour, Monday – Saturday daytimes, and less frequent services during weekday evenings and on Sundays. Public transport £192,136 March Baxter 8 x premium route bus infrastructure (if 2018 stop flag pole and not dealt with timetable information under S278/S38 cases, 8 x fully agreement) enclosed 4-bay bus shelters, and 8 x real- time passenger information displays Traffic Reg Order £10,800 March RPI-x 4 x TROs for the (if not dealt with 2018 imposition of a speed under S278/S38 limit of 40mph on the agreement) A40 between the two access roundabouts, a prohibition of vehicles along the existing road that leads from the A40 to South Leigh, and at the existing private means of access on the northern and southern side of the A40 that provides

private vehicular access to Hill Farm, and on the existing eastbound slip road to the A40 from Barnard Gate. Travel Plan £9,480 March RPI-x Monitoring fees for Monitoring 2018 seven separate land uses on the site. Public Rights of £150,000 March Baxter Maintenance and Way 2018 upgrading of existing public rights of way linking the development to Eynsham. Total £18,600,902

Key points • The proposal pays insufficient attention to the policies within West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan, the allocated strategic sites within this, and the transport policies and projects put forward to support this. The transport assessment has not included the emerging Local Plan growth which results in the underestimate of the impact of the proposed development on the transport networks. • The location of this site does not allow safe and suitable access for all road users. Vehicles can only access the development from two proposed roundabouts that link it to the A40. This is contrary to OCC guidance which states up to 400 dwellings only should be served from a major access road which loops. The road that runs to the south of the site to Stanton Harcourt Road and South Leigh is a single-track road with passing bays and would not be suitable to provide vehicular access to the development in the event of the A40 being closed. • The applicant wants to provide two at-grade toucan crossings from the residential part of the development to the Science Park in the near vicinity of the eastern and western access roundabout. This is not suitable on a strategic road with a derestricted speed limit. The applicant would either need to apply for a Traffic Regulation Order to implement a Traffic Regulation Order to allow for substantial traffic calming measures on the A40 near these crossings to reduce driver speeds, or, preferably, build two over-head pedestrian and cycle bridges. • The method used to estimate trip distribution and overall traffic impacts of the site is not suitable for a site of this size which is reliant on a strategic road operating as part of a congested network. The applicant needs to use the Oxfordshire Strategic Transport Model to estimate background traffic growth, as this takes account of the sites in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan and the latest information regarding background traffic growth in and near Witney.

• The applicant needs to develop a comprehensive public transport strategy for the site which can develop in line with its phasing. The applicant will need to make a suitable financial contribution to the Local Highway Authority for this under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to finance bus services and bus stop infrastructure. • As well as assessing the junctions that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 8.9.1 of the Transport Assessment, the applicant must also assess all the junctions that operate at or close to safe capacity. • The applicant has assessed collisions that took place in the near vicinity of the junctions within the study area but not on the links. • The applicant will need to apply for Traffic Regulation Orders to prohibit the use of the stretch of the existing single-track road that runs through the proposed development between the A40 and South Leigh by motor-vehicles, to prohibit the use of the existing eastbound slip road from Barnard Gate to the A40 by motor vehicles, and to prohibit vehicular use of the existing junctions that provide private vehicular access to the A40 from Hill Farm via an existing bridge. This process is subject to consultation with the relevant bodies. • The applicant will also need to demonstrate that they are in a position to guarantee vehicular access to the A40 for the residents of Hill Farm. • The applicant needs to provide a surface water drainage strategy that gives priority to the use of SUDs over other drainage methods, and demonstrates that these facilities are of an appropriate size to manage the risk of surface water flooding on site, and that the surface water run-off volumes and rates can be mitigated in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Comments:

West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan The applicant’s Planning Statement indicates that this site is proposed as an alternative to the Oxfordshire Cotswolds Garden Village which has been allocated as a site to the west of this one. This is a key allocated site within West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan, a document that has been through Stages 2 and 3 of Examination in Public. On 16 January 2018 the Inspector wrote to West Oxfordshire District Council setting out his thoughts on the most appropriate way forward for the emerging Local Plan, and that: “Other than in respect of the strategy/site allocations for the Burford – Charlbury sub-area… I conclude that, subject to further modifications to the effect of those now proposed by the Council, the plan as previously proposed to be modified (doc CD5) is likely to be capable of being found legally-compliant and sound.” Further Main Modifications (FMMs) are currently being consulted upon.

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “From the day of publication, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the: • Stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

• Extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • Degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).” Because of the situation described above, the transport impacts of the applicant’s proposed development should be considered as additional to and in isolation of the site-specific allocations for the Eynsham sub-area in the Emerging Local Plan.

Development Trip Generation I agreed the trip rates for the private and affordable housing, the primary schools, the hotel, the pub, and the science park with the applicant at pre-application advice stage and have no comments to make on their trip generation and internalization assumptions which I consider robust and understandable.

Having reviewed the assumption on trip internalization and pass-by trips for the neighbourhood centre, I also consider these to be robust and have no other comments to make.

Regarding the trip rate assumptions for the apartments with care facilities, I need more information. The applicant describes these as apartments, but then says the complex consists of 60 bedrooms. I am inclined to think that 11 trips in the AM peak and 9 trips is low considering the number of employees there would need to be to staff a care home/residential institution.

Background Traffic Growth and Committed Development As well as including the 37 developments that they have described in Appendix 6.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the applicant needs to include the following site-specific allocations set out in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan:

• Up to 2,200 homes, 40Ha of B1 Employment Land, two Primary Schools, to the north and south of the A40, Eynsham, Oxfordshire Cotswolds Garden Village • Plus, one Park and Ride Site with 1,000 parking spaces and an east-bound bus priority lane on the A40 east of the site. • Up to 1,000 dwellings, plus 1 x Primary School at the West Eynsham Strategic Development Area, together with a new spine road linking the A40 with the B4449 Stanton Harcourt Road • Up to 1,400 dwellings to the north of Witney, north of the A4095 Woodstock Road • Up to 450 dwellings to the East of Witney, together with the provision of the west- facing Shores Green Slip Road • 70 dwellings at Swinbrook Road, Carterton • 200 dwellings at Milestone Road, Carterton • 300 dwellings at REEMA site, Carterton • 1,200 dwellings east of Chipping Norton • 300 dwellings east of Woodstock • 120 dwellings north of Hill Rise, Woodstock • 180 dwellings north of Banbury Road, Woodstock

• Please note that the site presented as 16/02588/OUT for 85 dwellings south of the B4047 Burford Road, Minster Lovell, has now been replaced by 17/01859/OUT for up to 126 dwellings on the same site.

Further details of these sites can be found at: http://www.westoxon.gov.uk/media/1739281/composite-local-plan-with-further-main- modifications.pdf

Traffic Distribution The applicant has taken the existing traffic distribution of 2017, and that arising from committed development, and used the Census of 2011 to estimate the resulting distribution of trips on the network. The Oxfordshire Strategic Transport Model (OSM) must be used to estimate the distribution of traffic from a site as large as this and with many different land uses, as discussed on pre-application advice in 2017. A manually estimated distribution of traffic is not suitable for a large and diverse development like this one that will feed into an already congested network where the routing of vehicular traffic may not always be logical.

Since the applicant last received pre-application highways advice in September 2017, the Witney Transport Strategy 2017: Bridge Street Option Generation Study has been published, which presents the latest information regarding traffic growth and distribution in Witney considering the “preferred development” scenario in the Emerging Local Plan. This can be found at: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/roadsandtra nsport/connectingOxfordshire/Witney-BridgeStreetOptionGenerationStudy.pdf

The applicant must use this report as a starting point with a view to re-examining the impact of this development on the A4095/Bridge Street junction, the A40/A415/Thorney Leys junction, as well as the relevant links between these junctions, to find out the severity of the cumulative impact of this and other development on their operation.

Although the applicant has considered the traffic impact of this site on all the junctions they have listed in their Transport Assessment, and has said that the Shores Green westbound slip roads to the A40 and the A40-A44 strategic link road will help mitigate the cumulative traffic impact of development on the A40/A44/A144/Five Mile Drive roundabout, they have not analyzed the impact of development traffic on links between junctions on the A40 between Shores Green and this roundabout, and on other roads within Witney and along the A4095.

They intend to introduce two roundabouts on the A40, a strategic road that already operates above capacity during the AM and PM peak times, but have not demonstrated how their proposal to build approximately 1.3km of westbound dual carriageway between the two roundabouts will mitigate the impact of development traffic along this link. Likewise, the applicant has only assessed collisions that took place in the near vicinity of the junctions examined and proposed but has not profiled any collisions that might have taken place on any of the links between these.

Dualling of 1.3km of the A40

In paragraph 10.6.4 of the Transport Assessment (TA) the applicant states that they intend to make approximately 1.3km of the A40 along the frontage of the site. Their intentions are displayed in Drawing No. 1521/28 Rev. B. While it is clear how the roundabout junction and dualling tie into the existing road infrastructure to the west of the proposed new western access roundabout, it is not clear to the east of the proposed eastern access roundabout. There appears to be a gap of approximately 1.5km in length between the point east of the proposed access roundabout at which the dual carriageway proposed by the applicant ceases and the bus lane associated with the proposed Eynsham Park and Ride scheme starts.

The applicant will need to submit details of the proposed transition arrangement from dual carriageway back to single carriageway for this length of the A40 and will also need to submit analysis of this link and whether it operates within its safe ratio of flow to link capacity with the traffic arising from the background growth described in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan and the development traffic.

The Addition of Two At-grade roundabout accesses In paragraph 4.3.2.3 the applicant states that eastbound motorists using the western arm of the proposed western roundabout access will be able to achieve forward vertical visibility of vehicles travelling in front of them approaching the give-way line of the roundabout of 295m in accordance with the DMRB. However, the DMRB assumes an object height of 0.26m, as this is the height at which the guidance assumes that brake lights of cars are from the carriageway. The applicant states that, because of advances in technology since 1993, the year this volume of the DMRB was written, an object height of 0.6m can be assumed. The Local Highway Authority disagrees with this statement because some motorists might still be driving cars made before 1993. As a result, drivers might not be able to see their brake lights from the appropriate distance away. This could increase the likelihood of collisions. Therefore, we object to this proposal because the applicant has not demonstrated that both of their accesses comply with standards set out in the DMRB.

Junction Assessments and Proposed Solutions

It is requested that all junctions within the study area need reassessing with the traffic forecast to arise from the background growth scenarios set out in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan included.

SJ1 (a): Ducklington Lane/Station Lane/Thorney Leys Signal-Controlled Junction The applicant argues that all but two arms of this junction will operate significantly above safe capacity by 2035 at either the AM or PM peak or during both, even when only background traffic growth is considered. However, they also allude to a study commissioned by Oxfordshire County Council and undertaken by Atkins in 2016 to state that the Shores Green Slip Roads, will reallocate 13% of background traffic growth at this junction in the AM peak by 2035, and some 8% in the PM peak, and that this will create spare capacity at the junction that can absorb the development traffic growth.

The applicant needs to re-do their LINSIG analysis so that the latest growth scenario in the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan is considered. It is noted that the applicant proposes to make a financial contribution towards the building of the Shores Green Slip Roads because of the spare capacity they say this will create at other junctions in Witney including this one, but the Local Highway Authority needs more information to see whether this proposal will solve the problem that this development will create at this junction. At present, there is no evidence the impact arising from the development is mitigated.

SJ1(b): A415 Ducklington Lane/A40 East-Bound Off-Slip In paragraph 9.6.3 of the TA the applicant says that the development traffic will have an insignificant effect on the performance of this junction. However, Table 7 of Appendix N shows that the ratio of flow to capacity at the Ducklington Lane South (ahead) arm of the junction will increase from 65.4 to 109.5, that queues will increase from 5.5 passenger car units (PCU) to 42.5 PCU, and that delays will increase from 11.5 seconds per PCU to 207 seconds in the AM peak because of development traffic. This is a significant material increase and the applicant needs to consider how they will mitigate this impact. As stated above, they need to re-do their traffic growth analysis to 2035 to consider the latest development scenarios in the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan. At present, there is no evidence the impact arising from the development is mitigated.

SJ1(b): A415 Ducklington Lane/A40 East-Bound On-Slip Paragraph 9.7.3 and Table 9 in the TA state that this junction will continue to operate within safe capacity by 2035 even when background traffic growth and development traffic are considered. However, the applicant needs to re-do their forecasts to include the latest growth scenarios within the West Oxfordshire District Emerging Local Plan.

SJ1(c): A415 Ducklington Lane/A40 Westbound Slips/Witney Road/A415/New Close Lane In Table 11 and Paragraph 9.8.3.3 the uses ARCADY analysis to conclude that all arms of this roundabout junction will continue to operate within safe capacity by 2035, even when background and development traffic are considered. However, the applicant needs to re-do their forecasts to include the latest growth scenarios within the West Oxfordshire district Emerging Local Plan.

SJ3: Cuckoo Lane/A40 Junction In Tables 12-14 the applicant uses their own count and PICADY analysis to conclude that, background and development traffic will mean that the current priority controlled junction will operate significantly above safe capacity at the AM peak, and admits that, even when the latest housing growth scenarios within West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan are not taken into account, development traffic will add 1207 PCUs in the AM peak, an increase of 49.9% on 2017 traffic levels, and will add 1239 vehicles in the PM peak, an increase of 46.4%. To mitigate the impact of this they propose extensive works to this junction as shown in Drawing No. 1521/49. These include the implementation of traffic signals and online widening on the mainline A40, the installation of assisted pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities on Cuckoo Lane, and the relocation of the east and westbound bus laybys. These works do not relate to the Oxfordshire County Council proposal for an A40 Eastbound bus lane which is

14 currently at detailed design stage with a view to being implemented in 2020. Any mitigation at this junction needs to include the proposals for the bus lane scheme.

The applicant needs to re-do their analysis to take growth within the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan into account and then re-submit their LINSIG analysis to show whether their junction improvement proposal will mitigate the impact.

SJ4: Witney Road/A40 Junction In Tables 15-16 the applicant uses their own LINSIG analysis to show that background and development traffic will mean that all but one of the arms of this junction will operate above a safe degree of saturation by 2035. They propose extensive works to this junction including online widening of the A40 to provide an extra lane in both directions, and of the Witney Road approach to include an extra north-western bound exit on to the A40, as shown on Drawing No. 1521/49. These works do not relate to the Oxfordshire County Council proposal for an A40 Eastbound bus lane which is currently at detailed design stage with a view to being implemented in 2020. Any mitigation at this junction needs to include the proposals for the bus lane scheme. The applicant must re-do their forecast to include the growth scenarios in the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan into account and must the re-submit their LINSIG analysis to show whether the resulting impacts can be mitigated.

SJ5: Lower Road/A40/B4449 Roundabout Junction In Table 18, the applicant’s own traffic count data collated in July 2017 showed that the A40 (Eastbound) arm of this roundabout operates at considerable stress during the PM peak with mean maximum queues of 202.5 PCUs. In Table 19 of the TA the applicant uses ARCADY analysis to conclude that all arms of the existing roundabout will operate significantly above their ratio of flow to safe capacity in the year 2035 during both the AM and PM peaks if background and particularly development traffic are considered. The applicant needs to re-submit their ARCADY analysis to include the background growth scenarios within the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

The applicant will also need to submit a fully annotated drawing of this roundabout which shows it complies with design standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, TD16/07. This must include vehicle tracking for an HGV and must show deflection lines. These works do not relate to the Oxfordshire County Council proposal for an A40 Eastbound bus lane which is currently at detailed design stage with a view to being implemented in 2020. Any mitigation at this junction needs to include the proposals for the bus lane scheme.

The applicant’s current analysis shows that, even if the improvements they suggest are implemented, all arms of the roundabout apart from the A40 (East) will still operate above the accepted level of safe capacity in 2035. For this reason, I doubt that the proposed solution could mitigate the impact of development and background growth.

SJ6: Lower Road/A4095 Priority Junction In Paragraph 9.12.1.2 the applicant states that the data they have collected at this junction shows that the Lower Road arm of this junction already operates under stress. The PICARDY analysis in Table 21 of the TA shows that, when development traffic and the applicant’s forecast of background traffic growth are considered, all arms

15 shown will operate well above their safe capacity without mitigation. The applicant does not include the A4095 (East) in this table and needs to do so.

The applicant needs to re-do their analysis to make sure they take the growth set out in the West Oxfordshire District Council Emerging Local Plan into account, and needs to re-submit their LINSIG analysis to show the extent to which the proposals mitigate the problem shown. Table 22 shows that, even with the installation of signal control and on-line widening to include extra ahead and turning lanes, the A4095 (East) and Lower Road arms will still operate significantly above the appropriate degree of saturation in the PM peak even if the queues and delays are reduced.

SJ7: Oxford Road/B4044/B4449 Roundabout The applicant needs to re-do their ARCADY analysis and take the level of background growth set out in the West Oxfordshire District Emerging Local Plan into account.

SJ8: Eynsham Road/A40/Cassington Road The applicant’s LINSIG and PICADY analysis shows that all arms of this junction will operate significantly over safe capacity and/or degree of saturation apart from the Marlborough Pool and Cassington Road junction when the applicant’s calculation of background traffic growth and development traffic growth are considered.

The applicant has submitted Drawing 1521/51 in which they show the physical works they propose to mitigate the impact including additional lane capacity on the A40 in both directions through the junction. These works do not relate to the Oxfordshire County Council proposal for an A40 Eastbound bus lane which is currently at detailed design stage with a view to being implemented in 2020. Any mitigation at this junction needs to include the proposals for the bus lane scheme. The applicant needs to re-do their analysis and consider the level and locations of background growth outlined in the Emerging West Oxfordshire District Local Plan and show whether their proposed scheme at this junction will mitigate the impact so that the junction operates within a safe ratio of flow to capacity and degree of saturation despite background and development traffic growth.

Additionally, they need to check the highway boundary on the southern side of the A40 on the eastern approach immediately west of the existing bus stop. The existing verge south of the footway/cycleway gets very narrow at this point, and the existing boundary is the southern edge of the verge.

SJ10: A40/A44/A144/Five Mile Drive Roundabout Junction (Wolvercote) This roundabout junction already operates under a high degree of stress in the AM and PM peaks. The applicant’s own analysis shows that at least three of the 5 arms of the roundabout will operate significantly above their safe degree of saturation in and AM and/or PM peaks. The applicant must re-do their analysis and consider the levels and locations of background growth which have been set out in the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

In paragraph 9.15.4.2 the applicant argues that the two longest queues at this roundabout junction are on the A40(W) to the A44, and on the A44 to A40 (W), and that the provision of a link road between a junction on the A40 (west of the A34) to the Loop Farm/A44 roundabout will help mitigate these impacts by removing a number of

16 these trips. However, the Local Highway Authority does not agree that this proposed link road mitigates the impact of this development traffic and needs further detailed explanation from the applicant as to why and how they think it does. At present, there is no evidence the impact arising from the development is mitigated.

SJ11: West End/Woodgreen/Newland/Bridge Street Table 31 of the Transport Assessment shows that this double roundabout junction already operates significantly above its ratio of flow to safe capacity and that background and development traffic will exacerbate this problem further. The applicant must re-do their analysis and consider the levels and locations of background growth which have been set out in the Emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

Due to land constraints, it will not be possible to increase capacity at this junction. In paragraph 9.16.4.3 of the TA the applicant refers to previous analysis which was submitted to help make the case for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of land required to build the Shores Green Slip Road to the A40, to argue that this scheme would help remove a certain amount of background traffic at this junction which would free up a certain amount of capacity for other development traffic to use. The applicant states that they are prepared to make a financial contribution to the construction of the Shores Green Slip Roads on this basis. However, we will need to see the re-done ARCADY analysis before we can comment further on this proposal.

SJ12: A415/B4449/Standlake Road Junction As with other junctions of this type that have been assessed, the applicant must re-do their LINSIG analysis to take the latest growth scenarios in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan into account.

SJ14 and SJ30: New Access Roundabout to the Development (East) As with other junctions of this type that have been assessed, the applicant must re-do their LINSIG analysis to take the latest growth scenarios in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan into account, and must provide analysis of the link between this roundabout and the western access roundabout.

Furthermore, the applicant must submit fully annotated drawings showing how both roundabout designs comply with the guidance set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and must include visibility splays, deflection lines, and tracking for HGVs of not less than 16m in length.

SJ15: A40/Barnard Gate Although the Local Highway Authority proposes to close this junction as part of their long-term strategy for the A40, this scheme is in the very early stages of development and will not be implemented for a considerable time. Therefore, the applicant is strongly advised to pursue a TRO to enact a prohibition of vehicles to stop motorists using the current eastbound priority access and make them use the proposed eastern roundabout that will serve as one of the primary accesses to their site.

Public Transport Strategy and Access The site must have a public transport strategy that will meet demand for bus journeys to and from Oxford in the AM and PM peaks. The applicant proposes that, in the very

17 early stages of development (if the applicant will develop from the A40 southwards in phases), residents can access the four proposed new bus stops on the A40 near the new access roundabouts. However, existing services will not be able to divert into the site at all, as this would add to journey times between Witney and Oxford and would reduce the attractiveness of these commercial services for existing bus commuters. The S1 and S2 services are already running at close to full capacity in the AM peak. Pump-priming funding for additional services would be needed from the initial stages of development to accommodate the first residents.

In the medium term, the site would need to be served by a new bus service that could provide at least one journey per hour between the development and Oxford and two journeys between the development and Witney in the AM and PM peak. In the long term, the service must provide four buses per hour between the development and Oxford and two between the development and Witney. Specific triggers for bus provision can be further determined once a site phasing plan is available.

A contribution of £4.32m would be sought under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, based on a cost per vehicle of £720,000. The procurement cost of each bus will decline on a pump-priming basis over 8 years.

The applicant proposes that, in the initial stages of development, residents will walk to two pairs of newly provided bus stop laybys on the A40 that will be fitted with4-bay premium rote bus shelters, premium route flagpoles and timetable information cases, and real-time passenger information (RTPI) display boards. In the medium term, two more pairs of bus stops with the same specification as above will need to be installed on the spine road in the locations shown on the applicant’s draft masterplan.

While this arrangement would mean that most homes in this development were within 800m of a bus stop, this is the absolute maximum walking distance that the Local Highway Authority will allow. The applicant needs to provide a sufficient number of bus stops distributed along the spine road in locations to put as many households as possible within 400m of a bus stop. This is likely to be more than two pairs of stops. Bus travel to, from and around this development must be made as attractive and convenient as possible to prevent it becoming car dependent for journeys to Oxford and other local service centres.

The entirety of the spine road within the development will need to have a minimum carriageway width of 6.75m to safely accommodate regular bus services. In addition, we need localised widening at the bends on the spine road to be served by buses, and will also need to see a drawing which shows vehicle tracking for a double deck bus of 12m in length. The spine road should also be kept free of on-street parking.

Home to School Transport Education infrastructure specialists within Oxfordshire County Council estimate that this site will lead to approximately 500-600 children needing to access a secondary school. No secondary school has been proposed for the site. Therefore, up to 600 pupils will need to access schools in Witney or Eynsham on foot, by bicycle, or by bus. The centre of the development is located approximately 3 miles from Woodgreen secondary school, Witney and 2.5 miles from Bartholomew School, Eynsham. Although the applicant intends to provide a footway/cycleway along the frontage of the

18 site for 1.3km, children will have to walk/cycle along an unlit shared use pedestrian and cycleway into Witney and Eynsham to access these schools. Therefore, up to 600 pupils could be reliant on the bus to get them to school to prevent more car journeys arising from the development. This is at a time when bus services to Oxford will already be operating close to capacity.

Pedestrian Access Pedestrians who need to access the footway/cycleway and/or Science Park on the northern side of the A40 will have to cross the mainline carriageway at grade via two signalised crossings near the proposed access roundabouts. In paragraph 4.6.4.3 of the TA the applicant has stated that they have located the signalised crossings because, at these points, “traffic speeds will be lower,” than the design speed of this stretch of the A40 as a whole (derestricted).

However, because of the 70m ICD of the roundabout which could lead to 85th percentile speeds of in excess of 50mph, and the AADT traffic flows which the applicant’s own analysis shows will be in excess of 3,000 two vehicular trips per hour in the AM and PM peak, I strongly advise that a traffic calming measure in the form of a reduction in the speed limit to 50mph or below at points 50m west of the western roundabout and 50m east of the eastern roundabout is inserted to make sure that 85th percentile speeds at points 50m either side of each crossing are reduced to 50mph or below. The applicant will need to apply for a Traffic Regulation Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement a speed limit of 40mph. This is not a guaranteed process and is subject to consultation. Should the applicant fail to get this TRO they will need to install grade separated pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at both locations.

The crossing that is immediately west of the give-way line of the arm for eastbound motor-traffic is located 24m from the give-way lines on the roundabouts. This is the distance recommended in paragraph 5.8 of DMRB, TD16/07. However, because of the high traffic flows and the propensity of motorists to confuse pedestrian crossing signals with those serving the roundabout, I recommend a relocating both crossings to locations 30m-40m from the give-way lines. These crossings must also be lit, and will be subject to the provision of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit which must be submitted with all the revised drawings.

The Science Park is located approximately 1.6km from the retail facilities within the residential section of the site, and pedestrians and cyclists who want to go there to buy lunch will have to cross the A40 at-grade to get there. In addition, people accessing the employment site from the westbound bus stop will have to cross the mainline A40 during the AM peak when car use is heaviest. Although current highway design guidance does not forbid at-grade signalised pedestrian and cycle facilities in instances where 85th percentile speeds are below 50mph walking from the employment site to the westbound bus stop is not an attractive option and will lead to the employment site being heavily car dependent.

Rights of Way The applicant is strongly advised to contact Oxfordshire County Council’s Rights of Way team to discuss their intention to provide a circular walking, cycling, and equestrian route around the outside of the site to discuss surfacing and lighting, to

19 provide a bridleway link to South Leigh, and to safeguard the existing road between the A40 and South Leigh as a pedestrian and cycle route. They can be contacted at: [email protected]

Regarding the surrounding network of public rights of way, a sum of £150,000 will be payable under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow the Local Highway Authority to mitigate the impact of an increase in use of the following public rights of way that will occur because of the site:

• Surface and infrastructure improvements to the footpath that leads from the development to Eynsham via Twelve Acre Farm. This may include an upgrade in status to enable recreational cycling and/or horse-riding but will not include asphalting to enable commuter cycling. • Surface and infrastructure measures on the bridleway that leads from the development to Eynsham in an easterly direction. • Access and infrastructure measures on connecting rights of way within 4km of the site including gates, signage, bridges and upgrades in status to existing footpaths.

Pedestrian, Cycle, and Emergency Access from South Leigh The attached masterplan and Drawing No. No 1521/38 Rev B shows that the applicant intends to prohibit the use of the existing single-track road between the A40 and South Leigh by motor-vehicles, as the existing access is approximately 5m from the give- way line on the western arm of the eastern access roundabout. They wish to use it to create a public footpath which will become a shared use pedestrian and cycle-way south of the point at which the spine road will cross the footpath. This will remain a road south of the southern boundary of the site. The applicant will need a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to do this. This will be subject to consultation with the public and with relevant bodies such as utility companies. A fee of £2,700 will be payable to Oxfordshire County Council’s Road Safety Engineering team for administering the TRO. Please note that this does not include the cost of any physical works like barriers or signage.

However, I am concerned that, in the event of the A40 being closed due to a collision or need for maintenance, there will be no other way of getting into or out of the development. The access proposal is contrary to OCC guidance which states up to 400 dwellings only should be served from a major access road which loops. This would be the case with or without the TRO being applied to the existing single-track road to South Leigh. Even if it were kept open to motor traffic, this road would not be fit to accommodate the volume of motor traffic it would have to in the AM or PM peak.

The TA states (para 4.1.1) that guidance on good design of development ‘advocates that residential design should …. create a permeable network of streets with strong connectivity to a range of routes.’ and that ‘a permeable and well-connected movement network can positively affect how much people walk or cycle or use public transport which helps to achieve a sustainable environment and good quality of life for its community.” This site does not have good permeability; indeed, paras 4.2.1 and 4.2.3.1 highlight that pedestrian connectivity is principally to the A40 and South Leigh - where there are minimal facilities/services. A development with poor links to the surrounding area creates an enclave which encourages movement to and from it by car rather than by other modes.

Existing Private Residential Accesses on to the A40 Three properties currently have access on to the A40 eastbound carriageway. These are Hill Farm, Whitehouse Farm and Cottages, and Salutation Farm. Residents of Hill Farm have private vehicular access from the westbound carriageway via an existing over-bridge that is located approximately 230m west of the proposed western access roundabout. This forms part of Public Bridleway 353/19/10. From this bridge, there are slip roads in both easterly and westerly directions to the A40. Due to them not being designed in accordance with the DMRB, the applicant recommends using a TRO to implement a prohibition of use of the slip roads and over-bridge by motor-vehicles, and intends to provide a vehicular access from Hill Farm to the A40 via the western roundabout. The TRO will be subject to consultation and a fee of £2,700 will be payable to Oxfordshire County Council for administering it. This fee will not include the cost of any physical works like signage or barriers.

The applicant intends that the existing eastbound accesses to Whitehouse Farm and Salutation Farm remain in place but made left-turn only. However, paragraphs 2.5-2.7 of DMRB, TD41/95 state that “where an existing direct access has caused or is likely to cause danger to road users, action may be taken…to stop it up.” The applicant will need to demonstrate that the retaining of the existing private means of access on to what will be a heavily used dual carriageway with fast-moving traffic will not cause road safety issues for on-line traffic.

The applicant needs to begin discussions with the residents of Hill Farm as a matter of urgency regarding the newly proposed means of vehicular access to their property.

Drainage

General Comments The drainage strategy submitted does not contain a drainage layout. The Lead Local Flood Authority needs this to evaluate the proposals. The information is of a general nature and needs to be linked to a drainage layout. The site has a number water courses flowing through it, all of which are a potential source of flooding, especially given that the site is unlikely to provide adequate infiltration due to presence of ground water. The site needs to have a holistic approach to the drainage strategy, which should provide information to illustrate how the sub-catchments will function in relation to the site.

The Lead Local Flood Authority recommends objection to this application because, based on the information provided, the Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment do not comply with Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework for the following reasons:

• The applicant has not demonstrated that SuDS will be used to store surface water generated on the site. • They have not demonstrated that the increase in surface water run-off volumes and run-off and rate can be can be fully mitigated for all events up to and including the 1 in 100 chance in any year critical storm event, including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Therefore, surface water runoff rates and volume

will increase, leading to increasing flood risk elsewhere. This is contrary to Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). • The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed SuDS features are appropriately sized to manage the risk of surface water flooding on site for all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 chance in any year critical storm event, including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Therefore, the attenuation will not be able to cope with increased volumes, leading to increasing flood risk elsewhere. This is contrary to Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

To overcome the objection, the applicant must demonstrate, through their surface water strategy, that the use of SuDS has been prioritised over more traditional pipe and tank systems, providing justification where it is not considered practicable to utilise infiltration based SuDS on site. The surface water strategy should be carried out in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The applicant must demonstrate through their surface water strategy that a method of mitigating against the increase in runoff volumes and rate is achievable on site. The applicant is advised to contact my colleague Wayne Barker, Senior Drainage Engineer at the Lead Local Flood Authority for further advice on this issue at [email protected].

S106 obligations and their compliance with Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended):

£13,918,486 Highway Works Contribution indexed from March 2018 using Baxter Index

Towards: A financial contribution of £2,633,220 towards the construction of the A40 west-bound bus lane between the Eynsham Park and Ride and the Duke’s Cut Canal Bridge, and a contribution of £11,285,266 towards the enhancement of the A40 Dukes Cut Canal Bridge.

Justification:

West-bound Bus Lane The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms in that the development will contribute to several junctions and links on the A40 (westbound) operating significantly over capacity by 2035 which could lead to road safety issues due to length of queues. For example, the development will lead to the western arm of the A40/A44/A144 Five Mile Drive Roundabout going from operating at 16% above its safe ratio of flow to capacity in the AM peak in 2035 to 35% above it. Queues at this arm of the junction will also increase from 22.6 PCUs to 60.6 PCUs referring to the applicant’s own analysis. Therefore, a bus lane is required to mitigate the effect of this development by providing a form of rapid transit that can serve the new bus stops that the development will provide on the A40 at the frontage of the site.

The contribution is directly related to the development because the development will create a total of 1860 vehicular trips in the AM peak and 1884 in the PM peak, approximately 46% of which will be westbound.

The contribution is fair and reasonably related in scale and kind in relation to the development because it is based on a total scheme cost of £14,000,000/15,950 new dwellings in West Oxfordshire by 2035 = £877.74 per dwelling.

Duke’s Cut Bridge Enhancement This contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and directly related to the development because the applicant’s own analysis shows that the development will add 535 vehicular trips on the link between the A40/A44/A144 Five Mile Drive Roundabout and the A40/Eynsham Road junction in the AM peak, an increase of 27% on their 2035 base figures, and 564 trips in the PM peak, a 32% increase on the 2035 base figures. Therefore, enhancement in the form of on-line widening of the A40 at this location is needed to mitigate the possible road safety issues that might arise. It is also in accordance with Part 2 of the A40 Route Strategy in Connecting Oxfordshire: Local Transport Plan 2015-2031, and with Policy T2 within West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan, which states that “The Council will continue to work in partnership with Oxfordshire County Council to secure improvements to the A40 between Witney and Oxford…together with longer term improvements including the provision of a westbound bus lane from Oxford to Eynsham and on-line widening at the Dukes Cut Bridge to enable this to happen plus the insertion of a cycle lane and footway.”

The contribution is fair and reasonably related in scale and kind in relation to the development because it is calculated on a rate per dwelling which will apply to relevant new developments in the West Oxfordshire District.

Calculation:

A40 West-bound bus lane £14,000,000/15,950 new dwellings in West Oxfordshire by 2035 = £877.74 per dwelling. £877.74 x 3,000 = £2,633,228

A40 Dukes Cut On-line Widening £60,000,000/15,950 new dwellings in West Oxfordshire by 2035 = £3761.75 per dwelling = £3761.75 x 3,000 new dwellings = £11,285,266.46

£2,633,228 + £11,285,266.46 = £13,918,494.46

A further highways sum may be required towards the A40 Shores Green Interchange; however, this will be based on the impact arising from the development at Witney, which has not yet been satisfactorily quantified.

£4,320,000 Public Transport Service Contribution indexed from March 2018 using RPI-x Towards: The eventual provision of four buses per hour between the development and Oxford city centre and two buses per hour between the development and Witney to accommodate anticipated public transport demand arising from the development.

Justification: The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms in that it is directly relevant to Policy T3 in West Oxfordshire District Council’s Emerging Local Plan, which states that:

New developments will be expected to contribute towards the provision of new and/or enhanced public transport, walking, and cycling infrastructure to help encourage modal shift and encourage healthier lifestyles; and

Developments that fail to make adequate provision of measures to encourage the use of non-car modes of transport will not be favourably considered.

Aside from the neighbourhood centre in this proposed development, that will offer basic day-to-day amenities, the nearest district service centre is Witney. To access Witney, residents would have a minimum three-mile walk or cycle ride into the centre of Witney. Much of this would be on a shared use pedestrian and cycleway alongside a heavily trafficked strategic road. Therefore, for all but the physically fit non-car users, the bus will be the only way of accessing Witney and/or Eynsham. Therefore, it is vital that services and service enhancements are funded to ensure demand is met.

The contribution is directly related to the development because, in the first phase, the existing S1 and S2 services will serve new bus stops on the A40 along the frontage of the development, and in the intermediate phases, the funds will provide a service that is dedicated to serving this development, and will provide two buses per hour to Oxford and one per hour to Witney. When the final phases are built, the funds will provide a dedicated service between the development, Oxford, and Witney, in the form of two buses per hour to Witney and four buses per hour to Oxford.

The contribution is fair and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development as it is anticipated that, when fully built out, the development will provide sufficient demand to warrant four buses per hour to Oxford and two to Witney during the AM and PM weekday peaks, this is based on a cost of £720,000 per double deck bus, carrying a maximum of 70 people.

Calculation: £720,000 x 6 vehicles = £4,320,000

The pump priming funding will be phased over five years and will be profiled as £720,000 per vehicle as follows:

£160,000 = year 1 £140,000 = year 2 £120,000 = year 3 £100,000 = year 4 £80,000 = year 5 £60,000 = year 6 £40,000 = year 7 £20,000 = year 8 £0 = year 9

The contribution will be highest per vehicle at the start of the phasing of the development, because this is when new services will be less commercially viable and contract costs will be highest.

£192,136 Public Transport Infrastructure Contribution indexed from March 2018 using Baxter Index

Towards: The cost of implementing 8 four-bay premium route bus shelters, each fitted with one premium route flag pole and timetable information case, and one real-time passenger information screen, plus commuted sums for all these items.

Developments that fail to make adequate provision of measures to encourage the use of non-car modes of transport will not be favourably considered.

The contribution is directly related to the development in that four of the bus stops will be installed on the A40 along the frontage of the residential site and to the south of the Science Park. The other four bus tops will be installed on the spine road within the residential section of the site. If none of these stops were installed, residents and users of the Science Park would face a walk of 1.5 mile to the nearest bus stop on the eastbound slip road to the A40 from the B4022 Oxford Hill. This is well above 800m which is the absolute maximum walking distance the Local Highway Authority will accept to enable people to access bus stops. A stated above, because of the location of the development, the bus will be the only appropriate mode of travel for all but the physically fit non-motorised users (NMUs). It is vital that bus travel is made as easy and attractive as it can be.

The contribution is fair and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development because the costs are derived from a schedule of rates for bus stop infrastructure that Oxfordshire County Council applies to all new developments throughout Oxfordshire.

Calculation: 1 bus shelter = £7,450 + £7,450 commuted sum for maintenance over 10 years = £14,900 x 8 = £119,200

1 OCC premium route bus stop flag pole and timetable information case = £545 + £545 commuted sum = £1,090 x 8 = £8720

1 RTPI shelter display = £4,087 + £3940 commuted sum = £8,027 x 8 = £64,216

£119,200 + £8,720 + £64,216 = £192,136

£8,100 Traffic Regulation Order Contribution indexed from March 2018 using RPI- x

Towards: The cost of administering four TROs that will, if successful, bring about a prohibition of driving on the unclassified road that runs between the A40 and Station Road in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 1 mile, a TRO that will, if

25 successful, result in a prohibition of driving along the existing over-bridge and east and west-facing slip road to the A40 that are located approximately 200m west of the proposed western access roundabout to the site, and a TRO that will, if successful, bring about a prohibition of driving along 124m of existing unclassified road that runs from the existing private means of access to a property associated with Buckingham and Sons that runs from this entrance to an existing eastbound slip road to the A40 in a south-easterly direction, and another TRO that, if successful, will result in the implementation of s speed limit of 50mph on the A40 from a point 317m east of the eastern access roundabout to the site, to a point 500m west of the western access roundabout to the site.

Justification: The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms in that two of the TROs, if successful, will prohibit the use of existing accesses to the A40 that do not fully comply with the DMRB and therefore ensure that the risks associated with road safety arising from an increased number of vehicular trips on the A40 that will arise from the development will be mitigated, and that the development complies with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

In relation to the existing access road between the A40 and South Leigh, this TRO, if successful, is needed to ensure a continuous pedestrian and cycle route from the north-east to the south-east of the development that is fully separated from motor- traffic, and will therefore ensure that the development maximises the opportunities for travel by sustainable modes in accordance with Paragraph 29 of the NPPF. It is also needed to enable the western arm of the new eastern at-grade access roundabout to the development to operate safely.

The fourth TRO is needed to enable the applicant to introduce a speed limit of 50mph on the A40 that will, if successful, apply between a point approximately 500m west of the proposed western access roundabout, and a point approximately 317m east of the proposed eastern access roundabout to the development for 1.16 miles. This speed limit is needed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the A40 safely at the two toucan crossings that the applicant proposes.

The contribution is fair and reasonably related in scale and kind in relation to the development because is an administrative fee that is applied to all TROs associated with new developments throughout Oxfordshire.

Calculation: £2,700 x 4 = £10,800

£150,000 Public Rights of Way Contribution indexed from March 2018 using Baxter Index

Towards:

Surface and infrastructure measures on the public footpath between the eastern part of the development and Eynsham via Twelve Acre Farm. This would include status upgrade to allow recreational cycling and/or equestrian use. Please note that this does not include asphalting or other measures to enable commuting by bicycle.

Surface and infrastructure improvement measures on the bridleway running between the development and Eynsham.

Access and infrastructure improvement measures on connecting routes in the form of surfacing, gates, and bridges on public rights of way within 4km of the site, including short connecting routes and/or upgrades in the status of existing footpaths.

Justification: a) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; There is expected to be an increase in numbers of residents and visitors using the rights of way network near the site due to the proximity of the development. OCC Countryside Access is seeking a contribution to mitigate the impact of this increase in numbers of residents and their visitors accessing the network along these routes. b) directly related to the development; The site has had a desk assessment to both assess the current situation and look at how public use could be protected and enhanced. With the development site at the centre, the logical and realistic public rights of way network likely to be affected is considered. c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; The proposed measures are based on the desk assessment of likely costs for the measures. The proposed off‐site measures are in the form of a reasonable financial contribution to allow the Countryside Access Team to plan and deliver improvements with third party landowners in a reasonable time period and under the Rights of Way Management Plan aims.

Calculation:

The proposed measures are based on the desk assessment of likely costs for the measures. They are not based on a standard formula or any other kind of per‐dwelling or per‐m2 tariff system. Estimated contribution breakdown by activity:

 site surveys & assessments 5% habitat survey & mitigation 5%  landowner negotiations 5%  Materials, contractor, plant & equipment 60%  Legal processes e.g. temporary works closures, agreement payments 5-10%  Contract preparation & supervision 5%  Admin costs 5%  Contingency/Follow‐up repair works 5‐10%

£9,480 Travel Plan Monitoring Fee indexed from March 2018 using RPI-x

Justification:

Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

Oxfordshire County Council guidance – Transport for new developments; Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

Oxfordshire County Council – Connecting Oxfordshire: Oxfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 2015-2031

Connecting Oxfordshire: Local Transport Plan 2015-2031, paragraph 120 and Policy 34

Paragraph 36 of the NPPF states that “A key tool to facilitate this (more use of sustainable transport) will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.

Policy 34

Oxfordshire County Council requires the layout and design of new developments to proactively encourage walking and cycling, especially for local trips, and allow developments to be served by frequent, reliable and efficient public transport. To do this, we will:

• secure transport improvements to mitigate the cumulative adverse transport impacts from new developments in the locality and/or wider area, through effective travel plans, financial contributions from developers or direct works carried out by developers; identify the requirement for passenger transport services to serve the development, seek developer funding for these to be provided until they become commercially viable and provide standing advice for developers on the level of Section 106 contributions towards public transport expected for different locations and scales of development.

The travel plan aims to encourage and promote more sustainable modes of transport with the objective of reducing dependence upon private motor car travel and so reducing the environmental impact and traffic congestion. A travel plan is required to make this development acceptable in planning terms, and is to be secured by condition.

A travel plan is a ‘dynamic’ document tailored to the needs of businesses and requires an iterative method of re-evaluation and amendment. The county council needs to carry out biennial monitoring over five years of the life of a Travel Plan which includes the following activities:

• review survey data produced by the developer

• compare it to the progress against the targets in the approved travel plan and census or national travel survey data sets

• agree any changes in an updated actions or future targets in an updated travel plan.

Government guidance, ‘Good Practice Guidance: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process’ states that: ‘Monitoring and review are essential to ensure travel plan objectives are being achieved. Monitoring for individual sites should ensure that there is compliance with the plan, assess the effectiveness of the measures and provide opportunity for review….Monitoring must be done over time – it requires action and resources.’

In accordance with this Guidance, it is the view of the county council that without monitoring the travel plan is likely to be ineffective. Therefore, monitoring of the travel plan is required to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

The government’s Good Practice Guidance has been archived but has not been superseded with any other guidance on the practicalities of implementing travel plans. The county council’s own published guidance: Transport for new developments; Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, also includes the requirement for monitoring.

Further, the Good Practice Guidance states that ‘local authorities should consider charging for the monitoring process and publish any agreed fee scales’.

Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 gives the power to local authorities to charge for discretionary services. These are services that an authority has the power, but not a duty, to provide. The Travel Plan Monitoring fee is set to cover the estimated cost of carrying out the above activities, and is published in the county council’s guidance: ‘Transport for new developments; Transport Assessments and Travel Plans’.

As with most non-statutory activities, councils seek to cover their costs as far as possible by way of fees. This is particularly required in the current climate of restricted budgets. Without the fees the council could not provide the resource to carry out the activity, as it is not possible to absorb the work into the general statutory workload. In the case of travel plan monitoring, the work is carried out by a small, dedicated Travel Plans team.

The travel plan monitoring fee is therefore required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, because it enables the monitoring to take place which is necessary to deliver an effective travel plan.

Directly related to the development

The travel plan is a document which is bespoke to the individual development, reflecting the site’s current and predicted travel patterns, opportunities for sustainable travel, and targets for improving the proportion of sustainable travel associated with the site.

Therefore, the monitoring that will be charged for will be specific and relevant to this site alone.

Fair and Reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

The fee charged is for the work required by Oxfordshire County Council to monitor a travel plan related solely to this development site. They are based on an estimate of the officer time required to carry out the following activities:

• review the survey data produced by the developer

• compare it to the progress against the targets in the approved travel plan and census or national travel survey data sets

• agree any changes in an updated actions or future targets in an updated travel plan.

Oxfordshire County Council guidance –Transport for new developments: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans sets out two levels of fees according to the size of the development. This development falls into the smaller category.

The estimate is based on three monitoring and feedback stages (to be undertaken at years 1, 3 & 5 following first occupation), which would require an expected 31 hours of officer time at £40 per hour. Total £1,240 in the case of all the travel plans except the ones that is associated with the residential land use.

In the latter case, the rate is applied at 51 hours of monitoring time at £40 per hour. Please note that this is considered a fair rate, set to include staff salary and overheads alone.

Calculation:

• Travel plan monitoring fees of £2,040 for the residential element of this proposal • Travel plan monitoring fees of 2 X £1,240 for the two primary schools • Travel plan monitoring fees of £1,240 for the proposed Science Park and possible further travel plan requirements for individual site occupiers whose businesses are above travel plan thresholds • Travel plan monitoring fees of £1,240 for the Neighbourhood Centre • Travel plan monitoring fees of £1,240 for the apartments proving care to people • Travel plan monitoring fees of £1,240 for the for the proposed hotel

S278 Highway Works:

An obligation to enter into a S278 Agreement will be required to secure mitigation/improvement works, including: ➢ The re-modelling of the A40/Cuckoo Lane junction as shown on Drawing No. 1521/49 submitted with this application. ➢ The re-modelling of the existing signal controlled A40/Witney Road junction to include widening of the mainline A40 carriageway and the minor access road to include additional traffic lanes as shown on Drawing 1521/49 submitted with this application. ➢ The re-modelling of the A40/Lower Road/B4449 roundabout as shown on Drawing No. 1521/46 submitted with this application. ➢ The re-modelling of the A4095/Lower Road priority junction as shown on Drawing No. 1521/50 that has been submitted with this application. ➢ The provision of an at-grade four-armed 70m ICD roundabout access junction on the A40 located approximately 227m east of the existing bridge crossing of the A40 which serves as a private means of access to Hill Farm and as a public bridleway, together with associated pedestrian, cycle, and bus stop infrastructure, as shown on Drawing No. 1521/45. ➢ The provision of an at-grade four-armed 70m ICD at grade roundabout junction on the A40 at a location approximately 13m east of the current point at which the unclassified single-track road to South Leigh and Church End meets the A40, together with the displayed pedestrian, cycle, and public transport infrastructure, plus the remodelling of the existing Barnard Gate/A40 junction, as shown on Drawing No. 1521/44. ➢ The provision of dual carriageway on the mainline A40, together with pedestrian and cycle infrastructure between the two above-mentioned roundabouts as shown on Drawing No. 1521/38 Rev. B.

Please note that this list of works to be completed under S278 of the Highways Act 1980 is subject to change pending the outcomes of further work to be completed on the applicant’s transport assessment.

Notes: This is secured by means of S106 restriction not to implement development (or occasionally other trigger point) until S278 agreement has been entered into. The trigger by which time S278 works are to be completed shall also be included in the S106 agreement.

Identification of areas required to be dedicated as public highway and agreement of all relevant landowners will be necessary in order to enter into the S278 agreements.

S38 Highway Works – Spine Roads:

An obligation to provide two spine roads as part of the highway network will be required for the development. The S106 agreement will secure delivery via future completion of a S38 agreement.

The S106 agreement will identify for the purpose of the S38 agreement; ➢ Approximate location of the spine road and information as to provision e.g. minimum width of carriageway, footways etc as appropriate.

➢ Timing – this may be staged.

➢ Additional facilities/payments e.g. on-site bus infrastructure and related payments.

Planning Conditions: In the event that permission is to be given, the following planning conditions should be attached:

Accesses The means of access between the land and the highway shall be constructed, laid out, surfaced, lit and drained in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all ancillary works therein specified shall be undertaken in accordance with the said specification before first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved. REASON: To ensure a safe and adequate access.

Visibility Splays (at junctions within the development) Vision splays shown on the submitted plan shall be provided as an integral part of the construction of the accesses and shall not be obstructed at any time by any object, material or structure with a height exceeding 0.9 metres above the level of the access they are provided for. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Internal Footways and Cycleways No dwelling shall be occupied until all the roads, driveways and footpaths serving the development have been drained, constructed and surfaced in accordance with plans and specifications that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Accesses and Parking Areas No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular accesses, driveways, car and cycle parking spaces, turning areas and parking courts that serve that dwelling has been constructed, laid out, surfaced, lit and drained in accordance with details that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Access and Turning for Service vehicles Prior to the commencement of development, a vehicle tracking drawing, which must show that a refuse vehicle of not less than 11.6m in length can access, turn in, and exit the development safely in forward gear shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, construction shall only commence in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Drainage Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro- geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Discharge Rates • Discharge Volumes • Maintenance and management of SUDS features (this maybe secured by a Section 106 Agreement) • Sizing of features – attenuation volume • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers • SUDS (list the suds features mentioned within the FRA to ensure they are carried forward into the detailed drainage strategy) • Network drainage calculations • Phasing • No private drainage into the public highway drainage system. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Construction Traffic Management Plan Prior to the commencement of development, a construction traffic management plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, construction shall only commence in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Travel Plans for each Land Use Prior to first occupation of any of the different elements that make up this scheme a travel plan of the correct type will be submitted for each and sent to the Local Planning Authority for approval. REASON: In the interests of ensuring that all opportunities for sustainable travel are maximised in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Travel Information Pack Prior to first occupation a Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack. REASON: In the interests of ensuring that all opportunities for sustainable travel are maximised in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

Oxfordshire County Council Residential Roads Design Guide More information on this can be found at: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/transport-development-control-tdc

Traffic Regulation Orders Please contact Oxfordshire County Council’s Road Safety Engineering team at: [email protected]

Highway Works under S278 of the Highways Act 1980 Please see the link below for more information on this: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/section-38-section-278-and-private- street-agreements

Officer’s Name: Will Marshall Officer’s Title: Senior Transport Planner Date: 6 April 2018

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Education Schedule

Recommendation:

No objection subject to:

➢ S106 Contributions as summarised in the tables below and justified in this Schedule.

Contribution Amount £ Price base Index Towards (details) Primary and £9,970,627 4Q2016 PUBSEC 2 x new primary nursery for 2FE school(s) including education school nursery provision as & detailed below. £6,596,316.96 for 1FE school

Total = £16,566,943

Secondary Pro-rata 4Q2016 PUBSEC New secondary (including contribution education sixth form) towards establishment in either secondary Witney or Eynsham £15,035,898 plus land cost contribution SEN £915,000 4Q2016 PUBSEC New Countywide SEN provision based in Didcot Total £32,517,841

Amount Use Primary Two 2.2ha New primary school(s) school land sites as (remediated detailed and serviced) below Secondary Unknown Pro rata cost for new 600 place secondary school school Land - at present financial contribution

➢ Assessment of the suitability of the primary school sites

Further work is needed to ensure that the sites are acceptable to the Education Authority by complying with Oxfordshire County Council design criteria for primary school sites.

S106 obligations and their compliance with Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended):

£16,566,943 Primary School Contribution indexed from 4Q 2016 using PUBSEC Index.

Towards:

Two new primary school(s) within the development in proportion to the estimated pupil generation, including nursery places attached to the primary school.

Justification:

The location and scale of the proposed development requires primary school provision to be delivered on-site.

The applicant’s Education Impact Assessment accepts that on-site primary school provision is necessary and estimates a primary school pupil generation of 750 pupils. On that basis the application proposes that two 2 form entry primary schools are included within the development providing a total of 840 pupil places.

The assessments undertaken by the County Council, based on a policy compliant housing mix, estimates that the proposed development will generate 597 primary pupils (and 111 nursery pupils). This would require 3 forms of entry to be provided in the form of one 2FE and one 1FE school giving a total capacity of 630 primary pupils.

However, if a housing mix or trajectory is proposed which would generate more than 630 primary pupils, then two 2 form entry primary schools would be required, as proposed in the application. The school provision also needs to take into account if the development will expand further in the future.

The number and size of new schools would therefore need to be confirmed in light of an agreed housing mix and trajectory.

The development should therefore provide two 2.22ha sites for new primary schools, as set out in the Oxfordshire County Council education space standards 2016 available in the Cabinet papers at www.oxfordshire.gov.uk. Initially one of the sites should have a 2 form entry primary school built on the site and the other site a 1 form entry primary school with potential to be expanded to bring it up to a 2 form entry school when required.

Calculation:

The current estimated cost for a 2 form entry primary school is £9,970,627, and the current cost for a 1 form entry school is £6,596,316 and hence total contributions are £16,566,943.

If the capacity provided by the new schools is greater than the estimated pupil generation, the proposed development would still be required to fully fund the construction of schools, as there are no other nearby developments which would benefit from any spare capacity.

£15,035,898 Secondary School Contribution indexed from 4Q2016 using PUBSEC Index; in addition, a contribution towards the county council’s costs in procuring land for a new secondary education establishment will be required.

Towards:

A new 600 place secondary education establishment to serve this development. At this point in time, the plan is that this would either be in Eynsham, if the proposed Garden Village north of Eynsham is implemented and provides a site for secondary education as is currently proposed, or in a new school provision in Witney.

Justification:

The proposed development is broadly equidistant between Bartholomew School in Eynsham and Wood Green School in Witney. The scale of the proposed development cannot be accommodated within existing secondary school capacity in the area, once other permitted housing growth, and the population growth already evident on the local primary schools, is taken into account.

The applicant’s Education Impact Assessment accepts that the existing schools cannot be expected to absorb any pupils generated by the Proposed Development, given the forecast scale of growth already forecast, excluding this proposal.

There are two potential strategies for how additional secondary school capacity could be provided across this area, which are dependent on the progress of other strategic developments: 1. The planned garden village north of Eynsham is intended to include a site for secondary education which, subject to the necessary consultations and consents, could provide an “annex” site for Bartholomew School, or otherwise could be a new establishment, and could thereby create additional capacity for a development in this proposed location. 2. The consented strategic site west of Witney includes a site for a new secondary education establishment, although other options within Witney are also being explored. Any new establishment within Witney would be delivered as part of a strategic plan for education in Witney, including both of the existing secondary schools and the Abingdon and Witney College, and could thereby create additional capacity for a development in this proposed location.

The applicant’s Education Impact Assessment estimates a secondary pupil generation of 750 pupils. Based on Oxfordshire County Council’s assessment using a policy compliant housing mix, the proposed development has been estimated to generate

501 secondary pupils (including sixth form). The pupil generation would need to be confirmed based on an agreed housing mix and trajectory. A proportionate contribution towards the construction of a new 600 place secondary establishment, as well as towards any costs incurred by the county council in procuring a school site, will be required.

Once the size and housing mix of the development is confirmed the size of the school can be established.

The proposed development appears to be within the 3-mile maximum walking distance from both Wood Green School and Bartholomew School, although whether all addresses will be so would depend on internal road layout. As such safe walking/cycling routes will be needed to access secondary school provision in Witney and/or Eynsham. However, it is likely that a significant proportion of secondary school pupils will not walk/cycle, and would require motor transport to school. To avoid excessive traffic generation, suitable public bus services will be needed to connect the development to the local secondary schools.

Calculation:

Using the OCC education cost model for secondary schools the current cost of a 600 place secondary school is £18,007,063. For the 501 secondary and sixth form pupil generation the pro-rata contribution to the 600 place school will be £15,035,898 at 4Q16.

£915,000 SEN School Contribution indexed from 4Q2016 using PUBSEC Index

Towards:

The necessary expansion of permanent SEN capacity at a new countywide special school at Didcot.

Justification:

The number on roll in special schools has risen over recent years from 795 in 2007 to 1069 as of October 2017. The special school population is expected to continue to grow as new housing is built and the already rising primary school numbers feed through into secondary schools, requiring a significant increase in capacity. The existing SEN schools have already identified a growing pressure on available capacity. Due to the finite potential of expanding the existing schools, a new school is planned in Didcot, which will add to countywide SEN capacity.

For the purposes of developer contributions, the SEN calculation is based on 1.11% of children being expected to require SEN provision, this percentage in turn being based on pupil census data for Oxfordshire.

Calculation:

Number of Special Educational Needs pupils expected to be generated 12.2

Estimated cost per pupil of expanding a SEN school, based on £75,000 Department for Education (DfE) advice weighted for Oxfordshire

12.2 * £75,000 £915,000

Land and school site allocation:

There has been no previous consultation on the location of the school sites in the masterplan and therefore there is not sufficient information to enable OCC to review the school sites and establish their suitability. Further work is needed to ensure that the sites are acceptable to the Education Authority by complying with Oxfordshire County Council design criteria for primary school sites.

Area of land required Land required for the Primary school, will need to be provided at no cost to the County Council. This would be two 2.22ha sites to allow both schools to be up to 2 form entry.

Land contribution A land contribution will be required towards the new secondary school provision at Eynsham or Witney. The land contribution amount is unknown at present.

Justification: New primary schools and secondary school are accepted by the applicant as being necessary to serve the needs of this proposed development.

Specification / remediation works / abnormal costs:

Detailed liaison with the county council’s Property team will be necessary to confirm the suitability of proposed school sites; this will give further information on site specific details.

Note: The applicant will be required to comply with OCC’s Educational Requirements for Residential Developments a copy of which is available on request by emailing [email protected].

Direct Delivery of an Educational Facility: OCC has no objection to the applicant seeking to deliver the facility. Further information and details of the financial payment towards embedded costs can be obtained by emailing [email protected].

Officer’s Name: Barbara Chillman Officer’s Title: Pupil Place Planning Manager Date: 07th March 2018

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Archaeology Schedule

Recommendation:

No Objection subject to the planning conditions below.

Comments:

The applicant has undertaken an archaeological desk based assessment of the application area. This has not revealed the presence of any archaeological features. The national mapping programme (NMP) undertaken the RCHME (now Historic England) did not identify any cropmarks within the application area. Cropmarks are visible, often from the air as marks in some types of growing or mature crops and in pasture when conditions are suitable. They are essentially the result of differential growth in vegetation due to the presence of archaeological features and outlines of them are visible within the crop. That other features have been identified nearby suggests that this is an effective method of site identification and that there are not archaeological features within the application area. A major Thames Water pipeline ran across the north-east side of the application area. Geophysical survey, trial trenching and the monitoring of the easement strip all failed to identify any features. Directly to the north archaeological recording was undertaken during the construction of a solar farm. This did not reveal any archaeological features. In the early nineties the Department of transport considered widening the A40. Trial trenching was undertaken along the proposed route but the trenching within and adjacent to the current application area also failed to reveal any archaeological features. Lidar survey is available for most of the application area and this does not reveal the presence of potential archaeological features.

The applicant has also undertaken a geophysical survey of the application area. This has not revealed any archaeological features apart from evidence of ploughing which due to its being very straight suggests that it is not of any great antiquity.

Based on the current evidence there is not currently an overriding justification for predetermination evaluation to be undertaken. We would, therefore, recommend that, should planning permission be granted, the applicant should be responsible for ensuring the implementation of a staged programme of archaeological investigation to be undertaken in advance of development. If the applicant contacts us we shall be pleased to outline the procedures involved and provide a brief upon which a costed specification can be based.

Planning Conditions:

Should permission be granted, the following planning conditions should be attached:

1. Prior to any demolition and the commencement of the development a professional archaeological organisation acceptable to the Local Planning Authority shall prepare an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation, relating to the application site area, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To safeguard the recording of archaeological matters within the site in accordance with the NPPF (2012)

2. Following the approval of the Written Scheme of Investigation referred to in condition 1, and prior to any demolition on the site and the commencement of the development (other than in accordance with the agreed Written Scheme of Investigation), a staged programme of archaeological evaluation and mitigation shall be carried out by the commissioned archaeological organisation in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The programme of work shall include all processing, research and analysis necessary to produce an accessible and useable archive and a full report for publication which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – To safeguard the identification, recording, analysis and archiving of heritage assets before they are lost and to advance understanding of the heritage assets in their wider context through publication and dissemination of the evidence in accordance with the NPPF (2012).

Officer’s Name: Hugh Coddington Officer’s Title: Archaeology Team Leader Date: 20th February 2018

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Waste Management Schedule

Recommendation:

No Objection.

Comments:

The proposed development will increase waste arisings in the county and the demand for waste management infrastructure including household waste recycling centres (HWRCs), the nearest of which is Dix Pit HWRC at Stanton Harcourt.

There is little reference to the waste management implications of the proposed development in the application documents. However, in the design and access statement the applicant states that the detailed layout will allow for waste storage and recycling bins in accordance with WODCs requirements. This is supported and it is essential that the design facilitates waste collection, recycling and composting to enable residents to fully participate in district council collection schemes and allow the high recycling and composting rates achieved in Oxfordshire to be maintained. This should include adequate space for waste and recycling bins for all dwelling types and provision for home composting in properties that have gardens. Detailed information on how this will be delivered should be included in the full planning application.

Officer’s Name: Frankie Upton Officer’s Title: Waste Project Manager Date: 12th March 2018

Application no: 18/00273/OUT Location: Land North And South Of Barnard Gate, Witney.

Lower Windrush Valley Project Schedule

Recommendation:

No Objection.

Comments:

The site is in close proximity to the Lower Windrush Valley which since 2001 has been the focus for a wide range of landscape, biodiversity, access and community engagement work under the auspices of the Lower Windrush Valley Project to enhance the green infrastructure for the benefit of local people. Should the proposal be granted planning permission Oxfordshire County Council would seek a contribution towards the Lower Windrush Valley Project (LWVP) for creation, enhancement and management of natural and amenity greenspace in the wider countryside for the benefit of residents.

This comprises two elements.

Firstly, a contribution to the provision of the countryside enhancement and community development functions that the LWVP currently provides and for which there will be greater demand should the development take place.

The LWVP provides countryside management and community engagement services to a current population of 18,878(1) at a cost of £48,200 per year. The new development would see an additional 7,200 residents (based on average dwelling occupation of 2.4 persons) representing a population increase of 38.14%. The additional cost to deliver the same level of service and benefit currently provided for the increased population will therefore be £18,383 per year.

The requested contribution is £18,383 per year to cover the development period and 5 years post development, indexation to be agreed.

Secondly, a contribution towards capital infrastructure improvement projects that are already identified in the District Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Lower Windrush Valley area.

The total cost of the identified projects to be delivered in the Lower Windrush Valley is £315,000. Using the same proportional basis as above, £120,141 is requested to deliver these projects or similar, subject to relevant permissions. The timing and indexation of this contribution to be agreed.

Should permission be granted we would also request involvement in discussions regarding green infrastructure provision on the development site and its links to the surrounding countryside.

Policy Context

The West Oxfordshire Local Plan, Infrastructure Delivery Plan and West Oxfordshire Council Plan all acknowledge the importance of protecting the natural environment to provide a range of environmental, social and economic benefits, including mitigating the impacts of climate change. (2)(4)(4)

The Local Plan identifies The Lower Windrush Valley Project as a delivery mechanism for Landscape Character in Policy EH1 and states ‘Special attention and protection will be given to the landscape and biodiversity of the Lower Windrush Valley Project’. (4) The LWVP is also identified for its important contribution to achieving a wide range of linked environmental and social benefits through protecting and enhancing the Green Infrastructure network, close to where people live and to areas of great potential change. (Policy EH3 – Public Realm and Green Infrastructure)

(1) Combined population of the Standlake, Stanton Harcourt, Northmoor, Ducklington and South Leigh parishes and the South Witney and East Witney wards according to 2011 census data. (2) West Oxfordshire District Council Plan 2016-2019 (3) West Oxfordshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (4) West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031

Officer’s Name: Lucy Kennery

Officer’s Title: Lower Windrush Valley Project Manager

Date: 5th March 2018