Planning Policy South Oxfordshire District Council 135 Eastern Avenue Milton Park Abingdon OX14 4SB

28 January 2018

Our Reference: 254201

Dear Sir / Madam,

Representations submitted in response to the Submission Version of the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2033, dated October 2017

On behalf of Pyrton Manor and The Beechwood Estates Company Ltd, I am pleased to set out below representations in response to the Submission Version of the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNP). These representations are to be read in conjunction with the enclosed representations from Entran on highways matters.

Our clients have significant land and housing interests not only in Watlington but also the adjoining parishes of Pyrton and Shirburn and are therefore key stakeholders that will be affected by any proposals within the WNP.

Pyrton Manor and its grounds are located immediately off Pyrton Lane to the north east of the parish boundary. It is a Grade II* listed building along with 50 acres of historic parkland which is within the Pyrton Conservation Area and immediately contiguous with proposed housing allocation site C, PYR1 and PYR2, as outlined in the WNP, where a re-aligned B4009 would pass.

The Beechwood Estate is centred around the Grade I listed Shirburn Castle, together with its traditional and historic model estate complex comprising Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings. The Grade II listed Shirburn Castle Registered Park and Garden – at the boundary of the proposed re-aligned route – is set within the curtilage of the Grade 1 listed Castle and is bordered to the east by the B4009 and to the south by Pyrton Lane.

Purpose of the representations

Our clients have significant concerns regarding the proposals set out within the draft WNP for the safeguarding of land in Watlington for a re-aligned B4009.

One of the aims of the WNP is “To safeguard land for a re-aligned B4009 to the north and west of the town in order to reduce congestion in the town centre, to improve air quality and provide a route for some through traffic.” Further to this, WNP Policy P2 (Transport) explains that “Proposals for development on allocated sites to the north and west of Watlington will be required to identify land for a safeguarded route for a re-aligned B4009 in accordance with the indicative route. (See Figure 9).” This is expanded upon within the Watlington Housing Policies with reference to the three allocated housing sites (Sites A – C), each of which proposes that housing is brought forward alongside a re-aligned route.

The decision in the WNP to safeguard land for a re-aligned route recognises proposals within the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan (Publication version dated October 2017). Specifically, draft policy TRANS3 (Safeguarding of land for strategic transport schemes) explains that land is safeguarded to support the delivery of a number of identified transport schemes, including a bypass for Watlington. This stems from draft policy STRAT9 (Land at Chalgrove Airfield), which notes that the proposed strategic allocation at the airfield will be expected to deliver, amongst other things:

“improvements to highway infrastructure through direct mitigation or significant contributions to new or improved roads, such as a bypass or edge road, including sustainable transport improvements, and where appropriate in association with relevant Neighbourhood Plans and any wider county council highway infrastructure strategy, around, but not limited to Benson, Stadhampton and Watlington, including highway intervention measures to mitigate additional impacts, both transport and environmental, in Cuxham, Chiselhampton, Little Milton, Shirburn and other settlements where justified.”

In its November 2017 response to the Publication version of the emerging Local Plan (on behalf of the Residents Against Watlington Ring Road – RAWRR), Entran raised concerns over the soundness of the draft plan (having regard to the tests set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF), as well as its legal compliance, with reference to the proposed safeguarded route.

This letter – along with the enclosed representations from Entran, updated in response to the WNP – reiterate and expand upon these concerns, alongside seeking to raise awareness of the potential implications of bypass around Watlington.

Basic conditions

Neighbourhood Development Plans (NPs) are required to meet a number of basic conditions in order to proceed to referendum. These are the tests that the appointed Examiner will assess a NP against. Of particular relevance is the requirement for a NP to a) have regard to national policies and guidance, and b) ensure that the making of a NP contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

As noted in Entran’s enclosed representations, the bypass proposal does not appear consistent with national policy. It also does not contribute towards the

delivery of sustainable development, particularly with regard to sustainable travel and environmental impacts.

Of further importance in terms of the basic conditions is the requirement for a NP to be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for that area.

In South Oxfordshire, this relates to the policies contained in the Core Strategy (adopted December 2012) and saved policies of the Local Plan 2011 (adopted January 2006). There are no policies in the adopted development plan that supports the delivery of a bypass in this location. The WNP is therefore not in general conformity with the strategic policies in South Oxfordshire.

Further to this, the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) explains that “Although a draft neighbourhood plan or Order is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan the reasoning and evidence informing the Local Plan process is likely to be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested (Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 41- 009-20160211).” The NP Examiner is therefore required to consider whether any reasoning or published evidence have a bearing on whether a NP meets the basic conditions. As explained in Entran’s enclosed letter, there is currently no robust reasoning or evidence at District or Neighbourhood level that suggests that a bypass is necessary or appropriate.

It appears that the proposed housing allocations (Watlington Housing Policies: Sites A – C) have been selected ahead of other potential sites, principally because of their ability to contribute land and financing towards a bypass and assist in bringing it forward. This is not a sustainable way of planning for the future of the town.

It is acknowledged that NPs are not subject to the same examination process as Local Plans and as covered above, the key test for NPs relates to meeting the basic conditions as opposed to soundness, which applies to Local Plans. While NPs can come forward in advance of an emerging Local Plan, any proposal within an emerging Local Plan will be subject to its own separate examination process. There is therefore no certainty that the proposals in the current (Publication) version of the Local Plan will remain in their current form, or remain at all, by the time it is adopted. In light of this it is considered appropriate that a decision regarding whether the WNP meets the basic conditions awaits the outcome of the Local Plan examination and the adoption of the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, should the examination proceed, to assist with this process, a public hearing would be appropriate. This would enable all key and interested parties to have a fair opportunity to express their views on the contents of the WNP.

Other considerations

Pyrton Parish Council is due to submit the Submission version of its NP for examination. This sets out measures to ensure that the quintessentially rural and tranquil parish is able to conserve what makes this part of South Oxfordshire such a pleasant place to be part of. A key part of the Pyrton NP is the retention

of the local gap between Pyrton and Watlington, to prevent their coalescence and to conserve their separate identities and settings.

The area of land that provides this gap is identified as PYR2 in the WNP. The safeguarded route passes through this land. Section 6.7 of the WNP explains that the WNP supports Pyrton in protecting this site (along with PYR1) from “inappropriate development that would adversely affect both the Chilterns AONB and the Shirburn Castle Historic Park.” It also identifies that “The WNDP concurs that these two sites are located in a very sensitive landscape area. In particular, PYR 2 provides clear visual separation between the two communities of Pyrton and Watlington. However, the location of these two sites is key to safeguarding the route of the proposed re-aligned B4009.”

The above text is contradictory. It acknowledges the value of PYR1 and PYR2 and seeks to protect them from “inappropriate development”, yet the WNP continues to support the delivery of a bypass through these sites. It appears that the intention is that these two sites would contribute towards the funding of the bypass, along with the proposed WNP housing allocations.

There also exists no engineering study or traffic research that evidences how the safeguarded route could be engineered to safely cross Pyrton Lane as it emerges from WAT9 and enters into PYR2. Moreover, such a crossing may need to enter into and take up part of the playing fields of Icknield Community College.

A bypass around Watlington has the potential to have a number of other significant impacts on the local and surrounding area. This includes the following:

• Permanent adverse impact on the local environment, detracting from both Watlington and Pyrton, inducing traffic and not dealing with the air quality problem in Watlington, exposing new and existing residents to poor air quality. The bypass would simply move the problem from one part of the town to a different part of the town, which is not a solution.

• Introduction of an over-engineered urban road through open countryside with associated infrastructure (e.g. lighting), severally impacting on the current rural nature of the District and the way of life of local residents.

• Visual impacts and impacts on the landscape character of the local and surrounding area, as well as biodiversity, protected trees and the environment more widely.

• Impact on the setting of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), located to the east of B4009, which is recognised for being one of the finest landscapes in England.

• Impact on the setting of other designated heritage assets including listed buildings and local conservation areas, which are defined because of their special architectural and / or historic value. This includes additional traffic impacting upon Shirburn village, including potential damage to the Grade II

listed wall off Watlington Road and Grade II listed Lower Farmhouse Shirburn Cottage, which are circa 1m away from the road.

• Impact on the trade of local businesses and shops in the centre of Watlington.

In conclusion, it is clear that there are significant concerns associated with the proposed safeguarding of land in Watlington for a re-aligned B4009.

For the reasons set out in this letter it is considered that the WNP is not capable of meeting the basic conditions required of a NP. It is considered appropriate that the assessment of the WNP against the basic conditions awaits the outcome of the Local Plan examination and the adoption of the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the above, should the examination proceed, a public hearing would enable all key and interested parties to have a fair opportunity to express their views. In this scenario, we strongly encourage the examiner to hold a public hearing.

I trust that these representations will be duly noted. Please do contact me should you have any queries.

Yours faithfully,

Luke Vallins MRTPI Senior Planner cc Pyrton Manor The Beechwood Estates Company Ltd Rob Williams, Entran

Enc Entran letter dated 28 January 2018

Our Ref: TP2297- WNDP/rgw/002 Entran Ltd 7 Greenway Farm Your Ref: Bath Road, Wick, Bristol BS30 5RL th Date: 28 January 2018 Telephone: 0177 9374077 Email: [email protected]

Planning Policy South Oxfordshire District Council 135 Eastern Avenue Milton Park Milton Abingdon OX14 4SB

Representations submitted in response to the Submission Version of the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2033, dated October 2017

Dear Sir / Madam,

This letter has been prepared on behalf of Pyrton Manor and The Beechwood Estates Company Ltd. I am pleased to set out below representations in response to the Submission Version of the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNP) and in particular the safeguarding of a proposed bypass route around Watlington as referenced in the ‘Publication’ version of South Oxfordshire District Council’s emerging Local Plan at page 122, policy TRANS3. These representations are to be read alongside Terence O’Rourke’s separate letter, also in response to the WNP.

Our clients have significant concerns regarding the proposals set out within the draft WNP for the safeguarding of land in Watlington for a re-aligned B4009. One of the aims of the WNP is “To safeguard land for a re-aligned B4009 to the north and west of the town in order to reduce congestion in the town centre, to improve air quality and provide a route for some through traffic.” Further to this, WNP Policy P2 (Transport) explains that “Proposals for development on allocated sites to the north and west of Watlington will be required to identify land for a safeguarded route for a re-aligned B4009 in accordance with the indicative route. (See Figure 9).” This is expanded upon within the Watlington Housing Policies with reference to the three allocated housing sites (Sites A – C), each of which proposes that housing is brought forward alongside a re-aligned route.

In our November 2017 response to the Publication version of the emerging Local Plan (on behalf of the Residents Against Watlington Ring Road – RAWRR), we raised concerns over the soundness of the draft plan (having regard to the tests set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF), as well as its legal compliance, with reference to the proposed safeguarded route.

Environmental Entran Ltd incorporated in England and Wales no. 5557693 Transportation

In this regard we would like to re-iterate that the proposal fails all of the soundness tests in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), not being positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

We will demonstrate that such an approach is not justified and is not based on robust and credible proportionate evidence, having regard to reasonable alternatives as well as being contrary to section 4 of the NPPF on ‘promoting sustainable transport’, particularly paragraphs 29 and 34.

Furthermore, it is evident that the proposal to safeguard the route is not consistent with national policy and does not enable the delivery of sustainable development, with regard to sustainable travel.

Information Review

Referenced documents include; • Submission Version of the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2033 (dated October 2017) • Watlington Traffic Management Plan (October 2017) • Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan - Traffic Impact Study Brief • SODC’s Publication Local Plan (October 2017) • Transport Plan 4 Science Vale Area Transport Strategy • South Oxfordshire Local Plan Preferred Options 2: evaluation of transport Impacts, Stage 1 • South Oxfordshire Local Plan Preferred Options 2: evaluation of transport Impacts, Stage 2 • South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2033 Publication Version Transport Topic Paper October 2017 • Habitats Regulations Assessment Report (October 2017) • Local Transport Plan (LTP4): Connecting Oxfordshire 2015 • Sustainability Appraisal (September 2017) • Sustainability Appraisal Appendices (September 2017) • Evaluation of Transport Impacts: Stage 1 Development Scenarios (March 2017) • Evaluation of Transport Impacts: Stage 2 Development Scenarios and Mitigation Testing (October 2017) • Landscape Capacity Assessment for additional sites on the edge of the larger villages in South Oxfordshire – Addendum August 2015 to main report May 2014

Response to Studies

It is recognised that transport infrastructure improvements will be required to support the demand for travel arising from proposed new developments.

However, the considerable number of evidence base papers as they relate to highway matters has not analytically or otherwise demonstrated the need for the Watlington bypass or indeed why land should be safeguarded.

The bypass is not in the Local Transport Plan. This is a significant omission for a major road proposal. It fails to accord with the strategic approach of the plan, which is not to provide fully for increased demand by cars and freight vehicles for road capacity.

The network statistics shown in tables 3 and 4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2033 Publication Version Transport Topic Paper October 2017 demonstrate that the benefits of the unfunded road schemes in transport terms are very marginal. Therefore, the requirement for the road schemes must be questioned.

The limited model testing approach has not looked at the benefit of individual schemes but assessed schemes on a combined basis. A more robust approach would be to look at infrastructure schemes on a case by case basis so as to understand whether or not the scheme proposed will actually bring about benefit both locally.

Such an approach would very quickly identify those elements of infrastructure that are necessary and those that would bring about little or no benefit. Without such detail, safeguarding of routes cannot be justified.

Environmental PAGE 2 Transportation

At section 7 of the same document emphasis is put on the fact that opportunities to promote the use of sustainable modes must be taken. It would seem more relevant therefore to reallocate funds that might have been allocated to road schemes to sustainable travel and public transport enhancement schemes, particularly focusing on those towns and villages where it has been identified in various publications that public transport provision is not of sufficient quality so as to deter the use of the private car. No alternative options have been assessed therefore the need for a bypass has not been fully quantified.

The South Oxfordshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part B Report (Infrastructure Delivery Schedule) considers the bypass and paints a very broad picture of a road that has only been scoped but has not been progressed, for which funding has not been secured but has been costed between £13,000,000 and £20,000,000. The schedule relies on Oxfordshire County Council as a delivery partner notwithstanding their criticism of the scheme. As with other schemes, the schedule suggests a combination of CIL and section 106/278 agreements and grant funding even though planning obligations and section 278 agreements cannot be used to fund those projects which are receiving CIL monies. It goes on to say that a bypass may not be the only solution, but no other options have been explored in sufficient detail as to be able to make an informed decision on whether a bypass is the most appropriate solution. How can such a vague scheme description be relied upon when there are so many additional as yet unquantified variables such as need, road width, intersection design, environmental considerations, deliverability and benefits?

The above is further demonstrated when viewed alongside Oxfordshire County Council’s (OCC’s) response to the ‘Second Preferred Options’ version of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan dated 17th May 2017 and the ‘Pre- Submission’ draft version of the Pyrton Neighbourhood Plan dated 16th June 2017. In these responses OCC raised concerns not least with regard to whether the evidence base supports the safeguard proposal, funding and deliverability, need and justification based on traffic volumes and associated potential congestion relief / benefit to Watlington and whether appropriate consideration has been given to the promotion of more active travel options.

With regard to the Watlington Traffic Management Plan (October 2017) and the Watlington Neighbourhood Development Plan - Traffic Impact Study Brief whilst the contents are noted, the snapshots do not necessarily show the real picture, furthermore, the report rightly states that the benefit of the by-pass are at this stage only estimates. In addition, the study recommends the building of a microsimulation model before decisions are taken or as part of future studies. Clearly this has to be done before a decision can be made.

Harm from the proposal

It is also necessary to note that the August 2015 Landscape Capacity Assessment Addendum – prepared for the Council – recommends the protection from development of one of the key open spaces that the bypass would extend through, referred to as WAT8, which is located to the north of Watlington. It makes specific reference to the “Potential for harm to the setting of Watlington and the AONB.” This accords with Pyrton Parish Council’s proposed designation of this site as part of a ‘local gap’ due to it being locally valued both by reason of the role it plays in preventing the coalescence of Pyrton and Watlington, but also enjoyment of the open countryside, including long-range views towards the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. WAT8 is also recognised in the WNP as being of particular value, as covered in Terence O’Rourke’s letter.

The proposal ends at the boundary of the Shirburn Castle registered garden, which is a further unassessed impact. There is also an unassessed impact on the historic parklands of Pyrton Manor and the associated Conservation Area, immediately adjacent to the safeguarded route.

In addition there is no engineering study or traffic research that evidences how the safeguarded route could be engineered to safely cross Pyrton Lane as it emerges from WAT9 and enters into PYR2. Moreover, such a crossing may need to enter into and take up part of the playing fields of Icknield Community College.

The proposal for a bypass around Watlington would result in the introduction of an over-engineered and unnecessary urban road that extends through open countryside, severally impacting on the current rural nature of the District and the way of life of local residents. The bypass would not support the local community and their way of life – rather it would introduce a heavily urban feature into the countryside. There is no evidence to suggest that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the significant adverse environmental impacts and it would entirely conflict with the achievement of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF.

Environmental PAGE 3 Transportation

Other issues of concern resultant of the proposed bypass and increased traffic that seem not to have been adequately addressed include:

• Access from Castle Road and Blenheim Road (in Shirburn) onto the B4009 with increased traffic flow. • The inadequacy of Pyrton Lane to take the increased level of bypass traffic. • Increased light pollution. • Increased noise pollution. • Impact on air quality.

Safeguarding

Safeguarding land for the road scheme has harmful effects. It inhibits the use and development of the land, particularly by the businesses whose land is included. Safeguarding also affects the proposals of immediately adjacent owners and occupiers. There is also a social and economic cost of leaving local residents uncertain about the future of their immediate environment.

Land should not be safeguarded unless the proposal is desirable and deliverable.

Conclusion

The evidence base as presented and discussed above has categorically failed to demonstrate the need for the bypass or indeed the need to safeguard land. It has not been demonstrated that a bypass:

1. design can be progressed 2. can be delivered in terms of land ownership, viability, environmental impact, alignment, associated infrastructure and in a timeframe to meet any arising demand 3. can be funded as no funding is in place 4. is the correct solution

The proposal is not positively prepared. No infrastructure requirement for it has been identified, not least by the local highway authority whose road it would be.

Quite clearly the safeguarding proposal is not justified nor based on robust and credible proportionate evidence, having regard to reasonable alternatives.

The proposal is not effective since it is not deliverable. Funding has not been identified and progressing grant funding in the face of concerns from the local highway authority would be futile. The plan ought not to include undeliverable elements.

It is not consistent with national policy and does not enable the delivery of sustainable development, particularly with regard to sustainable travel and environmental impacts.

Environmental PAGE 4 Transportation

Yours faithfully,

Rob Williams Director M. 07966 927543 cc Pyrton Manor The Beechwood Estates Company Ltd Luke Vallins, Terence O’Rourke Ltd

Environmental PAGE 5 Transportation