1
Dijksman Planning
35 Berkeley Road, Newbury, RG14 5JE
Appeal Statement
Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings. Erection of 197 dwellings (79 affordable and 118 open market) with associated access roads, landscaping and public open space.
At
Land south of Summertown, East Hanney Wantage, OX12 0JQ
Appeal by Linden Homes
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 2
Background – Officer Support
1. The application which is the subject of this appeal was submitted following extensive pre-application discussions and consultations with stakeholders. It was subsequently amended to reflect comments received during the application process and it received an Officer’s Recommendation for approval.
Draft Local Plan Allocated Site
2. The pre-application discussions related to this site were particularly extensive because this is one of the District Councils identified strategic allocations within the emerging local plan (Strategy for Abingdon on Thames and Oxford Fringe Sub-Area Site 6). The Examination in Public is continuing in early February and the Council maintains it’s in principle support for the allocation of this site, notwithstanding the refusal of the detailed application.
Statement of Common Ground
3. Appendix 1 to this statement is the recently agreed Statement of Common Ground which sets out the District Council’s ongoing support for the allocation and recognition of the intrinsic sustainability of this proposal. This Statement of Common Ground has been agreed since the refusal of the application by the Planning Committee, which was based upon concerns relating to landscape impact, density and the requirement for financial contributions.
Local Plan Site Development Template
4. The inclusion of this site within the draft Local Plan can only be accorded limited weight, because it is yet to be adopted, however the identification of the site and the careful and positive consideration given to it by the authority cannot be ignored. At the very least the allocation of the site for around 200 homes represents a very significant level of pre-application advice and support. (The Inspector is requested to consider the Local Plan Site Development Template to be found on page 18 of appendix A to the Submission Draft)
Supporting Application Documents
5. In the interests of brevity this statement does not seek to repeat the points made in the supporting documents submitted with the planning application and the Inspector is requested to give due consideration to the applications submissions, including the Design and Access Statement and its Addendum and the submitted Planning Statement.
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 3
Committee Report
6. The Committee Report which supported the application represents a full and comprehensive description of the proposal, setting out the responses from stakeholders. It provides a carefully considered assessment of the planning merits of the scheme in the current planning policy context. The Inspector is therefore requested to give due consideration to the extensive analysis and comments made in support of the scheme within the Committee Report, a copy of which is provided in Appendix 2 to this Statement. It is important to note that the reasons for refusal only relate to particular aspects of the scheme, the remaining aspects, as considered in the Report in some detail, have not been objected to by the Council.
Main Issue
7. As confirmed within the Committee Report and as set out in the application Planning Statement, the Vale of White Horse District Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. The Council is under continual pressure in this regard, due to both its lack of a five year land supply and the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan.
East Hanney Appeal – Land Off Steventon Road
8. In Appendix 3 is an Appeal Decision, which granted outline permission for up to 35 dwellings on the edge of this same village of East Hanney in January 2015 (Appeal reference 14/2223292). The Inspector in that case succinctly set out the main issue in that appeal, which is equally applicable to this appeal, as follows:
i. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites. This means, having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework that The Vale of White Horse Local Plan 201 Policies GS1 and GS2, which dictate where the provision of new housing will be considered acceptable, are not up-to-date.
ii. This directs the decision-maker to paragraph 14 of the Framework. The appeal site is not in a location where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
iii. As such, where the development plan is out-of-date, paragraph 14 says that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, considered as a whole.
iv. The main issue to be considered, therefore, is whether any adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 4
demonstrably outweigh any benefits it would bring forward.
9. This sets out very clearly the principle that this appeal should be upheld unless this particular proposal would result in adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.
Demonstrable Benefits
10. Before considering the reasons for refusal it is helpful to set out the demonstrable planning benefits which will arise from this proposal. The provision of housing in the district, (which is not providing an adequate supply of housing land in the context of objectively assessed housing need) must clearly be given significant weight as a benefit. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF sets out the need significantly boost the supply of housing which has both social and economic benefits.
Constructive Local Engagement
11. As indicated above this scheme represents the culmination of intensive and constructive pre-application and post submission discussions and engagement with Council Officers, the Council’s consultant Urban Designer, the Parish Council, the County Archaeologist, the County Highway Authority, Environment Agency and local stakeholders including the Letcombe Brook Project Officer. As a consequence, the benefits of this scheme go beyond the delivery of a significant number of market and affordable homes.
Environmental Benefits
12. The application also delivers demonstrable environmental benefits with desirable social consequences, through the provision of a very significant area (approximately 2.4 hectares) of new publicly available and ecologically beneficial open space. The comments of the Countryside Officer, dated 23rd of October 2015, make the position quite clear. Namely that this proposal incorporates a Habitat Restoration Plan and Ecological Management Plan which, in combination will deliver a Community Nature Reserve and area of public open space along the Letcombe Brook, which forms the Western boundary of the appeal site. The land involved is currently privately owned farmland, much of which is intensively farmed. The dedication of this land in perpetuity to a combination of public and ecological uses is a significant positive material benefit of this application to be weighed in the planning balance.
Reasons for Refusal
13. Notwithstanding the officers support for the application it was refused for two main reasons (plus the absence of a 106 agreement to secure infrastructure contributions). It is noteworthy that neither
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 5
reason for refusal argues that the scheme will have a significant impact or would result in ‘significant harm’:
i) Policy NE9 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 is consistent with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site is located within the Lowland Vale landscape which is distinctive and valued for its own quality. The site is an area of open land beyond the southern extent of the village, extending into open countryside. It is highly visible from public viewpoints and the northern section contributes to the settling of listed Mill buildings and the conservation area. It is the Council's opinion that the proposal, adversely impacts on the quality of this part of the Lowland Vale in respect of cultural heritage, townscape and setting of listed buildings and causes harm to the wider landscape, the settlement pattern and its landscape setting, and in particular a visual impact on the southern approach to East Hanney. The proposal is therefore, contrary to policies NE9, HE1 and HE4 of the adopted Local Plan and to the National Planning Policy Framework.
ii) Policy DC1 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the adopted Design Guide (March 2015) require high quality design and this accords with criterion 4 of paragraph 17 and paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the Council gives great importance to the design of the built environment. It is the council's opinion that the density of the proposed development creates a cramped form of development that is not appropriate to this location, comprising a high density and urban character that is at odds with the low density and rural character of the existing edge of the village which in turn detracts from the open, rural aspect of the village. As such the proposal is contrary to policies DC1 and DC6 of the adopted Local Plan, the adopted Vale of White Horse Design Guide (March 2015) and to the National Planning Policy Framework.
Rebuttal of Reason for Refusal 1
14. Reason 1 alleges that this scheme will ‘adversely impact on the quality of this part of the Lowland Vale’ in respect of: cultural heritage, townscape, setting of listed buildings, harm to the wider landscape, the settlement pattern and its landscape setting, and visual impact on the southern approach to East Hanney.
15. These purported adverse impacts (note the absence of the word significant) can be considered under two broad but related headings, heritage and landscape.
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 6
Heritage Impact
16. Appendix 4 to this statement is a diagrammatic location plan showing the two Conservation Areas of East Hanney and the listed buildings closest to the appeal site. It is immediately evident that the scheme has been arranged to ensure that there is no built development within the physical or visual setting of either the Conservation Area or nearby Listed Buildings. The developed area of this site is bounded to the north by three dwellings and by Summertown, and to the north of that road by Dews Meadow, a site which has a resolution to grant outline permission for 55 dwellings (Application P15/0343/O Schematic Block Plan is included as Appendix 5). The distances involved, and intervening areas of built form mean that this scheme will not adversely affect, to any material degree, the Conservation Area, its setting, or any Listed Building.
Off-Site Highway Works
17. The proposed scheme does include some off-site highway works within Summertown and Mill Orchard, including a new footpath running through the proposed open space along the side of the Letcombe Brook which links this community nature reserve and recreation facility to the village. (See Appendix H to the Revised Transport Assessment). There are minor works within the existing highway which involve changes to surfacing to highlight pedestrian areas and crossings and raised tables in tarmac. These works are minor in extent and exclusively within the highway and as such cannot reasonably be considered detrimental to the Conservation Area or any other heritage assets. It would be demonstrably unreasonable to describe them as significantly or materially harmful.
NPPF Heritage Advice
18. The listed building which is to the north west of the proposed area of public open space, fronting Mill Orchard, is known as Dandridge’s Mill. There is no proposed built development in the vicinity of this building, the nearest new dwellings lie beyond other existing properties to the south-east. The Inspector is requested to consider the comments of the councils own Conservation Officer who concludes that the impact of 200 houses will constitute ‘less than substantial harm’. It is our firm case that the distances between designated Heritage Assets in this village and the new built development are such that there will be no material harm arising from the development. Nevertheless in the event that the Inspector believes that ‘less than substantial harm’ is the correct assessment then the NPPF is clear in stating:
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 7
Paragraph 134 Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
19. In this case the public benefits of housing delivery, including a significant amount of affordable housing; the provision of a safer arrangement for both cars and pedestrians crossing the bridge; and the new pedestrian route and access to a new ecological and recreational area, all clearly and demonstrably out weight any impact upon heritage assets in the wider area of the site.
Local Plan Policies HE1 & HE4
20. The Council quotes two saved policies from the 2011 Local Plan in relation to Heritage Impact, as follows:
POLICY HE1 PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OR OTHER WORKS WITHIN OR AFFECTING THE SETTING OF A CONSERVATION AREA WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THEY CAN BE SHOWN TO PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED:
i) ON AREAS SUCH AS PADDOCKS, GREENS, GAPS BETWEEN BUILDINGS, GARDENS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THESE AREAS DO NOT MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO;
a) THE CONSERVATION AREA'S SPECIAL INTEREST INCLUDING ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS LANDSCAPE SETTING, OR,
b) VIEWS WITHIN, INTO, OR OUT FROM THE CONSERVATION AREA WHICH WOULD BE LOST OR DAMAGED WERE THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE PERMITTED.
ii) WHERE IT RESPECTS ITS CONTEXT THROUGH APPROPRIATE SITING, SCALE, HEIGHT, FORM AND MASSING, DESIGN DETAILING AND THE CHOICE AND QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES AND HAS REGARD TO THE DESIRABILITY OF;
a) PRESERVING THOSE FEATURES IMPORTANT TO THE SPECIAL INTEREST AND CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA; AND
b) REMOVING OR IMPROVING FEATURES IN THE CONSERVATION AREA WHICH DETRACT FROM ITS SPECIAL INTEREST AND CHARACTER; AND
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 8
iii) IF LEVELS OF TRAFFIC, PARKING, NOISE OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS GENERATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH PRESERVATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
POLICY HE4 PLANNING PERMISSION, FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SETTING OF LISTED BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE SITING, SCALE, DESIGN, FORM, FINISHES (INCLUDING COLOUR) AND MATERIALS OF THE PROPOSAL RESPECT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING IN ITS SETTING, INCLUDING ANY VISUAL, FUNCTIONAL, HISTORIC OR ARCHITECTURAL RELATIONSHIPS IT HAS.
21. Consideration of the map at Appendix 4 of this Statement shows very clearly that the proposed residential development will comply with Policy HE1 and preserve the existing Conservation Area, indeed it is arguable that it has no material impact upon it. Equally there is no conflict with Policy HE4 in that no listed building is adversely affected in relation to its setting.
Landscape impact
22. This is a matter which was given particularly detailed and careful consideration in the design and layout of this proposal; because the site is flat and exposed and there will undoubtedly be an impact upon the landscape. The Inspector is requested to take into account the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application, the draft indicative landscaping scheme and the formal response of the councils own Landscape Architect. Appendix 6 to this appeal statement is comprised of two photo real images showing views of the site from the southern approach to East Hanney. One giving the existing view (albeit without the new development proposed for Dews Meadow) and the second providing a photo montage indicating how the new village edge is likely to look following the establishment of the intended landscaping scheme. There is no question that to establish a new edge to the village in this way will result in a change in the landscape, but is our case that this change does not result in a significantly harmful impact. This was the conclusion accepted by the councils own professional landscape adviser.
Landscape Mitigation
23. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application provides a realistic acknowledgement of the impact resulting from this development. The proposed indicative landscaping scheme demonstrates the scope of landscape planting which can be achieved both in and around the site in this particular scheme. Two Appeal Decisions are provided in Appendix 7 (related
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 9
to land at East Hendred another village in the District), these decisions are not included to make comparisons between the merits of the sites, they are included here purely to demonstrate that two independent inspectors accepted the beneficial role and legitimacy in planning terms, of creating new landscape features and planted boundaries to contain proposed development where none currently exists.
Landscape Policy NE9
The Council Refusal Reason 1 refers to the Policy related to the Lowland Vale, NE9:
POLICY NE9 DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOWLAND VALE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IF IT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE LANDSCAPE, PARTICULARLY ON THE LONG OPEN VIEWS WITHIN OR ACROSS THE AREA.
This Policy relates to all the land in a very wide area across the District and it must be considered in the broader context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is our case that whilst the new development will have a limited effect upon the landscape this will be mitigated by landscape planting.
New Village Edge
24. During the consideration of the proposal by the Council various amendments were made to incorporate additional planting and to retain a length of existing hedgerow within the site. The scheme has sought to work with the existing landscape features, preserving and enhancing the most sensitive areas along the brook, whilst developing and also enhancing through landscape planting what is currently intensive arable farmland. In this context it is our firm belief that whilst this scheme will clearly extend development onto open land beyond the village the impact of this must be balanced against the positive benefits to be delivered by the development. In this case we say the benefits demonstrably outweigh the limited impact, and the impact can be significantly mitigated such that the in the long term a new and attractive rural edge to the village will be created. This is illustrated in the photo montage in Appendix 6.
Positive Benefits
25. When considering the matter of the landscape impact of this scheme it is important to note that this land is not in a location where specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework indicate the development should be restricted. The councils own Conservation Officer expresses the case in favour of this scheme very effectively in referring to two positive benefits arising from the development: firstly -
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 10
“the opportunity to evolve a logical extension of the local pattern of development of the village by a southern extension to the south of Summertown”
and secondly -
“the opportunity to form good linkages into the existing patterns of lanes and footpaths.”
26. This sums up very well the way in which this proposed scheme, far from causing significant harm, would in reality comprise a sustainable form and pattern of development to the south of this village which will bring significant and demonstrable benefits.
Rebuttal of Reason for Refusal 2
27. The second reason for refusal alleges that this proposed scheme is of inappropriate form and style in terms of its density and layout. Such that it will have an urban character which would be at odds with the low-density and rural nature of the village. The two key aspects of this reason for refusal are the related matters of density and urban form and it is asserted by the Council that this scheme does not adequately reflect the advice given with the adopted Council Design Guide.
Urban Design Justification
28. This scheme evolved in response to the input of several urban designers employed by the Council. It was also underpinned by a careful and in-depth analysis of the adopted Design Guide. The Inspector is requested to consider the Design and Access Statement, and importantly it’s Addendum, which set out the justification and design rational which underpin this scheme.
Gross Density
29. This is a new development of 197 houses and it cannot seek to directly replicate a village which has evolved over many hundreds of years. It does however respond to the constraints and opportunities of the location and the gross density of the entire site is 20 dwellings per hectare, but overall density expressed only as a number does not necessarily indicate whether a scheme is acceptable or not. In this scheme, as with most developments of this scale, the density varies across the site. It is different in different locations depending upon the context. In this layout some of the larger houses are positioned on the edge of the public open space and on the boundary with the neighbouring houses in large gardens. More intensively developed areas of this scheme are found within the site itself and in some areas to create an active frontage along the boundary both to the A338 and to the south. Villages are by their very nature comprised of a variety of house sizes, types, periods of styles and residential densities, this site also
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 11
incorporate a range of residential character areas, and the overall scheme is therefore appropriate for this location.
Recent Developments at East Hanney
30. East Hanney has been the subject of several planning permissions in recent years, a number of which are completed or underway and some of which have yet to be implemented. But they all form part of the evolving nature and character of this settlement. Of particular relevance to this scheme is Dews Meadow, which is north of this site and that has a Committee resolution to approve 55 dwellings (as mentioned in paragraph 17 above) subject to the completion of a 106 agreement. Whilst we do not have the benefit of seeing the detailed scheme for that site, it does represent a gross density of 21 dwellings per hectare. This is clearly a density considered appropriate in principle by the Council in this edge of village location. The plan within Appendix 8 shows the location of the Dews Meadow site to the north of the appeal proposal, indicating the relative gross densities.
Evolving Village Character
31. The various new schemes that have been constructed around East Hanney are obviously modern and as a result they are different to the character of dwellings found in the more historic part of the village. The scheme proposed here inevitably falls within this category but it has also sought to create an attractive new road into the village which makes the most of planting and landscaping opportunities on the periphery and within the site. This scheme accommodates a wide variety of dwelling sizes as required by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It is important that land should be used efficiently without resulting in a poor quality of development. In this case, no criticism has been levied at the architectural design of the proposed dwellings.
32. The final comments received by the councils own Urban Designer (see memorandum dated 28th of October 2015) supports our contention that this scheme reflects the new Vale Design Guide and represents a high quality and appropriate scheme for this location. This proposal represents a positive and attractive new part of the village.
Local Plan Policy DC1 Design
33. The second reason for refusal refers to this design policy in support of the criticisms levelled at this scheme.
POLICY DC1 DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:
i) IT IS OF A HIGH QUALITY AND INCLUSIVE DESIGN SUCH THAT THE LAYOUT, SCALE, MASS, HEIGHT,
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 12
DETAILING, MATERIALS USED AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ADJOINING BUILDINGS AND OPEN SPACE DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THOSE ATTRIBUTES THAT MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY;
ii) IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND CHARACTER EITHER IN A MODERN OR A TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION.
34. In relation to DC1, it is evident that the scheme is fully compliant. The Design and Access Statement explains the rationale behind the proposed layout and it is clear that the development will make a positive contribution to the locality.
35. This policy must be considered in the context of paragraph 34.65 of the NPPF:
Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits). 36. In this case it is clear that the scheme does promote high levels of sustainability and that it is entirely in keeping with its location, albeit a new area of the village is being created.
Local Plan Policy DC6 Landscaping
37. This Policy is also referred to in support of reason for refusal 2:
POLICY DC6 ALL PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING MEASURES DESIGNED TO:
i) PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS INCLUDING, WHERE APPROPRIATE, EXISTING IMPORTANT LANDSCAPE FEATURES; AND ii) MAXIMISE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATURE CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CREATION.
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 13
38. It is evident from the landscape and ecological submissions which accompany the scheme that it wholly complies with the letter and spirit of this policy in respect to both the landscape and ecological aspects. In relation to ‘maximising opportunities for nature conservation and wildlife habitat creation’ the scheme is demonstrably beneficial and completely consistent with the policy. It is hard to envisage a more positive way of achieving the goal set out in this policy than through the submitted Habitat Restoration Plan and Ecological Management Plan which, in combination will deliver a Community Nature Reserve with public access for the benefit of local people in perpetuity. The NPPF is extremely supportive of the kind of measure proposed in this scheme, in Paragraph 118 it states:
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity…
Which is exactly what this proposal does, as one of the key benefits that it can deliver. As such this benefit should be given significant weight in the assessment of this proposal.
Reason for Refusal 3 – Section 106 / Infrastructure Provision
39. Without wishing to repeat the assessment of the scheme as set out within the Committee Report it is important to note for the avoidance of doubt, that this particular scheme has been found acceptable by the Council in all respects other than in relation to Landscape / Heritage impacts and Density/Urban Design impacts. It is a development that is (subject to the necessary Conditions and 106 Agreement) deliverable and acceptable in relation to:
foul and surface water drainage, highways parking and access, ecology, archaeology, architectural design, affordable housing provision, housing mix, sustainability of this village location access to local service and facilities open space provision, residential amenities infrastructure provision.
40. The Appellants fully accept the need to fund necessary local infrastructure provision, where justified. In this respect a Unilateral Undertaking will be submitted to deliver contributions. The list of contributions is set out within paragraph 6.99 of the Committee Report. These are all included within the Unilateral Undertaking with the explicit proviso that the Inspector must be satisfied with the
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 14
evidence from the Council that these contributions are adequately justified and lawfully compliant with the CIL regulations.
41. The contributions are as follows:
Vale of White Horse District Council
Proposed Contributions
A new AGP training area/MUGA on the memorial grounds, East Hanney £14,464 Cricket facilities in East Hanney £6,300 Football pitch improvements and provision in East Hanney £31,410 New rugby facilities at Grove RFU £7,843 Sports pavilion and/or changing facility improvements or new provision in East Hanney £65,474 Rugby pavilion extension at Grove RFU £9,793 Youth sport in East Hanney including Parish Council plans for a BMX trail or MUGA £46,518 Tennis in East Hanney £41,433 New sports hall at Mably Way, Wantage £112,843 Health & Fitness at Mably Way, Wantage £52,251 New swimming pool facility at Mably Way, Wantage £87,178 Bin collection and provision on site £33,490 Public art on site £59,100 Street naming on site £2,199 Letcombe Brook Project interpretation boards on site £4,805 St James the Great church restoration, West Hanney £33,000 Public open space maintenance (if not Management Company) £624,395 Play equipment maintenance (if not Management Company) £52,800 Monitoring £6,860
District Council Total £1,293,156
Oxfordshire County Council
Proposed Contributions
St James primary school expansion £989,016 New secondary school expansion at Grove airfield site £1,352,952 Bus services through East Hanney (X30 / 31) including a new service to Didcot £169,500 Improvements to A338 / Steventon Rd Junction £547,000 Bus stop provision including shelters and on-going maintenance £20,000 Monitoring £10,375
County Council Total £3,088,843
Overall Total £4,381,999 (approx. 22,243 per unit)
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 15
Conditions
42. The standard Conditions recommended in the Committee Report are considered to be reasonable and necessary and supported in principle.
Conclusion - Planning Balance
43. It is the appellant’s case that this is a highly beneficial and sustainable proposal. It will not result in adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh its clear benefits. There will be visual and physical impacts but they are limited in extent and can be mitigated. The demonstrable benefits resulting from the scheme are genuine and deliverable in a highly sustainable location which has been identified by the Council, and remains formally supported by the Council as an appropriate for development of this scale. The Inspector is therefore respectfully requested to uphold this appeal.
Summary of Case
The Vale of White Horse does not have an up to date development plan and is facing an ongoing five year housing land supply shortfall.
This scheme will deliver a meaningful contribution of 197 dwellings to housing delivery with a new ecological and recreational resource for the benefit of the village
Part 1 of the Local Plan 2031 is currently at submission stage with the EIP continuing in early February. This is an Allocated Site within the plan and the development of this site retains the support of the Council in principle.
The appeal proposal must be assessed on its merits in its current visual and landscape context. The evidence submitted with the application demonstrates that this is a scheme which will deliver significant and demonstrable environmental, social and economic benefits.
The Council does not deny the sustainability of this location or extent of the ecological / recreational benefits that the scheme will provide: in addition to delivering 197 new dwellings this scheme offers.
The proposed scheme on this site would represent a further logical chapter in the organic growth of this settlement that has been taking place incrementally over hundreds of years. It would create a new access into the village and establish a new green edge to the village whilst locating houses close to village facilities.
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 16
This application was recommended for approval on the basis that its impact on the edge of the village was acceptable and that the benefits demonstrably outweighed any limited adverse impact.
The scheme brings with it an additional new and significant planting scheme which will soften the external boundaries and result in a development that is ecologically and environmentally more beneficial and attractive than the current intensively farmed field.
Ken Dijksman MRTPI
Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE Statement of Common Ground – Linden Homes & Vale of White Horse 2016
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 Examination
January 2016
Statement of Common Ground between Vale of White Horse District Council and Linden Homes
1. Introduction
1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared between Vale of White Horse District Council, and Linden Homes, here after known as “the parties”. This document identifies the matters agreed with regard to the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and supporting documents to assist the Inspector during the Examination of the Local Plan.
1.2 This SoCG particularly relates to the allocation on land south of East Hanney for the development of around 200 homes. The agreed matters have been structured to help inform the Inspector through the hearing sessions.
1.3 VoWHDC proposes the site for allocation for strategic housing development in the Local Plan having considered reasonable alternatives including assessing the relevant evidence, and following consultation with stakeholders and the public.
2. Allocated Site for around 200 Dwellings at East Hanney
2.1 The site is situated on the southern edge of East Hanney, and is currently used as agricultural fields. The Letcombe Brook and Cowslip Meadows Local Wildlife site are located to west of the site and contains a UK Priority Habitat. The site is located on the western side of the A338 with good and direct pedestrian and vehicular access to the key village facilities and primary school.
2.2 The site is within several ownerships and a formal agreement is in place between the landowners who have a contractual arrangement with Linden Homes to promote the site and a full detailed planning application has been submitted.
Statement of Common Ground – Linden Homes & Vale of White Horse 2016
2.3 This site is wholly deliverable and can be brought forward without delay to provide around 200 dwellings, including about 80 affordable homes. There are no ownership, technical or operational reasons why the delivery of this site should be delayed beyond the normal periods necessary of the submission of details pursuant to Planning Conditions and Building Regulations requirements.
2.4 All parties have been working positively together to progress the development of this site in a timely manner through regular meetings. A full planning application was submitted for the site (P15/V1616/FUL) in July 2015. The application went to Planning Committee on Wednesday 25 November 2015 and the committee resolved to refuse the application relating to landscape, density and absence of financial contributions to meet needs generated by the housing. Linden Homes are currently reconsidering these issues.
3. Agreed Matters
3.1 The parties agree on the Council’s general approach to progressing Local Plan 2031 Part 1 to ensure timely and effectively delivery of the Council’s own housing needs and strategic allocations. It is therefore considered appropriate for non-strategic site allocations to be allocated within Local Plan 2031 Part 2.
3.2 The parties agree the full objectively assessed housing need for the district (excluding the potential influence of Oxford’s unmet housing need) is 20,560 and support the Council’s decision to meet this in full, as proposed in Core Policy 4. It is agreed this is based on a sound and robust Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Oxfordshire, as tested and found sound at the Cherwell Local Plan Examination.
3.3 The parties agree the forecasted high economic growth within the district will increase the demand for housing. There is a need for the timely provision of housing to support the economic forecasts and employment growth in which South of East Hanney will contribute towards.
3.4 The parties agree the allocation appropriately reflects the settlement hierarchy with East Hanney being defined as a sustainable location for additional residential development. It is also agreed that the allocated site is demonstrably the most sustainable location at East Hanney for this scale of development. Particularly in view of its accessibility and proximity to village facilities and the primary school.
3.5 The parties agree the South of East Hanney site is sustainable, suitable, and available and deliverable which is supported by the Council’s evidence base in particular the Strategic Sites Topic Paper 3 and the SHLAA 2014.
4. Conclusion
5.1 Linden Homes support the allocation of South of East Hanney within Core Policy 8 and the parties agree the site is suitable, available and deliverable for sustainable housing development.
5.2 The parties will continue to work cooperatively on the revised planning application. Statement of Common Ground – Linden Homes & Vale of White Horse 2016
Signatures
Signed on behalf of Vale of White Horse District Council
______Sophie Horsley Date Planning Policy Manager
Signed on behalf of Linden Homes
______Ken Dijksman Date Planning Agent
Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
APPLICATION NO. P15/V1616/FUL APPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATION REGISTERED 3.7.2015 PARISH EAST HANNEY WARD MEMBER(S) Matthew Barber APPLICANT Linden Homes Thames Valley SITE Land south of Summertown East Hanney Wantage, OX12 0JQ PROPOSAL Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings. Erection of 79 affordable dwellings and 118 open market dwellings, with associated access roads, landscaping and public open space(as amended by drawings received 24 September 2015 and as amended by plans received 19 October 2015.). GRID REFERENCE 441412/192417 OFFICER Stuart Walker
SUMMARY
This application is referred to committee in light of an objection from East Hanney Parish Council and the receipt of 58 letters of objection from local residents.
The application is a full submission and seeks consent to demolish redundant agricultural buildings and erect 197 dwellings (including 79 affordable units) with associated access roads, landscaping and public open space. The site lies in the open countryside and is located within the lowland vale landscape.
The report seeks to assess the planning application details against the national and local planning policy framework where relevant and all other material planning considerations.
The main planning issues that have been considered are:
The principle of the proposed development in this location in relation to planning policy context. Whether the proposal is suitable to meet the five year housing supply deficit in terms of the sustainability of the site. The cumulative impact of this proposal alongside other approved and proposed residential developments in the village. The proposed layout and design of the development within its context. The impact of the proposal on the lowland vale landscape. The impact on highway safety. Implications for flood risk, foul and surface water drainage, ecology, heritage assets and archaeology.
The principle of the development to help to address the council’s current shortfall in housing supply is acceptable. East Hanney village has a range of facilities, including a school, church, pub, post office and shop and the site is sustainably located in relation to these facilities. The provision of additional housing is acceptable and contributions are sought to offset cumulative impact on physical and social infrastructure. The design and layout are acceptable together with the landscape and visual impact of the proposal. Technical issues Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015 relating to highway impact, drainage / flood risk, ecology, heritage assets and archaeology are acceptable subject to conditions.
Overall the development is considered to amount to sustainable development, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 East Hanney is defined as a large village by policy H11 of the adopted Local Plan. The Town and Villages Facility Study Update 2014 also identifies East Hanney as one of the district’s larger villages with a range of services and facilities, including a shop, community facilities, a primary school, some limited employment opportunities and access to a regular public transport service serving larger towns.
1.2 The 8.2 hectare greenfield site is situated on the southern edge of East Hanney and is identified as a potential strategic housing site in the emerging local plan 2031, part 1 for up to 200 dwellings. It is bounded by farmland to the south, by the A338 to the east, and by established residential development to the north and north-west. The western boundary consists of Letcombe Brook, a historic waterway contiguous with an ancient Public Right of Way (PROW). To the north west lies Dandridge’s Mill, a grade II listed building.
1.3 The site comprises an agricultural field, partially enclosed by hedgerows and trees, and an ancient orchard that is adjacent to the Letcombe Brook. The topography of the site is broadly flat and is rural in character. The site lies within the Lowland Vale landscape (policy NE9). A conservation area around Dandridge’s Mill is situated adjacent to the site.
1.4 The site is currently accessed via a metalled footpath from Summertown which forms the southern highway link into the village from the A338 to Main street and West Hanney beyond. A secondary access into the site exists from Mill Orchard via an unsurfaced track between residential buildings.
1.5 A location plan is attached at appendix 1.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for residential development of the site for 197 dwellings (79 of which would be affordable units), with a mix of dwelling types and sizes including detached, semi-detached and terraced units ranging from 1 bedroom to 5 bedrooms. Dwellings are predominantly two storey with some 2.5 storey properties to define key spaces at a density of 32.8 dwellings per hectare. All buildings are proposed to be brick or render and tile or slate construction with steep roof pitches, simple detailing and traditional fenestration.
2.2 The urban structure of the development is based around a perimeter block network with properties facing onto streets. The vehicle point of access into the site is proposed via a new roundabout off the A338, which will form a new link road onto Summertown and into the village. Allocated and unallocated parking is provided across the site in a variety of forms such as garages, off road parking spaces and designated on street parking areas. Pedestrian links are provided onto Summertown and Mill Orchard to assist permeability, together with a footpath link through the southern perimeter of the site.
2.3 The western side of the development is proposed as a new community nature reserve alongside the Letcombe brook. A second area of public open space is provided in the centre of the site adjacent to the link road akin to a village green in its design. Green Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
edges along the north, east and south boundaries are also proposed which will contain SUDs features and structured landscaping.
2.4 Extracts from the application drawings are attached at Appendix 2. The plans have been amended to take account of technical officer comments. All plans and the suite of supporting technical documents accompanying the application are available to view online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
3.0 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Below is a summary of the responses received to both the original plans and the amendments. A full copy of all the comments made can be viewed online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
3.2 East Hanney Object. Parish Council The Parish Council has submitted detailed objections to this proposal. Their original response is 58 pages long and is available to view online. The Parish Council has also provided further detailed objections to the amended plans (15 pages). The objections include an executive summary of their objections and the latest summary is attached at Appendix 3.
West Hanney Object. Parish Council Disproportionate increase in housing on a rural village that is harmful to village character. Impact on infrastructure. Inadequate road network. Flood risk. Inadequate sewer network.
Neighbours / Three letters of support and 58 letters of objection have been local residents received. The objections expressed may be summarised as follows:
Application should not be determined until the Local Plan process has been completed. Wrong site has been allocated in the emerging plan. Precedent and potential coalescence with Grove. Housing schemes in the village are in excess of SHMA figures and the application is a disproportionate increase to the village. Categorisation of the village as a large settlement in local plan is incorrect. Not a sustainable location. Impact on infrastructure – school capacity, sewer capacity and impact on leisure facilities. Traffic generation and impact on local highway network. The development will exacerbate flood risk from surface water runoff. Proposed flood mitigation is not sufficient and will put existing properties at risk of flooding as sluice system on the brook is at its design capacity. Loss of security / privacy to existing properties adjoining the site. Inadequate landscape buffer to protect existing residents. Impact on archaeological remains and loss of ridge and Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
furrow features. Loss of ancient orchard / trees. Loss of agricultural land. Impact on wildlife. Impact on Letcombe Brook and mill pond. Impact on priority habitats / protected species and county wildlife site. Inadequate ecology assessment. Impact on village conservation area through changes to the Mill Orchard Bridge. Impact of setting of Dandridge’s Mill. Density is too high and out of keeping with village character. Visual impact and harm to village character. Design not reflective of village character. Proposed dwellings at 2.5 storeys are too high. Site is not well integrated with village. Inappropriate housing mix – no elderly accommodation. Footpath link to village via Brookside / Mill Orchard is not suitable and will be dangerous. Traffic lights in the village will add to traffic congestion and will be out of keeping with conservation area. Introduction of street lighting will be harmful to character of village which is virtually street light free. Timber barn in the orchard is a heritage asset and should be retained. Noise and air quality impacts from additional traffic. Harm to well-being and community spirit / social cohesion of the village. Use of a roundabout will make it difficult to exit onto the A338.
MP – Ed Objection. Vaizey A copy of his objection is attached at Appendix 4.
Oxfordshire No objection. Their full response is available to view online. County Council Highways No objection, subject to conditions and contributions towards improvements to the A338 / Steventon Road junction, bus services in East Hanney, and provision of two bus shelters. Archaeology No objection, subject to conditions to require and implement a written scheme of investigation. Education No objection, subject to contributions. However, they do advise severe concern over the potential cumulative effect of current applications on primary school provision serving this area. Property No objection, subject to contributions towards library book stock at Grove library. Ecology Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
Defer to council’s in-house ecologist’s advice. County Drainage Engineer as Lead Local Flood Authority
No objection. I have gone through Water Resource’s Associates findings and MJA’s response and I believe they have answered all the questions put forward. The design put forward by MJA meets industry standards and does not increase the flooding risk to East Hanney.
Thames Water No objection, subject to conditions. Identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the development. Propose a Grampian condition requiring a drainage strategy to be approved detailing any on and/or off site drainage works prior to development commencing.
Environment No objection, subject to conditions. Agency Following our previous comments on the above proposed development, in which we objected due to concerns with the proposals’ impact on biodiversity (EA ref. WA/2015/121020/01-L01, dated 9 September 2015), the applicant has submitted revised information. We have reviewed the Outline Ecological Management Plan (OEMP) and Habitat Restoration Plan and have no objections to the proposed development, as submitted, subject to the inclusion of conditions in any planning permission granted.
Drainage No objection, subject to conditions. Engineer The applicant’s consultant has prepared a revised Flood Risk Assessment rev B which addresses the surface water issues of my original holding objection. In response to the review carried out on the Flood Risk Assessment by Water Resource Associates on behalf of East Hanney Parish Council. MJA Consulting has responded to the key issues raised in the review document and I feel that these have been adequately addressed. I am mindful of the recent appeal case for another site in East Hanney, P13/V2266/O, where flood risk and sewage disposal was considered to be an issue. In the appeal decision, the inspector concluded that “providing the disposal of surface water, and sewage, is dealt with properly, matters that can be addressed by condition, the provision of housing on the site would not make that situation worse and indeed, is very likely to make it better. The proposal would have no adverse impact in this regard, therefore, and I see no departure from LP Policies DC13 and DC14 that address flood risk and surface water.” Therefore, in view of the above, I consider that drainage matters can be covered by condition as detailed in my previous response dated 22 October 2015.
Countryside No objection, subject to conditions. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
Officer Following my comments submitted on 14/9/15 I have been involved in a dialogue with the applicant, the Letcombe Brook Project and the Environment Agency regarding the ecological issues on this site. The applicant has now amended the plans and submitted two additional documents which are relevant to issues I have raised, an Outline Habitat Restoration Plan and an Outline Ecological Management Plan. The content and main details of the documents were agreed following a meeting with all parties and a subsequent site visit. We have also commented on a draft of the documents and the applicant has taken on board these comments before formally submitting them. The two main issues I raised in my previous response are summarised below: -That the proposals would lead to direct impacts on the orchard priority habitat and insufficient information had been provided regarding the proposed mitigation and compensation. -That the proposals would lead to indirect impacts on the Letcombe Brook and the protected species associated with it. The changes to the site layout now mean that the wooded belt which contains 7 of the orchard trees will now be retained which reduces the impacts on the orchard. The Outline Habitat Restoration Plan provides guidance on how the ‘Community Nature Reserve’ will be developed and contains sufficient information to give confidence that the area would be properly restored to fully address the impacts on the orchard and the Letcombe Brook. In my view the proposed mitigation and compensation measures outlined in this document should ensure that the direct and indirect impacts of the proposals can be addressed to ensure that the development does not lead to a net loss of biodiversity, or damaging impacts on priority habitats in the long term. The proposals in this outline plan are likely to be amended at the detail stage to reflect the results of additional surveys and comments of other stakeholders such as the Parish Council. The Outline Habitat Restoration Plan will be fully developed following further detailed surveys and discussions with specialist advisors to produce a Habitat Restoration Method Statement. This document will be secured by condition prior to the commencement of development. The Outline Ecological Management Plan provides details of the proposed long term management operations which will be implemented once the restoration has been completed. The aim of management plan is to ensure that the newly created habitats are appropriately managed and maintained once the development has been completed. The outline plan will need to be reviewed and additional detail added once the detailed proposals for restoration have been agreed in the Restoration Method Statement. A planning condition will be imposed to secure the production of the amended management plan. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
Tree Officer No objection, subject to conditions. I have looked at the proposed plans and am pleased that the applicant has been able to amend the layout to accommodate the belt of existing trees that I had highlighted in my previous memorandum. I can confirm that this is acceptable insofar as the impact on the retained trees and I advise that the tree protection plan will need to be similarly amended to ensure the trees are safeguarded during the course of the development. As the progress of this application is already underway, a tree protection plan could readily be required by condition should planning permission be granted.
Landscape No objection subject to conditions. Officer The proposed development would have a localised moderate to minor landscape and visual harm on the Lowland Vale. The impacts mainly relate to the extension of the village southwards of Summertown Road into an agricultural field and the visual impact of this new village edge from the A338. Therefore I request that this is taken into account when weighing up the balance with other planning issues. It is also essential that the scheme implements the proposed masterplan with a high quality landscape scheme which establishes quickly to minimise the landscape and visual impact of the proposal. Important components include the retention of the existing features of higher landscape character on the western side of the site, creating a woodland edge to the southern boundary to create a strong countryside edge and creating a soft edge to the A338. If the scheme is to be approved then a Landscape Implementation and Management plan is required before the commencement of works starting on site. The proposed planting for the southern and eastern site boundary be implemented the first planting season after works start on site. Hard, soft and boundary details will also be required as well as adequate rooting areas for trees to establish adjacent to areas of hard surfacing. Details of the proposed LEAP should be submitted, including play equipment proposed, seating, bins and planting.
Urban Design No overall objection, subject to conditions. Officer Request minor changes by condition. The officer’s full comments are available to view online.
Leisure Team No objection, subject to contributions.
Conservation Support the proposal subject to further details being provided by Officer condition: -Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment of the A338 Roman Road and details of mitigation of design of accesses onto A338 to minimise impacts and protect significance Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
- Photographic record of non-designated structures on the orchard site - materials for roofing and walling - details of hard and soft landscaping to ensure the protection of the rural setting of the conservation area and listed buildings - details of the accesses to ensure the protection of the rural setting of the conservation area and listed buildings
The officer’s full comments are available to view online.
Housing No objection. Development The number of affordable meets the requirement of Vale of Team White Horse Local Plan Policy H17, which seeks a 40% affordable housing contribution. The tenure mix of the affordable units should comprise 75% rented and 25% shared ownership. The affordable unit sizes specified meet or exceed the council’s requirements, and the distribution of the affordable units is satisfactory. The proposed 1 bed units appear to benefit from individual entrances, which is welcomed.
Environmental No objection, subject to condition. Health – The site lies adjacent to the A338 and is affected by road Protection noise. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the Team "good" criteria contained in BS8233:2014 will be met, both internally and for external amenity areas.
Waste No objection, subject to contributions for provision of new bins for Management each property. Team Letcombe Objection in principle but should permission be granted wish the Brook Project following to be taken into account: No new housing should be developed until the basic water infrastructure is identified and supplied i.e.: New sources of water to supply housing are developed and Thames Water expands Wantage Sewage Treatment Works. The cumulative effect of developments on the ecology and landscape of the Letcombe brook and corridor must be taken into consideration when developments are put forward. The brook at this site is at present neglected and requires restoration and long term management for local residents to enjoy and appreciate the brook whilst not disturbing the banks and watercourse. Funding should be provided for interpretative material and maintenance. Request for a revised landscape overview plan drawn up by the developer working closely with the parish council and the project group; and a detailed and costed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan with habitat creation and long term management for the site (20 years).
In response to the amended plans: Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
The Letcombe Brook Project still has an in principle objection to the overall development. However if this development is approved then the revised plans that have been worked up by Linden Homes will help towards protecting the brook from disturbance.
Oxfordshire Objection to the removal of the agricultural barns which are heritage Architectural & assets. Suggest they are retained and restored. Historical Society
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 None.
5.0 POLICY & GUIDANCE 5.1 Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2011 The development plan for this area comprises the adopted Vale of White Horse local plan 2011. The following local plan policies relevant to this application were ‘saved’ by direction on 1 July 2009.
GS1 - Developments in existing settlements GS2 - Development in the countryside H11 - Development in the larger villages H13 - Development elsewhere H16 - Size of dwelling and Lifetime Homes H17 - Affordable housing H23 - Open space in new housing development DC1 - Design DC3 - Design against crime DC4 - Public art DC5 - Access DC6 - Landscaping DC7 - Waste collection and recycling DC8 - The provision of infrastructure and services DC9 - The Impact of development on neighbouring uses DC12 - Water quality and resources DC20 - External lighting HE1 - Preservation and enhancement: implications for development HE4 - Historic buildings; setting HE9 - Archaeology HE10 - Archaeology HE11 - Archaeology NE3 - Geologically important sites NE4 - Other sites of nature conservation value NE9 - The Lowland Vale
5.2 The emerging Local Plan 2031, Part 1, Core Policies The draft local plan part 1 is not currently adopted policy. As per paragraph 216 of the NPPF, at present it is officers' opinion that the emerging Local Plan housing policies carry limited weight for decision making. The relevant policies are as follows:-
1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development 3 – Settlement hierarchy Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
4 – Meeting our housing needs 7 – Providing supporting infrastructure and services 8 – Spatial strategy for Abingdon on Thames and Oxford Fringe Sub-Area 22 – Housing mix 23 – Housing density 24 – Affordable housing 26 – Accommodating current and future needs of the ageing population 33 – Promoting sustainable transport and accessibility 35 – Promoting public transport, cycling and walking 36 – Electronic communications 37 – Design and local distinctiveness 38 – Design strategies for strategic and major development sites 39 – The historic environment 40 – Sustainable design and construction 41 – Renewable energy 42 – Flood risk 43 – Natural resources 44 – Landscape 45 – Green Infrastructure 46 – Conservation and improvement of biodiversity 47 – Delivery and contingency
5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Design Guide – March 2015
The following sections of the Design Guide are relevant to this application:-
Responding to Site and Setting
Character Study (DG6) and Site appraisal (DG9)
Establishing the Framework
Existing natural resources, sustainability and heritage(DG10-13, 15, 19) Landscape and SUDS (DG14, 16-18, 20) Movement Framework and street hierarchy (DG21-24) Density (DG26) Urban Structure (blocks, frontages, nodes etc.) DG27-30
Layout
Streets and Spaces (DG31-43) Parking (DG44-50)
Built Form
Scale, form, massing and position (DG51-54) Boundary treatments (DG55) Building Design (DG56-62) Amenity, privacy and overlooking (DG63-64) Refuse and services (DG67-68)
Open space, sport and recreation future provision – July 2008 Affordable Housing – July 2006 Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
Flood Maps and Flood Risk – July 2006 Planning and Public Art – July 2006 Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan, April 2014 S106 interim guidance 2014
5.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – March 2012
5.5 Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) – March 2014
5.6 Neighbourhood Plan Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies with the NPPF.
5.7 An application has been received for a neighbourhood planning designation area and accepted by this Council. To date a neighbourhood plan has not been submitted to the Council. Consequently no weight can be given to any policies that may be emerging in any draft neighbourhood plan.
5.8 Environmental Impact This proposal is for more than 150 dwellings and the site area exceeds 5ha in size and is therefore, above the thresholds set in Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. As required by the above Regulations officers have undertaken a screening opinion. Taking into account government guidance on thresholds in paragraph 58 of the NPPG and having considered the potential for significant effects of the proposal in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Regulations, it has been decided that in this case this proposal is not EIA development.
5.9 Other Relevant Legislation
Written statement by Secretary of State on sustainable drainage systems (18 Dec 2014) Written statement by the Secretary of State on car parking (25 March 2015) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 Community & Infrastructure Levy Legislation Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Localism Act (including New Homes Bonus)
5.10 Human Rights Act The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
5.11 Equalities In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
6.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 The relevant planning considerations in the determination of this application are:
1. Principle of the development Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
2. Cumulative impact 3. Use of land 4. Locational credentials 5. Affordable housing and housing mix 6. Design and layout 7. Residential amenity 8. Landscape and visual Impact 9. Open space, landscaping and trees 10. Flood risk and surface / foul drainage 11. Traffic and highway safety 12. Ecology and biodiversity 13. Heritage assets 14. Archaeology 15. Delivery and developer contributions
6.2 The principle of development Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless materials considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.
6.3 The development plan currently comprises the saved policies of Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF provides that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
6.4 Other material planning considerations include national planning guidance within the NPPF and NPPG and the emerging Vale of White Horse Local Plan: Part 1-Strategic Sites and Policies and its supporting evidence base.
6.5 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF expects local planning authorities to "use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area"... The authority has undertaken this assessment through the April 2014 SHMA which is the most up to date objectively assessed need for housing. In agreeing to submit the emerging Local Plan for examination, the Council has agreed a housing target of at least 20,560 dwellings for the plan period to 2031. Set against this target the Council does not have a five year housing land supply.
6.6 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites". This means that the relevant housing policies in the adopted Local Plan are not considered up to date and the adverse impacts of a development would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits if the proposal is refused. In order to judge whether a development is sustainable it must be assessed against the economic, social and environmental roles.
6.7 Policy GS1 of the adopted Local Plan provides a strategy for locating development concentrated at the five major towns but with small scale development within the built up areas of villages provided that important areas of open land and their rural character Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
are protected. In terms of a hierarchy for allocating development this strategy is consistent with the NPPF, as is the intention to protect the character of villages.
6.8 The emerging Local Plan 2031 Part 1 continues a settlement hierarchy which focuses housing growth at the market towns and larger villages and identifies East Hanney as a larger village for the Abingdon on Thames and Oxford Fringe sub-area. Within this emerging strategy, Core Policy 4 identifies the site as suitable for new housing and Core Policy 8 states 5,438 houses will be provided by 2031 for the sub-area, of which around 200 units will be provided for at the south of East Hanney site.
6.9 Local residents and the parish council have raised objection to the site’s allocation under the emerging local plan and consider the wrong site has been chosen and the determination of this application ahead of the plan being made is premature. The NPPG is clear however that in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development “arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account.”
6.10 The emerging Local Plan 2031 Part 1 was submitted to the Secretary of State on 18th March 2015. Stage 1 of the hearing sessions took place in September 2015 and the Council have been instructed that Stage 2 will take place. Although the Plan has been submitted and has progressed through some of the hearing sessions, in accordance with the NPPF (para 216), only limited weight can only be given to the emerging policies and proposals within the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 at this time.
6.11 The relevant housing policies of the adopted and emerging local plan hold very limited material planning weight in light of the lack of a 5 year housing supply. Consequently the proposal has to be assessed under the NPPF where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable development is seen as the golden thread running through the decision making process. Having a deliverable 5 year housing supply is considered sustainable under the 3 strands. Therefore, with the lack of a 5 year housing supply, the proposal is acceptable in principle unless any adverse impacts can be identified that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of meeting this objective.
6.12 Cumulative Impact East Hanney has been subject to a number of planning applications for housing development that have been permitted including application no's: P15/V0343/O (resolution to permit up to 55 dwellings), P13/V2266/O (35 dwellings allowed on appeal – now subject to a detailed application for 37 dwellings), P13/V0381/FUL (25 dwellings), P13/V2608/FUL (16 dwellings), P11/V2103 (15 dwellings). An outline application for the development of up to 200 homes is also currently under consideration for a site south of Steventon Road East Hanney (P15/V1846/O). Local residents and the parish council consider the proposal is therefore a disproportionate increase to the village housing stock, which they point out that at the time of the 2011 census stood at 341 dwellings.
6.13 The NPPF does not suggest that populations of settlements should be limited in some way or not be expanded by any particular figure. It expects housing to be boosted significantly. Additional housing can help support and secure local services and it may be possible to address infrastructure deficiencies through planning conditions or through a legal agreement. Cumulative impacts are considered further where relevant in the topics below. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
6.14 Use of land The NPPF identifies the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land from development (paragraph 112). This site comprising a mixture of grassland and arable fields with an area of historic orchard in the west of the site and small wooded copse is in agricultural use. According to Natural England's agricultural land classification map it is grade 3, good to moderate land. The proposal will result in the loss of this agricultural land. There will also be or potential for loss of other agricultural land with other housing proposals permitted and applications pending consideration. In an area such as this district where it has a limited supply of previously developed sites and a housing need, it is inevitable that some greenfield sites and agricultural land will be lost. There is some limited harm in taking this grade 3 land and other land out of agricultural production. The site is at the edge of East Hanney and whilst there is lesser quality land at the western and north western edges of the village, that land is part of the flood plain and would not be sequentially in preferable for housing development. The limited harm resulting from the loss of this agricultural land needs to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal, and officers consider the loss of this land to housing from agricultural production is outweighed by economic, social and environmental benefits.
6.15 Locational Credentials East Hanney is located is located approximately 3 miles north of Wantage, 6 miles west of Abingdon, 12 miles south-west of Oxford and is well connected to each settlement via the A338, A415 and A34. East Hanney is also identified as a ‘larger village’ in the adopted Local Plan and as such is considered to be a sustainable settlement that possesses a number of services and facilities and has good accessibility to public transport.
6.16 Local residents and the parish council dispute this, as the village has now lost its library service and therefore, facilities and services in the village are such that it should be re- classified as a smaller village. Notwithstanding, officers consider the location remains a sustainable location that connects well with the village, and is a location that is supported by evidence base studies undertaken for the emerging local plan, despite the loss of the mobile library.
6.17 The village shop, village hall and recreation ground are located approximately 350 metres from the site. The primary school is approximately 550 metres, all distances which are acceptable walking distances, according the Institution of Highways Transportation guidelines for providing journeys on foot (2000). A regular bus service also passes through the village providing access to Oxford, Wantage and beyond, and contributions towards improving this route and new services have been requested by the county council. The proposal is thus considered to be sustainably located in terms of the NPPF.
6.18 Affordable housing and housing mix The application makes provision for 40% affordable housing which accords with Policy H17 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011. The proposed affordable housing mix is shown in the table below. The distribution of the affordable units throughout the development is acceptable and the council’s housing team are satisfied with the proposal.
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Total Rent 8 flats 32 dwellings 16 dwellings 3 dwellings 59
Shared - 13 dwellings 7 dwellings - 20 Ownership Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
Total 8 45 23 3 79
6.19 Policy H16 of the Adopted Local Plan requires 50% of houses to have two beds or less. However, as stipulated at paragraph 47 of the NPPF this policy is out of date as it is not based on recent assessments of housing need. The Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) is the most recent assessment and estimates the following open market dwelling requirement by number of bedrooms (2011 to 2031) for the District:
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms SHMA 5.9% 21.7% 42.6% 29.8% Proposal 2 25 51 40 SHMA 7 25 50 35 expectation
6.20 It is clear the mix departs from that which the council would normally seek, in terms of 1 bedroom and 4+ bedroom units. However, the variation from the SHMA mix needs to be considered against the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed development which are considered to outweigh the very limited conflict with the SHMA. The council’s housing team are also satisfied with the proposal. Officers, therefore consider the market housing mix to be acceptable.
6.21 Design and Layout The NPPF provides that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment (paragraph 60). It gives considerable weight to good design and acknowledges it is a key component of sustainable development.
6.22 A number of local plan policies seek to ensure high quality developments and to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties (Policies DC1, DC6, and DC9). In March 2015 the council adopted its design guide, which aims to raise the standard of design across the district. The below assessment is set out in logical sections similar to those in the design guide.
6.23 Site, Setting and Framework The design and access statement includes a character study, context appraisal and site appraisal as required by principles DG6-DG9 of the design guide. The applicant has considered the physical aspects of the site, including topography, drainage, existing natural features, and access points in order to identify the key constraints and opportunities. The resulting proposal responds to its setting.
6.24 Principle DG26 of the design guide states that density should be appropriate to the location, and it requires a range of densities for larger development proposals. Policy H15 of the adopted local plan requires densities of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. The application proposes a density of 33 dwellings per hectare. Whilst surrounding development is relatively low in density (East Hanney is approximately 15 to 20 dwellings per hectare), taking into account the expectations of NPPF to boost the supply of housing, the proposed density is considered acceptable.
6.25 Spatial Layout / connectivity The proposed layout is based around a clearly defined network of streets and dwellings have been designed / positioned to front public space to provide a coherent environment for all users and a sense of enclosure, according with principles DG28 and DG35. In addition, the proposed new link road through the development from the A338 Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
onto Summertown is considered to be an enhancement to the connectivity for the whole village, helping to relieve traffic build up at the existing junction onto the A338 and will assist in integrating the new development with the rest of the village.
6.26 There is a mix of on street parking, on plot parking and garaging and private amenity space and bin storage is also provided for each dwelling. Whilst this is overall acceptable, the urban design officer requests that further consideration is given to the detailing of these areas so that the visual impact of cars and bin storage is mitigated and so that they feel more enclosed. This can be secured through condition and subject to these further details, the proposed layout is acceptable.
6.27 Built form & architectural detailing The proposed built form is predominantly two storey in height with some 2.5 storey buildings used as focal buildings and a mix of dwelling types with traditional proportionality, footprint and roof form. In terms of architectural detailing the approach is traditional with brick, render and tile or slate construction, exposed eaves, protruding window cills and headers, and chimney stacks. The proposed dwellings in terms of heights, mass and external appearance are reflective of local architectural vernacular and are considered to accord with the building design principles of the design guide.
6.28 The urban design officer has however requested that further consideration is given to the materials and detailing of the following plots: 160, 163, 158, 180, 181, 41, 35, 45, 46, 52, 4, 28 & 29, 11 & 12, 58, 83, 86, 94, 170, 115, 123, 140, 150, 126, 134, 136, 130, 131, 146. In particular, the officer considers “the frontage around the green and along the link road should contain buildings finished in natural materials found locally in the village – red brick, red clay tiles, natural slate. The use of these natural, traditional materials would in my view, really help increase the visual quality and local distinctiveness and character of the development.”
6.29 The officer has also commented on the location of the sub-station in the open space to the north of plot 163 in that it “could appear unduly prominent and seems a missed opportunity for a small green at the gateway to the development. I would suggest that if this must be located here, the equipment is stored in a building which is worthy of such a prominent location and which would contribute positively to the character and appearance of this entrance to the development. I would suggest a small barn-like structure could look like a bothy or forge which, is not an uncommon feature found within greens in villages. Details of the elevations of the building housing this equipment could potentially be considered further at the conditions stage.”
6.30 It is considered the minor changes suggested by the urban design officer can be secured by condition to further improve the design and visual appearance of the development. Overall, the design and layout of the proposal is acceptable and will result in a high quality scheme as required by the NPPF.
6.31 Residential Amenity Adopted local plan policy DC9 seeks to prevent development that would result in a loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight for neighbouring properties or that would cause dominance or visual intrusion for neighbouring properties and the wider environment. Protecting amenity is a core principle of the NPPF. Design principles DG63-64 of the Design Guide pertain to amenity, privacy and overlooking.
6.32 The proposed development would not have any harmful impact on residential amenity of adjacent houses in terms of noise and disturbance, overshadowing, over-dominance Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
or loss of privacy and security. Amenity standards within the council’s design guide have been observed. Officers consider the proposal is thus acceptable in amenity terms and accords with policy DC9 and the NPPF.
6.33 The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from noise pollution (paragraph 109).
6.34 The site is located adjacent to the A338 and road noise from traffic using this road could potentially affect a minority of residents of the proposed development. The environmental health protection team raise no objection to the proposal, subject to the applicant demonstrating that the "good" criteria contained in BS8233:2014 will be met, both internally and for external amenity areas. It is considered this can be secured by condition. The proposal is thus acceptable in terms of residential amenity of future occupiers and complies with policy DC9 and the NPPF.
6.35 Landscape and Visual Impact The NPPF seeks to enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes (paragraph109). In NPPF terms this is not a valued landscape, nor statutorily protected. Policy NE9 of the adopted Local Plan designates the site as part of the wider Lowland Vale which is a distinctive landscape and valued for its own quality. Paragraphs 7.67 and 7.68 of the adopted local plan explains that “the long views over the patchwork quilt of fields, farms and villages in the Vale are an essential part of the landscape quality of the District” and that “insensitively located or designed proposals could have an adverse impact on these open vistas and on the intrinsic qualities of the Lowland Vale”.
6.36 In considering the site as part of a possible strategic housing site this authority commissioned a landscape and visual impact appraisal. This was undertaken by Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd in October 2014 (the Kirkham report). The Phase 1 assessment includes a site familiarisation, review of relevant landscape character assessments and settlement pattern and a preliminary landscape and visual sensitivity assessment. It sets out preliminary recommendations on whether each site has some potential for housing.
6.37 The Kirkham report notes two different characters of the site; the north-western part of the site with a typical pattern of pasture with trees forming the pastoral setting to the village adjacent to Letcombe Brook and; the east and southern part of the site which is part of a large arable field extending to Bradfield Grove Farm which is typical of the Local Character Type ‘Alluvial Lowlands’. Visually, the site was assessed as highly prominent in local views from the south and from Summertown with potential wider views from the AONB 4km to the south.
In relationship to the settlement pattern, the report states:
Northern section contributes to settling of Mill buildings and Conservation Area; Whole site out of scale with village pattern; The site lies beyond southern extent of village, extending into open countryside; The site is part of open landscape which contributes to maintaining the separate identity of Grove and East Hanney. The Kirkham report recommended, subject to more detailed review:
Some very limited potential for development. This would be restricted to the Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
north-edge of the contingency site within the grassland area to link with adjacent houses. Development elsewhere would result in harm to the wider landscape, the settlement pattern and its landscape setting, and in a visual impact on the southern approach to East Hanney. The site only suitable for very small scale housing next to Summertown.
6.38 The applicant has provided a Landscape and Visual Appraisal, which considers the site to have a low to medium landscape sensitivity, with the proposal having an initial magnitude of effect to be low negative with the significance of the effect to be minor adverse. The appraisal states “Although there would be a discernible change, it would not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape, i.e. this is an edge of settlement location. There is also an ability to propose mitigation that maintains existing scenario, mainly in the form of dense boundary planting.”
6.39 Many local residents and the parish council disagree and consider the proposal will have a major damaging change on the landscape, and will adversely change the historic settlement character of the village by extending it into open countryside with an urbanised development. The parish council also point out that the NPPF expects planning to “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it” (paragraph 17 of the NPPF).
6.40 It is clear that the development would extend the village to the south and in aerial view, represents a large addition to the village. Built development on the majority of the site area will change the overall character and nature of the landscape from agricultural to residential and will be most striking in public views from adjacent highways, particularly when viewed from the A338 to the south. Officers are also mindful of the Kirkham report conclusion that considers very limited potential for development within the site area, especially as the application proposes housing in a larger area than suggested in the Kirkham report.
6.41 However, officers consider landscape harm arising from this proposal would be moderate to minor and is localised. From the west and from the majority of the village views towards the site are limited. In views from the A338 to the north the proposed development would be screened by existing buildings and trees limiting any noticeable landscape and visual impacts. In respect of views from the A338 to the south, strategic planting can be achieved on the southern and eastern boundaries of the site to form a strong boundary to the village and responds to the recommendations in the Oxfordshire Wildlife and Landscape Study (OWLS) landscape strategy.
6.42 In terms of wider views, the landscape in this area is generally flat (as is the application site) with views from public vantage points to the North Wessex Downs (part of the AONB) to the south and Corallian ridge to the north. Views over the application site are restricted from the west by vegetation associated with the Letcombe Brook and to the north by the existing village. Although it will be possible for the site to be seen from the footpath to the west of the Letcombe Brook, the proposed ecological area will provide a buffer between the footpath and the built line of the development. There are presently, views southwards over the site from Summertown towards the North Wessex Downs and AONB, and the proposed development would result in the loss of these. However, officers consider the loss of such views is not unacceptably harmful to those using Summertown. The development will not significantly impinge in views northwards towards the North Corallian ridge due to the existing village form to the north. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
6.43 This site is approximately 4km from the boundary with the North Wessex Downs AONB and does not have a significant role in its setting. In views from the Ridgeway the distance to the site is approximately 8km, and development on the site, will be seen against the backdrop of East Hanney and would not be significant as planted areas to the south and east of the site would assist in filtering these limited distant views.
6.44 Concern has been raised by local residents and the parish council over the impact of light pollution, as in their opinion East Hanney is a no streetlight zone. Whilst there would be some increase in light levels at night, due to the proposed dwellings and proposed street lighting, officers consider no significant harm would arise to warrant refusal of the application.
6.45 Overall, it is considered landscape and visual harm arising from this development would not be substantial to warrant refusal when balanced against the benefits of the proposal, including the lack of a five year land supply. In reaching this conclusion officers are mindful of the objections received, but impacts on views are localised to those surrounding the site where the landscape harm would be limited. Officers are also aware of the assessment of this site as a potential strategic housing site as part of the draft local plan 2031 process. The applicant has sought to demonstrate that the proposal can be integrated into the village by its road linkage and footpath linkages together with environmental benefits in providing landscaped buffers on the eastern and southern edges of the site; points recommended in the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 Strategic Sites and Policies. The proposal is thus considered to accord with policy NE9 and the NPPF.
6.46 Open Space, landscaping and trees Adopted Local Plan Policy H23 of the adopted Local Plan requires a minimum of 15% of the residential area to be laid out as open space. The submitted drawings show two areas of open space which are in excess of the policy requirement. The western area of open space will form the bulk of the public open space for the development. In part it remains undeveloped due to its historical context, ecological value and proximity to the Mill conservation area and listed buildings. It is intended to form a green link from the development, alongside the Letcombe Brook into the village and surrounding countryside and will also form an ecological area to complement the Brook. The second area of open space is located alongside the link road and has been designed as a small ‘village green’ space with the potential for play equipment. In addition each dwelling is provided with private amenity space in the form of rear garden areas. Officers consider there is sufficient open space provision to meet the needs of the development.
6.47 In respect of trees, the plans have been amended to retain the existing belt of trees on the southern edge of the traditional orchard. As such, the tree officer has no objection to the proposal, subject to tree protection measures during construction. The loss of the traditional orchard is assessed under the topic of ecology and biodiversity.
6.48 The application is supported with a landscape masterplan which reflects the requirements listed within the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 Site Development Templates document to create a new landscape structure to contain new housing with a woodland edge to the south to create a strong countryside edge. The landscape officer has no objection in principle, but has stated “Care will be needed in the working up of these areas to ensure that the proposed vegetation establishes quickly and provides an adequate filter to views, especially on the southern boundary where the proposed boundary vegetation narrows adjacent to the footpath route.” Such details can be secured by planning condition through the submission of a detailed hard and soft landscape scheme, including a Landscape Implementation and Management plan to Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
ensure proposed planting for the southern and eastern site boundary is implemented during the first planting season after works start on site.
6.49 Flood Risk and Surface/Foul Drainage The NPPF provides that development should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be appropriately flood resilient and resistant (paragraph 103). It states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution (Paragraph 109).
6.50 Adopted local plan policy DC9 provides that new development will not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider environment in terms of, amongst other things, pollution and contamination. Policy DC12 provides that development will not be permitted if it would adversely affect the quality of water resources as a result of, amongst other things, waste water discharge. Policies DC13 and 14 are not considered to be consistent with the NPPF, because they do not comply with paragraphs 100 to 104 which require a sequential approach to locating development and provide that flood risk should not be increased elsewhere.
6.51 The Environment Agency Flood Map shows the whole site to be located within the lowest risk category, Flood Zone 1, which are zones the least susceptible to flooding and preferred in flood risk terms for housing development. Land adjoining the western part of the site however is categorised as Flood Zones 2 and 3 and is at risk to fluvial flooding from the Letcombe Brook.
6.52 Local residents and the parish council have expressed concern that this development could increase the risk of flooding in the village. The parish council has also commissioned its own review of the applicants’ flood risk assessment, which is available to view online, and consider the proposed flood mitigation is flawed.
6.53 East Hanney is prone to flood. It is susceptible to both ground water and fluvial flooding from the Letcombe Brook and it is therefore important that new development does not increase the risk of flooding. The parish council consider the application site currently holds surface water and protects the village from excessive run off and by developing it will give rise to an increase in surface water runoff as flood water flows across the site and into the village.
6.54 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment (FRA) as expected by the NPPF. It provides a list of flood risk management measures to be implemented. Amongst these measures it is proposed that all surface water runoff from impermeable areas on the proposed development will be attenuated on site via the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) with a restricted discharge into the existing watercourses within the vicinity of the site.
6.55 The council's drainage engineer has reviewed both the applicant’s FRA and the parish council’s review document and has no objection subject to a condition requiring a fully detailed scheme to be submitted and approved. It is also noted that the County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, raises no objection, confirming “The design put forward by MJA meets industry standards and does not increase the flooding risk to East Hanney.” A sustainable drainage scheme can be agreed and secured by planning condition thereby minimising the risks of flooding from this development.
6.56 A further concern from local residents and the parish council is the state of the public sewer network. Thames Water have undertaken a ‘Sewer Impact Study’ (Ref: X4503- Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
890 SMG1759) to investigate the capacity within the existing local foul water system, and to ascertain the impact of a proposed new connection on the local sewerage network. This study has concluded that the existing foul sewer network within the catchment does not currently have the available capacity and that upgrading works will be required to facilitate the proposed foul flows from this development.
6.57 Thames Water has also been asked to consider the situation bearing in mind the outline application for up to 200 dwellings proposed under application P15/V1846/O (Land South of Steventon Road East Hanney), as should both this application and P15/V1846/O be approved, up to 400 dwellings may need to discharge to the Wantage sewage treatment works via the existing network.
6.58 In response Thames Water has advised either of the two schemes will need network upgrades to be undertaken, and a network upgrading option developed by Thames Water is detailed in the applicant’s FRA. The sewage treatment works (STW) at Wantage accommodates flows from East Hanney and also serves Wantage and Grove. Upgrades have recently been undertaken providing capacity for approximately 1,000 – 1,500 homes. Whilst capacity is not reserved and will diminish in due course, presently it exists to serve the needs of this development. Should both schemes come forward, however, Thames Water consider a strategic approach to foul drainage would be beneficial and recommend a condition that development does not commence until a detailed drainage strategy for on and off site infrastructure identifying exactly what is required, where and when is submitted to and approved by the planning authority and that this is implemented before any discharge to the public system is accepted. Officers consider this is a reasonable condition.
6.59 Paragraph 004 Reference ID: 34-004-20140306 of the NPPG refers to funding wastewater infrastructure. It advises that companies such as Thames Water “are subject to a statutory duty to ‘effectually drain’ their area. This requires them to invest in infrastructure suitable to meet the demands of projected population growth. There is also statutory provision for developers to fund additional sewerage infrastructure required to accommodate flows from a proposed development”. Funding is therefore, a matter for Thames Water and the developer and not for this authority to adjudicate on.
6.60 Thames Water, have a legal obligation under Section 94 of the Water Industries Act 1991 (WIA 1991) to provide developers with the right to connect to a public sewer regardless of capacity issues. This, when read in conjunction with Section 91(1) of the Act in effect makes it impossible for Thames Water to object or for the Council to refuse to grant planning permission for development on the grounds that no improvement works are planned for a particular area. Paragraph 20 Reference ID: 34-020-20140306 of the NPPG sates:
“If there are concerns arising from a planning application about the capacity of wastewater infrastructure, applicants will be asked to provide information about how the proposed development will be drained and wastewater dealt with…The timescales for works to be carried out by the sewerage company do not always fit with development needs. In such cases, local planning authorities will want to consider how new development can be phased, for example so it is not occupied until any necessary improvements to public sewage treatment works have been carried out."
6.61 The applicant has provided this through the Thames Water sewer impact study mentioned above, which outlines options to upgrade the offsite network. Thames Water has also confirmed current capacity at the Wantage STW. To conclude, therefore, this authority can reasonably impose a planning condition restricting occupation until a scheme for foul water disposal is agreed and implemented. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
6.62 Traffic and Highway Safety Adopted local plan policy DC5 requires safe access for developments and that the road network can accommodate the traffic arising from the development safely. The NPPF (Paragraph 32) requires plans and decision to take account of whether:-
the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.
6.63 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF goes on to state: “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”
6.64 The application is supported by a transport assessment. The site will be accessed from the A338 via a new roundabout. This will incorporate new bus stops on either side of the A338, together with pedestrian crossing facilities for access to the proposed bus stop on the eastern side of the road. The main spine road from the roundabout will generally run in an east-west orientation through the site and will involve a change in priority where it meets Summertown. Within the site dwellings are arranged in cul-de- sacs taken off the main spine road. In addition to the main vehicle/pedestrian access onto the A338, pedestrian links onto Summertown and Mill Orchard will be provided. Overall, the proposed access points and road layout is acceptable.
6.65 Local concern has been expressed that the proposal would cause traffic congestion and that the proposal will increase traffic flows onto the A338 and its junctions in East Hanney. The A338 is a very busy road especially at peak hours and local residents point out that traffic can queue at road junctions in the village to the detriment of road safety.
6.66 The development is expected to generate 125 two-way movements in the morning peak hour, and 102 two-way movements in the evening peak hour. This level of traffic generation will have no significant impact on the highway network. The proposal has been assessed by the County Highways engineer who raises no objection on traffic generation or highway safety grounds. The county engineer in particular considers “With the main spine road now providing access onto Summertown, there is a change of priority at its junction. This now promotes a more safe and convenient access for existing users onto the A338, avoiding the existing Summertown junction, which has poor geometry and accident history.” Subject to conditions and contributions to strategic highway improvements, the proposal is considered to accord with policy DC5 and the NPPF.
6.67 Ecology and Biodiversity The NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible (paragraph109). Paragraph 117 of the NPPF promotes the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, whilst paragraph 118 sets out the basis for determination of planning applications. Paragraph 118 states that “…if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused…” Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
6.68 The application is accompanied by an Ecological Assessment. The main habitats comprise a mixture of grassland and arable fields with an area of historic orchard in the west of the site and small wooded copse. A large pond is situated just north of the site, associated with residential development along Mill Orchard and Summertown. The Letcombe Brook, a chalk stream waterway, abuts the site’s western boundary with the county wildlife site, Cowslip Meadows, beyond.
6.69 A large proportion of the site is of limited ecological value, comprising species and habitats typical of an agricultural setting. The habitats of greater ecological importance are the orchard area in the west of the site and Letcombe Brook on the western site boundary. The site has also been assessed as having potential to support foraging and commuting bats, roosting bats within mature trees and a diversity of terrestrial invertebrates. Letcombe Brook along the western boundary of the site is considered likely to support both otter and water vole based on the results of the desktop study, whilst badgers may occasionally forage at the site.
6.70 Objections from the parish council and local residents have been received concerning the loss of priority habitats on the site (in particular the loss of traditional orchard) and the adverse impact on protected species. The parish council has commissioned their own ecological appraisal and consider the site is the ecological centre of the village. Their appraisal finds the site is primarily priority habitat status, is part of the recognised wildlife corridor of the Letcombe Brook, and therefore should not be developed. The parish council has also stated its intention to create a wildlife reserve in the area of the traditional orchard, combined with the meadow and land adjoining the Letcombe Brook.
6.71 The application has been assessed by the countryside officer who acknowledges the proposal would lead to direct impacts on the traditional orchard priority habitat and to indirect impacts on the Letcombe Brook and the protected species associated with it. The Letcombe Brook project also raises an in principle objection. Notwithstanding, both confirm the brook at this location is neglected and requires restoration and long term management and the application provides an opportunity to set aside an area to positively manage it in the long term with a management plan.
6.72 The applicant has been in discussions with the environment agency, countryside officer and the Letcombe Brook Project (see countryside officer comments in section 3) and proposes a community nature reserve on the land adjoining the brook, including a large area of land alongside the brook in lieu of the partial loss of the traditional orchard. An outline habitat restoration plan and an outline ecological management plan detailing how this will be established and maintained has been submitted and the countryside officer considers there is “sufficient information to give confidence that the area would be properly restored to fully address the impacts on the orchard and the Letcombe Brook.” The Letcombe Brook Project, whilst still maintaining an in principle objection to the overall development, confirms “if this development is approved then the revised plans that have been worked up by Linden Homes will help towards protecting the brook from disturbance.”
6.73 The parish council disagree with the approach proposed and wish to see the traditional orchard retained in its entirety. However, the countryside officer has advised the orchard is unmanaged and in poor condition, its grassland is not species rich and at present there is no protection should the landowner wish to remove it and use it for agriculture. Officers also consider the proposed restoration and management plan can achieve a net gain in biodiversity benefit on this site and the restoration of brook and management of the site for the next 20 years outweighs the partial loss of the existing orchard habitat. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
6.74 The Outline Habitat Restoration Plan will need to be fully developed following further detailed surveys and discussions with specialist advisors to produce a Habitat Restoration Method Statement. This can be secured by condition prior to the commencement of development. In addition, the Outline Ecological Management Plan, detailing proposed long term management operations which will be implemented once the restoration (and the development) has been completed will need to be reviewed, once detailed proposals for restoration have been agreed. A planning condition can be imposed to secure the production of an amended management plan.
6.75 In conclusion, the countryside officer advises “the proposed mitigation and compensation measures outlined should ensure that direct and indirect impacts of the proposals can be addressed to ensure that the development does not lead to a net loss of biodiversity, or damaging impacts on priority habitats in the long term.” The proposal is thus considered to accord with the NPPF, subject to the conditions specified.
6.76 Heritage assets Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. In this case considerable importance and weight is given to the desirability of protecting or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Policy HE1 of the adopted local plan seeks to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.
6.77 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Considerable importance and weight should be given to this requirement.
6.78 Policy HE4 of the adopted local plan seeks to protect the setting of listed buildings. In this case it is important to consider the impact on the settings of listed buildings which the NPPF defines as “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”.
6.79 The site is not within the village conservation area, but does in part adjoin the East Hanney Mill conservation area that envelopes Dandridge’s Mill, a listed building. Local residents and the parish council have expressed concerns for the setting of both the conservation area and the mill, in particular due to the proposed off-site highway works along Brookside to provide delineated pedestrian access.
6.80 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF confirms that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be”. The NPPF adds at paragraph 133 that proposals causing substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset should be refused unless the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF explains that less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
6.81 Officers consider that development on the application site would have no adverse impact on the setting of the conservation area or the listed mill building. New dwellings Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
are set away from both, behind existing development. In respect of off-site highway works, any harm to setting from providing better pedestrian connections into the village is less than substantial and is outweighed by the public benefit of providing delineated pedestrian routes. The majority of objection was to the installation of traffic lights, which have now been omitted and the proposed works are largely at ground level within the public highway which would have very limited direct visual impact.
6.82 Local concern has also been raised on the proposed demolition of the agricultural barns presently located in the orchard area alongside the brook. The buildings are identified as possible shelter sheds, fruit stores and cart sheds and constitute non- designated heritage assets.
6.83 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF states that in respect of “…non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the size of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”.
6.84 The conservation officer has inspected the buildings and has found them to be “rebuilt/repaired and of c.18th century date with 20th century repairs and alterations and mostly constructed in timber-frame with weatherboarding, hipped roofs or altered mono pitch roofs covered with tin. Although of local interest and used in association with farming, the structures have little architectural or historical merit”. As such it is considered they have limited significance and a refusal based on the loss of these buildings would be difficult to justify under the NPPF tests of balanced judgement given the substantial benefits in providing new housing as evidenced elsewhere in this report. It is however recommended that these structures be photographically recorded, prior to demolition, and this can be secured by condition.
6.85 Archaeology Policy HE10 of the adopted Local Plan states that development will not be permitted if it would cause damage to the site or setting of nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not.
6.86 Objections have been received from the parish council and local residents that the site is of archaeological importance, particularly in respect of a Roman road believed to pass through the middle of the site, an ancient ridge and furrow field system, and the possible location an ancient 13th century manor called the Manor of Southbury. At the request of the county archaeologist the applicant has undertaken a predetermination archaeological field evaluation of the site with intrusive investigation to establish the significance and likelihood of archaeological interest.
6.87 Archaeological features, the majority of which have been dated to the middle and later Romano British period, have been revealed across the application area. The greater density of them occurs in the western part of the site. In the eastern part whilst Roman features are present, these are interspersed with medieval linear features. There is no evidence of the Roman road or its flanking ditches nor of a medieval manor house or of significant archaeological features that are of such significance as to preclude the principle of development. As such, the county archaeologist raises no objection, subject to conditions requiring implementation of a staged programme of archaeological investigation and any mitigation to be undertaken in advance of development. Subject to these conditions, the proposal accords with adopted local plan policy HE10 and the NPPF.
6.88 Delivery and Contributions The NPPF advises that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests (paragraph 204): Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
i) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; ii) Directly related to the development; and iii) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Policy DC8 of the Adopted Local Plan provides that development will only be permitted where the necessary physical infrastructure and service requirements to support the development can be secured.
6.89 The NPPG provides further guidance on how to apply the tests mentioned above and notes the following:
1. Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of development which benefits local communities and supports the provision of local infrastructure. 2. Planning obligations should not be sought where they are clearly not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
3. Planning obligations must be fully justified and evidenced. Where affordable housing contributions are being sought, planning obligations should not prevent development from going forward.
6.90 Recreation/sports Provision Additional population will increase pressure on existing facilities in the village and at Wantage/Grove. It is reasonable to request contributions towards their improvement as no provision is being made as part of this proposal. The sums requested are set against planned and costed schemes. The amounts sought are proportionate to this development based on 197 dwellings.
6.91 Parish Council Requests The Parish Council has requested contributions to improve community and recreational facilities in the village and a cycle way to Grove. Other than the church improvements which are based on a costed project, no details have been set out explaining exactly what is expected for the sums sought. It is noted that the district council requests regarding youth activities and recreation facilities reflect matters addressed by the Parish Council. A cycle route to Grove is not identified and the highway authority has not requested its provision. This request is not evidenced and could not be justified.
6.92 Education The County Council has confirmed expansion of St James CE primary school is planned, and has sought a financial contribution based on a cost of £14,095 per pupil at 4th quarter 2012 prices which then justifies a contribution of £817,510 based on 58 pupil places. Using quarter 3 2015 prices this cost changes to £17,052 per pupil resulting in a contribution of £989,016. The county council’s request is justified in increasing pressure for new primary school places, reasonable and proportionate.
6.93 Notwithstanding, the planned expansion presently would only be sufficient to meet the need arising from existing extant permissions in the village and this strategic allocated site. Should further schemes in the village be permitted (such as the 200 unit scheme subject of P15/V1846/O) the contribution requested may need to increase to £21,888 per pupil (3Q15).
6.94 The secondary school request is to provide additional school space at the Grove airfield site and a financial contribution based on a cost of £24,993 per pupil at 4th quarter 2012 prices which then justifies a contribution of £1,149,687 based on 46 pupil places. Using quarter 3 2015 prices this cost changes to £29,412 per pupil resulting in a contribution Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
of £1,352,952. The request is justified in increasing pressure for new secondary school places, reasonable and proportionate.
6.95 The SEN request of £36,787 is towards Fitzwaryn school in Wantage. It is noted that there have been some 56 previous contributions agreed towards SEN improvements in the district. The 2015 CIL Regulations only allow 5 contributions to be pooled towards an infrastructure project. In response to application no. P15/V2222/O which is another housing application under consideration, OCC advises a contribution towards Fitzwaryn school is not requested due to pooling restrictions. Therefore, this request is not supported by officers.
6.97 Transport The public transport request is justified in seeking to improve the existing X30 / 31 services through the village and in seeking to provide a new service from Wantage / Grove to Milton Park / Didcot which could make access to employment opportunities at Milton Park and Didcot more accessible. Indicative location for bus stops are shown on the access plan. It is reasonable to expect the bus stops to be sheltered and maintained. Two sheltered bus stops should be provided beside the A338 and on the Steventon Road.
6.98 Property The County Council has also sought financial contributions of £10,200 towards increased book stock at Grove library. It is advised book stock would need to be increased by 2 volumes per resident based on £20 per resident at 2012 prices. No evidence has been provided to justify this figure. In addition the parish council has requested reinstatement of the mobile library. Officers do not consider either request is reasonable or necessary to make this development acceptable.
6.99 The following developer contributions have been requested. These contributions are considered fair and proportionate:-
Vale of White Horse District Council Proposed Contributions A new AGP training area/MUGA on the £14,464 memorial grounds, East Hanney Cricket facilities in East Hanney £6,300 Football pitch improvements and £31,410 provision in East Hanney New rugby facilities at Grove RFU £7,843 Sports pavilion and/or changing facility £65,474 improvements or new provision in East Hanney Rugby pavilion extension at Grove RFU £9,793 Youth sport in East Hanney including £46,518 Parish Council plans for a BMX trail or MUGA Tennis in East Hanney £41,433 New sports hall at Mably Way, Wantage £112,843 Health & Fitness at Mably Way, Wantage £52,251 New swimming pool facility at Mably £87,178 Way, Wantage Bin collection and provision on site £33,490 Public art on site £59,100 Street naming on site £2,199 Letcombe Brook Project interpretation £4,805 Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
boards on site War memorial hall expansion £100,000 (no justification given, so not included in total) Community shop expansion £33,000 (no justification given, so not included in total) St James the Great church restoration, £33,000 West Hanney Public open space maintenance (if not £624,395 management company) Play equipment maintenance (if not £52,800 management company) Monitoring £6,860 Total £1,293,156
Oxfordshire County Council Proposed Contributions St James primary school expansion £989,016 New secondary school expansion at £1,352,952 Grove airfield site Bus services through East Hanney (X30 / £169,500 31) including a new service to Didcot Improvements to A338 / Steventon Rd £547,000 Junction Bus stop provision including shelters and £20,000 on-going maintenance Monitoring £10,375 Total £3,088,843
Overall Total £4,381,999 (approx. 22,243 per unit)
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 This application has been assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), relevant saved policies in the local plan and all other material planning considerations. The NPPF states that sustainable development should be permitted unless the adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The NPPF also states that there are social, economic and environmental dimensions to sustainability and that conclusions must be reached taking into account the NPPF as a whole.
7.2 The proposed development would perform an economic role through increasing housing stock, it would contribute to an expansion of the local housing market and could potentially improve the affordability of open market housing. In addition, the additional houses would help maintain existing infrastructure, creating investment in the local and wider economy. In the Highworth Road, Faringdon appeal case (proposed up to 94 dwellings) it is noted that the Secretary of State considered that the "benefits of the scheme would include the provision of much needed market and affordable housing to contribute towards acknowledged substantial shortfalls, and would generate considerable economic benefits of the type arising from housing development" and that he gave these benefits significant weight (application no. P13/V1366/O, appeal reference APP/V3120/A/13/2210891). These economic benefits outweigh the limited economic benefits this site has in being agricultural land.
7.3 The scheme would have a social role as it will provide housing and affordable housing to meet the needs of present and future generations through the provision of a range of housing types and sizes and would meet the social dimension of sustainable Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
development which should be affordable significant weight. Other social benefits will arise through the contributions to local infrastructure identified including towards local bus services and recreation and sport facilities which in turn could benefit existing residents of East Hanney.
7.4 The proposal has an environmental role including providing housing in a reasonably accessible location, biodiversity enhancements, new highway infrastructure, provision of public open spaces and new tree planting.
7.5 The proposal will have some adverse environmental implications given the change in landscape as a result of the development. However, in view of the emphasis in the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing (paragraph 47) officers consider that the environmental impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the wider social and economic benefits of the development, which include a contribution to the council’s five year housing land supply.
7.6 In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal meets the three strands of sustainable development. The impacts of the proposal are not considered unreasonably adverse and it is considered the harm identified does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement to secure affordable housing and developer contributions.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 It is recommended that authority to grant planning permission is delegated to the head of planning:
1: A S106 agreement being entered into with the district council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure affordable housing, and;
2 : the following conditions:
1. Time limit – three years. 2. Approved plans. 3. Sample materials to be agreed. 4. Building details to be agreed. 5. Slab level details to be agreed. 6. Boundary details to be agreed. 7. Access in accordance with approved plans. 8. Garage accommodation to be retained. 9. Car parking in accordance with approved plans. 10. Carriageway works prior to work on any dwelling. 11. Construction traffic management plan. 12. Sustainable drainage scheme to be agreed and implemented prior to occupation. 13. Foul drainage strategy / details to be agreed and implemented prior to occupation. 14. Archaeology written scheme of investigation. 15. Archaeology staged programme of investigation. 16. Strategic landscaping prior to work on any dwelling. 17. Hard and soft landscaping details to be submitted. 18. Landscape implementation and management plan with planting on south boundary in first season following commencement. Vale of White Horse District Council – Planning Committee – 25 November 2015
19. Lifetime homes provision to be agreed (market and affordable). 20. Bin storage in accordance with approved plans. 21. Sub-station details to be agreed. 22. LEAP details to be agreed. 23. Tree protection. 24. Noise mitigation measures to be agreed, in accordance with BS8233:2014. 25. Building recording of agricultural barns. 26. Habitat Restoration Method Statement for the Community Nature Reserve to be submitted, approved and implemented within 18 months following first occupation. 27. Ecological Management Plan for the Community Nature Reserve to be submitted, approved and implemented. 28. Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved which shall include details of the measures to be taken to ensure that construction works do not adversely affect biodiversity.
Author: Stuart Walker Contact number: 01235 540546 Email: [email protected]
Appeal Decision Hearing held on 16 December 2014 Site visit made on 16 December 2014 by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 13 January 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/14/2223292 Land off Steventon Road, East Hanney OX12 0HS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Greenland Henley Ltd against Vale of White Horse District Council. • The application Ref.P13/V2266/O is dated 11 October 2013. • The development proposed is described as ‘outline application for mixed use development with layout, appearance, landscaping and scale reserved, comprising 2 one-bedroom, 15 two-bedroom, 3 three-bedroom, 15 four- or five-bedroom dwellings (35 total Use Class C3) with commercial building (B1, A2 or D2 use) not exceeding 500 square metres GFA, including new access to Steventon Road’.
Preliminary Matters
1. The scheme was amended from that originally promulgated and it is agreed by the main parties that the proposal is ‘a residential development of up to 35 dwellings with a new access on to Steventon Road’. Moreover, the originating application was made in outline with all matters, save for access, reserved for future determination. I have proceeded on that overall basis and treated all details on the submitted plans that go beyond access as illustrative.
2. Applications for costs have been made by the appellant against the Council, and vice-versa. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions.
Decision
3. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for a residential development of up to 35 dwellings with a new access on to Steventon Road on Land off Steventon Road, East Hanney OX12 0HS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.P13/V2266/O, dated 11 October 2013, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A to this decision.
Main Issue
4. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This means, having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework 1, that LP 2 Policies GS1 and GS2, which dictate where the provision of new housing will be considered acceptable, are not up-to-date.
1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2 The Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
5. This directs the decision-maker to paragraph 14 of the Framework. The appeal site is not in a location where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
6. As such, where the development plan is out-of-date, paragraph 14 says that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, considered as a whole.
7. The main issue to be considered, therefore, is whether any adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits it would bring forward.
Reasons
8. The position of the Council outlined at the Hearing was that the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and, as such, planning permission should be granted for it, subject to conditions and the obligations. Nevertheless, interested persons raised a number of issues that merit consideration.
9. When dealing with the application the Council did have concerns about flooding, as did a number of local residents. However, the EA 3 eventually agreed with the appellant that the appeal site is in Flood Zone 1 and raised no objection. Indeed, the main concern about the appeal site, in these terms, revolves around the propensity of the site to flood as a result of inadequate surface water drainage.
10. However, providing the disposal of surface water, and sewage, is dealt with properly, matters that can be addressed by condition, the provision of housing on the site would not make that situation worse and indeed, is very likely to make it better. The proposal would have no adverse impact in this regard, therefore, and I see no departure from LP Policies DC13 and DC14 that address flood risk and surface water.
11. The Council also raised concern about the impact of the access on the Steventon Road frontage. I accept that the trees and shrubs that form the boundary to Steventon Road are attractive features. The access would result in the loss of a relatively short stretch, including a tree, but as I saw at the site visit the overall impact of the visibility splays on the trees and shrubs would be minimal. There would however be something of an adverse impact as a result of the provision of the access that would add to the overall harmful impact endemic in the provision of housing on what is currently a paddock.
12. This would bring the proposal into conflict with LP Policy NE9 that seeks to protect the landscape characteristics of the Lowland Vale. I accept that paragraph 109 of the Framework tells us that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
13. However, the appeal site is perceived as part of the urban fringe of the settlement rather than part of the wider landscape. As such, the harm caused by the proposal to the character and appearance of the area would be very limited.
3 Environment Agency www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
14. Residents of the dwellings to the west of the appeal site would experience a change in outlook as a result of the proposal. However, the separation distances involved, along with the existing boundary treatments, would be more than sufficient to ensure that the resulting visual impact would have no undue effect on their living conditions. For the same reasons, any noise and disturbance whether during the construction period, or as a result of eventual occupation, would be well within reasonable bounds.
15. On that basis, the proposal complies with LP Policy DC9 that seeks to ensure development will not unacceptably harm the amenity of neighbouring properties and the exhortation in the Framework to always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of land and buildings.
16. Turning to the benefits, paragraph 47 of the Framework sets out the need to boost significantly the supply of housing. The provision of open-market and affordable housing is obviously beneficial in the light of that but even more so when, as the Council acknowledged here, a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated. There will be economic benefits in the construction and subsequent occupation of the dwellings proposed too.
17. Taking all those points together, the very limited adverse impacts that would flow from the proposal come nowhere near significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits it would bring forward. As such, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission should be granted for it.
Conditions and the Obligation
18. I have considered the suggested conditions in the light of advice in paragraph 206 of the Framework, and what remains of Circular 11/95 4.
19. In terms of the conditions designed to address the submission of reserved matters, I accept that given the prevailing situation in terms of housing supply it would be beneficial if the dwellings came forward sooner rather than later, but implementation is a matter for the appellant and in the light of my conclusions above, see no good reason to depart from the standard timescales.
20. A condition is required to set out the approved plans but this does need to take into account that fact that the application was made in outline with everything but for access reserved for future determination. I have not included those plans that are illustrative only.
21. The trees on the site that are to remain make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area so it is necessary to apply a condition to address their protection in the course of construction works. Given the importance of the existing natural boundaries, it is also necessary to apply a condition to cover hedgerow management.
22. As set out above, to address any likelihood of flooding, a condition is required to secure details of surface water and foul drainage and to ensure the measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment are implemented. It is also reasonable to attach a condition to address ecology in the terms set out in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report.
4 Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
23. Given highway conditions in the vicinity of the site, conditions are necessary to secure a Construction Traffic Management Plan and to ensure that the access proposed is completed, including the provision of visibility splays, before any other development takes place. A condition is also required to ensure that pedestrian and vehicular access to each particular dwelling is complete before it is occupied. That condition renders the suggested condition relating to the provision of footpaths superfluous. I understand that the pedestrian crossing referred to in the suggested condition has already been provided as part of another development. In order to comply with LP Policies H17 and H23, conditions are also necessary to deal with the provision of on-site affordable housing and open space.
24. The appellant has produced two completed obligations. The first, a Unilateral Undertaking dated 16 December 2014 is addressed to the District Council and deals with a series of financial contributions, the second, an Agreement with the County Council dated 7 January 2015, deals with another series of financial contributions, as well as highway matters.
25. I have considered the content of the obligations in the light of advice in paragraph 204 of the Framework, which reflects Regulation 122 5. This states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if the obligation is (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
26. Like the highway works, some of the financial contributions, in the obligations are intended to mitigate impacts the development would have on local facilities and services and, as such, comply with Regulation 122, and the advice in the Framework. Others, such as the ‘Waste Collection Contribution’, the ‘Police Equipment Contribution’, the ‘Parish Contribution’ and the ‘Museum Resource Centre Contribution’ are of rather more doubtful provenance, in my view. However, because the obligations contain no mechanism which allows the appellant to avoid the payment of a financial contribution in the event of a finding that the financial contribution at issue does not comply with Regulation 122, there is little to be gained by examining each separate financial contribution forensically. Confirmation at the Hearing that the appellant did not, and would not, seek to avoid any of the financial contributions proffered, underlines that conclusion.
27. It suffices to say that while the highway works and some of the financial contributions offer necessary mitigation (in other words are neither positive nor negative factors), others are obviously not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. As a consequence of that conclusion, none of the provisions in the obligations have influenced the balancing exercise set out in paragraph 17 above.
Conclusion
28. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Griffiths
INSPECTOR
5 Of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Andrew Boughton BB Architecture and Planning Ltd RIBA MRTPI Daniel Stiff BB Architecture and Planning Ltd BA(Hons) M.Arch Edward Simons Appellant Alan Pontin Appellant Carly Tinkler Carly Tinkler Associates CMLI Ben Pontin Appellant Robert Searby Appellant
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Peter Brampton Senior Planning Officer (Major Applications)
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Hamish Gowen Local Resident John Graham Steventon Road Nurseries Ian Prosser Oxfordshire County Council
DOCUMENTS
1 Extract from Manual for Streets 2 2 Sketches showing extent of tree and shrub removal around access 3 Additional copy of objection letter dated 23/01/14 put in by Mr Gowen 4 S.106 Compliance Table 5 Identification Plan 6 VoWHDC Leisure and Sports Facilities Strategy 2012-2029 7 VoWHDC SPG: Planning and Public Art 8 VoWHDC SPD: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Future Provision 9 Completed Unilateral Undertaking to VoWHDC dated 16 December 2014 10 Draft Agreement with OCC 11 Completed Agreement with OCC dated 7 January 2014
PLANS
A 1316/001B: Site Location Plan B 1316/002C: Block Plan C P924/101A: Proposed Access Arrangements and Visibility D P924/102A: Proposed Access Arrangements and Visibility
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
Annex A: Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1316/001B: Site Location Plan; 1316/002C: Block Plan; P924/101A: Proposed Access Arrangements and Visibility; and P924/102A: Proposed Access Arrangements and Visibility. 5) No development shall take place until an arboricultural method statement, giving details of the protection of trees and hedgerows during the construction period, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The arboricultural method statement shall include details of: (a) protective fencing and/or ground protection measures; (b) a programme for their implementation; and (c) any works required to trees and/or hedgerows to prevent accidental damage by construction vehicles. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6) No development shall take place until a scheme of hedgerow management has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The hedgerow management scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 7) No development shall take place until details of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of any of the dwellings approved herein. 8) The development shall be implemented in accordance with all proposed measures contained within the Flood Risk Assessment that accompanied the application. 9) The development permitted herein shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in Chapter 6 of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report produced by Focus Ecology. 10) No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall be adhered to for the duration of construction period. 11) No other development shall take place until the vehicular access to the site, and the visibility splays serving it, have been formed in accordance with the approved plans. The access and visibility splays shall be retained in their approved form thereafter.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/14/2223292
12) No dwelling shall be occupied until the pedestrian and vehicular accesses, and parking and manoeuvring areas serving it have been completed. The parking and manoeuvring areas shall be retained for their intended purposes thereafter. 13) No development shall take place until a Green Travel Plan (GTP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The GTP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 14) No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing, on-site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall include: (a) the number, type and location on the site of the affordable housing units which shall amount to 40% of the units in the total development; (b) the form of tenure by which each unit will be occupied; (c) the timing of the construction and occupation of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the construction and occupation of the open-market housing; (d) the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider for the management of the affordable housing if no Registered Housing Provider is involved; (e) the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and (f) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of the occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria will be enforced. 15) Before any of the dwellings are occupied, a scheme for the provision, management, and maintenance of open space, on-site, including an implementation programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The open space shall be provided, managed, and maintained, in accordance with the approved details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Tennis Court Playground Allotment Gardens Medway Hanney Malthouse h 6 Bungalow at 3 War Memorial Hall P 5 FB
63.2m Path 63.2m The LB Sycamores Lower Manor 30 Bramley
14 LB 1 11 21 Oaktree 2 2 2 Cottage 3 C 13 C S r t K 7 T N C 2 o a Sunnybank s O
1 4 1 1 h D t i i o D
1 Orchard g g A t S C e P a P THE h i
e t r g H
t a View
v B i e
n n e 62.1m a u PW g w a T r
d
a t E o El Sub Sta e h e l E e o x a e e R Waters d u r n T 1 s
0 n x Ambleside S 1 Brookside A Edge The IN T e h A r T Cottage e M Chapel v c i a e s il g L a r Cottage tt e El o lt 1 Su C e b S Sunningwell h ta Thornfield S Y The Causeway H e O P o u l a Albury d s e t e h Brightwater n
House 2 4 1 1
(
u
6 Priors m
) Hold Acre ANE Cottage BERRY L Carinya BL Carlton Hazelwood ENHE IM OR Bramley CHAR 63.2m 1 D
E Cottage 1
S
O Black Horse 1 L 0
9 1 C 2
Little D (PH) 8
R Co Barn m urt C A 5 ott Alicia . age H 2 13 C 1 6 5 Mill R O Weir Farm Cottage BRAM Tamarisk LEY CL The 4 OSE Cottage Ley Cottages 6
T Laburnum H Cottage E Morus House M Club U The Stables L Garstane B E House R R IE Downside Lay House e S Gilberts Lindrick g e d Cottage s e The Mulberries H u o 62.8m w H e 63.8m y Y Lay Hale le m Cottage a Pa Cottage r th (um Old B ) Mill House M ILL O RCH Robey House Lakeside ARD Willow Brook 63.1m
Mill Dandridges Borley Bank (disused) Mill El Pond Sub Orchard Bank Sta GP
The Waylands FB Mill Side Willows Dews Meadow Farm Leider Mill East Ways
Pond in The ra D Bungalow Sunset Strip
Half Acre
k o o r The B Rowans e Ro b wans m Or o chard tc e L Downs S Orchard Cottage UMM View ERT OWN Lake
64.8m Barn Croft
65.8m
66.4m
in a r D
Drain
MS Development area Ecological area Conservation area Listed Building 0m Def 50m 100m 150m
ED & Wa rd Bdy 66.7m Und Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432. Plotted Scale - 1:4636 Application Boundary: 2.56Ha
East Hanney Proposed residential Area (1.99Ha) Up to 55 Dwellings at 28dph
Lay House Proposed Amenity Greenspace (0.41Ha)
Proposed Landscape Buffer (0.16Ha)
Lay Cottage Proposed LEAP (0.04Ha)*
Proposed Vehicular Access Lakeside
Proposed Main Streets
Proposed Trees and hedgerow Dews Meadow Farm Existing Trees and Hedgerow
Existing Trees to be removed
Proposed Greenways (Footpath)
Existing Public Rights of Way
East Hanney Conservation Area
Proposed Medium Density Character Area A338
Proposed Low Density Character Area
Gas Plant
*Proposed LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) included within area of Amenity Summertown greenspace)
GI Type Local Proposed Compliance requirement Ha
Formal Play 0.04 0.04
Amenity 0.1 min 0.41 Green Natural 0.1 min 0.16 Green Total Proposed Public Open Space = 0.57 Ha
15% total requirement = 0.38 Ha N
J:5900/5977/LANDS/PLANS/L-04 ILLUSTRATIVE SECTIONS
masterplanning 1:1250@A3 environmental assessment Gladman Development landscape design FPCR Environment and Design Ltd urban design Lockington Hall ecology Lockington December 2014 Derby DE74 2RH Land North of Summertown DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK architecture arboriculture t: 01509 672772 f: 01509 674565 rev fpcr East Hanney 5977-L-03 H e: [email protected] w: www.fpcr.co.uk FIGURE 1 - Photograph of the site from the A338 FIGURE 2 - Photomontage of the project from the A338
Client Site Linden Homes East Hanney
Drawn by Date Scale Rev MC Jan 2016 A3 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE PLANNING ECOLOGY • ARBORICULTURE
The Black Barn, Hall Road Lavenham, Suffolk CO10 9QX Tel. 01787 248216 E-mail. [email protected]
1
2
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 December 2013 by David Leeming an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 27 December 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/13/2195492 Land to the west of Portway Villas, Reading Road, East Hendred, Oxfordshire • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Pye Homes against the decision of Vale of White Horse District Council. • The application Ref P12/V1878/FUL, dated 28 August 2012, was refused by notice dated 10 December 2012. • The development proposed is development of 21 new houses – 13 open market and 8 affordable.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development of 21 new houses – 13 open market and 8 affordable, on land to the west of Portway Villas, Reading Road, East Hendred, Oxfordshire in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P12/V1878/FUL, dated 28 August 2012, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The applicants have submitted two section 106 agreements, one to secure the proposed provision of affordable housing and the other to make various financial contributions towards the costs of local services and facilities to mitigate the impact of the development. These agreements accord with the advice in paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and are in compliance with regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). They have therefore been taken into account and are considered to overcome the Council’s second reason for refusal.
Main Issue
3. The Council contend that due to the harmful landscape impact and physical separation from the village, the proposed development is not a sustainable form of development. It is contended that there is no over-riding need or special circumstances which exist, including the present shortfall in housing land supply, which warrant any departure from the adopted Local Plan and which would outweigh the harm caused to the character of the area.
4. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
adds that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
5. Having regard to this, given the Council’s acknowledged absence of a five-year housing land supply, the Council’s housing policies are out of date, inconsistent with the NPPF and can carry little weight. These include Policies GS2 and H13 in the in the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, which apply to development outside the built-up areas of towns and villages.
6. The settlement boundaries to which the Local Plan housing policies relate are based on housing requirements which are now, in effect, ‘time expired’. These settlement boundaries are now unable to accommodate the quantum of housing that is necessary to meet the present and future housing requirements in the Vale of White Horse District.
7. The Council consider that the appeal site is not a sustainable option to help address the undersupply of housing land provision particularly where more appropriate options are available. The Council advise that significant progress has been made in addressing the shortfall by permitting over 1400 dwellings in sustainable sites. However, it remains the case that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites. As the NPPF makes clear, for sites to be considered deliverable, they should be available now.
8. The principal aim of the NPPF is the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice.
9. Having regard to the above, the main issue is whether the proposed scheme is sufficiently sustainable given the circumstances relating to housing land supply in the District.
Reasons
The benefit of the scheme
10. The benefit of the scheme can be briefly stated. This is the provision of 21 new homes to reduce the identified shortfall in the supply of housing in the District. Significantly, 8 of the new homes would be affordable homes, for which there is a particular local need, as identified in the Local Plan.
The impact on landscape
11. The development would result in the loss of agricultural land that forms part of the rural edge to the village. At present the land to the north of the A417, where the development would take place, is essentially rural in character. There is a deep landscape buffer on the southern side of the main road which, as the Council point out, creates a green corridor along the roadside and provides a strong boundary between the built up part of the village to the south and the open countryside to the north.
12. However, directly to the east of the site on the northern side of the main road are some existing houses that provide a visual presence of built development beyond the main area of the village. There is also a further residential property to the west, off Wood Farm Road. The proposed development would sit between this existing development. Although there would be some loss of
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
an existing mature hedgerow that currently defines the southern boundary of the agricultural land, the proposed development would be set back from the main road frontage behind a proposed deeper landscaped area. As this matures this would help to soften the impact of the development in views from the main road.
13. The site forms part of the Lowland Vale, a local landscape designation. The Council point out that Local Plan Policy NE9 seeks to protect the long views across the flat open landscape which characterises this designation. However, the development would have only a limited effect on such views, this being principally from a short adjacent section of the A417. The existing landscape buffer along the southern side of the road effectively prevents long views across the appeal site from Coulings Close to the south, within that part of the village. Likewise, the existing houses the north of the main road restrict long views across the open countryside that would otherwise be obtained from other parts of the village, along White Road.
14. The Council point out that the site forms part of a larger swathe of land with no natural boundary to define its extent. Without such a boundary they raise a concern that it would be difficult to resist future development beyond the current arbitrary northern site boundary, to the detriment of the locality. However, the scheme provides for a deep landscape buffer on the northern edge. This would create a clear separation between the developed land and the remaining agricultural land beyond.
15. As to the creation of a precedent, it is an established planning principle that each application or consequential appeal should be determined on its own merits. As such, a grant of consent in this case would not prevent the Council from exercising their powers to refuse any subsequent development that failed to meet up to date development plan and national policy requirements.
The relationship of the development site to the village
16. As noted above, in its location to the north of the A417 the development would be beyond the recognised edge of the village. However, in the context of the adjacent housing on the northern side of the road, it would have some connectivity to this existing fringe area of development. Whilst, compared to that, it would result in a more significant expansion beyond the limits of the village, it would nevertheless be closely located to the village, being just across the other side of the main road.
17. East Hendred is one of the larger villages in the District. It contains a shop/post office, schools, public houses and a church. It is currently served by bus routes, including one to Didcot Parkway, where there are rail connections to London and elsewhere. The scheme involves the provision of new bus stops adjacent to the site plus a refuge to assist pedestrians wishing to cross the main road. The village and its facilities are within a reasonable walking distance from the site. In these circumstances the site is sufficiently close to the existing village to have a reasonable connectivity to it. As a result, and having regard to the proposed highway improvements, future occupants of the development would not be unacceptably segregated from the village by the main road.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
Other Matters
18. The Parish Council and other interested third parties have raised concerns about the impact of the development on highway safety. The Parish Council’s views are supported by comments made by a report from a consultant. Specific concerns are raised about the adequacy and safety of the site in relation to the volume of traffic using the access, internal site layout, including parking provision and turning space for large vehicles, and the proposed bus stops and pedestrian crossing point on the adjacent A417.
19. It is instructive that, despite acknowledging some deficiencies in the layout, the highway authority concluded, on balance, that they had no objection to the proposals subject to conditions. The principal concern of the highway authority related to the provision of a mini-roundabout at the White Road junction. However, this is no longer part of the scheme. In relation to the two new bus stops, the highway authority advise that these are situated on a key strategic public transport corridor which will be delivered incrementally in line with the anticipated travel demand associated with future employment and housing growth in the Science Vale Enterprise Zone area. They will therefore have wider benefits to the village at large.
20. In making their representations, the highway authority noted that the A417 in the area is near capacity and commented that they were seeking to improve conditions along this principal road. They made the observation that the scheme’s proposed provision of footways and crossing, together with traffic calming measures arising from the off-site highway works would make the site more accessible and safer for journeys on foot and cycle to the facilities in the village.
21. The concerns by the Parish Council and others have been taken into account. However, as the appellants note, they provide no new evidence that undermines the basic conclusion reached by the highway authority that the development can be safely accommodated on the road network.
22. Notwithstanding this conclusion, particular concerns have been raised by third parties about the proposed pedestrian refuge and the bus stops. In this respect, the adequacy of the size of the proposed pedestrian refuge has been raised in relation to all those who might want to use it. Potentially this could include parents with buggies or wheelchair users. As regards the bus stops, it is noted that there is no provision for a lay-by on the southern side of the main road, which has implications in relation to traffic flows on the A417. The appellants have expressed a willingness to look at the details of the off-site highway works again; and this matter can be re-visited, to see if some further beneficial changes are feasible, as part of a condition requiring a detailed scheme for off-site highway works to be agreed and completed before development commences.
23. Aside from highway safety matters, concerns have been raised by the residents living in the property to the west of Woods Farm Lane about direct overlooking from some of the proposed houses. However, the nearest house would be set some way back from the Lane and it is clear that, having regard to the distance of the set back plus intervening landscaping, there would be no unacceptable overlooking.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
24. Other concerns have been raised about flooding. However a flood risk assessment has been submitted and there is no technical or other cogent evidence to demonstrate that drainage matters could not be effectively controlled by condition.
Conditions
25. The Council have suggested a number of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. For the most part these are necessary and are being imposed to ensure satisfactory development, subject to some essentially minor drafting changes. The exception is the suggested drainage conditions, which give rise to some duplication. In this respect it is not necessary to impose the Council’s suggested condition 5 in the light of suggested conditions 6 and 7.
26. As noted above, a condition will require a detailed scheme of off-site highway works to be agreed and completed. In addition, as recommended by the highway authority, a condition requiring a Travel Information Pack will be imposed to encourage sustainable travel by the new residents.
Conclusions
27. Drawing matters together, the lack of a five-year supply of housing weighs heavily in support of the arguments for allowing the appeal, as does the contribution the scheme would make towards meeting the Council’s housing requirements, including the need for affordable housing provision. The development, whilst not in an ideal location, would be sufficiently sustainable having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The limited loss of countryside and impact on the Lowland Vale follow as a consequence of the need to accommodate necessary housing beyond the recognised limits of the village. Planning permission is therefore being granted for the development, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.
David Leeming
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2482.100; 2482.101 Rev C*; 2482.102 Rev A; 2482.103 Rev A; 2482.104 Rev B; 2482.105 Rev B; 2482.106 Rev A; 2482.107 Rev A; 2482.108 Rev A; 2482.109 Rev A; 2482.111 Rev A; 2482.112*; 2482.113 Rev A; 2482.114; 2482.116*; and TR8120209/01 Rev E, subject to the requirements of other conditions set out in this Schedule and, in the case of the above-mentioned plans marked with *, excluding the outdated details shown on these plans relating to off-site highway works. 3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted, including all windows, window sills and lintels, external doors and rainwater goods, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment Ref: CV8/20209/JR/DW/024 issue 2 dated 28 August 2012 and the foul water drainage and utilities assessment report Ref: CV8/20209/JR/DW/026 issue 2 dated 28 August 2012. 6. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. 7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
following the occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. 8. Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans, the site’s internal and external boundaries shall be enclosed in accordance with a detailed scheme and programme of implementation, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall ensure that the approved boundary treatments for each dwelling are completed prior to the first occupation of that dwelling and that the approved boundary treatments for the whole site are completed prior to the occupation of the last dwelling. 9. Prior to commencement of development, details of the existing ground levels of the site and the proposed slab levels of the new dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved slab levels. 10.Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, details of vehicular access to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include visibility splays in both directions along the A417. The access and visibility splays shall be provided prior to the occupation or use of the new development and thereafter be permanently maintained, free from obstruction to vision. 11.Prior to the use or occupation of the new development, the car parking spaces shown on approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out. The parking spaces shall be constructed to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway. The spaces shall be kept permanently available for car parking. 12.All of the roads and footways shown on the approved layout plans and all of the ancillary highway works and street lighting within the site shall be constructed/provided in accordance with the specification in Oxfordshire County Council’s Residential Road Design Guide. 13.Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing TR8120209/01 Rev E, no development shall take place until a detailed scheme for off-site highway works, including an uncontrolled crossing and bus stops, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The off-site highway works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings in the development hereby approved. 14.Prior to the first occupation of the development a copy of a Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the highway authority Travel Choices Team. The approved Travel Information Pack shall be provided to each household initially occupying the dwellings to be built. It shall include information on the alternatives to single-occupancy car use available to residents, walking and cycling route maps, discounts, public transport information, the contact details for the Travel Plan Co-ordinator for the site www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2195492
and useful resources such as the Transport Direct Journey Planner website to enable people to plan their own journeys. 15.No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i Site clearance and construction ii The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors iii Hours of operation, including deliveries and loading and unloading of plant and materials iv The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors v Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development vi Measures to prevent mud and debris being carried onto the A417 vii Measures to control the emission of dust during construction
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 September 2015 by John Chase MCD DipArch RIBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 15 October 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/W/15/3017366 Land to the North of Portway Villas, Reading Road, East Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8JD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Pye Homes against the decision of Vale of White Horse District Council. The application Ref P14/V1964/FUL, dated 13 August 2014, was refused by notice dated 4 February 2015. The development proposed is residential development of 26 dwellings, and off-site works.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development of 26 dwellings, and off-site works at land to the north of Portway Villas, Reading Road, East Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8JD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P14/V1964/FUL, dated 13 August 2014, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is whether the proposal represents a sustainable form of development in the context of a shortfall in the supply of housing land.
Reasons
3. The appeal site is the southern portion of a field to the north of the village of East Hendred. Immediately south is a recently completed development of 21 new houses, which was granted permission at appeal in 2013 (APP/V3120/A/13/2195492). The new scheme would be a similar form of cul- de-sac development, served by the existing estate road taking access from a junction with the A417 Reading Road, which separates this area from the main part of the village to the south.
4. In granting permission for the first phase of development, the Inspector noted that the Council were not able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, to comply with para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and that there was therefore a need to boost the supply of both affordable and market housing. There is no reason to consider that circumstances have changed in this respect; whilst there is a new Local Plan in the course of preparation, the Council acknowledge that it has not yet reached
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3017366
the stage where it can be allocated significant weight, and, in the meantime, it is not possible to meet the five year land requirement. In these circumstances, NPPF para 49 indicates that policies for the supply of housing should be considered out of date.
5. In this context, the Council’s reason for refusal of the planning application refers to policy GS2 of the adopted Local Plan, which creates a general restriction on development outside existing settlements, including the present appeal site, and which implements the locational strategy of Policy GS1 to concentrate development at the main settlements. The previous Inspector determined GS2 to be out of date and, having regard to its wide ranging effect in determining the location of housing, there is no reason to reach a different conclusion in this appeal. Where this is the case, NPPF para 14 indicates that sustainable development should be granted permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Council’s statement accepts that there is not an objection in principle to the scheme in view of the need for a supply of housing.
6. The question arises as to whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development, which is defined in para 7 of the NPPF as having three components: economic, social and environmental. A supply of market and affordable housing would help to meet the social and economic roles; the main potential objection to this development lies in its environmental impact, both in terms of the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and the setting of the village, and the degree of accessibility to local facilities and services.
7. On the first point, whilst it was noted in the earlier appeal that the site then under consideration fell within a partially developed frontage along the A417 road, that argument has less force in the present case, where the site more clearly projects into countryside to the north. On the other hand, there is some containment provided by the hedge lines on either side of the farm road on the western boundary, and by the mix of orchard, allotment and sheds on the eastern side, as well as the group of buildings in the vicinity of the north western corner of the site.
8. It is certainly true that the development would bring the urban area closer to the footpaths on the eastern side of the site and to the north, and that Local Plan policy NE9 seeks to protect the quality of the local landscape, especially long open views across the area. However, the northwards movement of the urban area would have an incremental, rather than decisive effect on the character and appearance of countryside, and the proposal to create a planted buffer zone on the outer boundary would help to soften the impact of the buildings. The land is relatively featureless, without special landscape merit in its own right, and there is no indication that the development of the site would have a significant impact on views to or from the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would have a limited effect on the perception of the setting of the village, which is largely determined by the nature of the A417 road in this location.
9. Reference is made to appeal decision APP/V3120/A/14/2224475 issued in March 2015, which dismissed a scheme for a solar farm on land to the north of the appeal site because of its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Whilst this site is within the general vicinity of the present scheme, there
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3017366
are some significant differences, both in location and scale. Where the current proposal would be a marginal extension of the present settlement, the solar farm would have occupied a substantial portion of land within the countryside, where its position and elevation would have had a significant impact on the appearance of the surrounding area. There is justification for a different assessment in this instance.
10. Turning to the accessibility of the location, East Hendred is a relatively large village, with a range of facilities and services. It is the case that the majority of these are within the historic village centre, to the south, and that it would be necessary for new residents to cross the A417 road. However, the previous appeal determined that the site then under consideration was within a reasonable walking distance of the centre, and the new scheme would not be so much further removed as to justify a different conclusion on this point. Pedestrian access has been facilitated by a footpath connection and lights controlled crossing. The site is not in an unacceptably remote location, and the additional population would help to provide support for the village facilities.
11. Amongst other matters raised by third parties is a concern about the impact on the flow of traffic and road safety. These are matters which were considered in some detail by the previous Inspector when allowing the earlier appeal and, whilst the additional housing would increase the overall level of vehicle movements, there are no substantial grounds to counter the appellants’ highways analysis showing that the additional load would remain a small proportionate increase, with limited impact on the road system. The highway authority do not object to the proposal, and there is not reason for this decision to take a different view. Similarly, the evidence does not indicate that any potential harm arising out of matters such as flooding and pressure on local infrastructure could not be adequately overcome by obligations or planning conditions. Whilst the solar farm appeal drew attention to the potential loss of higher grade agricultural land in the area, it is not certain that the present site occupies such land nor, even if it does, that the area involved would amount to the significant loss referred to in the NPPF.
12. Taking all these matters together, there are sufficient grounds to determine that the scheme would be a sustainable form of development, and that any conflict with the development plan would not outweigh the benefit of the provision of a supply of market and affordable housing.
Obligations
13. The appellants have submitted Unilateral Undertakings in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the County Council and the District Council. The former makes contributions for the provision of bus stops and bus services; the latter includes a 40% supply of affordable housing, obligations to provide and maintain amenity areas, and contributions to a range of sporting facilities and waste collection. The obligations are subject to the determination of this decision that they comply with the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, 2010.
14. It is recognised that the additional population will create an increased load on the local infrastructure, and there is no reason to consider that the proposed contributions are unnecessary, or that they do not represent a fair proportion of the costs arising. The need for affordable housing meets the objectives of Local Plan policy H17, and there is a requirement to provide amenity space for
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3017366
the benefit of the new residents. The obligations meet the tests in CIL Regulation 122, and there is no evidence to contradict the Council’s assertion that they satisfy the criteria of Regulation 123.
Conditions
15. The Council’s suggested conditions are assessed in relation to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. The shortening of the timescale for implementation of the scheme to one year is not unreasonable as the housing is intended to address the current land supply shortfall. The approved drawings are specified for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. There is a need to agree the external materials of the development and details of levels for the benefit of the appearance of the estate, but there is no indication that the site is in such a sensitive location that the submission of additional house design details is justified.
16. Whilst the appellants have submitted a schematic landscaping layout, further details are required to ensure the minimum impact on the character and appearance of the area. This may include boundary design, without the need for a separate condition. Details of surface water drainage are required to avoid the risk of flooding but foul drainage and other utilities are subject to alternative powers. The provision of on-site parking is necessary for highway safety, as are a construction traffic management plan and details of road design.
Conclusions
17. It is recognised that the proposal represents a further incursion into countryside to the north of the A417 road, and that there is concern about the impact that this would have on the character and sustainability of the village and its surroundings. However, for the reasons given, any harm is not of such importance as to outweigh the benefit of increasing the supply of housing in a situation where the Council is not able demonstrate a 5 year supply. Taking all representations into account, there are not grounds to dismiss the appeal.
John Chase
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3017366
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than one year from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, except as modified by compliance with these conditions: 2740.100, 101A, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, ASA-431-DR-001C & 002. 3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until provisions for the disposal of surface water have been implemented in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment Ref CV8120209/JR/LR/044 dated 25 November 2014, and with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 5) Not withstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include all boundary treatment, hard surfacing materials, schedules of new trees and shrubs to be planted (noting species, plant sizes and numbers/densities), the identification of the existing trees and shrubs on the site to be retained (noting species, location and spread), any earth moving operations and finished levels/contours, and an implementation programme. 6) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the details and programme approved under the preceding condition. Thereafter, the landscaped areas shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally planted. 7) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the existing ground levels of the site and the proposed slab levels of the new dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3017366
Planning Authority, and the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details. 8) Prior to the occupation of the new development, the car parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out. Thereafter, the parking spaces shall be kept available for their intended purpose. 9) All of the roads and footways shown on the approved drawings and all ancillary highway works and street lighting shall be provided in accordance with the specification in the current edition of Oxfordshire County Council’s Residential Road Design. 10) Prior to commencement of development a construction traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved plan during the course of construction.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 21DPH
20DPH
© Getmapping plc 2016. Plotted Scale - 1:7852