Public reports pack PDF 10 MB - Cherwell District Council

Committee: Planning Committee 

Date: Thursday 22 March 2012 

Time: 2.00 pm 

Venue Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury, OX15 4AA 

Membership 

Councillor Rose Stratford (Chairman) Councillor Alastair Milne Home (Vice-Chairman) 

Councillor Ken Atack Councillor Fred Blackwell 

Councillor Colin Clarke Councillor Tim Emptage 

Councillor Mrs Catherine Fulljames Councillor Michael Gibbard 

Councillor Chris Heath Councillor David Hughes 

Councillor Russell Hurle Councillor Mike Kerford-Byrnes 

Councillor James Macnamara Councillor George Parish 

Councillor D M Pickford Councillor G A Reynolds 

Councillor Trevor Stevens Councillor Lawrie Stratford 

Substitutes 

Councillor Maurice Billington Councillor Norman Bolster 

Councillor Mrs Diana Edwards Councillor Andrew Fulljames 

Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor Melanie Magee 

Councillor Kieron Mallon Councillor P A O'Sullivan 

Councillor Leslie F Sibley Councillor Nicholas Turner 

Councillor Douglas Williamson Councillor Barry Wood 

AGENDA 

1. Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitute Members 

2. Declarations of Interest 

Public Document Pack 

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which 

they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting 

Cherwell District Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX15 4AA 

www.cherwell.gov.uk

3. Petitions and Requests to Address the Meeting 

The Chairman to report on any requests to submit petitions or to address the 

meeting. 

4. Urgent Business 

The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any item of urgent business 

being admitted to the agenda. 

5. Minutes (Pages 1 - 15) 

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 

22 February 2012 

Planning Applications 

6. Banbury Gateway, Acorn Way, Banbury 11/01870/F 

(Pages 19 - 86) 

7. Land South of Overthorpe Road and Adjacent the M40, Banbury, Oxfordshire 

(Pages 87 - 108) 11/01878/OUT 

8. OS Parcels 7977, 8962 and 9553 north of Lince Lane, Kirtlington 11/01766/F 

(Pages 109 - 121) 

9. Heathfield Golf Centre, Heathfield, Bletchingdon 11/01784/F 

(Pages 122 - 134) 

10. Stable Block Corner, Farnborough Road, Mollington 11/01808/F 

(Pages 135 - 142) 

11. Yew Tree Farm, Station Road, Launton, Bicester 11/01907/F 

(Pages 143 - 167) 

12. Cherry Orchard, Green Lane, South Newington OX15 4JH 11/01915/F 

(Pages 168 - 173) 

13. Cherry Orchard, Green Lane, South Newington OX15 4JH 11/01916/LB 

(Pages 174 - 179) 

14. Land North of Willowbank Farm, Fritwell Road, Fewcott 11/01932/F 

(Pages 180 - 190) 

15. Bloxham Business Centre, Barford Road, Bloxham 12/00005/F 

(Pages 191 - 206) 

16. Paragon Fleet Solutions, Heyford Park, Camp Road 12/00040/F 

(Pages 207 - 226)

17. Unit 3A, Bessemer Close, Bicester OX26 6QE 12/00152/F 

(Pages 227 - 236) 

18. Ferris Hill Farm, Hook Norton Road, Sibford Ferris 12/00244/CM 

(Pages 237 - 241) 

19. Ferris Hill Farm, Hook Norton Road, Sibford Ferris 12/00249/CM 

(Pages 242 - 245) 

20. Old Bodicote House, White Post Road, Bodicote 12/00245/LB 

(Pages 246 - 250) 

Tree Preservation Orders 

21. Tree Preservation Order (No. 11/99) The Pre School, Fir Lane, Steeple Aston 

(Pages 251 - 254) 

Report of Head of Public Protection and Development Management 

Summary 

To seek the revocation of Tree Preservation Order no 11-99 relating to one beech 

tree to the front of The Pre School, Fir Lane, Steeple Aston (copy plan attached as 

Annex 1) 

Recommendations 

The Planning Committee is recommended to: 

(1) Revoke Tree Preservation Order 11/99 at the site of The Pre School, Fir 

Lane, Steeple Aston. 

22. Two Trees to the Front of Stradella, Twyford Grove, Adderbury 

(Pages 255 - 258) 


Summary 

To seek the confirmation Tree Preservation Order no 12-11 with no objections 

relating to two trees to the front of Stradella, Twyford Grove, Adderbury (copy plan 

attached as Annex 1) 



(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 12/2011 at the site of Stradella, Twyford 

Grove, Adderbury be confirmed without modification in the interest of public 

amenity.

23. Lime Tree House Main Road, Swalcliffe, OX15 5EH (Pages 259 - 262) 


Summary 


relating to one beech tree to the front of Lime Tree House Main Road, Swalcliffe, 

OX15 5EH (copy plan attached as Annex 1). 



(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 13/2011 at the site of Lime Tree House 

Main Road Swalcliffe OX15 5EH be confirmed without modification in the 

interest of public amenity. 

24. Beech Tree, Etheldredas Church, Little Lane, Horley (Pages 263 - 266) 


Summary 


relating to one beech tree to the front of St Etheldredas Church, Little Lane, Horley 

(copy plan attached as Annex 1). 



(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 19/2011 at the site of St Etheldredas 

Church, Little Lane Horley without modification in the interest of public 

amenity. 

Review and Monitoring Reports 

25. Decisions Subject to Various Requirements (Pages 267 - 269) 


Summary 

This report aims to keep members informed upon applications which they have 

authorised decisions upon to various requirements which must be complied with 

prior to the issue of decisions. 

An update on any changes since the preparation of the report will be given at the 

meeting.



(1) Accept the position statement. 

26. Progress on the Exemplar Application at NW Bicester 10/01780/HYBRID 

(Pages 270 - 278) 

Report of Director of Development 

Summary 

To advise Members of the progress that has been made towards the completion of 

the S106 agreement for NW Bicester 



(1) Note the progress towards completion of the legal agreement for the 

exemplar development at NW Bicester which, once signed, will enable the 

planning permission to be issued. 

(2) Note the progress with regard to the masterplan for NW Bicester. 

(3) Consider the requirement of Section 143 of the Localism Act 2011 to take 

into account local finance considerations. 

27. Appeals Progress Report (Pages 279 - 282) 


Summary 

This report aims to keep members informed upon applications which have been 

determined by the Council, where new appeals have been lodged. Public 

Inquiries/hearings scheduled or appeal results achieved. 




Councillors are requested to collect any post from their pigeon 

hole in the Members Room at the end of the meeting.

Information about this Agenda 

Apologies for Absence 

Apologies for absence should be notified to democracy@cherwell-dc.gov.uk or 01295 

221589 / 01295 227956 prior to the start of the meeting. 

Declarations of Interest 

Members are asked to declare interests at item 2 on the agenda or if arriving after the 

start of the meeting, at the start of the relevant agenda item. The definition of personal 

and prejudicial interests is set out in the constitution. The Democratic Support Officer will 

have a copy available for inspection at all meetings. 

Personal Interest: Members must declare the interest but may stay in the room, debate 

and vote on the issue. 

Prejudicial Interest: Member must withdraw from the meeting room and should inform 

the Chairman accordingly. 

With the exception of the some very specific circumstances, a Member with a personal 

interest also has a prejudicial interest if it is one which a Member of the public with 

knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to 

prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. 

Local Government and Finance Act 1992 – Budget Setting, Contracts & 

Supplementary Estimates 

Members are reminded that any member who is two months in arrears with Council Tax 

must declare the fact and may speak but not vote on any decision which involves budget 

setting, extending or agreeing contracts or incurring expenditure not provided for in the 

agreed budget for a given year and could affect calculations on the level of Council Tax. 

Evacuation Procedure 

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest 

available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the car park as directed by 

Democratic Services staff and await further instructions. 

Access to Meetings 

If you have any special requirements (such as a large print version of these papers or 

special access facilities) please contact the officer named below, giving as much notice as 

possible before the meeting. 

Mobile Phones 

Please ensure that any device is switched to silent operation or switched off. 

Queries Regarding this Agenda 

Please contact Natasha Clark, Law and Governance 

natasha.clark@cherwellandsouthnorthants.gov.uk, 01295 221589 

Sue Smith 

Chief Executive 

Published on Wednesday 14 March 2012

Cherwell District Council 

Planning Committee 

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held at Bodicote House, 

Bodicote, Banbury, OX15 4AA, on 23 February 2012 at 4.00 pm 

Present: Councillor Rose Stratford (Chairman) 

Councillor Alastair Milne Home (Vice-Chairman) 

Apologies 

for 

absence: 

Councillor Ken Atack 

Councillor Fred Blackwell 

Councillor Colin Clarke 

Councillor Tim Emptage 

Councillor Michael Gibbard 

Councillor Chris Heath 

Councillor David Hughes 

Councillor Russell Hurle 

Councillor Mike Kerford-Byrnes 

Councillor James Macnamara 

Councillor George Parish 

Councillor D M Pickford 

Councillor G A Reynolds 

Councillor Trevor Stevens 

Councillor Mrs Catherine Fulljames 

Councillor Lawrie Stratford 

Officers: Bob Duxbury, Development Control Team Leader 

Jenny Barker, Major Developments Team Leader 

Paul Ihringer, Planning Officer 

Jon Brewin, Arboriculture Officer 

Ross Chambers, Solicitor 

Natasha Clark, Team Leader, Democratic and Elections 

Aaron Hetherington, Democratic and Elections Officer 

Page 1 

Agenda Item 5

168 Declarations of Interest 

Planning Committee - 23 February 2012 

Members delcared interests in the following agenda items 

8. Land Between 22 and 23A Harts Close, Kidlington. 

Councillor Tim Emptage, Prejudicial, as a member of Kidlington Parish 

Council which had been consulted on the application and had met with 

residents to discuss in detail.. 

10. 140 Oxford Road, Kidlington. 

Councillor Tim Emptage, Personal, as a member of Kidlington Parish Council 

which had been consulted on the application.. 

11. Smiths, Bloxham Road Caravan Site, Bloxham Road, Milton. 

Councillor Chris Heath, Prejudicial, as friends with the applicant. 

12. 9 Sandell Close Banbury. 

Councillor Alastair Milne Home, Personal, as a member of Banbury Town 

Council which had been consulted on the application.. 

Councillor Colin Clarke, Personal, as a member of Banbury Town Council 

which had been consulted on the application.. 

13. Bicester & Ploughley Sports Centre, Queens Avenue, Bicester. 

Councillor D M Pickford, Prejudicial, as a member of Executive. 

Councillor G A Reynolds, Prejudicial, as a member of Executive. 

Councillor George Parish, Prejudicial, as a member of Executive. 

Councillor James Macnamara, Prejudicial, as a member of Banbury Town 

Council and Upper Heyford Parish Council. 

Councillor Ken Atack, Prejudicial, as a member of Executive. 

Councillor Michael Gibbard, Prejudicial, as a member of Executive. 

22. 16 & 18 Bucknell Road, Bicester. 

Councillor D M Pickford, Prejudicial, . 

Councillor Rose Stratford, Personal, . 

169 Petitions and Requests to Address the Meeting 

The Chairman advised that petitions and requests to address the meeting 

would be dealt with at each item. 

170 Urgent Business 

There was no urgent business. 

Page 2

171 Minutes 


The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2012 were agreed as a 

correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following 

amendment: 

Minute 150: Declarations of Interest 

Delete declaration of interest for Councillor Tim Emptage Personal for agenda 

item as a member of Kidlington Parish Council which had been consulted the 

application from 9. White Post Road, Bodicote and insert the declaration to 

agenda item 11. 157 Oxford Office Village, Langford Lane, Kidlington. 

172 Hornton Grounds Quarry 

The Committee considered a report to vary conditions 1, 2 and 5 of the 

existing Planning Permission Ref: 06/01117/CM and Condition 80 of existing 

Planning Permission Ref: 06/01119/CM to allow the following; Replacement of 

existing substandard portable building with an improved timber panelled 

building for staff use; Extension of time for the retention of the stone 

cutting/dressing buildings and conservation yard from 31 December 2013 to 

31 December 2023 with subsequent restoration of the site by 31 December 

2024; Increase in the amount of stone imported to the site from 4,000 tonnes 

pa. (OCC ref. MW.0011/12). 

The Committee was satisfied with the evidence presented and noted that 

Cherwell District Council was a consultee on this application. Oxfordshire 

County Council would be determing the application. 

In reaching their decision, the committee considered the officers’ report and 

presentation. 

Resolved 

That Oxfordshire County Council be advised that Cherwell District Council has 

no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions 

to control environmental impact relating to traffic, noise and dust associated 

with the continuing use of the site; and providing the County Council is 

satisfied with the proposal in highway safety and convenience terms. 

Cherwell District Council request that they be informed of the outcome of the 

application once a decision has been made. 

173 Former Upton Dairy, Upton Estate, Stratford Road, Shenington 

The Committie considered an application for the erection of one storage unit 

(B8 use), one business unit (B1, B2 and B8 use), associated car parking and 

landscaping. 

The Committee was satisfied with the evidence presented. 

Page 3


In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officers’ report and 

presentation. 

Resolved 

That application 11/01641/F be approved subject to the following conditions: 

(1) SC 1_4A (Time limit for implementation) 

(2) Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this 

permission, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance 

with the following plans and documents and the materials and finishing 

details included therein; 

I. drawing 012 Rev P3 (submitted with the application) 

II. drawing 013 Rev P2 (submitted with the application) 

III. drawing 014 Rev P2 (submitted with the application) 

IV. drawing 015 Rev P3 (submitted with the application) 

V. drawing 116 Rev P2 (submitted with the application) 

VI. drawing U4.5-002 – External Lighting Plan and the Dextra Avalon 

Wallpack data-sheet (received on 12 January 2012) 

VII. the details set out in the Application Forms and Design & Access 

Statement (submitted with the application) 

(3) That the transport impact of the development hereby approved shall be 

mitigated against by adherence to the Workplace Travel Plan for the 

site, dated September 2010, approved under application reference 

10/00228/DISC on 21 October 2010. 

(4) That before the development is first occupied, the parking and 

manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the submitted 

details and shall be constructed, laid out, surfaced, drained and 

completed in accordance with specification details therein and shall be 

retained unobstructed except for the parking and manoeuvring of 

vehicles at all times thereafter. 

(5) That ‘The Heath’ building shall be used only for purposes falling within 

Class B8; specified in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning 

(Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005 and for no other 

purpose(s) whatsoever. 

(6) That no goods, materials, plant or machinery shall be stored, repaired, 

operated or displayed in the open without the prior express planning 

consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

(7) That no plant, air compressor or air extraction equipment shall be 

installed on the site or in the buildings without prior written consent of 

the Local Planning Authority. 

(8) The existing trees along the eastern boundary of the site shall be 

retained and properly maintained and that any tree which may die 

within five years from the completion of the development shall be 

replaced and shall thereafter be properly maintained in accordance 

with this condition. 

Page 4


(9) That, notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 8, Schedule 2 of 

the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) 

Order 1995 and its subsequent amendments, the approved building 

shall not be extended without the prior express planning consent of the 

Local Planning Authority. 

(10) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 55 (2) (a) (i) of the Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990 and Class A of Part 8, Schedule 2 of the 

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 

1995 and its subsequent amendments, no internal operations 

increasing the floor space available within the building hereby 

permitted shall be carried out without the prior express planning 

consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

(11) That the development shall be carried out in accordance with the 

contaminated land phased risk assessment and mitigation strategy 

approved by this authority on 11 February 2010, under submission 

reference 09/01861/DISC. 

174 Land Between 22 and 23A Harts Close, Kidlington 

The Committee considered a report for the proposed erection of 3 no. 3 bed 

and 2 no. 1 bed properties and associated parking. 

Councillor Tim Emptage addressed the Committee as Ward Member. 

Following his address, he left the meeting for the debate and vote on the 

application. 

Members noted that they did not object to proposals for new houses in 

Kidlington however they must be appropriate. The Committee noted that the 

proposal provided no information regarding alternative parking for residents 

and would result in the loss of a children’s play area. 

In considering the application, the Committee agreed that officers should be 

requested to write to the applicant advising that they felt the application was 

inappropriateas it emanates from a fellow Local Planning Authority, and the 

failings of the scheme should have been seen as self-evident. 


presentation. 

Resolved 

That application 11/01785/OUT be refused on the grounds that: 

(1) The applicant has failed to provide information which would justify the 

change of use of the existing car park for residential purposes. 

Therefore, it is considered that the parking area is required for use as 

such and therefore that it's loss will result in vehicles parking and 

manoeuvring on the public highway to the detriment of the safety and 

Page 5


convenience of other road users. The development therefore does not 

accord with Government guidance contained within PPG13: Transport 

and Policies TR5 and TR11 of the Non-Statutory Local Cherwell Local 

Plan 2011. 

(2) The proposed development will result in the loss of a children’s play 

area. Without an acceptable justification, the development therefore runs 

contrary to Government guidance contained within PPS3: Housing and 

PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation and Policy S1 

of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy R7 of the Non-Statutory Local 

Cherwell Local Plan 2011. 

(3) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that it is possible to 

accommodate the proposed development within the application site 

without harming the amenities of the neighbouring residents with 

particular regard to 23A Harts Close. The development therefore does 

accord with Government guidance contained within PPS3: Housing, 

Policy BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and saved Policy C30 of the 

adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

175 Stable Block Corner, Farnborough Road, Mollington 

The Committee considered an application for the erection of day-room – 

resubmission of 11/00430/F. Consideration of this item had been deferred 

from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit. 

Paul Stephenson, Chairman of Mollington Parish Council, spoke in opposition 

to the application. 

In considering the application, Members questioned the size of the day-room 

and the materials that would be used to construct it. Members raised 

concerns over parking. 

Members commented that there were outstanding enforcement issues relating 

to the site. The Solicitor confirmed that these issues were being addressed 

and reminded the Committee that they were not relevant to this application. 

The Development Control Team Leader confirmed that the day room would 

not be permitted to be used as overnight accommodation. 

Councillor Reynolds proposed that consideration of the application be 

deferred to allow for further investigation and information to be provided to the 

committee. Councillor Blackwell seconded the proposal. 

In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officers’ report, 

written update and presentation and the address of the public speaker. 

Resolved 

That consideration of application 11/01808/F application be deferred to allow 

for further investigation and information to be provided to the Committee. 

Page 6

176 140 Oxford Road, Kidlington 


The Committee considered a report for a single storey extension with access 

ramp to adjacent church. 

Tim Cooper, neighbouring resident, spoke in opposition to the application 

Chris Pack, Chair of the Church group that had been driving the application, 

spoke in support of the application. 

Members raised concerns over the size and proximity of the development to 

the existing buildings. The Committee noted that the proposed conditions 

would ensure minimal impact on residents in the vicinity. 

In reaching their decision, the committee considered the officers’ report, 

written update, presentation and the addresses of the public speakers. 

Resolved 

That application 11/01816/F be approved subject to: 

(a) The following conditions: 

(1) 1.4A - Full Permission: Duration Limit (3 years) (RC2) 



with the following approved plans: 1123 001; 1123 002; 1123 003 B; 

and 1123 004 D 

(3) SC 2.6AA - Materials to Match 

(4) That no amplified sound equipment shall be operated or used in the 

building hereby approved. 

(5) The use of the building hereby approved shall be limited to the activity 

as set out in the Statement of Justification which formed Appendix 1 of 

the Applicant’s design and Access Statement. 

(b) and other conditions as agreed between the Head of Public Protection 

and Development management and the Chairman to deal with the 

concerns expressed in his address to the Committee by Mr Cooper. 

177 Smiths, Bloxham Road Caravan Site, Bloxham Road, Milton 

The Committee considered an application for the use and continued use of 

the site as a gypsy and traveller site to provide 36 no. household pitches with 

associated landscaping, landscape bund, amenity/play area, dayrooms, 

access road, hardstanding and parking areas. 

Page 7


In introducing the report, the Development Control Team Leader advised the 

committee of the comments received regarding land contamination. 

In considering the application, some members of the committee spoke in 

support of the application and made reference to the fact the proposed 

development was a good design and enhanced the site both visually and in 

terms of amenities for the community. 

Members commented that the development would help meet future 

accommodation needs for gypsies and travellers in the district and it was a 

good site in an appropriate location. 


written update and presentation. 

Resolved 

That the application 11/01863/F be approved subject to the following 

conditions: 

(1) SC 1_4A (Time limit for implementation) 

(2) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and 

travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006. 

(3) No commercial activities shall take place on the land; including the 

storage of materials and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, 

parked or stored on this site. 

(4) No more than 64 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and 

Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (of 

which no more than 12 shall be park homes and 16 shall be static 

caravans or mobile homes) shall be stationed on the site at any time. 



with the documents submitted with the application and the following 

drawings: amended site location plan received 30.01.12 and 2228/01, 

03A and 04 received with the application. 

(6) That prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for 

landscaping the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority, the scheme shall include: 

(a) full details of the landscape bund, which shall include; the 

dimensions of the landscape bund (height, shape, width at base, 

length); the depth of top-soils to support any planting; a planting 

scheme for the bund; and proposals for the long-term landscape 

maintenance. 

(b) details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their 

species, number, sizes and positions, together with grass 

seeded/turfed areas. 

Page 8


(c) the reinforcement of the existing hedges along the northern and 

western boundaries by additional planting, which shall include 

defensive planting and shall also include details of the proposed 

tree and shrub planting including their species, number, sizes 

and positions. 

(d) details of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as 

well as those to be felled, including existing and proposed soil 

levels at the base of each tree/hedgerow and the minimum 

distance between the base of the tree and the nearest edge of 

any excavation. 

(e) details of the hard surface areas, pavements, pedestrian areas, 

crossing points and steps. 

(7) That thebund and all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the 

approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting 

and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building(s) or on 

the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and that 

any trees and shrubs which within a period of five 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 consent for any variation. 

(8) No wastes other than inert non recyclable waste arising from the Waste 

Transfer Station adjacent to the land shall be used in the construction 

of the landscape bund. 

(9) That prior to the commencement of the development samples of the 

materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the 

day rooms, toilet blocks and bin stores hereby permitted shall been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved 

details. 

(10) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance 

with the recommendations set out in Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

of the Caravan Park, Milton Road, Bloxham by Martin Ecology dated 

August 2011 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority and that there will be no removal of trees, scrub or 

hedgerows between the months of March to August inclusive. 

(11) That, before the development is first occupied the access drive and 

parking areas shall be constructed, surfaced, laid and marked out, 

drained to SuDs compliance and completed in accordance with 

specification details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. 

(12) A Local Area of Play (LAP) shall be provided in accordance with the 

Council’s adopted policy. Details of the siting and design of the LAP 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to the commencement of development and thereafter it 

shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the 

occupation of any dwelling. 

Page 9

178 9 Sandell Close Banbury 


The Committee considered a report for single storey side and rear extensions. 



presentation. 

Resolved 

That application 11/01919/F be approved subject to the following conditions: 

(1) That the development to which this permission relates shall be begun 

not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of 

this permission. 

(2) Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the application shall be 

carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans and 

documents: Application forms, and drawings numbered 2226/01 and 

02. 

179 Bicester & Ploughley Sports Centre, Queens Avenue, Bicester 

The Committee considered an application for the installation of roof mounted 

solar panels. 



written update and presentation. 

Resolved 

That application 12/00012/F be approved subject to: 

(a) the expiration of the consultation period (end of today - 23 February) 

(b) the following conditions: 

(1) SC1.4 (RC2) 



with the following plans and documents: dwg nos. 561-31-L301(P3), 

34-D301(P2), 34-D303(P2) and site location plan submitted with the 

application 

(Councillor Pickford requested that her abstention from the vote be recorded) 

Page 10


180 OS Parcel 4100 Adjoining and South of Milton Road, Adderbury 

The Committee considered an outline application for the erection of 65 

dwellings with associated access, open space and landscape works and 

provision of a sports pitch (football) with changing facilities and car park – 

Resubmission. 

Sue Jelfs, Member of Adderbury Parish Council, spoke in objection to the 

application. 


In reaching their decision, the committee considered the officers’ report, public 

speaker, written update and presentation. 

Resolved 

That application 12/00026/OUT be refused on the grounds that: 

(1) The proposal represents development beyond the built up limits of 

Adderbury, a rural settlement where development is less sustainable 

than the urban areas, and where it will cause harm to the character and 

appearance of the countryside. Notwithstanding the Council’s short 

term inability to demonstrate that it has the 5 year supply of housing 

land required by PPS3 Housing, the development of this site cannot be 

justified on the basis of a temporary land supply deficiency alone as it 

will result in an unplanned development potentially undermining the 

Council’s emerging Core Strategy. As such the proposed development 

is contrary to the saved policies H12, H13, H18 and C7 of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan, Policies H15, H19 and EN34 of the Non-Statutory 

Cherwell Local Plan, Policies H2 and SP3 of the South East Plan, 

Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing, Planning Policy Statement 7 – 

Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. 

(2) In the absence of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking or any other form 

of Section 106 legal agreement the Local Planning Authority cannot 

guarantee that the infrastructure directly required to service or serve 

the proposed development will be provided, thus adding to the 

pressures on local infrastructure and services, contrary to Policy CC7 

of the South east Plan, Policies H5, TR1 and R12 of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan and Policies H7, TR4, R8, R9 and R10A of the 

Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011. 

181 Paragon Fleet Solutions, Heyford Park, Camp Road 

The Committee considered an application for change of use to allow the 

continued use of land, buildings and other structures and continued retention 

of security trench, concrete rings and temporary lamp posts until 1 April 2015. 

The Team Leader requested that the committee agreed to defer consideration 

of the application to allow for further negotiations with the applicant. 

Page 11

Resolved 


That application 12/00040/F be deferred for further consultation with the 

applicant. 

182 Ardley Composting Site, Ashgrove Farm, Middleton Stoney Road, Ardley 

The Committee considered an application relating to details pursuant to 

condition 11 (floodlighting) of planning permission (MW.0073/10) 

09/01312/CM (OCC ref: MW.0024/12). 

The Committee was satisfied with the evidence presented and noted that 

Cherwell District Council was a consultee on this application. Oxfordshire 

County Council would be determining the application. 


presentation. 

Resolved 

That Oxfordshire County Council be advised that Cherwell District Council 

raises no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions 

concerning hours of operation of the lighting to normal working hours only i.e. 

proposes 0800-1800 Mon – Fri and 0800-1230 Saturday only as per the 

current operation. 

183 Various Trees, Hall Close, North Aston 

The Arboricultural Officer - South advised the committee that Tree 

Preservation Order No. 15/2011 Various Trees, Hall Close, North Aston had 

been withdrawn. 

184 Open Space Greenwood & Shakespeare Drive, Bicester 

The Committee considered a report which sought the confirmation of an 

unopposed Tree Preservation Order (No. 16/2011) relating to Open Space at 

Greenwood & Shakespeare Drive, Bicester. 

Resolved 

(1) That Tree Preservation Order no. 16/2011 be confirmed without 

modification 

185 Rowarth House, Little Lane, Horley 

Page 12



unopposed Tree Preservation Order (No. 17/2011) relating to Rowarth House, 

Little Lane, Horley. 

Resolved 


modification 

186 Stonebrook House, Williamscott 


unopposed Tree Preservation Order (No. 18/2011) relating to ‘Stonebrook 

House, Williamscott’ 

Resolved 


modification 

187 Aldous Drive, Bloxham 


unopposed Tree Preservation Order (No. 20/2011) relating to Aldous Drive, 

Bloxham 

Resolved 


modification 

188 16 & 18 Bucknell Road, Bicester 


unopposed Tree Preservation Order (No. 21/2011) relating to 16 & 18 

Bucknell Road, Bicester. 

Resolved 


modification 

189 Decisions Subject to Various Requirements 

Page 13


The Committee considered a report which updated Members on decisions 

which were subject to various requirements. 

Resolved 

(1) That the position statement be accepted. 

190 Appeals Progress Report 

The Committee considered a report which updated Members on applications 

where new appeals had been lodged, public inquiries/ hearings scheduled or 

appeal results received. 

Resolved 

(1) That the position statement be accepted 

191 Exclusion of Public and Press 

Resolved 

That, in accordance with Section 100A (4) of Local Government Act 1972, the 

press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of 

business, on the grounds that they could involve the likely disclosure of 

exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act. 

192 OS Parcel 4100 Adjoining and South of Milton Road, Adderbury 

The Head of Public Protection and Development submitted a report which 

updated members on the OS Parcel 4100 Adjoining and South of Milton 

Road, Adderbury. 

Resolved 

That the resolution as set out in the exempt minute be agreed. 

The meeting ended at 6.35 pm 

Page 14 

Chairman: 

Date:

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A 

of the Local Government Act 1972. 

Document is Restricted 

Page 15

Agenda Annex 

CHERWELL DISTRICT COUNCIL 

PLANNING COMMITTEE 

22 March 2012 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS INDEX 

The Officer’s recommendations are given at the end of the report on each 

application. 

Members should get in touch with staff as soon as possible after receiving this 

agenda if they wish to have any further information on the applications. 

Any responses to consultations, or information which has been received after the 

application report was finalised, will be reported at the meeting. 

The individual reports normally only refer to the main topic policies in the Cherwell 

Local Plan that are appropriate to the proposal. However, there may be other 

policies in the Development Plan, or the Local Plan, or other national and local 

planning guidance that are material to the proposal but are not specifically referred 

to. 

The reports also only include a summary of the planning issues received in 

consultee representations and statements submitted on an application. Full copies 

of the comments received are available for inspection by Members in advance of 

the meeting. 

Legal, Health and Safety, Crime and Disorder, Sustainability and Equalities 

Implications 

Any relevant matters pertaining to the specific applications are as set out in the 

individual reports. 

Human Rights Implications 

The recommendations in the reports may, if accepted, affect the human rights of 

individuals under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European 

Convention on Human Rights. However, in all the circumstances relating to the 

development proposals, it is concluded that the recommendations are in 

accordance with the law and are necessary in a democratic society for the 

protection of the rights and freedom of others and are also necessary to control the 

use of property in the interest of the public. 

Background Papers 

For each of the applications listed are: the application form; the accompanying 

certificates and plans and any other information provided by the applicant/agent; 

representations made by bodies or persons consulted on the application; any 

submissions supporting or objecting to the application; any decision notices or 

letters containing previous planning decisions relating to the application site. 

Page 16

Applications 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Site Application 

No. 

Banbury Gateway, Acorn 

Way, Banbury 

Land South of Overthorpe 

Road and Adjacent the 

M40, Banbury, Oxfordshire 

OS Parcels 7977, 8962 

and 9553 north of Lince 

Lane, Kirtlington 

Heathfield Golf Centre, 

Heathfield, Bletchingdon 

Stable Block Corner, 

Farnborough Road, 

Mollington 

Yew Tree Farm, Station 

Road, Launton, Bicester 

Cherry Orchard, Green 

Lane, South Newington 

OX15 4JH 

Cherry Orchard, Green 

Lane, South Newington 

OX15 4JH 

Land North of Willowbank 

Farm, Fritwell Road, 

Fewcott 

Bloxham Business 

Centre, Barford Road, 

Bloxham 

11/01870/F 

11/01878/OUT 

Ward Recommendation Contact 

Officer 

Banbury 

Grimsbury & 

Castle 

Banbury 

Grimsbury & 

Castle 

Refusal 

Approval 

11/01766/F Kirtlington Approval 

11/01784/F Kirtlington Approval 

11/01808/F Cropredy Approval 

11/01907/F Launton Approval 

11/01915/F 

11/01916/LB 

Hook 

Norton 

Hook 

Norton 

11/01932/F Caversfield 

12/00005/F 

Bloxham 

and 

Bodicote 

Page 17 

Approval 

Approval 

That Condition 21 

be amended 

Approval 

Jane 

Dunkin 

Jane 

Dunkin 

Paul 

Ihringer 

Graham 

Wyatt 

Jane 

Dunkin 

Rebecca 

Horley 

Graham 

Wyatt 

Graham 

Wyatt 

Caroline 

Roche 

Tracey 

Morrissey

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Site Application 

No. 

Paragon Fleet Solutions, 

Heyford Park, Camp 

Road 

Unit 3A, Bessemer Close, 

Bicester OX26 6QE 

Ferris Hill Farm, Hook 

Norton Road, Sibford 

Ferris 

Ferris Hill Farm, Hook 

Norton Road, Sibford 

Ferris 

12/00040/F 

12/00152/F 

12/00244/CM 

12/00249/CM 

Old Bodicote House, 

White Post Road, Bodicote 12/00245LB 

Page 18 

Ward Recommendation Contact 

Officer 

The Astons 

and 

Heyfords 

Bicester 

Town 

Hook 

Norton 

Hook 

Norton 

Bloxham 

and 

Bodicote 

Approval 

Approval 

That Oxfordshire 

County Council be 

advised that 

Cherwell District 

Council objects to 

this proposal 

That Oxfordshire 

County Council be 

advised that 

Cherwell District 

Council objects to 

this proposal 

Approval 

Andrew 

Lewis 

Graham 

Wyatt 

Simon 

Dean 

Simon 

Dean 

Simon 

Dean

¯ 

El Sub Sta 

Scale 

1:1,850 

Drain 

ACORN WAY 

Tanks 

Lake 

7 8 

1 

Agenda Item 6 

11/01870/F 

WILDMERE ROAD 

WB 

12 

ACORN WAY 

El Sub Sta 

I 

H 

Drain 

D 

C 

Page 19 

94.9m 

DAVENTRY ROAD 

DAVENTRY ROAD NORTH 

© Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018504 

UNNAMED M40 DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (6802813) 


Drain

¯ 


NORAL WAY 

GRIMSBURY GREEN 

CHERWELL STREET 

Scale 

1:10,000 

FOWLER ROAD 

WELLINGTON AVENUE 

HENNEF WAY 

WEST STREET 

WATES WAY 

JUGGLERS CLOSE 

11/01870/F 

GRIMSBURY DRIVE 

NORTH STREET 


WILDMERE ROAD 

MANOR ROAD 

HOWARD ROAD 

MIDDLETON ROAD 

ACORN WAY 

DAVENTRY ROAD 

CALDER CLOSE 

EAST CLOSE 

DAVENTRY ROAD NORTH 

BEGBROKE LANE 

Page 20 

WOBURN CLOSE 

WILLIAMSCOT HILL 

MIDDLETON CLOSE 

ERMONT WAY 

UNNAMED-A361-SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY (6811280) 



LOMBARD WAY 

OVERTHORPE ROAD 

BANBURY LANE

Application No: 

11/001870/F 

Applicant: 

Site Address: 

Ward: Banbury Grimsbury 

and Castle 

LXB RP (Banbury) and Prodrive Holdings Ltd 

Banbury Gateway, Acorn Way, Banbury 

Date Valid: 13.12.11 

Proposal: Demolition of existing units. Construction of new retail units (Use Class 

A1), restaurants and cafes (Use Class A3), associated access, servicing 

and landscape works 

1. Site Description and Proposal 

1.1 The site is situated on the northern side of the Wildmere Industrial Estate on the 

very northern edge of Banbury. It is bounded by the River Cherwell to the north and 

north west, the M40 to the east, Wildmere Road to the south and neighbouring 

industrial buildings to the south west. The site largely consists of Prodrive’s existing 

buildings and operations however there is an undeveloped lawned area to the north 

and an area of separate grazing land, triangular in shape, situated between the M40 

and the former route of the Daventry road which runs through the site to the east of 

the existing buildings, and along which a right of way still remains. These two 

undeveloped areas together with the area occupied by Prodrive’s buildings form the 

site for the proposed retail units. A lake and amenity area exist in the north western 

part of the site which would remain unchanged. 

1.2 The proposal involves demolishing all of the existing buildings on the site and 

redeveloping it to create a retail park consisting of 10 retail units and three 

restaurant/café units. The proposed development would be expected to generate 

340 jobs. The development would have a total floor area of 26,503sqm and would 

include an anchor store (unit 11) with a ground floor area of 4,647sqm and a 

secondary store with garden centre (unit 2) with a ground floor area of 2,790qm. 

The remainder of the retail units would have ground floor areas ranging from 

465sqm to 929sqm. All retail units would have a mezzanine floor. The three smaller 

A3 units (units 3-5) would have ground floor areas ranging from 164sqm to 326sqm. 

The anchor store together with eight of the proposed units would be arranged on 

the north west side of the site, the anchor being closest to the motorway; the 

smaller units running towards Acorn Way. Two units (units 1 and 2) would back onto 

Wildmere Road and two further units (units 12 and 13) would be positioned in the 

south east corner of the site. All parking and manoeuvring areas would be 

positioned centrally amongst the buildings and include pedestrian walkways. The 

proposal would result in realigning the public right of way away from the former 

route of Daventry Road to the front of units 12 and 13 and then running parallel with 

the Motorway. The area of the A3 uses would include a covered walkway and 

seating area. New planting is proposed across the whole site. Servicing areas for 

deliveries would be situated to the south of units 1 and 2, fronting Wildmere Road, 

to the north of units 9 and 10 between the buildings and the amenity area and to the 

west of units 12 and 13. 

1.3 With regard to the site’s constraints, The Council’s records indicate that the site lies 

within Flood Zones 2 and 3, The River Cherwell flows through the site, a public right 

of way including cycle way crosses the site, there is evidence of water vole and 

Page 21

green woodpecker in the vicinity and the site is also located on potentially 

contaminated land. 

2. Application Publicity 

2.1 The application has been advertised in the local press (on 29.12.11) and by way of 

three site notices positioned around the site, one at each existing vehicular access 

into the site and one adjacent to the public footpath at the northern end of the site. 

The application has been advertised as a major development, a departure from the 

development plan and as affecting a public right of way. The final date for comment 

was 19 January 2012. 29 representations have been received as a result of this 

publicity which include representations of behalf of Castle Quay, Banbury Cross 

Retail Park and by Local Councillors. These are summarised below (See Public 

Access for full responses) 

2.2 Comments of Opposition 

� Proposal will directly compete with Banbury Town Centre contrary to 

National Planning Policy 

� No safeguards to control nature of goods sold 

� Likely to draw key retailers out of Castle Quay to the detriment of the town 

centre as a whole – suffering irreparable damage 

� Impact upon Banbury Town Centre significantly underestimated by the 

Retail Assessment 

� Overestimation of trade diversion from out of centre floorspace in Banbury 

� Lack of cumulative impact assessment as required by PPS4 

� Sequentially preferable sites exist for elements of the proposal 

� Evidence of significant adverse impacts on Banbury Town Centre in direct 

conflict with EC16.1 and EC17 of PPS4 

� Failure to comply with sequential approach in conflict with EC15 and EC17. 

� Concerned about any proposal being so accessible by private car 

� Runs contrary to established planning policy 

� Potential to draw trade from and adversely affect Banbury Town Centre 

� Holding objection (further time required to fully assess) application raises 

complex and strategic planning issues which affect not just Banbury but the 

wider sub-region. 

� Significant drop in customers over last 15 years - free parking in out of town 

centre seen as considerable advantage 

� If town centre shops close they wont be occupied by new retailers 

� Consider long reaching effects on Banbury 

� Banbury needs more than to shop, consider leisure centre instead 

(cinema/ice skating) 

� Don’t believe M&S would stay open in the town center 

� Banbury cannot support another out of town retail park 

� It wont attract new customers 

� Prodrive holding town to ransom (threat of moving) 

� Neither viable or necessary 

� Government advice is not to encourage out of town shopping 

� Job losses in the town centre 

� Good quality businesses need to be encouraged to exiting retail units 

� Large project wont solve the current problems 

� Independent retailers being brushed aside 

� Shoppers, customers, businesses losing confidence in economy 

Page 22

� Examples of losses in Leamington Spa where retail park has been 

developed 

� Multi-million pound business rewarded whilst family businesses penalised. 

� Vital to town centre that proposals are quashed 

� Amenity of Banbury will be damaged 

� Industrial site more valuable to Banbury – providing work for citizens 

� Death sentence for Banbury – should never be allowed to go ahead 

� Many empty premises so why do we need more out of town shopping? 

� People can already shop out of town and get everything that they need 

� Approval would demonstrate that CDC is oblivious to the real world and the 

survival of retail in the heart of Banbury. 

� Represents significant comparisons goods in out of town locations 

� Must not adversely undermine nearby centres such as Banbury 

� Retail Impact and trade draw 

� Potential loss of significant retailers from town centre 

� If approved necessary to restrict type and scale of A1 use 

� Inadequate application of sequential approach and issues of disaggregation 

2.3 Comments of Support 

� Great benefit to Banbury as a whole and the local economy: secure/create 

jobs, secure investment, entice people off M40 

� All towns are suffering in these tough economic times. Many high street 

shops have closed nationally (not just Banbury) 

� Due to tough times this development is essential 

� With the right marketing and encouragement people can also visit town 

centre 

� Viability of small businesses in town centre would be boosted by increased 

footfall 

� Shopping habits are changing. Out of town retail is a fact of life and Bnabury 

has to adapt 

� Cannot let opportunity pass by and to be built elsewhere 

� Support long term future 

� Desperate need to draw more people into town 

� Shops of this scale will never be built in town centre. If not built as proposed 

will go elsewhere taking jobs and customers with it. 

� Major bonus by motorway – no parking fees and putting Banbury back on 

the map 

� Will stop regular visits to Solihull, High Wycombe, Oxford and Milton Keynes 

� If not allowed Banbury will remain as small market town with no 

ambition/aspiration to grow 

� Shortsightedness must be overlooked 

� Dis-benefits of losing Prodrive and jobs (high profile, high technology 

business) 

� Will reduce traffic congestion in town 

� Only a small number of units proposed and all are large so unsuitable for 

most town centre shops 

� This will encourage big retail names providing more choice 

� Appreciate town centre fears but many examples of successful town centre 

and out of town retail in the same place 

� Much rather see colourful shops than another factory 

� Can see merits 

� Draw passing trade from M40 

� Must retain high profile business in Banbury (Prodrive) 

Page 23

2.4 

2.5 

� Times have changed/shopping habits have changed 

� Town centres and retail parks have to co-exist 

� Will make Banbury more desirable 

� People will travel many miles to visit 

� Keep Prodrive and money stays in Banbury 

� Council has to take into account the bigger picture 

� Could offer bigger shops that the town needs 

Councillor Bonner as ward Member supports the application subject to mitigation 

measures to ensure the development does not give rise to increased pollution levels 

and would like confirmation as to the number of years the proposed shuttle bus 

would run for. 

Marks and Spencer (the intended occupier of the anchor store on the application 

site) has written with supporting evidence stating the following: 

� They remain committed to their existing town centre store; it is profitable and 

has benefited from extensive refurbishment and significant investment. 

� The existing and proposed stores will fulfill differing needs designed to 

compliment each other and widen shopping options available (additional 

choice). 

� Full furniture range not available without travelling out of Banbury to a 

Regional Flagship Store. 

� In many cases catchment of stores overlap. 

� Gives customers opportunity to shop whenever convenient at any given 

time. 

� Constant programme of modernisation and refurbishment at existing store. 

2.6 Next (the intended occupier of the second largest store on the application site) has 

confirmed that they would be willing to commit to the town centre until the expiry of 

their current lease (24/03/2016). 

3. Consultations 

3.1 Banbury Town Council raises no objections and supports the application on the 

following grounds: 

� Would provide flagship shopping park 

� Situated in an important gateway to the Town 

� Prime access from/to M40 

� Opportunity for exemplary development 

� Replacement of existing outdated building stock 

� Exciting new facility for Banbury 

� Whilst conscious of need to guard against adverse impact upon viability of 

town centre Members are hopeful that additional footfall will be attracted to 

the area and the town centre would benefit accordingly. 

� Would offer additional employment generating opportunities over and above 

any warehouse/distribution use of the site. 

3.2 Bourton Parish Council (CDC) has not commented on the application 

3.3 Chacombe Parish Council (SNC) raises no objections however would have liked 

to have seen the proposal include a supermarket for the eastern side of Banbury 

Page 24

3.4 South Northamptonshire Council has offered a holding objection pending receipt 

and consideration of the following: 

� Assessment of potential impact upon Brackley town centre 

� A sequential test to include Brackley 

� Assessment of likely impact on the regeneration of Brackley with particular 

regard to Brackley Master Plan. 

3.5 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Planning Policy) considers the 

proposal to be contrary to planning policy (PPS4) for the following reasons: 

� Inappropriate location for major retail development 

� Loss of employment land 

� Arguments about disaggregation unacceptable in policy terms 

� No thorough, detailed examination of the availability and viability of the 

sequentially preferable sites. 

� Retained presence of Next and M&S in town centre not guaranteed 

� No restriction on sales proposed 

� Impact on Banbury Cross Retail Park not fully explored 

� Shuttle Bus does not integrate with existing development 

� Unsustainable location 

� BREEAM ‘very good’ only indicated on M&S – should be achieved across 

whole site 

� Site not located within knowledge driven, technology centers identified in 

Economic Development Strategy 

� Positive impacts on Banbury if site retained for employment use 

� Employment Land Review seeks to retain all existing B use class land 

� No evidence of marketing of site for employment use 

� Impact on investment – There is capacity in Banbury for comparison goods, 

Bolton Road could address some of this capacity 

3.6 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Urban Design) states that the 

proposal does not constitute high quality inclusive design as required by PPS1 and 

misses opportunities for the following reasons: 

� Inward looking environment/turns back on Wildmere Road 

� Servicing to perimeter 

� Buildings uncomfortably close to M40 

� Lost opportunity to link to landscaped areas 

� Re-routed footpath should be better incorporated into site 

� Extent of hard surfacing together with inadequate planting 

� Unscreened and inactive elevations facing M40 

� Food court separated from amenity area by service road (likely to become 

redundant) 

� Significantly larger than nearby buildings 

� Appearance of distribution warehouse rather than retail 

� Materials/colours/quality typical of industrial premises 

� Plant and machinery would be visible 

� Canopy – main eye catching element but tucked away 

� Lack of cohesiveness 

� Renewables/sustainability? 

� Public art should be integrated into the scheme 

� Lack of pedestrian circulation space 

Page 25

3.7 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Anti Social 

Behaviour) states that noise from the site should not be an issue given the 

surrounding development (industrial and M40). Lighting details required. 

3.8 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Environmental 

Protection) 

� Proposals outlined in Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Desktop Study 

for the next stage of investigation and risk assessment are acceptable 

regarding the potential risk from land contamination. 

� Further investigation of shallow soils required. 

� Development has potential to impact on air quality in the Air Quality 

Management Area on Hennef Way and potentially other areas being 

assessed to determine whether national air quality objectives are exceeded. 

� The level of impact should be determined and where necessary, mitigation 

measures proposed. 

Conditions recommended relating to intrusive land contamination investigation and 

remediation details where necessary and an air quality assessment and 

subsequent mitigation. 

3.9 Head of Environmental Services (Arboriculture) states that although a number 

of reasonable trees are to be removed significant replanting is proposed to mitigate 

for their removal. Tree protection must be installed prior to any construction or 

demolition work as per recommendations described in the eco urban limited report 

ref. 11234-AIA. Planting schedule required showing the proposed sizes and what 

species going where. Also planting pit details: dimensions and surfacing methods. 

3.10 Head of Environmental Services (Landscape Services) makes the following 

comments 

Landscape and Visual Impact 

� Little practical change to views from footpaths 

� Buildings will be visible from Daventry Road beyond the motorway 

� Site visible from the undeveloped land to the NW. Although there are no 

footpaths in this area at present part of it is likely to become a country park 

� Proposals include no additional screening on this side of the development 

� Concerns about the wall like appearance of the development compared with 

the existing arrangement of separate buildings which at least give a broken 

profile 

� Views out of site have been ignored 

� Turns back on the open countryside 

� Layout forms isolated enclave which could be anywhere 

� Increase in the built up area close to the motorway 

� Additional landscape impact on wider area will not be significant 

Design 

The Design and Access Statement contains a desire for an exemplary 

development, this desire is not translated into reality for the following reasons. 

� Design completely ignores noise from M40 and does nothing to shield 

shoppers from it 

� As M40 embankment is approx 3-4m high pedestrians won't experience 

views out of the site. 

� The layout does nothing to incorporate the lake and existing landscape of 

Page 26

pond and ornamental garden area into the design. It simply puts up a wall 

against it and cuts it off. 

� Further evidence required that alternative layout is not possible (due to 

service runs) 

� Approach taken is not conducive to a sympathetic quality scheme. 

Planting Scheme 

� The amount of landscaping is very limited. There is no additional screening 

along the motorway boundary. The amount of planting proposed on site is 

minimal and simply fills the spaces left over. 

� The choice of plants is poor. No evidence of high quality in the landscape 

scheme. 

� The quality and type of hard landscape materials is nothing special, eg: 

concrete block paving and tarmac. 

3.11 Head of Community Services (Safer Communities Manager) requires the 

provision of a CCTV scheme to be installed in association with the development 

and for that scheme to be monitored and controlled by Thames Valley Police. 

3.12 Head of Community Services (Nature Conservation) is satisfied that no 

protected species were found on site. Nesting birds to be protected via condition in 

relation to hedge removal. A minimal amount of biodiversity enhancements are 

proposed given the scale of the scheme. Opportunities for enhancements on the 

ground are limited. Extensive green roofs would be an appropriate way of 

enhancing and increasing biodiversity in accordance with draft core strategy 

policies and PPS9. Biodiversity enhancements to include swift nesting boxes. 

Advice given re type of bat boxes. Further detail re creation and a management of 

wildflower meadow required. River Cherwell forms an important commuting and 

foraging route for bats, therefore no light spillage on the river should occur and 

external lighting to the rear should be kept to a minimum and the hours restricted. 

3.13 Head of Community Services (Rights of Way) 

� If approved, proposal could not go ahead unless affected public rights of 

way have been diverted which may lead to objections and subsequently an 

inquiry. 

� The application contains insufficient detail with regard to the public rights of 

way. 

� The applicant has neither accommodated the existing line nor demonstrated 

that the circumstances justify not doing so. 

� Even if diversion justified the alternative is not satisfactory: conflict between 

shoppers and cyclists where the proposed route runs along the frontages of 

Units 12 and 13. 

� Potential for an alleyway to develop overtime where the proposed path runs 

tightly between the car park and the motorway embankment. Outside 

boundary hedge could lead to its maintenance being informally deprioritised 

and eventually neglected. 

� The continuing amenity of the route could be better protected if it was taken 

up Acorn Way and through the ornamental garden. 

� The applicant should submit a statement justifying and detailing the 

diversion and the proposed alternative with reference to CDC policy and 

section 7 of DEFRA circular 1/09. 

Page 27

3.14 Head of Recreation and Health (Arts and Tourism Manager) requires £265,300 

towards public art 

3.15 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Building Control) 

provides comments on the application in relation to Part B and Part M of the 

building regulations 

3.16 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Economic Development) 

summarises as follows: 

3.17 

3.17.1 

Whilst the growth of successful businesses and investment in Banbury is 

welcomed. The documentation presented as part of this application does not justify 

why policy should be over ridden to remove this established site for 

industrial/business use. 

CBRE (instructed by HPPDM to provide retail planning advice in relation to the 

application) concludes that the sequential test has not been satisfied and although 

the direct impact on the town centre may not be significant it may put at risk the 

development of proposed investment at Bolton Road and, to a lesser extent, the 

Canalside site. Either would justify refusal of the application. 

There is little doubt that there will be an adverse impact, but there may be some 

positive benefits including an extension of consumer choice albeit it in an out of 

centre location with little prospect of significant numbers of linked trips to the town 

centre. It is also recognised that new jobs would be created and that the proposal 

may cross subsidise the relocation of the Prodrive development. 

3.18 Oxfordshire County Council supports the proposals subject to further clarification 

of the transport impacts and identification and securing necessary mitigation 

measures. The following comments have been received from individual officers: 

3.18.1 OCC Economic Development: 

� Provision of new retail development on previously developed land 

� Increased retail offer would help sustain Banbury’s role as a major service 

centre 

� Development would provide 340 jobs assisting with deprivations 

(unemployment current above average) 

� CDC needs to consider retail consultant’s findings 

� If permitted, linked trips between site and town centre should be 

encouraged (improvements to walking/cycling routes and signage) 

3.18.2 OCC Transport: 

� Traffic generation figures are reasonable. The development will have an 

impact on highway network, however this can be managed by off site works 

including CCTV and minor improvements to Hennef Way roundabout. 

� Robust travel plan required 

� Bus service acceptable in principle 

� Travel plan addresses justification for lower levels of parking for private 

vehicles and cycles 

3.18.3 OCC Ecology: 

� Site contains no ecologically valuable habitats. Conditions re nesting birds, 

lighting and biodiversity required 

Page 28

3.18.4 OCC Archaeology: 

� Some potential for archaeological deposits on site to be dealt with via 

planning condition 

3.18.5 OCC Local Member View: 

� In favour of proposals to enable Prodrive to relocate to new premises and 

sustain its presence in town 

3.18.6 

OCC (Footpaths) 

� Proposed diversion of public footpath raises safety issues. This needs to be 

resolved. The diversion is being sought under s247 of the Planning Act and 

secured through a condition to planning permission. 

3.18.7 OCC (Drainage) 

� requires final design for drainage system. EA approval will be required to 

pipe/culvert existing ditches as well as filling in surplus ditches. Discharge 

rate needs to be agreed with Thames Water. 30% should be used for the 

climate change calculation and not 20%. 

3.19 

3.20 

3.21 

3.22 

3.23 

3.24 

3.25 

Highways Agency raises no objections 

Thames Valley Police Architectural Liaison Officer with regard to Crime 

Prevention through environmental design, Thames Valley Policy states that 

recommendations made by them prior to the submission of the application have 

been incorporated into the design and layout of the development. Planning 

informatives recommended in relation to Secured by Design and Safer Parking. 

RPS of behalf of Thames Valley Police states that the proposal requires effective 

and visible policing and therefore the site would require police presence in the form 

of two police community safety officers and a two desk office. Total requirement is 

£291,784.00 to provide the office and to fund two officers for four years. 

Environment Agency raises no objections subject to conditions. 

Thames Water provides advice in relation to public sewers, discharge of ground 

water, surface water drainage, fat traps and collection of waste oil (in relation to 

catering establishments), trade effluent consent and water pressure. 

BBOWT raises no objections on biodiversity grounds and site is of limited 

ecological value at present. Comment from CDC Ecology Officer re the provision of 

swift nesting boxes is supported. 

Ramblers Association/Oxford Fieldpaths Society/Open Spaces Society have 

not commented on the application. 

4. Relevant Planning Policies 

4.1 ADOPTED POLICY 

4.1.1 National Planning Policy 

PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development 

Page 29

PPS Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy 

Statement 1 

PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 

PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 

PPG 13 Transport 

PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control 

PPG 24 Planning and Noise 

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk 

4.1.2 South East Plan 

Policy SP3 Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance 

Policy CC1 Sustainable Development 

Policy CC2 Climate Change 

Policy CC3 Resource Use 

Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction 

Policy CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment 

Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation 

Policy RE1 Contributing to the UK's Long Term Competitiveness 

Policy RE3 Employment and Land Provision 

Policy T1 Manage and Invest 

Policy T4 Parking 

Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality 

Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management 

Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity 

Policy NRM9 Air Quality 

Policy NRM10 Noise 

Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management 

Policy C5 Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe? 

Policy BE1 Management for an Urban Renaissance 

Policy TC1 Strategic Network of Town Centres 

Policy TC2 New Development and Redevelopment in Town Centres 

Policy TC3 Out of Centre Regional/Sub Regional Shopping Centres 

4.1.3 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) 

Policy EMP1 Allocation of Sites for Employment Generating Development 

Policy S10 Development in Banbury commercial areas 

Policy TR1 Transportation Funding 

Policy TR14 Formation of New Accesses to the inner relief road and Hennef Way 

Policy R7 Protection and enhancement of the recreational roles of the Oxford 

Canal and River Cherwell 

Policy C1 Protection of sites of nature conservation value 

Policy C2 Development affecting protected species 

Policy C4 Creation of new habitats 

Policy C7 Landscape conservation 

Policy C8 Sporadic development in the open countryside 

Policy C9 Scale of development compatible with a rural location 

Policy C17 Enhancement of the urban fringe through tree and woodland planting 

Policy C28 Standards of layout, design and external appearance) 

Policy ENV1 Development likely to cause detrimental levels of pollution 

Policy ENV7 Development affecting water quality 

Policy ENV12 Development on Contaminated Land 

Page 30

4.2 DRAFT POLICY 

4.2.1 Draft Core Strategy 

Policy E1 Employment Development 

Policy E2 Supporting Urban Centres 

Policy SD5 Sustainable Construction 

Policy SD6 Sustainable Drainage Systems 

Policy SD8 Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural 

Environment 

Policy SD13 The Built Environment 

Policy I1 Infrastructure 

Policy BAN7 Supporting Banbury Town Centre 

Policy BAN8 Land at Bolton Road 

Policy BAN9 Banbury Cultural Quarter 

4.2.2 A Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published. This 

document retains the ‘town centre first’ principles of PPS4, however as a draft 

document carries very little weight. The finalised document is intended to be 

published within a month. 

4.3 NON STATUTORY POLICY 

4.3.1 

5. Appraisal 

Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 

The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan is not part of the statutory development plan 

but it has been approved as interim planning policy for development control 

purposes. 

5.1 Background 

5.1.1 Prodrive is a world leading motorsport and automotive technology business. The 

company’s existing headquarters is situated on the site adjacent to the M40 and 

comprises thirteen separate units that have been acquired and developed during 

the time that Prodrive has occupied the site (in excess of 25 years). The Banbury 

site employs almost 398 people and there are two other branches at Warwick 

and Milton Keynes which employ 52 and 68 staff respectively. Prodrive plans to 

expand its business and employ more people, however the piecemeal fashion in 

which the Banbury site has developed no longer meets Prodrive’s needs; the 

layout of the buildings is inefficient and it is claimed that the existing site could 

not accommodate the planned expansion. 

5.1.2 An alternative site at the former Hella factory, situated off Southam Road to the 

north of Banbury, has recently been identified as a suitable single building to 

accommodate Prodrive, offering almost twice the space that is available at the 

existing site and with room to expand in the future. Moving Prodrive’s operations 

to the former Hella site would allow the company to consolidate all three 

branches to one. 

5.1.3 Planning permission has recently been granted under delegated authority for 

alterations to, and the refurbishment of, the existing building on the Hella site 

Page 31

together with alterations to the parking provision to suit Prodrive’s needs 

(application reference 11/01868/F). In order to finance the refurbishment of the 

building and the alterations, Prodrive states that it is necessary to sell its existing 

site for retail development, hence the application currently under consideration. 

5.2 Relevant Planning History 

5.2.1 Over the 25 years that Prodrive has occupied this site there have been a 

significant number of planning applications approved as the site has expanded 

and developed. None of this planning history is of any major implication in 

relation to the proposal currently under consideration. 

5.2.2 More recently and of significance to flood risk in and around Banbury are a 

number of flood alleviation applications which have been approved along the 

River Cherwell corridor and largely completed on site. Prodrive has been a 

stakeholder of these applications due to some of the work being carried out on 

land owned by them (application 11/00092/F refers). 

5.2.3 

An application has recently been submitted by the Council for the change of use 

of the land immediately to the north of the River Cherwell and west and east of 

the M40 to a country park (application 12/00302/CDC refers). 

5.2.4 In association with this particular proposal an application for a Screening Opinion 

(application 11/00019/SO refers) was made last year which was assessed by the 

Council. It was concluded that it was not necessary for an Environmental Impact 

Assessment to accompany the application now under consideration. 

5.3 Key Issues 

5.3.1 The application stands to be assessed against the following key issues: 

� Principle 

− Loss of Employment Land 

− Change of Use to Retail 

� Sequential Assessment and Retail Impact 

� Transport Impact 

� Landscape Impact/Design/Layout 

� Public Footpath Impact 

� Sustainability 

� Public Safety 

� Flood Risk/Drainage 

� Contaminated Land 

� Air Quality 

� Noise 

� Biodiversity/Ecology 

� Trees 

� Archaeology 

5.4 PRINCIPLE 

5.4.1 Loss of Existing Employment Use 

The overarching objective of PPS4 is sustainable economic growth and in terms 

Page 32

of development management the document states that applications to secure 

sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. PPS4 classes 

economic development as all of the B Class uses, public, community and main 

town centre uses. The objectives to secure sustainable economic growth include 

(amongst other criteria); reducing the need to travel, promoting the vitality and 

viability of town centres, focusing new growth on town centers and enhancing 

competition. 

5.4.2 The South East Plan reflects the content of PPS4 and more locally seeks to 

facilitate a flexible supply of land to meet the varying needs of economic sectors 

(Policy RE3). 

5.4.3 The adopted Cherwell Local Plan identifies the undeveloped parts of the 

application site as committed sites for employment generating development. The 

introduction to the employment chapter of this Plan states that its content relates 

to employment generating development other than retail development. 

5.4.4 The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan allocates the land to the north of the 

Prodrive Buildings for B1 and B2 uses, stating that the site is close to the M40 

and it is reasonable to expect a high standard of design that will help to improve 

the quality of this view of the town. This is most likely to be achieved through a 

B1 development or a high quality B2 design such as the adjoining Prodrive 

building. 

5.4.5 The same plan allocates the triangular shaped land to the east of the site and 

adjacent to the M40 for B1/B2/B8 uses stating that the site is prominent at the 

approach to Banbury from the M40 and it is important that a high quality 

development is achieved that gives a positive image for the town to those 

arriving by the M40. 

5.4.6 The Draft Core Strategy makes no specific reference to the site or the two site 

allocations referred to above. However Policy E1 (Employment Development) 

states that the Council will, as a general principle, continue to protect existing 

employment land and buildings for employment (B class) uses. 

5.4.7 The Council’s Economic Development Strategy sets out the direction to be taken 

to ensure that the economy and society of the District is prosperous and resilient. 

5.4.8 The Cherwell District Council Employment Land Review (prepared for the 

Council as part of the LDF preparation) recommends that the undeveloped 

element of the site adjacent to the M40 should be reserved for B8 development 

as it has excellent connections to the M40 and would supplement the existing 

uses on the adjacent sites. The Review also states that future development in 

Banbury Business Park should be strictly limited to employment use . . . to 

provide a good quality cluster offering a range of premises to accommodate all 

uses including B8 to take advantage of existing demand for B8 space and the 

cluster’s strategic, edge-of-town location. 

5.4.9 The key findings of the Annual Monitoring Review in relation to business 

development and town centers refer to overall employment land availability, the 

extent of employment land lost to other uses and completed town centre uses. 

This review has led to recommended actions including maintaining up to date 

Page 33

information on employment land availability, the consideration of developing a 

policy to protect employment land and closely monitoring loss of employment 

land. 

5.4.10 Taking the above policy references, the supplementary evidence and guidance 

into account, together with the varying status of each and the weight that should 

be afforded to them it is clear that strategically, sustainable economic growth 

should be supported. 

5.4.11 The site is an established employment generator and those parts of the site that 

remain undeveloped are identified in the development plan as committed sites 

for employment generating development and whilst guidance suggests that each 

site should be reviewed for the purposes of the next plan period, the nonstatutory 

Cherwell Local Plan although not adopted, continues to identify the 

undeveloped land for B class uses, uses which the Draft Core Strategy, as a 

general principle will continue to protect. 

5.4.12 The Council’s Economic Development Officer advises that employment land in 

Banbury is already limited and evidence of business expansion is clear (current 

proposals on allocated sites). He considers that it is important to retain land 

affordable and available and that in this case, the existing buildings on the site 

could be marketed and occupied, particularly for business such as those in the 

advanced engineering sector who could make use of the buildings as they exist 

with very little change. There is also likely to be a demand for smaller 

employment generating units as a result of businesses relocating from 

Canalside, which could be provided by the buildings being vacated by Prodrive. It 

should be noted that Banbury’s expansion for employment generating 

development is restricted by geographical and physical boundaries and 

therefore, as a major employment centre, the maintenance of industrial sites to 

the north east of Banbury is critical. 

5.4.13 The proposed development would result in the loss of employment generating 

land (not including retail land), which, based on current figures of Banbury’s 

whole offer, would be approximately 2.6%. Whilst this figure may appear to 

represent a minor loss, all evidence and emerging policy points to the critical 

requirement to protect a flexible supply of employment land. It is noted that there 

are currently real commitments for significant employment generating 

development in other parts of Banbury (in excess of what has been accounted 

for by development plan allocations), however it is recognised that such 

development may not provide the opportunities for smaller businesses that the 

current accommodation at Prodrive could. 

5.4.14 It is HPPDM’s view that the indicated loss of employment generating land would 

cause harm to the overriding objectives of sustainable economic growth. 

However it must be recognised that the Council currently has no adopted policy 

which protects such land from changes of use. Therefore the overall judgement 

that must be made in this case is whether the Council could sustain a reason for 

refusal based on a 2.6% loss of employment land in Banbury. As the proposal, in 

this case, involves, a very minor representation of Banbury’s total offer, HPPDM 

concludes that a reason for refusal could not be sustained. 

Page 34

5.4.15 Proposed Retail Use 

Independent from the conclusions drawn in relation to the loss of employment 

land, the proposed use of the site for retail development must be considered. 

The principle of such a use in this location is considered here, however the 

specific details in relation to sequential testing and town centre impact of the 

proposed development are set out from para 5.5. 

5.4.16 Whilst PPS4 identifies economic development as, amongst others, ‘main town 

centre uses’, by this very definition, such development should be situated within 

the town centre. The principle of retail development on this out of town centre 

site is not considered to be in accordance with this objective. 

5.4.17 Policy TC3 of the South East Plan clearly states that no need has been identified 

for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres. 

5.4.18 Policy E2 of the Draft Core Strategy states that retail and other town centre uses 

will be directed towards the three urban centres of Banbury, Bicester and 

Kidlington. 

5.4.19 The objective behind these policies is primarily to protect the vitality and viability 

of the town centre and whilst there is scope for developers to attempt to 

demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites and that the proposal 

would not cause harm to a town centre, the principle of retail development 

outside of a town centre is not supported. 

5.4.20 It is interesting to note at this stage that the Council’s Economic Development 

Officer points out that consultation carried out as part of the preparation of the 

Strategy did not reveal a strategic desire for an out of town retail development. 

However, the importance of Cherwell’s town centres was repeatedly expressed 

with a wish that they become more vibrant through increased investment. 

5.4.21 The proposal for retail development on the site in question, at face value, does 

not focus on the town centre and furthermore it has the potential to undermine 

the vitality and viability of Banbury Town Centre. For this reason it is considered 

that the change of use of the land to a retail use does not accord with planning 

principles. 

5.4.22 

Departure Procedures 

Given the fact that the proposed development is in conflict with the land use 

allocations set out in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan it is considered to be a 

departure from the development plan. Furthermore as the application proposes 

retail development in an out of town centre location, the Council is directed to 

consult the Secretary of State in the event that members resolve to approve the 

application. For both reasons, should Members resolve to approve the 

application it would be sent to the Secretary of State who would decide whether 

to make the ultimate decision in relation to the application or to allow the Local 

Authority to do so. 

5.5 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND RETAIL IMPACT 

5.5.1 Due to the fact that the site is in an out of town centre location and is not a site 

Page 35

that is allocated for retail development through local adopted policies, PPS4 

requires the applicant to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable 

sites that are available, suitable and viable and, that there would be no significant 

adverse impacts, in terms of the impact on centres and in terms of wider 

environmental, economic and regeneration impacts. The applicant has produced 

a Retail Assessment and an addendum to that Assessment to address these 

matters. These are available to view via the Council’s website. 

5.5.2 Given the scale and importance of the application, the Council instructed retail 

planning consultants CBRE to provide a critique of the submitted Retail 

Assessment. A copy of CBRE’s original critique together with an updated critique 

responding to the Retail Addendum are attached at appendices A and B 

respectively. The key issues raised by CBRE are set out below: 

5.5.3 Geographical Scope 

5.5.3.i WYG had identified only Banbury sites in their original Retail Assessment 

however CBRE felt that town centres such as Bicester and Kidlington should 

have been included in the search. WYG in their addendum considers that the 

scale of the development would be inappropriate for these centres in the light of 

the hierarchy of centres within the district, at the top of which is Banbury. CBRE 

is content with this explanation assuming there is no scope for disaggregation 

which is discussed below. WYG claims the same for Brackley. It is known that 

South Northamptonshire Officers have concerns about the impact upon Brackley 

and its development opportunities which needs further research in their view. 

5.5.4 Flexibility and Scope for Disaggregation 

5.5.4.i WYG argues that a ‘critical mass’ of development is needed to meet commercial 

requirements, however CBRE points out that this assertion is not supported in 

the CLG Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach as an 

argument for promoting development in less central locations (see para. 6 of 

Appendix B). A ‘critical mass’ has the likelihood of developing into a standalone 

retail destination, particularly given the provision of A3 units alongside substantial 

A1 units which would have implications for the town centre given the likelihood of 

reduced linked trips (See para. 7 of Appendix B). HPPDM agrees with this 

position, noting that there is scope to locate some of the smaller retail units on 

sequentially preferable sites. 

5.5.4.ii CBRE does however agree with WYG that although sequentially preferable sites 

and/or units are available and suitable for the A3 units, the disaggregation of the 

A3 units from the rest of the development is not, on its own, a sound reason to 

dismiss the whole development. 

5.5.4.iii If it is considered reasonable to disaggregate some of the units (not just the A3 

units) which is discussed below, CBRE considers that there is a case for 

widening the search area to, for example, Bicester and Kidlington. This has not 

been undertaken. 

5.5.5 Assessment of Alternative Sites 

5.5.5.i CBRE is satisfied that the smaller sequentially preferable sites referred to in 

WYG’s sequential test are neither available nor suitable, however they required 

Page 36

further information in relation to whether the Bolton Road and Canalside sites 

were sequentially preferable. Availability (which is defined as whether a site is 

available now or within a reasonable time) is one of the criteria for assessment 

and WYG claims that given the level of retail leakage from Banbury that they 

have identified, availability should be assessed over a [short] three to five year 

period and therefore neither of the sites are considered to be available. 

5.5.5.ii CBRE does not accept that [Banbury’s] market share must be urgently improved 

as other centres within the study area quite reasonably catch some of the 

available expenditure (see para. 12 of Appendix B). There is therefore 

considered to be no compelling case made by the applicant for urgently providing 

the amount of floorspace proposed. It cannot therefore be reasonable to search 

only for sites which might come forward in the next three to five years. 

5.5.5.iii Bolton Road 

In terms of availability, CBRE states that the Bolton Road site is likely to be 

available in the long term and therefore it cannot be discounted (based on 

conclusions made in relation to market share) (see para. 16 of Appendix B). 

They identify that there is not an immediate need to provide the total amount of 

floorspace proposed at Banbury Gateway and as such, Bolton Road would be 

available in an appropriate timescale. CBRE therefore concludes that the site is 

available. 

5.5.5.iv With regard to suitability WYG argues that the Bolton Road site cannot 

accommodate the proposed development as a whole, which is acknowledged 

based on the size of the site, however their arguments made in relation to 

disaggregation are not accepted by CBRE. Furthermore, whilst WYG considers 

that a foodstore would be the most appropriate use on the site, CBRE considers 

that the site could support both an element of comparison retail and a food store 

(both of which are referred to in the Council’s SPD for Bolton Road). Lastly it is 

not considered that matters of land ownership could not be overcome. For these 

three reasons, it is concluded that WYG on behalf of the applicant has not done 

enough to render the site unsuitable for consideration. CBRE therefore 

concludes that the site is suitable. 

5.5.5.v Turning to the viability of the Bolton Road site, whilst it is accepted that it is not 

WYG’s role to undertake a detailed viability appraisal, it is noted that they agree 

that the development would be viable if supported by a food store. CBRE 

therefore sees no reason why some of the proposed floor space might be 

developed alongside a food store. CBRE therefore concludes that the site is 

viable. 

5.5.5.vi CBRE concludes that Bolton Road is available, suitable and viable and as such 

they are not satisfied that the site is not sequentially preferable, i.e. capable of 

taking some of the development proposed at the application site, which is 

considered by HPPDM to be a desirable option. 

5.5.5.vii Policy EC17 of PPS4 states that planning applications for main town centre uses 

which do not demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach should be 

refused. CBRE states that the application should be refused solely on this basis 

given the conclusions in relation to the Bolton Road site. This is agreed by 

HPPDM. 

Page 37

5.5.5.viii Canalside 

The same conclusions relating to Bolton Road apply to the Canalside site in that 

its availability in the long term cannot be discounted. However, whilst the site is 

considered to be available, a number of factors have a bearing on the viability 

and suitability of the site, including approximately 75 different land ownerships, 

utility constraints which would involve negotiating easements and diversions with 

the relevant authorities, ground conditions which would require significant and 

costly remediation together with other issues that would affect deliverability such 

as a public right of way diversion and the presence of listed buildings on the site. 

These constraints lead CBRE to conclude that the site is not sequentially 

preferable. 

5.6 TOWN CENTRE IMPACTS 

5.6.1 Progressing to the assessment of impact is only required to be done where it is 

concluded that the sequential approach has been acceptable, which is not the 

case in this instance. 

5.6.2 PPS4 states that if it is considered that the proposed development would have a 

significant adverse retail impact the application must be refused. If however it is 

considered that the impacts would not be significant, the application must be 

determined taking account of the positive and negative impacts and any other 

material considerations. For Members information, in their original Retail 

Planning Assessment, WYG estimates that the impact of the proposed retail 

floorspace on all major stores, centres and shopping facilities in the town centre 

only would be -3.4% at 2016. 

5.6.3 Policy EC16 of PPS4 sets out the criteria to be assessed when considering 

impact (see para 25 of Appendix B). CBRE highlights the assessment of the 

impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area. 

To consider this, CBRE required more information from WYG on the types of 

retailer that the development might seek to attract. Whilst the end user can never 

be guaranteed very little information was forthcoming which is inconsistent with 

WYG’s assertion that there is an urgent need to improve market share. 

5.6.4 Impact of the proposal on in centre trade/turnover 

5.6.4.i CBRE accepts that some comparison goods shopping trips are likely to be 

diverted from, for example, Oxford and Milton Keynes, although the retail offer at 

both of these destinations is of a different order than the proposal. It is also noted 

that M&S and Next will have a substantial draw. However CBRE considers that 

the impact of the proposal upon some of the town centres in the study area has 

been underestimated (see para. 29 of Appendix B where CBRE is critical of 

WYG’s claim that 44% will be diverted from centres/locations outside of the study 

area). If the trade is not drawn from outside of the area, the implication is that 

more will come from within, i.e. the town centre (see para 30 of Appendix B). 

5.6.4.ii CBRE also raises concerns about the analysis of convenience goods trade 

diversion (see para 31 of Appendix B) 

5.6.5 Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability 

5.6.5.i Based on CBRE’s own assessment of retail draw, the most significant diversions 

Page 38

of trade would be from out of centre locations and do not immediately suggest a 

significant impact upon overall vitality and viability of the town centres given their 

current health. 

5.6.5.ii However CBRE states that, the long term future of M&S and Next in the town 

centre cannot be assured. It is indicated that Next is prepared to commit to the 

town centre until 2016 and M&S has provided a letter of comfort that they will 

remain in the town centre. At this stage, there is no formal obligation for either 

presence to remain in the town centre and as both are important anchors, CBRE 

states that their loss could have a significant impact upon the town centre. 

5.6.5.iii CBRE also considers that the proposed M&S foodhall at Banbury Gateway 

would provide shoppers with a greater opportunity to do all their shopping at the 

same site thus discouraging trips to the town centre. 

5.6.6 Impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planning public and private 

investment 

5.6.6.i WYG does not consider that the impact of the proposal upon Bolton Road would 

be significant for the reasons stated at para 35 of Appendix B, however CBRE 

sets out that the Bolton Road site SPD specifically refers to larger retail units to 

compliment the smaller units in the town centre and therefore the Banbury 

Gateway proposals could put this element of the Bolton Road proposals at risk. 

5.6.6.ii CBRE also finds it hard to see how investor confidence in the town centre would 

be encouraged by out of town retail particularly if the future of the town centre 

M&S and next stores is uncertain. 

5.6.6.iii Furthermore, even if considerable comparison goods capacity does remain, 

Banbury Gateway would only serve to delay implementation of the scheme at 

Bolton Road and in addition to this WYG has been unable to identify likely 

occupiers for the proposed development which does not prove a ‘strong demand 

for retail floorspace’ 

5.6.6.iv The implications for the Canalside site are the same, however CBRE considers 

these to be less significant given the longer timetable. 

5.6.6.v CBRE concludes that there is a strong possibility the proposal will hinder the 

delivery of a scheme at Bolton Road. 

5.6.7 Wider Impacts 

5.6.7.i CBRE states that no account has been taken of possible job losses at existing 

stores, however overall a positive impact is anticipated in terms of job creation. 

5.5.8 Conclusion on Sequential Assessment and Town Centre Impacts 

5.5.8.i The proposed development does not accord with Policy EC17 of PPS4 as WYG 

has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential 

approach for the following reasons: 

� There is no convincing argument that some of the A1 units could not be 

disaggregated 

Page 39

� Banbury’s market share does not need to be urgently improved therefore 

the Bolton Road site must be considered as an available site 

� The Bolton Road site is sequentially preferable and could accommodate 

some larger A1 units alongside a convenience goods retail offer 

HPPDM agrees with these conclusions and therefore, based on the advice in 

accordance with Policy EC17, planning permission should be refused solely on 

these grounds. 

5.5.8.ii Notwithstanding the above conclusions, the proposal would have significant 

impacts upon the town centre as set out below: 

� Banbury Gateway would exist as a standalone destination due to the 

presence of A3 units and a foodhall therefore discouraging linked trips to 

the town centre 

� Even if M&S and Next agree to retain a presence in the town centre this 

could only be secured over a short time period. Their loss would reduce 

investor confidence in the town centre. 

� The proposal would hinder the delivery of the Bolton Road site thereby 

negatively impacting upon planned investment 

5.5.8.iii HPPDM considers that these impacts would be significant and as such the 

application does not accord with Policy EC16 of PPS4. 

5.6 TRANSPORT 

5.6.1 The site lies adjacent to the M40 and is accessed by Ermont Way only, a single 

carriageway road leading from the Hennef Way roundabout which is controlled 

by two sets of traffic light signals. 580 parking spaces are proposed (together 

with parking for the disabled and parent and toddler spaces) and 146 cycle 

parking spaces are proposed. Given the scale of the development, it has the 

potential to have a significant transport impact. The County Council as Local 

Highway Authority however raises no objections to the proposed development 

subject to conditions. The key issues and recommended conditions are set out 

below. 

5.6.2 Traffic Generation 

5.6.2.i With regard to traffic generation, the Transport Assessment and Addendum are 

acceptable and figures used are considered to be reasonable. It is concluded 

that the development would have an impact upon the highway network, 

particularly in relation to the Bridge Street/Windsor Street junction, however other 

junctions that have been assessed would continue to have capacity. The 

application is considered to be acceptable in terms of traffic generation subject to 

off site works which would include the installation of CCTV works to monitor and 

manage the traffic signals at Daventry Road/Wildmere Road and minor 

improvements to the Hennef Way roundabout. 

5.6.3 Access Arrangements 

5.6.3.i The indicative details within the site are acceptable. Off site improvements are 

required to pedestrian and cyclist access to the site for sensory impaired users 

(tactile paving). Signage directing pedestrians and cyclists to the site from the 

Page 40

town centre and back would be required. 

5.6.3.ii All works must be secured by planning condition and would be the subject of a 

S278 Agreement between the developer and OCC. 

5.6.4 Public Transport 

5.6.4.i A new bus service would be provided by the developer running from Banbury 

Bus Station to the site via Bridge Street, Middleton Road and Ermont Road. It 

would run every 20 minutes 8am – 8pm Monday to Saturdays and 8am – 6pm on 

Sundays. Concerns have been raised in relation to keeping to this frequency at 

peak times and if the bus service were to fail. A s106 agreement is required to 

ensure that the developer maintains the frequency of the bus and that the service 

runs for no less than 5 years. 

5.6.5 Parking Levels 

5.6.5.i The parking levels for both vehicles and cycles do not meet the minimum 

requirement for a site of this scale and the justification for each is not robust. In 

addition there is no indication of where staff would park. However, OCC 

considers the parking levels to be acceptable subject to a Car Parking 

Management Plan to be in place at recognised peak times (to be agreed by 

planning condition). Staff parking and cycle parking would be linked to the 

development’s Travel Plan (to be secured via s106) which is considered to be 

acceptable. Cycle provision is expected to be sheltered and secure and 

showering and changing facilities must be provided; both to be secured via 

planning condition. 

5.6.6 Layout 

5.6.6.i Layout within the site (vision splays, parking spaces, bus stop and service yards) 

is considered to be acceptable. The changes to the road layout (giving priority 

access to the retail development) are considered to be acceptable subject to a 

S278 agreement between OCC and the applicant. The indicated details of the 

new footpath are considered to be acceptable subject to a S38 agreement 

between OCC and the applicant (to dedicate the new link as public highway). Full 

details of the new footpath link are to be secured via planning condition. The 

hedge bounding the public right of way should be no higher than 0.9m to retain 

visibility. 

5.6.7.ii An alternative pedestrian/cycle route would be available to the rear of units 3 – 

11 during the opening hours of the development – this is considered to be 

acceptable. 

5.6.8 Travel Plan 

5.6.8.i To be part of s106 agreement with obligations for monitoring and providing a 

Travel Plan coordinator. £900 is required for the monitoring of the Plan. 

5.6.9 Legal Agreements 

5.6.9.i A s106 agreement is required to secure appropriate financial contributions to 

public transport services and off site works. Based on the Council’s Draft 

Page 41

Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document £309,913 is required at 

January 2012 prices. 

5.6.9.ii S278 Agreements would be required for footway/cycle links, new tactile paving, 

signage and kerb realignment. 

5.6.9.iii A routeing agreement would be required for construction traffic. Details to be 

agreed with OCC/CDC 

5.6.9.iii Admin fee for monitoring the S106 agreement is £3,750. 

5.6.9.iv Subject to the recommended conditions and agreements, HPPDM is satisfied 

that the application complies with PPG13 and Policies T1 and T4 of the South 

East Plan. 

5.7 LANDSCAPE IMPACT/DESIGN AND LAYOUT 

5.7.1 Landscape Impact 

As the site is situated on the very edge of the urban area the development has 

the potential to have a significant landscape impact given its proposed scale. 

Wider views of the site beyond the urban area are gained mainly from the M40 

and the Daventry Road on approach to Banbury and some views can be gained 

across Banbury from the Southam Road. Views from the footpath adjacent to the 

Oxford Canal to the north of the site are limited given the distance and screening 

between. 

5.7.2 The existing buildings, which are not of any significant scale, are seen from these 

viewpoints within the context of the wider industrial estate and there is currently 

an undeveloped buffer of land to the east and the north of the buildings which 

allows for a comfortable transition between the Prodrive buildings and the open 

countryside. 

5.7.3 The proposed buildings would be of greater scale than the existing Prodrive 

buildings (the tallest being 13.2m), and would be sited immediately adjacent to 

the River Cherwell to the north, immediately adjacent to the northern part of the 

public footpath at the point where it runs under the M40 (unit 11) and adjacent to 

the M40 itself (units 11 and 12). For these reasons the development would have 

a significantly greater impact upon its immediate surroundings than the current 

site, creating a hard urban edge to the north when viewed from the open 

countryside (where the country park is proposed) and the M40 and having a 

dominating impact upon the public footpath which would be significantly 

enclosed, particularly at the point where it emerges from under the M40 towards 

the site. 

5.7.4 Design and Layout 

With regard to design, PPS1 states that: ‘Planning authorities should plan 

positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all 

development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider 

area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making 

places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which 

fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of 

Page 42

an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’. 

5.7.5 In terms of the design principles for the proposed development, the Design and 

Access Statement submitted with the application identifies a number of physical 

site constraints that had an impact upon the development of initial ideas. These 

include the location of the River Cherwell and the existing lake on the site, the 

motorway together with its embankment and landscaping, the flood alleviation 

scheme to the north, existing industrial buildings and strategic servicing along the 

route of the former Daventry Road. 

5.7.6 Whilst five different options are explored within the Design and Access 

Statement based around the physical constraints of the site, they largely follow 

the same theme; large buildings located around the edge of the site with a 

significant area of centrally located parking, open views to and from the 

motorway and the separation of the amenity area and open countryside from the 

overall layout. 

5.7.7 During pre-application discussions, officers advised that the layout of the site 

was disappointing, representing a 1980’s out of town retail development which 

turns its back on the surrounding industrial estate, river and open countryside 

and which, because of this layout, misses opportunities to create a high quality 

development in such a prominent location. 

5.7.8 The final solution does little to address these fundamental layout and design 

concerns however the statement lists some finer details that have been 

incorporated into the design including using local materials, relocating the A3 

units and opening them up to the amenity area, and introducing distinctive design 

via use of materials, parapets and a glazed roof over the courtyard of the A3 

units. 

5.7.9 These alterations to the scheme are noted, however the A3 units together with 

the canopy roof would be tucked away into the north western most section of the 

site beyond the A3 units, which is the least visible part of the site and 

furthermore, whilst a pedestrian route is indicated between the A3 units to the 

amenity land, this land would still be situated to the rear of the core block of 

buildings and segregated from the main circulation area of the site as a whole. 

The use of local materials only appears to be a token effort and the reference to 

ironstone indicates that it would be reconstituted stone which is disappointing. 

5.7.10 

In addition to the above comments, the Council’s Design and Conservation Team 

Leader raises further issues about the layout and design. Her key concerns 

being the large scale of the development compared to nearby buildings, the 

uncomfortably close relationship between the buildings and the motorway, the 

visual appearance of the scheme akin to a distribution warehouse development 

rather than retail, together with quality typical of industrial units which would have 

inactive elevations facing the motorway. Furthermore, due to the layout, it is 

considered that pedestrian circulation areas would be minimal, the public 

footpath would be poorly incorporated into the scheme and the service yards 

including plant and machinery would be easily viewed from beyond the site. In 

addition, the Council’s Landscape Officer does not consider that the landscaping 

proposals have been comprehensively designed as part of the scheme, stating 

that it would simply fill the spaces left over. Furthermore, there is no evidence of 

high quality planting or hard landscaping materials. 

Page 43

5.7.11 In response to these criticisms, WYG makes the following comments: 

� The services along the former Daventry Road which include water, gas 

and electricity prohibit the construction of buildings along this route as the 

relocation of these services would likely have a significant impact on the 

Banbury area. 

5.7.12 � The service areas are kept to a minimum (unlike Banbury Cross Retail 

Park), soft landscaped areas extend to 24% of the site and the pedestrian 

walkways extend to 1.7km throughout the site. 

5.7.13 � The existing 2.4m palisade fencing to the boundary of Wildmere Road 

would be replaced with a 6m wide landscaping buffer to screen servicing 

and the service yard to the north west would be screened by a 2.4m high 

hedge and existing and proposed trees. 

5.7.14 � The M&S building has design impact, accentuated by large glazed 

window/wall elements, overhanging canopies, brise soleil and exemplar 

wall cladding materials. WYG believe that the buildings would have an 

active frontage with the M40 and that the scheme would represent a 

transition or gateway from the open countryside to the north. 

5.7.15 � In terms of scale, the maximum height of the buildings (the canopy over 

the A3 element) would be 11.2m, compared to some of the industrial 

buildings in the area which amount to 18m at ridge height. 

5.7.16 Overall, the Design and Access Statement, in justifying the design, states that it 

is based on maximizing the site’s development potential and given the two 

prestigious anchor tenants, the remainder of the development including the 

parking is required to support the success of these. 

5.7.17 Whilst the amendments to the scheme are noted, HPPDM remains of the view 

that the proposed development ultimately misses a number of opportunities, 

namely: 

� It would not present an attractive entrance to the town when travelling 

south on the M40 – instead it would have the appearance of warehousing 

and views from the M40 would look directly into the servicing areas which 

would do nothing to promote the town 

� It would fail to achieve any transition between the open countryside and 

the urban area 

� It would not face the public realm and would not properly address the 

motorway 

� It would not retain the historic alignment of the route to Daventry 

� It would fail to achieve links between the development and the open 

countryside/existing amenity areas/planned country park 

5.7.18 Furthermore, the scheme would fail to achieve high quality inclusive design, 

worthy of its prominent edge of urban area location for the following reasons: 

� The high density of buildings, maximising retail footprint, in turn 

maximizes the requirement for parking so pushing the historic public right 

of way to the edge of the site. 

Page 44

� Standard materials are proposed such as white rain screen cladding 

� Architectural detailing is restricted and includes only small accented 

areas (corner of M&S building and A3 canopy) 

� Significant hard landscaping is proposed with very little soft landscaping 

or amenity space 

5.7.19 For the above reasons, the scheme, due to its relationship with its surroundings, 

layout, orientation, design, materials and landscaping would fail to achieve high 

quality and inclusive design and fails to take the opportunities available for 

improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The 

development is therefore in direct conflict with PPS1, Policies CC6, C4 and C5 of 

the South East Plan and Policy C7 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

5.8 PUBLIC FOOTPATH 

5.8.1 The former Daventry Road marks the route of the existing public right of way 

which runs across the site. The route runs along Wildmere Road (west/east) 

before turning north to the east of the existing Prodrive buildings and to the west 

of the triangular agricultural field. As the footpath leaves the site, it turns north 

east adjacent to the River Cherwell and under the M40. 

5.8.2 To achieve a maximum number of buildings for the development, the associated 

and maximized parking would be arranged across most of the route of the 

existing footpath. The footpath is subsequently indicated as being realigned 

around the eastern edge of the proposed parking area firstly along the frontages 

of units 12 and 13 and then turning back towards the existing route adjacent to 

the motorway embankment. In addition to this route which would be 

approximately 70m longer than the existing, an alternative non-public right of way 

route is suggested running along the frontages of units 1 and 2 and then 

following the service road to the rear of unit 5 before entering the amenity land to 

the rear. This route would be 230m longer than the existing route and would be 

open for public use during the opening hours of the retail park. 

5.8.3 The Council’s Rural Development and Countryside Manager is not convinced by 

the submission as it includes insufficient detail in terms of the impact of the 

development upon the existing public right of way, furthermore, the proposal 

neither accommodates the existing route or demonstrates that there are 

circumstances not to do so. It is also stated that even if the new route were 

justified, it is not satisfactory in terms of conflict between cyclists and shoppers 

and the potential for an alleyway to develop overtime between the boundary 

hedge of the car park and the motorway embankment. The County Council also 

considers that there are safety issues concerning the realigned footpath. 

5.8.4 In response to the comments of the Council’s Rural Development and 

Countryside Manager, WYG has stated that retaining the public right of way in its 

current location would diagonally intercept the car park, significantly reducing the 

number of parking spaces available and the efficiency of the layout. The public 

right of way where it runs in front of units 12 and 13 would be 4m in width to 

reduce conflict and it is not considered appropriate to align the public right of way 

to the north west of the parking in front of units 12 and 13 as this would be a 

greater risk of conflict between cyclists and vehicles reversing from spaces. 

Page 45

5.8.5 Policy R4 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan has not been saved, in its place 

but not forming part of the statutory development plan is Policy R4 of the nonstatutory 

Cherwell Local Plan which states that the Council will safeguard and, 

where possible, enhance the existing public rights of way network. Development 

over public rights of way will not be permitted unless a suitable diversion can be 

secured which will not prejudice public rights. 

5.8.6 In this case, the existing right of way would not be safeguarded or enhanced. 

The realigned footpath would be less convenient than the existing as it would no 

longer take a direct route across the site and it would have the potential to 

reduce public enjoyment given the likely conflict between pedestrians, motor 

vehicles, cyclists and shoppers and the fact that the footpath would be more 

enclosed by the proposed buildings and the M40. The detail of Policy R4 carries 

little weight due to its non-statutory status and therefore it would not be 

sustainable to recommend that the application be refused on these grounds. 

5.8.7 Instead Policy C6 of the South East Plan seeks to maintain, enhance and 

promote the Public Rights of Way system to facilitate access to eh countryside. 

Ultimately the development would secure a footpath through the site providing 

access to the countryside despite not necessarily enhancing the existing 

arrangement. Measures could be adopted and secured via planning condition in 

the event that the application is approved to promote the use of the path by the 

use of signage and with these arrangements (and notwithstanding the earlier 

conclusions in relation to the lack of inclusive design) HPPDM considers that the 

public right of way is satisfactorily maintained in accordance with Policy C6 of the 

South East Plan. 

5.8.8 It should be noted that if the application is approved, the proposal could not go 

ahead unless the affected public rights of way have been diverted. If this process 

leads to an objection the diversion would be considered at an inquiry. 

5.9 SUSTAINABILITY 

5.9.1 As set out in PPS1, sustainability is the core principle underpinning planning 

which is echoed in Policy CC1 of the South East Plan. The key areas of priority 

are identified as social and inclusive progress, sustainable resource use, 

conservation of the natural environment, addressing climate change and 

economic growth. 

5.9.2 The submitted sustainability statement discusses the way in which the proposal 

has been developed to address the key principles. These include making use of 

previously developed land, conserving resources and using sustainable 

construction methods, introducing renewable energy, addressing pollution, 

creation of jobs and social opportunities, ecological enhancement and promoting 

sustainable transport. 

Page 46

5.8.3 The Council’s Planning Policy Officer and Urban Design Officer (commenting on 

sustainable design), do not believe that the proposals go far enough given the 

unsustainable location of the site. Sustainable commitments relate to M&S only, 

(including BREEAM) and not the whole site for example no details are indicated 

of PV arrays on the rest of the buildings. Furthermore, it is not clear why more 

PV is not proposed given the size of the roofs. Other green technologies such as 

rain water harvesting are referred to but appear to be an afterthought to the 

design process, rather than influencing the conceptual approach. For these 

reasons, the Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposals to be a 

disappointing response to the green agenda, in what could be a ground breaking 

approach to design. 

5.8.4 In response to these comments, WYG refers to the Energy Strategy which 

attempts to reduce energy demand for the site, through building design, before 

applying renewable energy measures. The orientation of the site and the layout 

of the buildings means that good levels of daylight are expected to be achieved. 

The plans have been updated to indicate sky lights and PV rays on all of the 

units and through the proposed measures the development will meet Policy 

NRM11 of the South East Plan which requires all development to achieve 10% of 

it energy from renewables. In addition to this, although it is not practicable to 

commit to BREEAM ‘Very Good’ on buildings where occupiers are speculative, 

the developer is willing to agree to a condition which secures this BREEAM level 

across the whole site. 

5.8.5 In HPPDM’s view, the measures set out by WYG to secure sustainable 

approaches to development, are considered to be in accordance with PPS1 and 

Policies CC1, CC4 and NRM11 of the South East Plan. 

5.10 PUBLIC SAFETY 

5.10.1 Given the scale and nature of the proposed development and in accordance with 

PPS1 to promote public safety and prevent crime RPS on behalf of Thames 

Valley Police (TVP) has identified a specific need for effective and visible policing 

of the proposed development. To this end the applicant would be required to 

fund two police community safety officer posts (working on a shift basis) for a 

period of four years and a two desk office on the development. This would 

amount to a total figure of £291,784 being secured via a s106 Agreement. 

5.10.2 As an alternative, the Council’s Safer Communities Manager in conjunction with 

Thames Valley Police requires a CCTV monitoring system to be installed within 

the site together with all necessary infrastructure to enable the CCTV to operate 

fully and efficiently as part of the district wide CCTV system. The CCTV facility 

and any ancillary CCTV would be fully controlled by TVP operators as an 

integrated system and the recording, storing and interrogation of data and data 

handling would be conducted by them. 

5.10.3 In response to RPS’s request for police presence the Council’s Safer 

Communities Manager considers that the provision of CCTV would be a 

preferred option over a police presence in this particular case as the posts are 

unlikely to be frequently used in relation to the development due to its out of town 

centre location where it would be difficult for TVP to reliably staff the required 

posts other than as drop ins. 

Page 47

5.10.4 Given the concerns raised in relation to the reality of the provision of police posts 

on the site and the fact that the CCTV approach would be a permanent 

arrangement (not just funded for four years) it seems that CCTV would be the 

most appropriate approach to providing public safety in this case. With such 

measures, to be funded by the applicant, in place HPPDM is satisfied that if the 

application is to be approved, the development would achieve levels of public 

safety as required by PPS1. 

5.11 FLOOD RISK/DRAINAGE 

5.11.1 Parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3. An objection was initially issued 

by the Environment Agency in relation to the submitted drawings, as the 

proposals included the culverting of a water course on the site. Further 

investigations have been carried out in relation to the watercourse which 

demonstrates that its catchment is minimal. The Environment Agency therefore 

accepts the principle of the proposed culverting and has withdrawn the objection, 

however states that the proposed development will only be acceptable if certain 

measures are implemented and secured. These can be secured via planning 

condition in the event that the application is approved which include: 

� Carrying out the development in accordance with the revised FRA (Feb 

2012) 

� Submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme 

� Submission and approval of scheme to deal with land contamination 

� Submission and approval of a verification report demonstrating 

completion of works in accordance with a remediation strategy. 

� Carrying out the development in accordance with the illustrative 

Landscape Masterplan (including scrape and pond). 

5.11.2 OCC as Drainage Authority reiterates the requirement for the design of the 

drainage system 

5.11.3 The Environment Agency also provides advice in relation to the Flood Alleviation 

Scheme and emergency planning, surface water drainage design, foul drainage, 

pollution prevention, relevant consents required (other than planning permission) 

and waste management. 

5.11.4 Given the advice of the Environment Agency and the Local Drainage Authority 

together with the recommended conditions, HPPDM is satisfied that the 

proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding in the area and for 

this reason, the application is considered to be in accordance with PPS25 and 

Policies NRM1 and NRM4 of the South East Plan. 

5.12 CONTAMINATED LAND 

5.12.1 The Campbell Reith Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Study submitted with 

the application concludes that due to the presence of an underlying aquifer and 

the River Cherwell and pond, the site has, respectively, medium and high 

hydrological environmental sensitivity. It is further concluded that the proposed 

end user presents a medium risk. 

5.12.2 The report recommends that further investigative work would be required in order 

to confirm the underlying geology of the site, the existing ground water regime 

and the engineering properties of the underlying soil. In addition, works would be 

Page 48

equired in order to investigate the ground gas conditions and the existence or 

otherwise of waste and asbestos in the ground. 

5.12.3 Subject to the findings, the report recommends that appropriate remediation 

strategies are put in place. 

5.12.4 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer considers that the work done to 

date in terms of land contamination is acceptable and agrees that further 

investigative work would be required. 

5.12.5 In the event of approval, conditions are recommended which secure the further 

investigative works required, the remediation works that may subsequently be 

necessary and if so the detail of that remediation strategy. 

5.12.6 Subject to the recommended conditions, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed 

works comply with PPS23 and Policies ENV7 and ENV12 of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan. 

5.13 AIR QUALITY 

5.13.1 Policy NRM9 of the South East Plan states that proposals should contribute to 

sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution in the region. The Council’s 

Environmental Protection Officer believes that the proposal has the potential to 

affect the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on Hennef Way (500m from the 

site), which was designated in this first quarter of 2011 and the significance of 

the expected impact requires assessment. 

5.13.2 The application was not accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment however a 

section relating to pollution is included within the submitted Sustainability 

Statement which incorrectly concludes that the site is not located within or 

nearby an AQMA. The Statement does however set out that it is not expected 

that the development would be significantly detrimental to existing air quality. 

5.13.3 Policy NRM9 identifies motor vehicles as one of the key sources of emissions 

affecting an AQMA. The only vehicular access into the site is from the Hennef 

Way/Wildmere Road roundabout which is situated within the identified AQMA. 

For this reason, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer considers that it 

would be necessary to secure an Air Quality Assessment of the proposed 

development and mitigation measures where necessary. Mitigation can include 

best practice during construction to reduce dust and other pollutants and reduced 

traffic movements. 

5.13.4 The application as submitted shows signs of some of these measures, including 

the details set out in the sustainability assessment, the provision of a free shuttle 

bus to and from the site into the town centre and cycle parking. 

5.13.5 For these reasons and subject to appropriate mitigation measures, details of 

which would be secured by the recommended condition relating to the 

submission of an Air Quality Assessment, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed 

development is unlikely to cause harm to air quality or be detrimental to the 

identified AQMA on Hennef Way. 

Page 49

5.14 NOISE 

5.14.1 Lying adjacent to the M40, there is already a significant noise impact upon the 

site and surrounding area, which could have a negative impact upon the 

proposed development; reducing the quality of the environment and the 

experience of the space created. However the proposal is not a noise sensitive 

development and due to its nature, much of the time spent by shoppers would be 

inside the retail units where noise emanating from the motorway would be 

reduced. Furthermore, the proposed A3 units, where shoppers would have an 

opportunity to sit outside, would be located at the furthest point on the site from 

the motorway, shielded from the noise created by it, by the proposed retail units 

and the canopy roof intended to contain the outside space between the A3 uses. 

The enjoyment of the amenity space to the rear of the retail units may be 

affected by noise from the motorway, however again this is positioned at one of 

the furthest points from it. 

5.14.2 The proposed retail destination itself is not likely to result in significant levels of 

noise beyond that arising from vehicular movements as a result of shoppers and 

deliveries and there are no noise sensitive developments within the vicinity of the 

site such as residential development that would be affected by the development. 

The proposals are considered therefore to comply with PPG24. 

5.15 BIODIVERSITY/ECOLOGY 

5.15.1 With regard to the value and protection to be afforded to the site in ecological 

terms, it does not lie within any statutory or non-statutory designated sites of 

ecological importance. It is noted that there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest 

and a Local Wildlife Site within a 2km radius of the site however due to their 

location, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact 

upon these sites. 

5.15.2 Developed over time as part of Prodrive’s ongoing expansion since the 

company’s first occupation, a large proportion of the site offers little natural 

habitat or quality foraging for wildlife given the existence of the buildings, the 

lawned areas that are regularly mown and the agricultural field to the west which 

is grazed by stock. An ecological assessment of the site was carried out in 

August 2011 which revealed that there are no bats present on the site nor 

evidence of reptiles or other species such as badgers, otters or water voles. 

5.15.3 Of notable ecological value however are the River Cherwell lying just to the north 

of the site boundary; the corridor of which provides an important foraging and 

commuting route for bats, and the pond lying within the site to the north which 

provides habitat for wildlife. As proposed, the development due to its location 

would not physically disturb these ecologically valuable areas, however their 

protection should be achieved at the time of construction should the application 

be approved in order that they be conserved in accordance with PPS9. 

5.15.4 The Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that there is no evidence of protected species 

on the site and that the proposal would not cause direct harm to parts of the site 

of ecological value. Conditions relating to the removal of hedging outside the bird 

nesting season, the provision of suitable bat and swift nesting boxes and controls 

over lighting type and times to protect the river corridor for bats are 

recommended as planning conditions. 

Page 50

5.15.5 However the Council’s Ecologist does not consider that the proposals include 

sufficient ecological enhancements in accordance with PPS9 given the scale of 

the development and the limited opportunities for enhancements on the ground. 

Green roofs for the majority of the buildings are recommended to enhance and 

increase biodiversity by improving natural habitat for invertebrates and birds and 

having the added benefits of reducing water run-off in times of heavy rainfall and 

reducing heat loss thereby helping to save energy. 

5.15.6 WYG does not agree with the Council’s Ecologist’s opinion in relation to 

ecological enhancements, particularly the suggestion of incorporating green 

roofs on the proposed buildings. They consider that this would result in 

significant additional cost and is not a necessary requirement as the site offers 

other opportunities for ecological enhancement. They consider that given the 

ecological value of the site (which is not considered to be high other than around 

the river and the pond) that the enhancements that are proposed, including new 

hedge and tree planting, the planting of wildflower grassland and wildflower 

meadow grassland and the provision of suitable bat and bird boxes together with 

controlling lighting is enough to achieve the ecological protection and 

enhancements required by PPS9. 

5.15.7 PPS9 states that ‘the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to 

biodiversity and geological conservation interests’ it continues by stating that 

where significant harm would be caused, an alternative site should be 

considered. Where an alternative site is not available appropriate mitigation 

should be achieved and if this is not the case appropriate compensation should 

be secured. Finally if compensation cannot be secured the application should be 

refused. 

5.15.8 In this case, given the low ecological value of the main part of the site and the 

fact that the proposal would not physically affect the areas to the north that are of 

greater value, it could not be considered that the proposed development would 

cause significant harm. For this reason, there is no requirement for an alternative 

site to be considered and it could be argued that as significant harm is not 

envisaged mitigation measures are not required, however in this case, the 

proposal includes measures to protect and enhance biodiversity which are fully 

supported and it is agreed that in the event of the application being approved 

these will be secured via planning condition. 

5.15.9 The Environment Agency is satisfied with the impact of the development subject 

to conditions to control adverse impact in relation to the ecological value of the 

water courses. 

5.15.10 With regard to the overall impact of the proposal upon biodiversity it is 

recognised that the site does not lie within a statutory or non-statutory 

designated site and would not have an impact upon those designated sites within 

the vicinity. A large part of the site is of low ecological value and no European 

Protected Species were found to be present. The River Cherwell Corridor and 

pond are of important value to wildlife and foraging and commuting bats, 

however neither will be physically disturbed by the proposed development. 

Measures to protect existing biodiversity and to achieve enhancements are 

proposed and are considered to be appropriate and commensurate with the 

scale of the development and the recognised value of the existing site. For these 

Page 51

5.16 TREES 

reasons, HPPDM considers that the application is acceptable in terms of its 

impact upon biodiversity in accordance with PPS9, Policy NRM5 of the South 

East Plan, Policies C1, C2 and C4 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Policy 

SD8 of the Draft Core Strategy. 

5.16.1 There are a number of trees on the site arranged in small groups adjacent to the 

main access from Wildmere Road, around the buildings, within the area of open 

space by the river and along some of the boundaries of the site. None of the 

trees are of such individual significant merit that they appear as outstanding 

specimens on the site, however, arranged as groups and individuals around the 

buildings, the existing trees do provide some amenity value within the site in the 

form of typical landscaping. The arboricultural report accompanying the 

application states that there are 52 trees in total on the site and in order to 

accommodate the proposed development, 20 of these trees would need to be 

removed, which the report identifies as lower and moderate grade trees. 

5.16.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer recognises that there are a number of 

reasonable trees to be removed from the site however he is satisfied that 

significant replanting is proposed to mitigate against their removal. In the event of 

a recommendation of approval, conditions are recommended relating to tree 

protection, a planting schedule and construction of planting pits. 

5.16.3 HPPDM is satisfied that, notwithstanding the concerns raised in relation to the 

landscaping scheme as a whole, whilst a number of trees would be removed 

from the site, the proposed tree planting in association with the development 

would serve to secure appropriate mitigation against this loss in accordance with 

Policy C4 of the South East Plan. 

5.17 ARCHAEOLOGY 

5.17.1 It is noted by both GK Heritage (the applicant’s Archaeological consultants) and 

the County Archaeologist that, whilst the site has quite significant archaeological 

potential owing to evidence of Iron Age and Roman settlements, it has 

undergone considerable modern disturbance as a result of the development of 

the industrial estate and the construction of the existing buildings on the site. 

Therefore it is considered that the site has limited potential to produce significant 

archaeological deposits. However there may still be some small pockets of 

undisturbed archaeological evidence in the undeveloped areas or beneath large 

areas of hardstanding and the existing buildings, and for this reason, an 

archeological Watching Brief is recommended in the event of the application 

being approved. 

5.17.2 Based on these circumstances, the County Archaeologist recommends that if the 

application is to be approved, relevant conditions should be imposed to secure 

an appropriate level of archaeological monitoring and recording action to take 

place throughout the period of construction works. 

5.17.3 With these measures in place, it is considered that the application complies with 

PPS5 and Policy BE6 of the South East Plan. 

Page 52

5.18 S106 MATTERS 

5.18.1 As the application is recommended for refusal a s106 Agreement is not required. 

If the recommendation is not accepted however, an agreement would be needed 

to secure off site highway infrastructure contributions, security CCTV, public art, 

a shuttle bus, the retention of M&S in the town centre and the retention of 

Prodrive in Banbury. 

5.19 CONCLUSION 

5.19.1 The development would result in the loss of valuable employment land and the 

proposal for retail development is not acceptable in principle, in an out of town 

centre location. 

5.19.2 A sequential assessment of other sites has been carried out, however HPPDM is 

not satisfied that the development could not be disaggregated and because of 

this conclusion that there are no other sequentially preferable sites. 

Notwithstanding this position, which in itself should be a reason for refusal in its 

own right as set out in PPS4, it is considered that the development would have a 

significant impact on Banbury due to the establishment of a standalone site that 

would not encourage linked trips and the high probability that the anchor stores 

of M&S and Next in the town centre would not remain in the medium term. 

5.19.3 The design and layout of the proposed development is not of high quality or 

inclusive design and a number of opportunities available for improving the 

character and the quality of the area have been missed in direct conflict with 

PPS1. 

5.19.4 The transport impact of the development has been addressed and is acceptable 

subject to conditions and off site works. 

5.19.5 Issues relating to the public right of way, sustainability, public safety, flood risk, 

contaminated land, air quality, noise, biodiversity/ecology, trees and archaeology 

have either been addressed by the submission or are capable of being 

addressed via planning agreement and/or condition in the event that the 

application is approved. 

5.19.6 For the reasons given the application is considered to be unacceptable in 

planning terms as it does not demonstrate compliance with the sequential 

approach and would have significant impacts upon Banbury Town Centre and 

planned investment, furthermore the application is considered to be 

unacceptable by virtue of its design and layout. However, members are reminded 

of the context of the application as set out in para. 5.1 of this report which is that 

Prodrive wish to move to the Hella site. This is clearly a finely balanced 

judgement however the recommendation is one of refusal for the reasons set out 

below. 

6. Recommendation: REFUSAL for the following reasons: 

1. The application for an out of town centre retail development which is not in 

accordance with an up-to-date development plan in the manner and of the size 

proposed does not meet the requirements of the sequential approach in direct 

conflict with Policy EC17 of PPS4 and policy E2 of the Cherwell Draft Core 

Page 53

Strategy (2010) in that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that some of 

the proposed A1 (retail) units could not be disaggregated onto a sequentially 

preferable site. 

2. The application for a retail development at this out of town centre location 

does not accord with the national policy imperative to direct uses of this kind 

to locate in established town centres where they can be easily accessible to 

all modes of transport and can also increase trips to complementary service, 

cultural and retail uses in those centres. In this out of town centre location 

and offering both an element of A3 (restaurant and cafes) use and an element 

of convenience goods alongside the comparison goods offer, the 

development would discourage visits to the town centre which would have a 

significant impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. 

Furthermore the continued presence of the Next and M&S stores in the town 

centre could only be guaranteed in the short term thus reducing investor 

confidence in the town centre which would significantly affect the vitality and 

viability of the town centre and in addition, the development would hinder the 

delivery of the planned redevelopment of sequentially preferable sites thus 

prejudicing the future regeneration, improvement and vitality and viability of 

the town centre as a whole. The development is therefore contrary to policies 

and guidance within PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Policy 

TC2 of the South East Plan and Policies E2 and BAN8 of the Cherwell Draft 

Core Strategy (2010). 

3. The proposed development by virtue of its layout, orientation, design, scale 

and appearance would fail to achieve any transition between the open 

countryside and the urban area, would not present an attractive entrance to 

Banbury, would not relate well to the public realm or provide links to the 

countryside and would not retain the historic alignment of the existing public 

rights of way. As such the application misses a number of opportunities 

available for improving the character and the quality of the area. Furthermore, 

by virtue of its density, architectural detailing, use of standard materials, 

extensive hard landscaping and minimal soft landscaping, the development 

would fail to achieve high quality and inclusive design. For these reasons, the 

application is contrary to advice contained within PPS1, Policies CC6 and BE1 

of the South East Plan, Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and 

Policy SD13 of the Cherwell Draft Core Strategy (2010). 

CONTACT OFFICER: Jane Dunkin TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221815 

Page 54

BANBURY GATEWAY 


Critique of Retail Planning Assessment 

January 2012 

Page 55

CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................. 2 

2.0 Sequential approach ................................................................. 4 

3.0 Trade diversion analysis ........................................................... 9 

4.0 Town centre-specific impacts................................................... 14 

5.0 Wider impacts......................................................................... 17 

6.0 Overall assessment ................................................................. 19 

Page 56

CBRE | BANBURY GATEWAY 

1.0 Introduction 

BACKGROUND 

1.1 CBRE is instructed by Cherwell District Council to critique a Retail Planning Assessment 

prepared by �� in support of an application for the 

development of a retail scheme of 27,432sqm GIA floorspace. 

1.2 The application proposes the redevelopment of an out-of-centre site known as the Banbury 

Gateway. The site is �� 

north-east of Banbury town centre. 

1.3 Proposals for the site include the relocation of Prodrive within Banbury (as part of a 

separate planning application) and provide a new shopping park totalling 13 units, 

�� 

1.4 A full breakdown of the each unit and proposed floorspace, including mezzanine floorspace 

is provided below: 

Table 1.1 

Proposed Floorspace Breakdown 

FLOORSPACE GROUND FLOOR (GIA) SQ M 

GROUND FLOOR AND MEZZANINE 

(GIA SQ M) 

Unit 1 929 1,858 

Unit 2 (Next excluding Garden Centre) 2,790 5,580 

Unit 2 (Garden Centre) 929 929 

Unit 3 326 326 

Unit 4 171 171 

Unit 5 164 164 

Unit 6 744 1,488 

Unit 7 744 1,488 

Unit 8 929 1,858 

Unit 9 697 1,394 

Unit 10 697 1,394 

Unit 11 (Marks and Spencer) 4,647 9,294 

Unit 12 465 744 

Unit 13 465 744 

Total Floorspace (sq m) 14,697 27,432 

1.5 Marks and Spencer and Next both have stores currently operating in Banbury town centre. 

WYG say that both retailers will retain their town centre presence and consider Banbury 

Gateway as a suitable location for their larger format stores although they do not state how 

they will safeguard the long term future of the town centre stores. 

1.6 There are no confirmed operators for the remaining units at the planning application stage. 

WYG state that that there are a number of retailers, not currently represented in Banbury, 

who have a requirement for a unit in Banbury and specifically have expressed an interest in 

the development. The details of these requirements have not been set out in the �� 

retail assessment. 

Page 57 

Page 2 

INTRODUCTION


1.0 Introduction 

THE DRIVERS FOR THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL 

BENEFITS 

1.7 The aim of the proposal is to provide a flagship shopping park and enhance the retail 

consumer choice within the catchment area. 

1.8 Although the proposal is linked to the application for the relocation of Prodrive, WYG 

regard the retail scheme in accordance with national and local planning policy guidance in 

its own right. We do however note that the Economic Benefits Assessment, prepared by 

Drivers Jonas Deloitte (DJD) and submitted in support of the application for the relocation 

of Prodrive, states the success of Prodrive �� 

other major retailers to Banbury on the existing site�� 

RETAIL PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 

1.9 WYG provide a review of relevant planning policy in section 4 of the Statement. Regrettably, 

it does not conclude by identifying the key issues to be addressed. Given that the site is not 

allocated and lies outside a defined town centre the key issues are: 

� Whether there are any sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable and 

viable (Policy EC15 of PPS4); and 

� Whether there will be any significant adverse impacts, in terms of the impact on centres 

(Policy EC16.1 of PPS4) and in terms of wider environmental, economic and 

regeneration impacts (Policy EC10.2 of PPS4). 

1.10 If it can be demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, 

suitable and viable and there is no clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to 

significant adverse impacts (having taken account of the likely cumulative effect of recent 

of PPS4 says that the application must then be determined by taking account of: 

� The positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policy EC10.2 and Policy 

EC16.1 and any other material considerations; and 

� The likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and 

completed developments 

1.11 WYG address: 

� The sequential approach in section 5 of the Retail Planning Assessment; 

� Trade diversion, a key part of the impact assessment, in section 6 of the Retail Planning 

Assessment; 

� Impact on town centres in section 7 (sub-sections 7.2 to 7.4) of the Retail Planning 

Assessment; 

� Wider impacts in section 7 (sub-sections 7.5 to 7.10) of the Retail Planning Assessment; 

and 

� Overall positive and negative impacts in section 8 of the Retail Planning Assessment. 

1.12 �� 

respectively. Throughout the critique we highlight areas where we think that further work or 

clarification would be helpful. We underline these for ease of reference. 

Page 58 

Page 3 

INTRODUCTION


2.0 Sequential approach 

CONTEXT 

2.1 Policy EC15 of PPS4 indicates that in considering sequential assessments prepared in 

support of applications, local planning authorities should: 

� Ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability; 

� Ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central 

options are considered; and 

� Ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to 

accommodate a proposed development preference is given to edge of centre locations 

which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access; 

� Ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and 

operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: 

Scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; 

Format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi-storey 

developments with smaller footprints; 

Car parking provision: reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and 

The scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development onto 

separate, sequentially preferable, sites. 

APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 

Assessment of availability, suitability and viability 

2.2 We understand that WYG regard the application site as available and suitable and that 

development of the proposed retail uses is viable. Other sites have been considered by 

WYG in those terms. We consider the robustness of that assessment below, taking into 

account the advice in the CLG Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential 

Approach. We summarise this advice in Appendix A. 

Order of search 

2.3 There is no dispute that the site is out of centre. For that reason, potential alternative sites 

that are in or at the edge of town centres need to be considered. The area of search is 

dependent on the intended role and catchment of the retail and leisure development 

proposed. 

2.4 WYG only consider Banbury�� town centre and edge-of-centre sites as their area 

of search. In doing this they identify a total of seven edge-of-centre sites, both within and 

outside ��town centre boundary. 

2.5 Given the likely catchment of the proposed development, particularly the likely draw of a 

9,294 sq m GIA Marks and Spencer department store and a 6,509 sq m GIA Next Home 

store and Garden centre, which will extend beyond the Banbury catchment, we question 

whether it is reasonable to search for sites in town centre and edge-of-centre locations to 

Banbury only. 

2.6 We recommend that the applicant assesses sequentially preferable sites across the District, 

specifically at in-centre and at edge-of-centre locations in Bicester and Kidlington. 

Page 59 

Page 4 

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH



2.7 In dealing with each centre, PPS4 explains that for retail purposes, sites within the Primary 

Shopping Area should be regarded as an in-centre location and that edge-of-centre sites 

are those well-connected to and within easy walking distance of the Primary Shopping Area. 

It seems apparent from their sequential assessment that WYG have defined the sites 

assessed in accordance with PPS4. Using these definitions, all of the sites assessed are 

considered edge of centre sites by WYG. 

Flexibility 

2.8 PPS4 requires applicants to be flexible in terms of the scale of development, the format of 

development, car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation. Dealing with each in 

turn: 

� Scale: 

� Format: 

WYG claim that the proposed scale is the minimum required to �� 

significant proportion of the shopping trips and retail expenditure currently identified 

�� (para 

5.2.7). Furthermore WYG consider that Ma�� 

commitment to retain their town centre stores is evidence that smaller stores cannot 

meet the need identified. 

We question if it is reasonable or appropriate, considering the size and role of 

Banbury town centre, to propose over 27,000 sq m GIA additional retail floorspace 

in an out-of-centre location. We do not consider the retention of the scheme�s 

anchor town centre stores enough justification for the large scale formats of the 

proposed units and total retail floorspace proposed. 

WYG state that the proposed �layout� accommodates a business model that is 

complementary to town centre retailing and that the adjoining retail units will be 

�� 

furnishing/furniture market, which is poorly represented in Banbury�. 

We presume WYG mean there is a requirement for units that can accommodate 

goods of a more bulky nature, however this is more of an impact issue rather than 

a sequential one. One aspiration for the redevelopment of the sequentially 

preferable Bolton Road site is for the provision of larger retail units to complement 

the smaller units located in the town centre. As we note below we do not see how 

this site is not available, suitable or viable to accommodate some of the proposed 

retail floorspace. 

� Car parking provision: 

WYG do not justify the proposed car provision other than to claim that what is 

proposed is the minimum required as part of the proposal which will �� 

expenditure currently identified as leaking from the Banbury catchment. 

As with our consideration of �� 

enough to justify a proposal of this size, including its level of car parking provision. 

� Scope for disaggregation: 

In considering scope for disaggregation, WYG note that commercial viability is an 

important factor for consideration. In relation to this, WYG conclude that the 

smaller units cannot be disaggregated from the scheme if the scheme is to �to work 

Page 60 

Page 5 

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH



as a whole� and in order to provide a �range and choice within Banbury Gateway 

rather than the Marks and Spencer and Next units operating as solo destinations�� 

WYG also note that the retailers with a requirement for locating to Banbury 

Gateway �� 

WYG regard the opportunity for the interested retailers to locate to a different 

location in isolation extremely limited. 

�� 

provided to justify this. We recommend that the applicant is asked to provide 

further information to justify why the Marks and Spencer and Next units would not 

work without the other smaller retail units. Secondly, WYG claim that it is extremely 

unlikely that interested retailers would not locate in isolation to a different location. 

While we appreciate the benefits for retailers to locate to a retail destination such as 

that proposed at Banbury Gateway, this does not provide justification to why these 

smaller retailers cannot locate to sequentially preferable sites. We recommend that 

the applicant is asked to identify which retailers have requirements for Banbury 

Gateway and provide further justification why some/all of these cannot be 

disaggregated from the wider retail scheme. 

2.9 The above considerations have led WYG to consider the sites listed below. We are pleased 

to see that WYG have considered a number of sites including those allocated in the Draft 

Core Strategy. We are not aware of any further sites to be considered, but welcome 

confirmation from Cherwell District Council that they do not consider any additional sites to 

assess. 

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED BY WYG 

2.10 WYG assess a total of seven sites as part of their sequential approach. These are: 

� Site 1 � Bolton Road (Strategic Allocation 8); 

� Site 2 � Land at White Lion Walk and Church Walk; 

� Site 3 � Calthorpe Street (car park); 

� Site 4 � George Street/Pepper Alley, Land at Christchurch Court and Land at the 

junction of Cherwell Street and Bridge Street; 

� Site 5 � Land at Lower Cherwell Street and Land at Junction of Concorde Avenue and 

Bride Street; 

� Site 6 � Banbury Canalside (Strategic Allocation 6); and 

� Site 7 � Banbury Cultural Quarter (Strategic Allocation 9) 

2.11 We acknowledge the sequential site appraisal in Appendix 6 of the Retail Planning 

Assessment. We appreciate that not all of these sites are available, suitable and viable. 

However we consider it likely that some more information needs to be provided to 

adequately justify each site against these criteria. Before we can identify which specific sites 

may require additional justification we would like to review the information requested as 

part of this critique with regards to the proposal and likely retailers to locate at the Banbury 

Gateway. In the meantime we do have specific concerns over Site 1 and Site 6 at Bolton 

Road and Canalside, considered below: 

Page 61 

Page 6 

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH



Bolton Road (Strategic Allocation 8) 

2.12 We accept that: 

� The site may not come forward for development in the short-medium term. 

� The site is smaller than the application site and too small to accommodate all of the 

proposed floorspace. 

2.13 While we note that the Draft SPD, setting out the likely phased development proposals for 

the site, is not yet finalised, we are not aware of any particular reasons for why the site 

should not become available for development in the future. 

2.14 The Draft SPD identifies a mix of uses on the site, including retail and specifically a new 

foodstore of 3,000-6,000 sq m. Furthermore the focus for the site should be on the 

provision of larger retail units to complement the smaller units in the town centre. While we 

acknowledge that the site is smaller than the application site we do not accept that some of 

the proposed units, for example a mixture of the smaller units or one of the larger units 

could not be located at Bolton Road. 

2.15 We do not accept that the site is not viable on the basis that the need to replace most of the 

existing uses on the site will impact on the viability of the proposed scheme. We recommend 

that a more detailed assessment of viability of future development at the site is provided. 

2.16 We therefore are content that WYG have not adequately dismissed the site in terms of 

availability, suitability and viability. We recommend that the applicant addresses these 

criteria again. 

Banbury Canalside (Strategic Allocation 6) 

2.17 We accept that: 

� The aspiration for the site in the Draft SPD is for a mixed used site, including 1,200 new 

homes and retail, office and leisure floorspace up to a maximum of 17,500 sq m. 

� The site may not come forward for development in the short-medium term. 

2.18 As with the Bolton Road site, we note that the SPD for Canalside is not yet finalised, 

however we do not consider that the site cannot come be made available for development 

in the future. 

2.19 We acknowledge that in terms of suitability the 23 hectare site is large enough to 

accommodate the proposed development. WYG consider the redevelopment of the 

Canalside site in line with a comprehensive masterplan and as such dismiss the site in terms 

of suitability. We question, given the large redevelopment nature of the proposed site, 

whether this qualifies as sufficient justification for the site to be dismissed upon in relation to 

its suitability. 

2.20 We acknowledge that the draft SPD states that no retail unit should exceed 2,500 sq m on 

the eastern side of the site, nevertheless all of the proposed units, with the exception on the 

large scale Marks and Spencer and Next, fall within this threshold. WYG also consider that 

some of the smaller retailer units may be suitable at this site. We agree that this is the case, 

but do not consider that a required number of dwellings need to come forward in the first 

instance. As such we contend that the site is suitable for the disaggregation of the smaller 

retail units. 

2.21 WYG state that the viability of the site is unknown at this stage. They do however note that 

the scheme is residential led, as such it is unlikely given the current climate that the 

Page 62 

Page 7 

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH



comprehensive development of the site will be achieved. While we consider this is a broad 

generalisation, we agree that without a timescale for development there may be issues with 

the deliverability of the site in a reasonable period of time. 

2.22 We therefore are content that WYG have not adequately dismissed the site in terms of 

availability, suitability and viability. We recommend that the applicant addresses these 

criteria again. 

CONCLUSIONS ON SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 

2.23 WYG conclude that there is not a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable 

opportunity coming forward which is capable of meeting the same requirement as Banbury 

Gateway. For the reasons set out above we do not agree that WYG has adequately 

addressed that there are no sequentially preferable sites. We recommend that WYG provide 

the additional information set out above. 

Page 63 

Page 8 

SEQUENTIAL APPROACH


3.0 Trade diversion analysis 

CONTEXT 

3.1 WYG rightly note at paragraph 6.1.1 of the Retail Planning Assessment that a trade 

diversion analysis helps to inform an assessment of the inter-�� 

Policy EC16.1 of PPS4. In particular, it helps us to understand (a) the prospects of existing 

town centre stores closing, (b) the likely impact on linked trips between stores in town 

centres, and (c) the potential impact on delivery of any committed development or allocated 

sites. 

3.2 We are pleased to see that WYG have drawn on the CLG Practice Guidance on Need, 

Impact and the Sequential Approach. It sets out five steps for assessing trade diversion to 

new retail development: 

� Step 1: Determine what is being assessed and establish base/design years; 

� Step 2: �� 

� Step 3: Assess turnover and trade draw; 

� Step 4: Assess impact on existing centres and facilities; 

� Step 5: Consider the consequences of impact. 

3.3 W�� 

Practice Guidance. 

COMPARISON GOODS 

Nature of comparison floorspace 

3.4 �� 

of 17,984 sq m. 

3.5 A total of thirteen separate retail units area proposed, the largest of which will be occupied 

by Marks and Spencer and Next. No named operators are confirmed for the remaining 

units. 

Diversion of comparison goods expenditure 

Step 1: Establish base/design years, and determine what is being assessed 

3.6 �� In accordance with PPS4, the design 

year (2016) represents a reasonable five year period in which to assess impact. PPS4 

considers that the design year should normally be taken as 1-2 years after the likely 

completion of a development. WYG consider the 2016 design year appropriate in that it 

allows for the new retail floorspace to achi��e regard a 

proposed completion date of 2014/2015 for the development may be a tight timescale, 

particularly when considering the relocation of Prodrive is also required to facilitate this 

development. 

3.7 ��sed total gross floorspace is 26,770 

(although this includes the foodstore and cafe element of Marks and Spencer). The total 

comparison net sales area given is 17,984 sq m. WYG state that they have applied a gross 

to net ratio of 70%. Our calculation (once the foodstore and cafe element of the Marks and 

Spencer is deducted from the gross floorspace area) is in accordance with this ratio. We 

note that existing non food floorspace data taken from GOAD is calculated at a gross to net 

ratio of 80%. WYG apply their own wider ratio of 70%. Nevertheless, we consider it 

Page 64 

Page 9 

TRADE DIVERSION ANALYSIS



reasonable to apply 70% given the proposed large format stores and likely level of bulky 

goods storage and back-of-house. 

�� 

development does not take place? 

3.8 WYG have examined a �� in their quantitative tables. PPS4 

consider that is this required to establish what will happen if the development does not take 

place. ��scenario, WYG assume the same market 

share for 2011 and 2016. We are happy with this approach. 

Step 3: Assess turnover and trade draw i.e. what turnover will the development 

generate and where will it come from? 

3.9 WYG model two separate scenarios based on different assumed turnover forecasts. 

Scenario 1: 

3.10 Scenario 1 estimates a total sales density of £86.9million (at 2010 prices) for the proposed 

development. This level of turnover assumes that Marks and Spencer has a sales density of 

£5,142 per sq m. While WYG claim this is ��nsider that 

given the proposed store format and attention to improving customer experience, the store 

is likely to turnover at a lower company average than Marks and Spencer town centre 

formats. CBRE estimate (at 2008 price base) the average sales density for Marks and 

Spencer main UK stores to be of a similar turnover at £5,651 per sq m. As such we agree 

�� 

3.11 The remaining comparison units, including the Next Home and Garden store, have an 

estimated sales density of £4,250 per sq m. WYG note that this estimate is the assumed 

average sales density for non-central stores, ��Council Retail Assessment. 

3.12 We appreciate the difficulty in estimating a nominal average sales density for a retail 

scheme where many of the operators are unnamed. In addition �� 

justification for applying £4,250 per sq m on the basis of ��Retail Study Update data 

for non-central stores. However, we consider that the proposal will create a retail 

destination, and is described by WYG ��s such it may be 

likely to turnover at a higher rate than our average non-central comparison store estimate. 

Considering this it may turnover at a level more in line with Banbury town centre. In 

accordance with ��, a nominal figure of £6,000 per sq m is 

applied for the turnover of comparison floorspace in Banbury town centre. Without knowing 

the likely operators/types of stores which will locate at Banbury Gateway, we cannot 

accurately estimate the average sales density. With this element of uncertainty, we are not 

suggesting that WYG recalculate the turnover of the proposal based on an average sales 

density of £6,000/sq m sales density, but consider that the turnover of the development 

should be regarded with some caution. It would be useful to inform the sales density issue 

further by forecasting the turnover of the development based on the likely operators. We 

welcome that WYG have sought to do this under scenario 2, assessed below. 

3.13 In relation to the named operator Next, we consider that no bespoke sales density has been 

applied to this larger format store. We do appreciate that there is a lack of evidence on the 

turnover of the new �Home and Garden� format, nonetheless, considering the bulky goods 

nature of the store, including fitted kitchen and bathroom displays, we consider that the 

likely and sales density of the store will be lower than the nominal figure of £4,250 applied. 

Applying a lower, and perhaps more accurate sales density to the Next store, would in fact 

lower the estimated turnover of the development proposals. It would be useful if WYG could 

Page 65 

Page 10 




consider the likely turnover of the smaller retail units based on their likely operator or type 

of store, and in turn estimate a specific average sales density for the Next store to further 

inform the total likely turnover of the proposals. The turnover estimate for the new format 

Next store could be informed by data extracted �� 

out-of-centre ��Home and �� 

Scenario 2: 

3.14 Scenario 2 forecasts a lower proposed turnover based on an illustrative mix of operators 

who may be interested in locating at Banbury Gateway. Using this scenario WYG estimates 

a total sales density of £78 million (at 2010 prices) for the proposed development. As such 

WYG claim that scenario 1 overestimates the proposal�s sales density by approximately 

10%. 

3.15 We are pleased to see that WYG have assessed impact on what they claim is the worst case 

scenario (scenario 1). We note that no indication is given of the likely operators� sales 

��million 

is more likely. As such, we cannot conclude that ��occupy the 

scheme the impact on the centres detailed within the economic tables will be lower rather 

than higher�� In order for WYG to substantiate this claim they need to provide further 

information on who the likely operators are and what are their average turnovers. At the 

very least an indication of the type of stores that are likely to locate here and the goods to 

be sold, i.e. fashion, bulky goods, is required in order to assess the likely sales density 

which should be applied and the likely trade draw. 

3.16 The applicant makes the broad assumption that the proposed development will achieve 

similar trade draw patterns to the out-of-centre Banbury Cross Retail Park. 

3.17 �� 

of 15% from outside of the study area. The remaining 85% trade draw from within the 

study area has been apportioned between the nine zones in accordance with the existing 

trade draw of Banbury Cross Retail Park. 

3.18 We question whether it is broadly reasonable to apportion the trade draw from the study 

area in accordance with the existing pattern of trade draw of Banbury Cross Retail Park. 

While Banbury Cross Retail Park is in a similar out-of-centre location, it is of a smaller scale 

(approximately 15,700 sq m) and comprises a different format to that proposed at Banbury 

Gateway. We acknowledge that without knowing the majority of likely operators at Banbury 

Gateway we cannot provide an informed view on the likely trade draw patterns in 

comparison to the Banbury Cross Retail Park. However, we consider that the large format 

Marks and Spencer and Next stores alone have the capability of drawing significantly more 

trade from the surrounding area than this existing retail park. 

3.19 We agree that the Marks and Spencer will draw some trade from beyond the study area. 

We do however question how realistic it is to draw 15% of the proposal�s trade from beyond 

the study area when considering the significant size of this area and the nearby large 

centres located beyond the catchment, including Oxford and Birmingham which will have 

their own significant trade draws. We recommend that the applicant provides some 

additional information on the likely catchment for the Marks and Spencer and Next format 

stores in order to further justify drawing 15% trade from beyond the study area. This is 

required in order to help us reach a view on the level of trade diversion. 

Page 66 

Page 11 




3.20 The trade diversion assessment concludes that the greatest impact in relation to trade draw 

will be on out-of-centre locations within Banbury, notably Southam Road and Banbury 

Cross Retail Park. We agree that there will be an impact on Ba��-of-centre 

locations; however we question whether the impact on Banbury town centre to be minimal. 

��ation that the type of larger format retailers 

are likely to be new operators to Banbury (or only present within retail parks) and as such 

��-for-�� 

contrary, we consider that new operators not currently represented within the town may be 

more of a draw away from the designated centre and, depending on the operators likely to 

locate at Banbury Gateway, there development is likely to compete with the town centre 

retail offer. We consider again that more information on the likely operators is required and 

that it would be helpful to have more evidence to clarify the minimal impact upon Banbury 

town centre. 

Step 4: Assess impact on existing centres and facilities, i.e. quantify the effects of 

trade diversion 

3.21 WYG estimate an approximate impact on Banbury town centre of £15.5m. With a forecast 

comparison goods turnover in the centre of approximately £454.9m, the perceived trade 

diversion of comparison goods expenditure to the proposed scheme is an impact of -3.4% 

on the town centre. 

3.22 We consider this impact to be underestimated for a scheme of this size in an out-of-centre 

location from Banbury town centre. We require additional evidence to justify this minimal 

trade diversion and in order for us to consider whether there will be a significant impact 

upon Banbury. 

Step 5: Consider the consequences of impact, including quantitative and qualitative 

issues 

3.23 WYG have carried out a health check of Banbury town centre. The results of this assessment 

are included in Appendix 7. We consider the quantitative and qualitative impact of the 

proposal in Section 4 below. 

CONVENIENCE GOODS 

Nature of convenience floorspace 

3.24 The application proposes 938 sq m convenience sales floorspace as part of the Marks and 

��-��visitors primarily visiting the 

store for comparison goods shopping. While we consider that a proportion of visitors to the 

��-��hat the majority of trips 

��-�� 

Diversion of convenience goods expenditure 

3.25 WYG have not undertaken an assessment of trade diversion for convenience goods. The 

Retail Planning Assessment justifies the level of proposed convenience floorspace by 

�� 

�� 

no longer requires applicants to d��. As such we do not consider it 

adequate to justify the convenience element through the need case only. 

Page 67 

Page 12 




3.26 WYG acknowledge that the new convenience floorspace will turnover at approximately £9.9 

million. We consider this a healthy turnover. As such we recommend an assessment of 

convenience expenditure trade draw to consider where the £9.9million, required to support 

the foodhall, will be drawn from, and the potential impact of this on existing convenience 

floorspace and committed and planned floorspace. 

Page 68 

Page 13 



4.0 Town centre-specific impacts 

CONTEXT 

4.1 At paragraph 7.1.1 of the Retail Planning Assessment, WYG note that town centre-specific 

impacts are identified in Policy EC16 of PPS4. These are: 

� The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private 

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; 

� The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local 

consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail 

offer; 

� The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in 

accordance with the development plan; 

� In the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre 

trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future 

consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the 

application is made; 

� If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate 

scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the 

hierarchy of centres; and 

� Any locally important impacts identified in the development plan. 

4.2 WYG helpfully address all of these criteria, and in doing so draw on their modelling of 

likely trade diversion and assessment of town centre health. We consider their approach to 

each below. 

THE IMPACTS 

Impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in 

a centre or centres 

4.3 WYG refer to a table in paragraph 7.3.2 that should highlight a limited amount of 

committed floorspace. While it appears that this table has not been inputted, the table 

included in Appendix 11 sets out the key retail commitments. We recommend that WYG 

specifically justify the impact on the committed floorspace identified in the defined centres. 

4.4 In relation to the impact on planned public and private investment, WYG assess the impact 

on Bolton Road and the Canalside site. 

4.5 We recommend that WYG provide more evidence to justify that there will no negative 

impacts on the Bolton Road site coming forward for development. It is not enough to 

assume that there will be no impact on the grounds that the proposals at Banbury Gateway 

are of a larger scale and do not accord with the aspirations for Bolton Road. According to 

the Draft SPD for Bolton Road, aspirations for the site include a foodstore. We consider, 

particularly in the absence of an impact assessment for the proposed convenience 

floorspace, WYG should consider further the impact of the development on the Bolton Road 

site 

4.6 Little justification is given to clarify ��claim that there will be no impact on the 

Canalside site coming forward as a result of the Banbury Gateway scheme. In this respect 

more evidence is required to justify this. 

Page 69 

Page 14 

TOWN CENTRE-SPECIFIC IMPACTS



Impact on town centre vitality and viability including consumer choice 

4.7 WYG estimate an approximate trade diversion of £15.5m from Banbury town centre which 

represents a total impact on the town centre of � 3.4%.m. WYG do not consider that this 

level of trad�� 

4.8 �� and their methodology of apportioning 

trade draw across the study area in accordance with the existing shopping patterns of the 

Basnbury Cross Retail Park. We consider that there will be a greater impact on Banbury 

town centre as a result of the Banbury Gateway scheme which is proposing more than 

27,000 sq m of new floorspace. 

4.9 ��pact on Banbury town centre is also 

informed by a health check in which the Retail Planning Assessment considers the town 

centre both vital and viable. We note in relation to vacancy rates that, although Banbury is 

below the national average in most categories (categorised by size of units), in some cases 

the town centre falls just below the UK averages. In the example of units below 93 sq m 

Banbury vacancy rate is 41.3 % compared to the UK average of 42.54%. For unit sizes 

between 465-929 sq m, Banbury vacancies rates are higher than the UK average at a rate 

of 8.69% compared to 3.92%. A full health check of the town centre is welcome, but it is for 

the Council, with their local knowledge, to consider if they agree with the conclusion of this. 

4.10 With regard to the town centre vitality and viability, WYG issue assurances that Marks and 

Spencer and Next will continue to trade from their existing town centre stores. While we 

appreciate that this may not be the case, there can be no certainty that these town centre 

stores will not close in the future? Equally, we have concerns over the potential future 

relocation of other town centre stores to the modern, purpose built premises proposed at 

Banbury Gateway. We recommend that the Council seeks advice on assurances and 

safeguards that the future of the town centre will be protected should this development be 

permitted. 

4.11 Finally �� 

floorspace, particularly when this impact is assessed against the overall positive trading, 

economic and employment benefits of the scheme. We consider that the balance between 

the negative impact on the town centre vitality and viability, and the wider regeneration and 

employment benefits of the scheme need to be considered and weighed accordingly by 

Cherwell District Council. 

Impact on allocated sites outside town centres 

4.12 WYG are not aware of any allocated sites outside town centres. We agree. 

Page 70 

Page 15 




Impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the 

wider area 

4.13 WYG address this in a separate assessment of trade diversion, on which we comment in 

section 3 of this critique. 

Scale 

4.14 PPS4 says that this criterion is relevant only to town centre and edge of centre sites. WYG do 

not address it, presumably because the application site lies at an out of centre location. We 

appreciate that scale is not addressed in relation to impact, however, we consider that scale 

needs to be addressed in relation to the sequential assessment. 

Locally important impacts 

4.15 WYG say at 7.1.1 that no locally important impacts have been identified by the LPA. We are 

also not aware of any locally important impacts. 

Page 71 

Page 16 



5.0 Wider impacts 

CONTEXT 

5.1 WYG note at paragraph 7.5 of the Retail Planning Assessment that there is a range of wider 

�� Some of these impacts are 

addressed by the applicant in separate planning documents, however these are 

summarised in the Retail Planning Assessment. We consider below their approach to each 

�� 

THE IMPACTS 

Limiting carbon dioxide emissions and minimising vulnerability/providing 

resilience to climate change 

5.2 ��consideration of the proposals design to minimise energy 

consumption and C02 emissions. The sustainable approach to design includes 

consideration of building orientation, recycled content of materials and access to natural 

light. Furthermore, as part of the surface water drainage strategy, the recommended SUDS 

drainage system will be used where possible. 

5.3 We acknowledge the applicants commitment to utilising renewable technologies and 

reducing the amount of carbon emissions in accordance with the principles of sustainable 

development. 

Accessibility by a choice of means of transport and the effect on traffic and 

congestion 

5.4 WYG state that the development proposals will be fully accessible by a variety of transport 

modes, including the integration of the development with the existing public transport 

infrastructure, and cycle and pedestrian movement. 

5.5 The proposed access strategy also aims to enhance the opportunities for non car modes of 

transport for customers and staff through the provision of a dedicated shuttle bus service. 

The details of transport and accessibility are set out in the applicant�s Transport Assessment 

and Travel Plan. 

5.6 �� 

�� 

whether this is adequate. 

High quality and inclusive design 

5.7 It ��, but we are pleased to 

see the applicant has identified energy efficiency as a key factor. Improved pedestrian and 

��so welcomed, as well as landscape 

proposals. 

Impact on economic and physical regeneration including the impact on 

deprived areas and social inclusion objectives 

5.8 We recognise that economic and physical regeneration would result from this development 

and agree that the proposal will provide some positive benefits as set out in paragraph 

7.9.3. However we do consider that the proposal needs to be considered in the context of 

Banbury town centre. In relation to physical regeneration, WYG consider that there will be a 

neutral effect on the town centre. 

Page 72 

Page 17 

WIDER IMPACTS


5.0 Wider impacts 

5.9 WYG comment on the benefits of the retail sector for supporting social inclusion by 

employing a wide diversity of socio-economic groups, including those on a low income and 

minority groups. We agree with this, but consider that the benefits of the retail sector are 

also available when the retail development is located within sequentially preferable 

locations. The applicant also notes that further benefits extend beyond the new development 

as people employed in the new shops at Banbury Gateway are likely to spend their money 

in the local economy thereby having a positive spin-off effect. Considering the vast scale of 

the new development and the lack of immediate retail facilities around the proposed site, 

we disagree with the extent to which further spinoff expenditure will occur in the local 

economy. 

5.10 In considering the application in the context of Banbury town centre, the Council need to 

weigh up the likely adverse impact of the proposal on the town centre and the positive 

benefits which would result from the proposal, including the physical regeneration of the 

site. 

Impact on local employment 

5.11 The creation of new jobs is welcome, although for clarity it would be helpful if WYG 

indicate: 

� Whether the estimated 340 new jobs are FTE, or an absolute number; 

� �� 

development. 

Page 73 

Page 18 

WIDER IMPACTS


6.0 Overall assessment 

CONTEXT 

6.1 Policy EC17 of PPS4 sets out how planning applications for development not in an existing 

centre or in accordance with an up to date development plan should be determined. This is 

one such application. 

6.2 There are two circumstances under which planning permission should be refused: 

� Where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach; 

� Or where there is clear evidence that the proposal will lead to significant adverse 

impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policy EC10.2 and Policy EC16.1, 

taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent planning permissions, 

development under construction and completed developments. 

6.3 We are not satisfied that the applicant has adequately satisfied the sequentially approach 

nor are we satisfied that they have demonstrated that no significant adverse impact will 

arise. 

6.4 Before we can reach a view we need the further information identified throughout our 

critique. 

6.5 In the event that WYG satisfactorily demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable 

sites and that there will be no significant adverse impacts, officers will need to reach a 

judgement, taking into account the positive and negative benefits of a new retail scheme 

and, in particular, the retention of Prodrive in the area. 

Page 74 

Page 19 

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Page 75 

Legal or 

ownership 

problems 

� Such as: 

� Multiple ownerships 

� Ransom strips 

� Tenancies 

� Operational requirements 

of landowners 

Based on advice in CLG Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach 

Sequential assessment criteria 

Availability 

Pre-conditions to 

development 

� Such as: 

� Allocation in DPD 

� Remedial action by third 

parties 

Ownership 

� Willingness of owner to 

bring forward the site for 

development within a 

reasonable timescale; or 

� Progress made by the 

authority on site assembly 

through compulsory 

purchase

Page 76 

Policy 

restrictions 

� Such as: 

� Designations 

and protected 

areas 

� Existing planning 

policy 

� Corporate or 

community 

strategy policy 



Suitability 

Physical 

problems 

� Such as: 

� Access 

� Infrastructure 

� Ground 

conditions 

� Flood risk 

� Hazardous risks 

� Pollution or 

contamination 

Potential 

impacts 

� Such as effects 

on: 

� Landscape 

features 

� Built heritage 

Amenity of 

future users

Page 77 

Market factors 

� Such as: 

� Adjacent uses 

� Economic return of 

existing, proposed and 

alternative uses in terms 

of land values 

� Attractiveness of the 

locality 

� Level of potential market 

demand 



Viability 

Cost factors Delivery factors 

� Such as: 

� Site preparation costs 

related to any physical 

constraints 

� Any exceptional works 

� Planning policies or 

obligations bearing on the 

site 

� Prospect of funding or 

investment to address 

identified constraints or 

assist development 

� Such as: 

� �� 

� Realistic build-out rates 

on larger sites (including 

likely earliest and latest 

start and completion 

dates) 

� S106/CIL costs 

� Whether there is a single 

developer or several 

developers and their size 

and capacity

BANBURY GATEWAY 


Critique of Supplementary Retail Assessment 

March 2012 

Page 78

CBRE 

INTRODUCTION 

1. CBRE was instructed by Cherwell District Council to critique a Retail Planning Assessment 

prepared by WYG Planning & Design (herea�� 

development of a retail scheme of 27,432sqm GIA floorspace. 

2. We raised a number of issues in our critique, which WYG have sought to address in a 

Supplementary Retail Assessment. A draft copy of the Supplementary Retail Assessment was 

made available to CBRE on the afternoon of Friday 20 February 2012 for discussion by 

CBRE, WYG and Cherwell District Council officers at a meeting on the morning of Monday 

23 February 2012. Following the meeting, WYG issued a final version of their 

Supplementary Retail Assessment. This paper provides a critique of that final version. 

APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 

Area of search for sites 

3. At paragraph 2.6 of our initial assessment we recommended that WYG assess potential 

sites for at in-centre and at edge-of-centre locations in Bicester and Kidlington. 

4. WYG contend at paragraphs 4.1.1 of their Retail Statement Addendum that this would not 

be appropriate, as the scale of development would not be appropriate for these centres. 

Assuming there is no scope for disaggregation, and we consider this below, we are content 

with this explanation. 

Flexibility and the scope for disaggregation 

5. At paragraph 2.8 of our initial assessment we recommended that the applicant is asked to 

provide further information to justify why the Marks & Spencer and Next units would not 

work without the other smaller retail units, i.e. why they cannot be disaggregated from 

another. 

6. �� 

required to meet commercial requirements. That may be the case, but the CLG Practice 

Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach is not sympathetic to this 

argument, noting at paragraph 6.35 that: 

The requirement to incorporate a range of uses in order to achieve a viable development is 

unlikely in itself to be sufficient reason for promoting development in less central locations 

where more central appropriate sites exist, which can accommodate elements of the 

proposal. 

7. Moreover, the likely ��development is that the 

development will be a standalone retail destination, with a greater potential for a significant 

impact, an issue with which we deal below. 

8. Finally, if it is reasonable to disaggregate the proposed floorspace, the case for widening 

the search area much improves. We therefore think there is a strong case to look for sites in 

Bicester and Kidlington, an exercise which has not been undertaken. 

9. �� that the availability of alternative sites (or rather 

units) for the proposed A3 units is not, on its own, a sound reason to dismiss the whole of 

the development. However, the provision of A3 units on the site alongside a substantial 

amount of A1 floorspace is likely to consolidate the proposed development as a standalone 

Page 79 

Page 1

CBRE 

destination, which again has implications for the impact on the town centre, as the 

likelihood of a linked trip is reduced. 

Assessment of alternative sites 

Background 

10. At paragraph 2.11 of our initial assessment we advised that more information is required 

on whether the sites at Bolton Road and the Canalside are sequentially preferable, that is, 

whether they are available and suitable and whether development is likely to be viable. 

11. WYG note at 4.1.11 that the Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential 

Approach �� 

available for development within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of 

a particular case, having regard to inter �� 

suggest that availability should be assessed �� 

�� Elsewhere in their report (at paragraph 5.3.5) 

�� 

12. We do not accept that there is significant leakage from Banbury. The market share 

identified in the retail study reflects the fact that other centres lie in and around the study 

area, and these centres quite reasonably capture some of the available expenditure. It 

follows that we do not accept that the market share must be urgently improved (or, as WYG 

�� 

13. Moreover, given that clawing back expenditure will almost certainly divert trade from town 

centres (with potential negative impacts), there needs to be a very clear rationale for doing 

so. In principle, it might be for one or more of the following: 

� To maintain or improve the vitality and viability of one or more town centres; 

� A need to regenerate or boost the economic performance of one or more town centres; 

� To reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car 

14. That rationale has not been provided. 

15. In short, no compelling case has been made for urgently providing the amount of 

floorspace proposed. This leads us to conclude that it cannot be reasonable to search only 

for sites which might come forward in the next three to five years. 

Bolton Road 

16. WYG suggest at paragraph 4.1.14 and 4.1.17 to 4.1.18 that the Bolton Road site is 

unlikely to be available in the short- to medium-term and that it should therefore be 

discounted. For the reasons we set out above, we do not see an immediate need to provide 

the amount of floorspace proposed. We consider that the site is likely to be available in the 

long-term, and it cannot therefore be discounted on that basis. 

17. Turning to suitability, WYG argue at paragraphs 4.1.16 to that 4.1.17 that the site is not 

large enough for the development as a whole. For the reasons we set out above we do not 

��arguments on disaggregation, and thus this is not in itself enough to render 

the site unsuitable. It is also not enough to suggest, as WYG appear to do at paragraph 

4.1.18, that a foodstore is a more appropriate use, as other retail development could 

forward alongside a foodstore. Finally, we understand from officers that the land ownership 

issues are unlikely to be an insurmountable barrier. 

Page 80 

Page 2

CBRE 

18. Finally, in terms of viability, �� 

viability appraisal. Nevertheless, we note that they accept that development would be viable 

if supported by a foodstore. We therefore see no reason, in principle, why some of the 

proposed floorspace might be developed alongside a foodstore. 

19. In summary, we are not satisfied that this site is not sequentially preferable. 

Canalside 

20. WYG suggest at paragraph 4.1.21 that this site should be discounted on the basis that it is 

not available in the short- to medium-term. For the reasons we set out above, we do not see 

an immediate need to provide the amount of floorspace proposed in the short- to mediumterm. 

We consider that the site is likely to be available in the long-term, and it cannot 

therefore be discounted on that basis. 

21. Nevertheless, we accept that a number of factors bear on the suitability of the site for 

substantial retail development and the likely viability of development, and these are 

helpfully set out by WYG at paragraphs 4.1.25 to 4.12.7 of their statement. Together, these 

lead us to conclude that the site is not sequentially preferable. 

TOWN CENTRE IMPACTS 

Background 

22. Policy EC17 of PPS4 makes clear that planning applications for main town centre uses 

which do not demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach should be refused. On 

that basis, the application should be refused solely on that basis. 

23. �� 

preferable sites, attention must then turn to whether there will be an adverse impact. If the 

adverse impact, if any, is significant, the application must be refused. 

24. If the adverse impact is not significant, Policy EC17 requires that the application is 

determined by taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any 

other material considerations. 

25. An assessment of impact requires consideration of the criteria at Policy EC16 of PPS4: 

� The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private 

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; 

� The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local 

consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail 

offer; 

� The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in 

accordance with the development plan; 

� The impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, 

taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment 

area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on 

the rural economy; 

� Any locally important impacts on centres identified in the development plan. 

26. The fourth of these criteria influences the preceding three. Whilst accepting fully that there 

can be absolutely no certainty about the final occupiers of the proposed development, we 

Page 81 

Page 3

CBRE 

sought advice from WYG on the types of retailers that LXB might seek to attract to the 

scheme. 

27. Very little information has been provided by WYG on the types of retailer that LXB might 

seek to attract. They note simply at paragraph 3.1.09 that occupiers might include retailers 

of electricals, fashion, toys, furniture, homewares, clothing and shoes (though it is not clear 

how this differs from fashion), carpets and flooring, DIY goods and sports goods. This 

implies that th�� 

there is an urgent need to improve market share. Additionally, we sought advice on 

convenience goods trade diversion. 

Impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover 

Comparison goods 

28. Notwithstanding the uncertainty over likely occupiers, we have re-examined the impact 

analysis prepared by WYG and summarised in Table 6.2 of their original Retail Planning 

�� 

whereby the proposed new development trades at £86.9m in 2016. 

29. The second column of Table 6.2 shows the anticipated diversion from each of the 

centres/locations in the study area used in the Cherwell Retail Study. It totals £48.5m, which 

implies that the remaining £38.4m (44% of the total £86.9m) will be diverted from 

centres/locations outside the study area. We accept that some shopping trips are likely to be 

diverted from, for example, Oxford and Milton Keynes, and that the proposed Next and 

Marks & Spencer will have a substantial draw, but the retail offer in Oxford and Milton 

Keynes is of a different order. We also recognise that, if we have properly understood 

�� 

residents living outside the study area. However, this seems ambitious, given the alternative 

retail provision in and around the study area. As such, 44% is, in our view, an 

overestimate. 

30. The result of the exercise is that the impact on some of the centres in the study area is likely 

to have been underestimated. We have therefore rerun the exercise, assuming a much 

greater draw from stores in the study area. This is, we think, a more realistic assessment of 

likely draw. A copy of our analysis is attached as an appendix. 

Convenience goods 

31. We have some concerns about the analysis of convenience goods trade diversion. In short: 

� �� 

� ��ade will be from other, similar 

�� 

�� 

an overestimate; 

� Even if 58% of trade diversion is from stores outside Cherwell district, it is not clear from 

which stores it is likely to be drawn, and therefore impossible to assess impact on other 

centres outside Cherwell district. 

Page 82 

Page 4

CBRE 

Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability 

32. We recognise that even under the revised scenario, the most significant diversions of trade 

are from the out of centre locations, and do not immediately suggest a significant impact 

on overall vitality and viability of the town centres, bearing in mind their current health. 

33. However, we are mindful of the possibility that Next may not remain in Banbury town centre 

in the long-term. WYG say that they will remain until at least 2016, but that is only four 

years away. This suggests that they may run two stores for no more than two years. 

Additionally, Marks & Spencer have prov�� 

continue to operate two stores, but it places no formal obligation on them. The long term 

future of a Marks & Spencer store in the town centre cannot, therefore, be assured. As both 

are important anchors, their loss could have a significant impact on the town centre. 

34. We are also mindful that whatever the direct impact of the proposed Marks & Spencer food 

hall, it will provide shoppers with a greater opportunity to all their shopping on one site, 

thereby discouraging journeys to the town centre (whether as part of a linked trip or on 

another occasion). This would have a further impact on the town centre. 

Impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and 

private investment 

35. Turning to the remaining criterion on which we sought further information, we are 

concerned that there may be an impact on the aspirations for development of the Bolton 

Road and Canalside side (and in particular the former). WYG argue that the impact on 

Bolton Road at paragraph 6.1.3 that will not be significant, for the following reasons: 

� A key factor in securing the success of the Bolton Road site is bringing a supermarket to 

the heart of the town centre, and the Banbury Gateway proposals will not impact on 

retail demand for convenience food floorspace within the town centre which is the 

cornerstone to its success and viability; 

� The anchor retailers at Banbury Gateway are likely to strengthen investor confidence in 

the Banbury catchment area. Other retailers are likely to be more willing to invest in the 

Banbury catchment area, including the town centre, given the significant investment 

being made by Marks & Spencer and Next, who are confident that they can support a 

store in the town centre as well as at Banbury Gateway. 

� Considerable capacity remains for comparison goods retail floorspace after the 

floorspace for Banbury Gateway is taken out, this is particularly the case given the 

timescales involved in bringing forward the Bolton Road site. Provided that the Bolton 

Road proposals accord with retailer requirements, there is proven strong demand for 

retail floorspace in the catchment area. 

36. Dealing with each of these in turn: 

� We recognise that a foodstore is a key part of the aspirations for the Bolton Road site, 

but it is only part of the aspirations for the site. The draft SPD says that the focus for the 

site should be on the provision of larger retail units to complement the smaller units in 

the town centre. The Banbury Gateway proposals could put delivery of this element of 

the Bolton Road proposals at risk. 

� It is hard to see how investor confidence in the town centre will be encouraged by the 

development of a major out of centre retail development. Moreover, as we explain 

above, the long-term future of the town centre Marks & Spencer and Next stores is far 

from certain. 

Page 83 

Page 5

CBRE 

� Even if considerable capacity does remain: 

It seems likely that a retail development at Banbury Gateway proposals will serve 

only to delay implementation of a scheme at Bolton Road; 

It is not clear that there is �proven strong demand for retail floorspace in the 

catchment area�� WYG have themselves been unable to identify likely occupiers of 

the proposed development at Banbury Gateway. 

37. WYG apply the same arguments to the Canalside site. The same responses apply, although 

we recognise that the implications are less significant given the longer timetable for 

delivery. 

38. In summary, we think there is a strong possibility that the proposed scheme at Banbury 

Gateway will hinder delivery of a scheme at Bolton Road and, to a lesser extent, at the 

Canalside site. We regard this as a potentially significant impact, which might justify refusal 

of the application in the terms identified in Policy EC17 of PPS4. 

WIDER IMPACTS 

39. We sought advice on the information provided on number of jobs created. WYG have 

explained that the 340 new jobs referred to: 

� Do not refer to net additional jobs; and 

� Represent a full time equivalent. 

40. In other words, no account has been taken of possible job losses at existing stores as a 

result of trade diversion. However, we are pleased to see that the estimate does not over 

inflate the likely number of job losses by counting all part time jobs as individual jobs. 

Overall, we anticipate a positive impact in terms of jobs creation. 

CONCLUSIONS 

41. In our view, the sequential approach has not been satisfied, and although the direct impact 

on the vitality and viability of the town centre may not be significant, it may put at risk the 

development of proposed investment at Bolton Road and, to a lesser extent, the Canalside 

site. Either would justify refusal of the application. 

42. If, however, officers are content that the sequential approach has been satisfied and the 

adverse impacts will not be significant, the positive and adverse impacts of the scheme will 

need to be weighed against one another. 

43. There is little doubt that there will be an adverse impact, but we also recognise that there 

may be some positive benefits, including an extension of consumer choice, albeit at an out 

of centre location with, in our view, little prospect of significant numbers of linked trips to 

the town centre. We also recognise that new jobs would be created and that, subject to 

�� 

it may cross-subsidise the relocation of the Prodrive development, securing jobs in the area. 

All these factors will need to be weighed against one another. In doing officers will 

doubtless wish to consider the appeal decision referred to by WYG at paragraph 7.1.5 

(PINS ref APP/Z4718/V/11/2155777). 

Page 84 

Page 6

DO NOT DELETE 

CBRE 

APPENDICES 

Page 85 

Page 7

Page 86 

Table 1 

CBRE assessment of trade diversion 

TURNOVER WITHOUT 

CENTRE/LOCATION 

DEVELOPMENT IN 2016 (£M) 

WYG ESTIMATE OF TRADE 

DIVERSION (£M) 

IMPLIED TRADE DRAW (%) IMPLIED IMPACT (%) 

CBRE ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT OF 

TRADE DRAW (%) 

IMPLIED TRADE DIVERSION (£M) IMPLIED IMPACT (%) 

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Banbury town centre 454.89 15.50 17.8% 3.4% 30.0% 26.1 5.7% 

Banbury out of centre 117.16 25.70 29.6% 21.9% 33.0% 28.7 24.5% 

Bicester town centre 125.1 0.40 0.5% 0.3% 8.0% 7.0 5.6% 

Bicester out of centre 54.95 4.10 4.7% 7.5% 9.0% 7.8 14.2% 

Chipping Norton town centre 28.43 0.10 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Charlberry 2.22 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Moreton-in-Marsh town centre 12.01 0.10 0.1% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2 1.4% 

Stow-on-the-Wold town centre 4.76 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Shipston on Stour 11.97 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Southam 9.15 0.00 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Daventry toen centre 70.62 0.20 0.7% 0.3% 1.0% 0.9 1.2% 

Daventry out if centre 4.2 0.60 0.1% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Towcester 9.87 0.10 0.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

Buckingham town centre 34.26 0.10 0.8% 0.3% 1.5% 1.3 3.8% 

Buckingham oout of centre 4.74 0.70 0.1% 14.8% 0.2% 0.2 3.7% 

Brackley 14.58 0.10 0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2 1.2% 

Kidlington 42.67 0.10 0.6% 0.2% 1.0% 0.9 2.0% 

Witney town centre 203.37 0.50 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4 0.2% 

Witney out of centre 2.74 0.20 0.2% 7.3% 0.4% 0.3 12.7% 

Total diversion from centres/locations inside study area 48.50 55.8% 85.0% 73.9 

Total diversion from centres/locations outside study area 38.4 44.2% 15.0% 13.0 

Total turnover of proposed development 86.9 100.0% 100.0% 86.9 

Notes: 

1. Sourced from WYG Retail Statement, Table 8 (final column) 

2. Sourced from WYG Retail Statement, Table 10 (column 6) 

3. WYG estimate of trade diversion / total turnover of proposed development 

4. WYG estimate of trade diversion / turnover without development in 2016 

5. CBRE estimate 

6. Total tunover of proposed development * CBRE alternative assessment of trade draw 

7. Implied trade diversion under CBRE scenario estimate of trade diversion / turnover without development in 2016

¯ 

THORPE DRIVE 

THORPE WAY 

THORPE MEAD 

Scale 

1:5,000 

Estate 

THORPE CLOSE 

Sewage Works 

Agenda Item 7 

11/01878/OUT 

Dismantled Railway 

Page 87 



© Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018504

¯ 

COPE ROAD 

SOUTHAM ROAD 

PIPE LANE 

MARLEY WAY 

CASTLE STREET 

HIGH STREET 

OXFORD ROAD 

GRANGE ROAD 

NORAL WAY 

FARMFIELD ROAD 

ELMSCOTE ROAD 

WYKHAM LANE 

Scale 

1:24,000 

BRITANNIA ROAD 

CHERWELL STREET 

HIGHTOWN ROAD 

ELTON ROAD 

SYCAMORE DRIVE 

11/01878/OUT 

BRIDGE STREET 

TRAMWAY ROAD 

HENNEF WAY 

KINGFISHER DRIVE 

WEST STREET 

BANKSIDE 

BROAD GAP 

WILDMERE ROAD 

MANOR ROAD 

AUSTIN ROAD 

CAUSEWAY 

WEEPING CROSS 

ERMONT WAY 

THORPE WAY 

THORPE MEAD 

OVERTHORPE ROAD 

BANBURY ROAD 

Page 88 

BANBURY LANE 


TWYFORD ROAD 

M40 UNNAMED SECTION ( 6819285) 



11/01878/OUT 

Applicant: 

Site Address: 

Ward: Banbury Grimsbury 

and Castle 

Date Valid: 20.12.2011 

Barwood Developments Ltd and Kennet Properties 

Land South of Overthorpe Road and Adjacent the M40, Banbury, 

Oxfordshire 

Proposal: Erection of up to 115,197sqm of floorspace to be occupied for either B2 

or B8 (use classes) or a mixture of both B2 and B8 (use classes). Internal 

roads, parking and service areas, landscaping and the provision of a 

sustainable urban drainage system incorporating landscaped area with 

balancing pond and bund (OUTLINE) 


1.1 

Located on the eastern edge of Banbury, this 28.47ha site, is bounded on its 

eastern edge by the M40 motorway and to the west by existing warehouse 

development and the Thames Water sewage works. To the north lie existing and 

recently constructed B2/B8 units and to the south the site to be developed is 

bounded by the former railway line, however a balancing pond is proposed for the 

agricultural field to the south of this physical boundary. Access to the site is via an 

existing roundabout on the Overthorpe Road. At a lower level than the surface of 

the M40, the site is relatively flat and mainly characterised by scrub type vegetation 

of no significant maturity together with trees of varying maturity and value on the 

field boundaries. Public footpaths run adjacent to part of the western boundary of 

the site before crossing the site diagonally towards the motorway and then turning 

north along the eastern edge of the site adjacent to the motorway. A ditch runs 

along most of the western boundary of the site and a surface water culvert runs 

across the southern section of the site. 

1.2 The application proposes to develop the site for a mix of B2 and B8 uses with 

ancillary B1 floorspace. The indicative plans indicate six very large buildings 

arranged on the site, accessed by an extension to the existing spine road, with 

servicing and lorry parking situated to the rear (between the buildings and the 

motorway). Balancing ponds are proposed to the south of the dismantled railway. 

The application proposes to divert the footpaths so that the route runs along the 

spine road and around the southern edge of the proposed buildings before rejoining 

the existing footpath to the east of the site and continuing in a straight line north 

rather than following the District boundary as it does now. A planted landscape 

bund is proposed on the eastern side of the site adjacent to the public footpath. The 

application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved other than access. 

1.3 The site lies largely within this Council’s administrative area, however there are 

parts that lie within South Northamptonshire’s administrative area. The parts of the 

site beyond this District’s boundary include a small lozenge shaped area on the 

eastern side of the site and the south eastern most corner of the site together with 

the area proposed for the balancing ponds. Around 9000sqm of built footprint would 

be situated on this land. An application for the proposed development has been 

submitted to South Northamptonshire Council which is being considered by 

Members of its committee on 15 March 2012. 

Page 89


2.1 The application has been advertised as a major development, a departure from the 

development plan and as affecting a public right of way. Site notices were posted 

around the site and an advertisement was published in the local press. The final 

date for comment was 02 February 2012. 

2.2 

One letter of representation has been received from Councillor Ann Bonner (ward 

member) who objects to the proposals on the following summarised grounds: 

� Number of additional vehicular movements 

� Original designation of land (not B8) 

� No opportunity for relief road 

� Vastness of proposals 

� Loss of valuable industrial land to warehouses 

� Town requires more diverse mix of industries and companies with more 

technical/scientific base 

� Smaller units required 

� Non-aspirational jobs for school leavers 

� Few jobs in warehouses 

� No lorry park – environmental health problems in laybys 

� Area doesn’t have infrastructure for HGVs 

� Improvements on Middleton Road will be undone = traffic congestions 

� Environmental effect – higher levels of pollution 


Banbury Town Council objects to the application for the following reasons: 

� Site has potential to deliver SE relief road (priority of the town council and 

supported by OCC) 

� Access strip needs to be fully protected and road needs to be built to standard of 

Ermont Way without junctions 

� Increased B8 = fewer employees and not very skilled (detriment to Banbury’s 

manufacturing heritage 

� Town needs more diverse mix of jobs 

� Banbury doesn’t have infrastructure to cope with number of HGVs associated 

with the development 

� HGV parking concerns 

� Air quality concern/pollution levels exacerbated. 

� Overnight parking outside of the site leads to obstruction, litter, environmental 

health issues. TVP are concerned 

Bodicote Parish Council (CDC) comments that the area is susceptible to flooding. 

As the site is next to the motorway HGVs wont need to go through Banbury town 

centre. 

Warkworth Parish Council (SNC) raises concerns about traffic generation, traffic 

routes from the site, some of which are unsuitable for HGVs (weight and height 

restrictions). They make suggestions for carriageway improvement and traffic lights 

ensuring easy passage to M40. They state that a relief road would be the best 

solution and the route should be preserved for the future. 

Page 90

Overthorpe Parish Council (SNC) raises the following concerns: 

� Increase in traffic using Overthorpe Road particularly at peak times 

� Current road infrastructure insufficient to accommodate 

� Vehicle speeds already excessive 

� Little/no protection for cyclists/pedestrians 

� Development increase likelihood of accidents 

� Premature degradation of new road surface 

� ‘Access Only’ often abused: this will compound problem. 

� Lack of clear signage. No access to M40 through Overthorpe should be properly 

addressed. 

� Increase in parking of HGVs on road overnight. 

Chacombe Parish Council (SNC) no comments to date 

Middleton Cheney Parish Council (SNC) no comments to date 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Planning Policy Officer CDC) 

states that the application largely accords with Policies SP3 and RE3 of the South 

East Plan and PPS1 and PPS4 however this is subject to matters of flood risk, 

justification for extending the site beyond allocated land and the nature of the 

employment (original preference B1/B2). 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Planning Policy Officer SNC) No 

policy objection. Proposal would not undermine important open gap providing 

development does not breach M40. 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Design and Conservation Team 

Leader CDC) considers the application to be contrary to planning policy for the 

following reasons: 

� Very prominent site 

� Important that it presents an attractive and welcoming image to help promote the 

town 

� ‘Appropriate transition between town and country’ (Design and Access 

Statement) not achieved 

� High density (leaving little space for landscaping and amenity) 

� SPD guidance re height and density not followed 

� Inward looking with little attempt to address M40 

� Entire frontage to M40 marked by service yards with little room for screening 

� Not convinced that disused railway will effectively screen 

� Dev not designed around retention of historic right of way 

� Layout should build on landscape features not obliterate them 

� 10m buffer insufficient to mitigate. Minimum of 20m required adjacent M40 (C8 

aCLP) 

� Option for relief road should not be precluded by development 

� Proposals constitute over development 

Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Environmental 

Protection Officer CDC) raises no objections subject to conditions which cover 

further investigative works that are required in relation to developing the site. 

Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Environmental 

Protection Officer SNC) Not likely to cause any significant pollution impacts in 

Page 91

South Northamptonshire District if reasonable precautions taken. 

Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Anti Social 

Behaviour Manager CDC) Appropriate noise levels and lighting design to be 

achieved at the detailed planning stage. 

Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Health Protection 

Officer SNC) Scheme should be designed to meet standards of Health and Safety 

Executive guidance document HSG136 ‘Workplace Transport Safety’. 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Economic Development Officer 

CDC) states that the principle of employment generation is established through the 

non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan. However makes the following remarks: 

� Cherwell Economic Development Strategy looks for number of jobs and variety. 

� Should support needs/demands of local businesses. Canalside business will be 

looking to relocate locally had hoped this proposal could meet their needs. 

� Design should be of higher quality to inspire pride, visitors an future investors 

� Travel Plan doesn’t make allowances for 1000 commuters 

� Relief Road should not be overlooked 

� Reserved Matters should address all concerns raised. 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Economic Development Officer 

SNC) is supportive of scheme which would generate a significant number of jobs and 

the uses are appropriate for this strategic location. Query over number of jobs 

created and suggested s106 requirements re local workforce and training initiatives 

Head of Environmental Services (Tree Officer CDC) objects on following grounds: 

� Every significant oak tree within the footprint of the proposed buildings has been 

removed including those identified as being worthy of retention 

� Emergency TPO placed on the rest of the trees 

� Insufficient detail – no method statement and no protective fencing. 

Landscape proposals are not enough to mitigate against loss or provide green buffer 

to M40. 

Head of Environmental Services (Landscape Officer CDC) states that: 

� No consideration has been given to the impact on the Oxford Canal and railway 

corridor 

� Detailed landscaping proposals required 

� Further landscape mitigation is required 

� Gently undulating bund visually better than a uniform bund 

� Ecological enhancements supported 

� One years maintenance required together with management plan 

Head of Community Services (Nature Conservation CDC) states that an 

incomplete summary of wildlife value is available. The work did not cover all of the 

site and was carried out at sub-optimal times. No European Protected Species were 

noted however reptiles are likely to present. Relatively small amount of ecological 

enhancement proposed given the scale of the scheme. Green roofs are suggested. 

Conditions relating to biodiversity enhancement and reptile mitigation are 

recommended. 

Page 92

Head of Community Services (Rights of Way Officer CDC) 

� Footpath diversion required to enable development. 

� No Public Rights of Way Statement submitted 

� PPO could be justifiable given nature of development however insufficient 

information to assess suitability. 

� Detailed proposals for footpath diversion required if approved. 

� Complicated by fact that diversion would cross border into South 

Northamptonshire’s district 

Head of Recreation and Health (Arts and Tourism Manager CDC) requires 

£1,151,970 towards public art 

Oxfordshire County Council recommends to Cherwell District Council that, given 

that the need for economic development is so important at the current time, it does 

not object to the development proposed provided that: 

a) permission is subject to a legal agreement to secure contributions to 

improvements to infrastructure and transport measures to mitigate the impact 

of the development; and 

b) permission takes into account recommendations from the County 

Council as Highway Authority on an appropriate split of employment use 

classes for the gross floor area of the proposed development site. 

It is also recommended that the County Council informs Cherwell District Council 

that, whilst the need for economic development is supported, there are wider 

considerations. The County Council shares the concerns raised by local Councillors 

and, hence, would ask Cherwell District Council to take these into account when 

setting any planning conditions. 

Local Member View summary of to Member’s comments: 

a. could lead to an imbalance of unskilled warehouse/distribution 

(class B8) employment for Banbury, contrary to the objectives of 

Brighter Futures in Banbury Programme; 

b. could give over too much valuable industrial land to 

warehousing, inhibiting relocation of businesses currently 

occupying sites within the Canalside regeneration area; 

c. could generate large numbers of HGV trips on the local road 

network with consequent air quality and lorry parking problems 

affecting local residents; and 

d. would include visually intrusive, large scale buildings 

OCC Transport 

Transport Assessment 

� There are traffic restrictions on surrounding roads 

� No alternative routes for definitive footpaths shown 

� Construction management travel plan required 

- Wheel washing 

- Routeing 

- Delivery times 

Page 93

Traffic Generation, Distribution and Modelling 

� 50:50 B2/B8 split required 

� S106 contributions required towards sustainable highway infrastructure 

Public Transport 

� Nearest bus service beyond recommended walking distances 

� Travel plan must take robust approach 

Parking 

� Parking levels to be conditioned 

Layout 

� Road = acceptable width 

� Footway to be same as existing 

� Tactile paving and crossing points required 

� Loading/unloading/manoeuvring/waiting layout to be conditions 

� Private Road agreement required 

Relief Road 

� Long term aspiration for OCC for town’s future growth (LTP3) 

� Previous application did not prejudice relief road 

� As proposed application will terminate future delivery 

� Relief road not considered necessary to serve the development as there is 

exiting capacity within the network 

Routeing Agreement 

� Already restrictions over HGVs through residential areas and site provides own 

parking facilities for HGVs 

� Routeing agreement not necessary 

Travel Plan 

� Shower facilities essential to encourage walking and cycling 

� Travel Plan coordinator to be identified and funded 

� 1 x Travel Plan required per unit 

� Signed, safe and convenient walking and cycle routes required to site. 

Conclusion 

� Not sustainable to recommend refusal 

OCC Archaeology states that the site has been the subject to an archaeological 

evaluation which did not record any archaeological features. Therefore no further 

work is required. 

OCC Footpaths Proposed diversions are reasonable. £50,000 is required for the 

diversions and to formalise access to former railway line 

OCC Drainage Roof water and hard standing run off to go to soak away or SUDs 

and not to highway drainage. Full drainage plan /calculations required 

Northamptonshire County Council comments as follows: 

� No measures re impact on Northamptonshire or enhancing sustainability of site 

� Poor location in terms of encouraging non-car modes 

Page 94

� Existing footways limited 

� Limited safe crossing points 

� Limited public transport service 

� Majority of site located in excess of reasonable walking distance from bus 

services 

� Travel Plan should indicate 20% shift away from single car occupancy trips but 

only shows 10% (should be amended accordingly) 

� Indicative layout prevents buses entering and turning 

� Basic level of sustainability to be achieved by 

- Bus infrastructure 

- 2 x bus stops 

- Pedestrian cross facilities and footway connections 

- Financial contribution of £75,000 towards bus service 

- Walking/cycling audit to improve measures 

- Revised travel plan 

� Signage strategy required 

� £30,000 toward traffic calming in Overthorpe should rat running become a 

problem 

� Junctions indicated at over capacity in 2016 yet no mitigation proposed. 

� 2021 as future year should be assessed (not 2016) 

Conclusion 

No objections in principle subject to agreement of the above, S106 and conditions. 

NCC Archaeology Part of site used for munitions manufacturing during first world 

war. Recording of remains required. Proposals will have a detrimental impact upon 

any archaeological deposits on the site. Therefore detailed investigation and 

recording required. 

OCC Developer Funding Team No objections or requirements 

NCC External Funding Partnership considers that a contribution towards Fire and 

Rescue would be necessary. 

Highways Agency states that the application should be refused or granted subject 

to the following condition: Not more than 5% B1 and not more than 50% B2. 

Police Architectural Liaison Officer states that an addendum to the Design and 

Access Statement is required in terms of creating safe/sustainable 

places/environments. Units would be exposed on all sides and therefore would be 

vulnerable to crime. Security provisions are vital in terms of reducing opportunities 

for crime. 

Environment Agency raises no objections as the submitted flood risk assessment 

is sufficient. It demonstrates that the development will not increase flood risk. Some 

concerns raised about the proposed pumped system. Conditions recommended 

relating to development being carried out in accordance with FRA, detailed design, 

surface water drainage scheme, management of flows in western ditch and fluvial 

flood storage. 

Thames Water advises in relation to ground water, surface water drainage, waste 

water infrastructure and water pressure. 

Page 95

BBOWT no comments received to date 

Ramblers Association/Oxford Fieldpaths Association/Open Spaces Society no 

comments to date 


4.1 ADOPTED POLICY 

4.1.1 National Planning Policy 

PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development 

PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 

PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment 

PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 

PPG 13 Transport 

PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control 

PPG 24 Planning and Noise 

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk 

4.1.2 South East Plan 

Policy SP3 Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance 

Policy CC1 Sustainable Development 

Policy CC2 Climate Change 

Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation 

Policy RE1 Contributing to the UK’s Long Term Competitiveness 

Policy RE3 Employment and Land Provision 

Policy T1 Manage and Invest (Transport) 

Policy T4 Parking 

Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality 

Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management 

Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity 

Policy NRM9 Air Quality 

Policy NRM10 Noise 

Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management 

Policy C5 Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe 

Policy BE1 Management for and Urban Renaissance 

4.1.3 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) 

Policy S10 Development in Banbury commercial Areas 

Policy TR1 Transportation Funding 

Policy C1 Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Value 

Policy C2 Protected Species 

Policy C4 Creation of New Habitats 

Policy C7 Landscape Conservation 

Policy C8 Sporadic development in the open countryside 

Policy C9 Scale of development compatible with a rural location 

Policy C17 Enhancement of the urban fringe through tree and woodland planting 

Policy C28 Standards of layout, design and external appearance 

Policy ENV1 Development likely to cause detrimental levels of pollution 

Policy ENV7 Development affecting water quality 

Policy ENV12 Development on Contaminated Land 

Page 96

4.2 DRAFT POLICY 

4.2.1 Draft Core Strategy (February 2010) 

Policy E1 Employment Development 

Policy SD5 Sustainable Construction 

Policy SD6 Sustainable Drainage Systems 

Policy SD8 Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural 

Environment 

Policy SD13 The Built Environment 

Policy I1 Infrastructure 

4.3 NON STATUTORY POLICY 

4.3.1 Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 

The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan is not part of the statutory development plan 

but it has been approved as interim planning policy for development control 

purposes. 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

Planning History 

In relation to the northern quarter of the site and within Cherwell District Council’s 

administrative area only, Members resolved to approve planning application 

10/01823/OUT for 19,000sqm of B2/B8 development subject to a legal agreement 

to secure transport infrastructure contributions. The legal agreement was not 

finalised and the application has recently been withdrawn. There is no other 

planning history relating to the site. 

Planning permission has recently been granted for B2 and B8 uses on the site to 

the north which are being occupied by Firstline and Goodrich (applications 

10/01868/HYBRID and 11/00867/REM refer). 

5.2 Key Issues 

5.2.1 The application stand to be assessed against the following key issues: 

� Principle 

� Transport Impact 

� Landscape Impact and Design 

� Trees 

� Rights of Way 

� Flood Risk and Drainage 

� Land Contamination 

� Air Quality 

� Noise? 

� Archaeology 

� Ecology 

� Crime Prevention 

� Public Art 

� Planning Obligation 

Page 97

5.3 

5.3.1 

PRINCIPLE 

The application seeks permission for a mix of B2 and B8 uses on the site. Whilst 

the land is not allocated for any development in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

1996, approximately one half of the site is allocated for employment use (B1/B2) in 

the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan (adopted as non-statutory policy in 2004). 

Although this Plan did not proceed to adoption, the principle of employment use on 

this site had been identified as being appropriate through the evidence base 

supporting the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan, which subsequently led to its 

draft allocation for employment use. 

5.3.2 The Employment Land Review (2006), undertaken to inform new planning policies 

in the Local Development Framework (LDF), recommends that the site be 

designated for future B2/B8 employment development 'to supplement the existing 

employment uses in the area'. This 2006 report is currently being updated. 

5.3.3 The Draft Core Strategy 2009 (which, when adopted, will form part of the LDF for 

Cherwell), proposes to allocate the site for employment generating development. 

The supporting text highlights that development should be predominantly a mix of 

B1 and B2 uses. However it is stated that the Highways Agency and the County 

Council have previously expressed concerns about traffic generation as a result of 

high density employment uses. 

5.3.4 With regard to the acceptability of the proposal in principle, national guidance PPS4 

states that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive 

approach towards planning applications for economic development and that 

planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated 

favourably subject to a number of considerations. 

5.3.5 HPPDM is advised by HSPE that from a planning policy perspective, the proposal 

accords largely with Policies SP3 and RE3 of the South East Plan and the National 

Planning Policy context. However consideration needs to be given to flood risk, the 

justification for (and adverse impacts of) developing land beyond the allocation and 

the nature of the employment use proposed given earlier indicated preferences for 

B1 and B2. 

5.3.6 Flood risk is addressed below at para 5.7, and it is stated that the proposal does 

not pose a risk. 

5.3.7 The justification for developing this land is employment generation and it is not 

considered that the there would be any adverse impacts of developing the land 

beyond the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan and draft Core Strategy allocations 

as despite the fact that, strictly speaking, the development would encroach into 

open countryside, the land in question is no longer farmed, as access to it is quite 

limited and the development would be situated between the M40 and existing 

industrial and sewage works land, which already have an urbanising affect on the 

site’s context. The southern extent of the site would be bounded by the former 

railway line, which is considered to be a defensible boundary. Other matters of 

detail are addressed below, however strategically and as a matter of principle, it is 

not considered that the development of the land would cause material harm. 

Page 98

5.3.8 Turning to the nature of the employment use proposed, consultee and Members 

concerns are noted about extensive B8 floorspace and the subsequent job 

numbers and job type created. However the application states that around 1000 

new jobs would be generated by the development, and the applicant’s agent has 

provided some supporting information which sets out that whilst logistics and 

distribution fall into the B8 use class, the sector has become a vital part of the UK 

economy employing 8% of the UK’s workforce which is equal to the construction 

sector and higher than the Financial Services Sector (estimated at 4% of the UK’s 

workforce). 

5.3.9 This information supports a shift in the characteristics of B8 which have become 

more sophisticated (more skilled jobs) and requiring a greater number of 

employees. For this reason and in light of the current economic downturn and 

together with the content of the Employment Land Review HPPDM considers that 

the creation of jobs and the subsequent strengthening of the employment sector, 

even if this is as a result of a significant amount of B8 use, must not be overlooked. 

5.3.10 However, the proposal seeks an unrestricted B2/B8 use which would be market 

driven and as such, if the application was approved as submitted, the site would be 

in a position to respond to any demand for employment floorspace which could 

mean 100% B8 use. This would not fully reflect the non-statutory Cherwell Local 

Plan and Cherwell Draft Core Strategy allocations and for this reason and to 

address the concerns raised by consultees and third parties relating to the sole use 

of the site for B8 use HPPDM considers it necessary to impose a condition 

restricting B8 use to no more than 50% of the total floor area. 

5.3.11 For the reasons stated and subject to the condition restricting B8 use, HPPDM 

considers the proposal to be acceptable in principle as it complies with the 

provisions of PPS4, Policies CC1 and RE3 of the South East Plan and Policies 

EMP1 and EMP2 of the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan. The finer detail of the 

application is discussed below. 

5.3.12 Due to the fact that the land is not allocated for development in the aCLP 1996, if 

Members resolve to approve the application, this would be a departure from the 

Development Plan and as such departure procedures must be followed. 

5.4 TRANSPORT IMPACT 

5.4.1 It is proposed to access the site via the existing roundabout junction on the 

Overthorpe Road, which was constructed as part of the previously approved 

planning application. This roundabout has been adopted by the Local Highway 

Authority and also provides access to the industrial units located off Lombard Way. 

The roundabout leads to an existing spine road which remains unadopted and 

which leads to the site in question. The two routes that can be taken from the site 

include travelling east along the Overthorpe Road towards the villages of 

Overthorpe and Warkworth, or west and then to the north along Ermont Way 

leading to either the M40 or Banbury. 

5.4.2 With regard to the impact of the development upon the existing network, the 

Transport Assessment submitted with the application gives consideration to the 

likely traffic generation arising from two different use scenarios. The use scenario 

with the greatest likely impact on the highway network being 50% B2 and 50% B8. 

The Transport Assessment does not assess the impact of 100% B2 use across the 

Page 99

site. Both the Highways Agency and the County Council have therefore assessed 

the application based on a 50/50 use split and it is recommended that the 

application should only be permitted if it is subject to a condition restricting the B2 

use to a maximum of 50%. The Highway Agency states that this is required to limit 

the impacts on the highway network to the predictions in the Transport 

Assessment. 

5.4.3 The Local Highway Authority concurs with this recommendation subject to a 

financial contribution to be paid by the developer towards sustainable highway 

infrastructure. The amount to be paid is currently under negotiation. 

5.4.4 The Local Highway Authority advises that there is adequate parking and 

manoeuvring space for both cars and heavy goods vehicles within the site. Full 

details of the layout of loading, unloading, waiting and manoeuvring space to be 

assessed at the reserved matters stage. 

5.4.5 A detailed and robust Travel Plan will be required at the time of any reserved 

matters application. NCC also considers it necessary to require £75,000 towards a 

bus service and to secure a signage scheme clearly directing traffic along Ermont 

Way from the site. Negotiations are ongoing with the developer in relation to these 

matters. 

5.4.6 Consideration has been given to securing a routeing agreement to and from the 

site, however the County Council believes that there are sufficient restrictions in 

place in the form of weight and height limits along the Overthorpe Road and an 

access only restriction into Overthorpe itself. Overthorpe is perhaps the most 

vulnerable to increased traffic movements as the village provides alternative 

access to the M40 rather than using Ermont Way in times of heavy traffic. For this 

reason and in spite of the access only restriction, NCC considers it necessary to 

secure £30,000 from the developer in the event that traffic increases as a direct 

result of the development. Negotiations are currently taking place with the 

developer in order to secure this. 

5.4.7 A routeing agreement for construction traffic is required by Oxfordshire County 

Council which the developer is in agreement with. 

5.4.8 Reference is made by a number of consultees that land must be reserved to form 

part of a south eastern relief road from the new roundabout on Overthorpe Road, 

running adjacent to the application site and then around the southern side of 

Banbury. This is based on significant concern about congestion within the town 

centre and inner relief roads. The adopted Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 

2011-2030 sets out strategic targets for Banbury which include making the best use 

of existing road space, making improvements to junctions and roads within the 

town and working in partnership with the Highways Agency and Cherwell District 

Council as required. The plan states that when resources and opportunities allow, 

the targets will be achieved by a number of objectives which include continuing to 

promote the long-term aspiration of Banbury relief roads (although these are major 

infrastructure projects likely to require Central Government funding that will not be 

available within the period of this Plan). 

5.4.9 The Council’s Draft Core Strategy makes reference to a South East Relief Road in 

the context of its evidence base, however the draft Strategy makes no reference to 

Page 100

such a road in any of its policies or proposed allocations. 

5.4.10 Given the wording of the LTP, which clearly states ‘when resources or opportunities 

allow’ and the direct reference to the requirement for Central Government funding 

which will not be available within the plan period, together with the fact that there is 

no other policy background to this aspiration, the Council is not in a position to 

insist that land is preserved for the relief road in question. Furthermore, the County 

Council confirms that the development itself would not generate a level of traffic 

that would require a relief road to be constructed as a direct consequence of the 

proposal and as such it would be unreasonable to require the developer to reserve 

land for such an aspiration. For these reasons, Members should note that the 

County Council would not be prepared to defend a reason for refusal for the 

application based on the termination of an opportunity for a future relief road. 

5.4.11 With the imposition of a condition restricting the use of the site to no more than 

50% B8 of the total floorspace as required by both the Highways Agency and 

Oxfordshire County Council as Highway Authority HPPDM is satisfied that the 

proposed development would not have a detrimental transport impact. Access to 

the site (which is a matter of detail) is considered to be acceptable. Therefore, and 

subject to all other necessary conditions and the developer entering into an 

agreement which secures the financial contributions referred to, HPPDM considers 

that the application complies with PPG13: Transport, Policies T1 and T4 of the 

South East Plan, Policy TR1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Policies TR1, 

TR3, TR4 and TR5 of the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan. 

5.5 LANDSCAPE IMPACT/DESIGN AND LAYOUT 

5.5.1 This undeveloped site is visible from many vantage points, including from the 

adjacent countryside and rights of way immediately adjacent, and from along the 

Oxford Canal. Some of the key vantage points due to being on higher ground are 

from Bankside, the A422 and from the Overthorpe Road on approach to Banbury. 

Clear views of the site are also gained from the motorway given its direct 

relationship with the site. 

5.5.2 The area to the north and east of the site is characterised by industrial 

development, with open countryside to the south. The buildings immediately to the 

north are those recently granted consent (for Firstline and Goodrich) which are both 

in the region of 12,000sqm and 12.5m in height. To the west of these new buildings 

is the 3663 building which is approximately 16,000sqm and between 12 and 14m in 

height. 

5.5.3 The concept of large industrial units in this location is therefore established and for 

this reason, together with the Council’s objective for employment generating 

development on the site, such an approach is considered to be appropriate in 

principle. However the buildings as shown indicatively are particularly large; some 

of them shown as far greater in footprint than the existing buildings and they are 

indicated as being up to 19m in height. Officers understand that the height of each 

building would be occupier led and therefore dependant upon the operational 

requirements of each, details of which would be secured at the reserved matters 

stage. 

5.5.4 The footprint and maximum height of the buildings has generated much concern 


amongst consultees and third parties. The Council’s Design and Conservation 

Team Leader in particular has reservations about the scheme, raising concerns 

about the density, scale and indicated layout of the buildings given the prominence 

of the site, together with limited opportunities for comprehensive landscaping and 

failing to achieve a successful transition between town and country. She refers to 

the Council’s adopted SPD ‘Design and Layout of Employment Sites’ which gives 

guidance in relation to the height of buildings (16m as an absolute maximum) and 

their distance from the boundary (a ratio of 1:2 - height: distance to boundary). She 

also makes reference to the fact that the proposal indicates that the entire frontage 

to the M40 would be service yards with little room for screening. 

5.5.5 As indicatively proposed, the buildings would dominate views of the site, 

particularly due to their scale given the scale of surrounding development. Whilst in 

most cases the buildings are shown as being capable of complying with the 

distance from the boundary ratio as set out in the SPD referred to above, they 

would not accord with the height guidance. Each building would have the potential 

for being up to 5m higher than the surrounding buildings, which would be significant 

in terms of the visual and landscape impact of the proposal. 

5.5.6 It is recognised that the site is not particularly sensitive due to its location adjacent 

to existing industrial development and the M40 and therefore the extent of building 

coverage across the site is considered to be appropriate, however officers consider 

that it would be necessary to restrict the height of the buildings at the outline stage 

to no more than 16m in height. This would allow the developer some flexibility 

when marketing the site to potential occupiers; however the overall height limitation 

would better respect the scale of the surrounding development. 

5.5.7 In terms of the positioning of the service yards, the developer recognises this 

concern, however states that the design concept of the development as a whole is 

a high end business park and as such all servicing etc is intended for the rear of 

the units. A landscape bund is proposed and officers have discussed a fast growing 

hedge line on the top of the bund to assist with screening the services areas in a 

short time period whilst the rest of the landscaping establishes itself. It is expected 

therefore that the landscaping scheme would be designed to almost fully screen 

the service areas when viewed from the motorway and soften the appearance of 

the buildings, whilst not obscuring them completely from view. 

5.5.8 With regard to the appearance of the buildings it would be critical to ensure that 

they are designed and finished (materials and colouring) to reduce the overall 

visual impact of the proposal (details to be secured at the reserved matters stage) 

and a comprehensive and well designed landscaping scheme would be paramount 

to ensuring that the buildings are integrated into their surroundings. 

5.5.9 Comments received from the Council’s Landscape Officer state that further 

consideration needs to be given to the impact of the proposal upon the Oxford 

Canal and the railway corridor and that further landscape mitigation is required. 

A gently undulating bund rather than a uniform bund would be more visually 

appropriate. If the application is approved, landscaping would be dealt with at the 

reserved matters stage and an exceptional landscaping scheme would be expected 

together with a comprehensive management plan. 

5.5.10 HPPDM considers that on balance an appropriate scheme can be achieved in 


scale and design terms and that subject to the detail of each building, particularly, 

scale, design and finishing (including colour finish) together with a comprehensive 

landscaping scheme the application complies with Policy C7 of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan and Policies EN34, EN36, D1 and D12 of the non-statutory 


5.6 RIGHTS OF WAY 

5.6.1 The proposals involve diverting the existing public footpaths on the site as referred 

to previously. Rather than taking a diagonal route across the existing field, the path 

would be diverted along the new road into the site and then around the end unit 

before returning north immediately adjacent to the motorway. 

5.6.2 The amenity of the eastern parts of the footpath would change quite significantly 

from the existing field to a formal, urbanised layout amongst the proposed buildings 

and adjacent to the vehicular access into the site which is somewhat unfortunate. 

The amenity of the western parts of the footpath is already affected by noise 

emanating from the motorway. On this side, the proposed landscaping scheme 

could assist with improving the amenity of the footpath. 

5.6.3 The Council’s Countryside and Communities Manager believes that the diversion 

could be justified given the nature of the development and to avoid HGVs however 

there is insufficient detail to assess the suitability of the proposals at this stage. 

The diversion is Complicated by fact that diversion would cross border into South 

Northamptonshire’s district however this is resolvable. 

5.6.4 The County Council’s Rights of Way Officer states that the proposal should mitigate 

against any impact of the proposal upon the current footpath and support measures 

to provide links with the open countryside. For this reason, whilst it is considered 

that the proposals for the footpath diversion are reasonable, £50,000 is required to 

formalise a link from the south east corner of the site onto the former railway line 

which would provide a publicly accessible route for workers and residents in the 

area. 

5.6.5 Given the above assessment HPPDM considers that securing and formalising the 

link to the former railway line would compensate for any loss of amenity to the 

existing footpath on the eastern side of the site and as such the development would 

not cause overall harm to the amenity of the footpaths which is in accordance with 

Policy R4 of the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan. 

5.6.6 It should be noted that if the application is approved, the proposal could not go 

ahead unless the affected public rights of way have been diverted. If this process 

leads to an objection the diversion would be considered at an inquiry. 

5.7 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE 

5.7.1 Parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and a Flood Risk Assessment has 

been submitted with the application. The Environment Agency raises no objections 

to the application stating that as proposed the development will not increase flood 

risk. This view is subject to a number of conditions relating to carrying out the 

development in accordance with the FRA, surface water drainage design, fluvial 

flood storage design and the management of flow in the western ditch. 


5.7.2 

Oxfordshire County Council as Drainage Authority raises no objections subject to 

conditions relating to SUDS, and full drainage details. 

5.7.3 Subject to the recommended conditions, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposal 

accords with PPS25, NRM4 of the South East Plan and Policy EN15 of the nonstatutory 


5.8 LAND CONTAMINATION 

5.8.1 Ground condition reports have been submitted with the application. The Council’s 

Environmental Protection officer has assessed these and raises no objections to 

the application however further investigative work is required prior to the 

commencement of the development relating to gas monitoring and risk 

assessment, risk from land contamination and the remedial measures required in 

relation to any findings. Prior to he occupation of the development all remediation is 

to be carried out in accordance with that identified as required. 

5.8.2 Subject to the recommended contaminated land conditions, HPPDM is satisfied 

that the proposal accords with PPS23. 

5.9 AIR QUALITY 

5.9.1 Policy NRM9 of the South East Plan states that proposals should contribute to 

sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution in the region. The Council’s 

Environmental Protection Officer believes that the proposal has the potential to 

affect the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on Hennef Way which was 

designated in this first quarter of 2011 and the significance of the expected impact 

requires assessment. 

5.9.2 An Air Quality Assessment was submitted with the application which concluded that 

there would be a slight increase in the levels of nitrogen dioxide as a result of the 

proposed development, however it is not expected that the development would 

exceed any of the AQMA objectives and as such no further mitigation would be 

required other than those measures set out in the Travel Plan. 

5.9.3 For these reasons, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed development is unlikely 

to cause harm to air quality or be detrimental to the identified AQMA on Hennef 

Way. 

5.10 ARCHAEOLOGY 

5.10.1 An archaeological field evaluation was carried out in relation to the site in October 

2008 which revealed no deposits of archaeological significance and as such it was 

concluded that the site has no archaeological potential. The County Archaeologist 

is satisfied with these conclusions and makes no further recommendations other 

that making the developer aware of their responsibility should further finds be 

discovered during the implantation of the development. 

5.10.2 The application therefore complies with the elements of PPS5 which relate to 

archaeology. 


5.11 ECOLOGY 

5.11.1 The Council’s Ecologist remarks that the ecological assessment does not cover the 

whole site and was carried out at a suboptimal time. It is also noted that the three 

key trees on the site that had potential for bat habitat (however which were recently 

surveyed as not supporting habitats for bats) have now been removed. For this 

reason, which is noted in the survey the site is unlikely to support any bat habitat or 

resting place and as such it is concluded that the proposed development is unlikely 

to have an impact upon European Protected Species. For this reason an offence 

would not be committed under Regulation 41 of the Conservation Regulations 2010 

and as such a licence from Natural England would not be required. 

5.11.2 There is potential for reptiles on the site. Reptiles are not a European Protected 

Species and as such a licence from Natural England would not be required. 

However the developer must mitigate against any impact which is required via 

planning condition as set out by the Council’s Ecologist. 

5.11.3 With regard to biodiversity, PPS9 states that ‘the aim of planning decisions should 

be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests’ it 

continues by stating that where significant harm would be caused, an alternative 

site should be considered. Where an alternative site is not available appropriate 

mitigation should be achieved and if this is not the case appropriate compensation 

should be secured. Finally if compensation cannot be secured the application 

should be refused. 

5.11.4 In this case, it is not considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to 

biodiversity and as such it must be accepted that the development is appropriate 

for the site. Mitigation and enhancement measures are proposed and would be the 

subject of planning conditions in the event that the application is approved. 

5.11.5 HPPDM is satisfied that the application pays due regard to the current ecological 

and biodiversity issues on site and that subject to the recommended conditions 

relating to mitigation and enhancements, the application complies with PPS9 and 

Policy NRM5 of the South East Plan. 

5.12 CRIME PREVENTION 

5.12.1 Thames Valley Policy raises concerns about the fact that the site would be 

exposed on all sides due to the location of the diverted public footpath and for this 

reasons, opportunities for crime would be created. A comprehensive scheme for 

securing the site is required which can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage. 

5.13 PUBLIC ART 

5.13.1 The Council’s Public Art Advisor requires the developer to create a locally relevant 

work of art on or near the site which is based on the Public Art Policy and the 

Council’s Draft Planning Obligations SPD. The requirement for public art is applied 

to any development exceeding 100sqm, the calculation for which is £10 per sqm of 

development. 

5.13.2 The developer has indicated verbally that they may be willing to contribute towards 

an identified requirement for a piece of artwork, however the Council has not 


identified such a requirement within the immediate area. Suggestions by officers 

include contributing towards a piece of art on the Hennef Way/Ermont Road 

Roundabout. 

5.13.3 Negotiations are ongoing with the developer in relation to this matter. 

5.14 PLANNING OBLIGATION(S) 

5.14.1 Based on the consultation responses to the proposed development, it is considered 

that any permission relating to the proposed development should be the subject of 

an agreement acceptable to both Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire County 

Council’s to secure contributions towards the sustainable highway infrastructure, 

the provision of a bus service, traffic calming, the provision of a footpath link and to 

secure appropriate highway signage and the implementation and monitoring of a 

Travel Plan. Negotiations in relation to all matters are ongoing. 

5.15 CONCLUSION 

5.15.1 The proposed development for B2 and B8 uses is considered to be acceptable in 

principle when considered against planning policy and guidance as although a 

large extent of B8 would not normally be acceptable, there is evidence through the 

Employment Land Review that B8 uses could be supported. Furthermore, the 

proposal would secure a considerable number of jobs for Banbury which would 

assist with complementing the current employment sector which is considered to 

be particularly important in the current economic climate. However in order to 

ensure that a mix of employment generating development is achieved and to 

address consultee and Members’ concerns, it is recommended that a condition be 

imposed which restricts B8 use to 50% of the total floorspace. HPPDM agrees with 

this approach. 

5.15.2 With regard to transport impact the Highways Agency and Oxfordshire County 

Council as Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise 

to unacceptable transport impacts subject to a condition which restricts the B2 use 

of the site to no more than 50%. HPPDM agrees with this approach. 

5.15.3 The proposal raises significant concerns about scale and design which are 

reserved matters in this instance, however the Design and Access Statement 

documents the likely scale and appearance in detail. As layout and appearance are 

reserved matters, and given the fact that the development of the land for 

employment generating development is, as referred to above, considered to be 

acceptable, HPPDM is satisfied at this stage that the proposal is acceptable subject 

to significant alterations to the detailing and a condition restricting the height of the 

buildings to 16m. 

5.15.4 Given the preceding assessment of the proposal, HPPDM is satisfied that the 

proposed development is acceptable in principle as it would not cause material 

harm in terms of transport/highway impact, landscape impact (subject to detailing) 

or in relation to matters of flood risk, contamination, biodiversity/ecology and 

archaeology. Any approval would be subject to an agreement securing 

contributions towards the town’s infrastructure. 

5.15.5 For the above reasons, the application accords with the principles set out in 


national and local planning policy, in particular PPS1, PPS4, PPG13 and PPS25 

and Policies SP3, CC1, T1 and NRM4 of the South East Plan. 

5.15.6 The exact wording of the recommended conditions is still subject to discussions 

between CDC and SNC officers and the applicant. It is hoped this will be resolved 

before the committee meeting, however if further discussions are required, HPPDM 

seeks delegated authority to finalise the wording of the conditions after the 

committee meeting. 

5.15.7 Due to the fact that the site is not allocated in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

however, the proposal must follow departure procedures. 

6. Recommendation 

Approval, subject to: 

(i) Applicant entering into an Agreement acceptable to Oxfordshire County 

Council (and Northamptonshire County Council if necessary) to secure 

contributions towards sustainable highway infrastructure and the 

implementation and monitoring of a Travel Plan (and a bus service and 

traffic calming where Northamptonshire County Council is party to the 

agreement). 

(ii) South Northamptonshire District’s resolution in relation to the same 

application (to be presented to Committee Members at SNC on 15 March 

2012). 

(iii) Departure procedures; 

(iv) Conditions which cover the matters listed below. 

1. Standard time limit re submission of REM 

2. Standard time limit re commencement of development 

3. Approved Drawings 

4. No more than 50% B2 

5. No more than 50% B8 

6. Height restriction for all buildings of 16m 

7. Landscaping buffer width and details 

8. Landscaping scheme 

9. Landscape management 

10. Carrying out of planting scheme 

11. Biodiversity enhancement 

12. Reptile mitigation 

13. Fluvial flood storage 

14. Development to be carried out in accordance with FRA 

15. Surface water drainage scheme details 

16. Details of management of flows in western ditch 

17. Parking levels 

18. Roof water and hard standing run off to go to soak away or SUDs and 

not to highway drainage. 

19. Details of drainage plan and calculations 

20. COU does not relate to area beyond dismantled railway line 

21. Noise details 


22. Lighting details 

23. DAS and some drawings NOT approved 

24. Tree protection 

25. Access formed and laid out 

26. HGV plan 

27. Construction management plan 

28. Construction materials for roads 

29. Footpath/cycle path to remain available 

30. Archaeological work (SNC only) 

31. Cycle parking provision 

32. Green Travel plan 

33. Phased risk assessment (contaminated land) 

Planning Notes: 

Thames Water letter (via public access) 

Secure by Design 

Breeam Excellent consultation with CPDA 

SNHs Key Principles 

Ecology 

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION AND 

RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 

The Council, as local planning authority, has determined this application with 

primary regard to the development plan and other material considerations. Although 

a departure from the development plan, it is considered to be acceptable on its 

planning merits as the proposal would introduce increased employment 

opportunities in a sustainable location and would not give rise to any unacceptable 

transport or landscape impact, furthermore the proposal is considered to be 

acceptable in terms of flood risk, land contamination, biodiversity, archaeology and 

the affected Public Right of Way. As such, the proposal is in accordance with 

government advice contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, 

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, PPS9: Biodiversity and 

Geological Conservation, PPG 13: Transport, PPS25: Development and Flood 

Risk, Policies SP3, CC1, RE3, T1, T4, NRM4 and NRM5 of the South East Plan, 

Policies TR1, C2, C7, C17, C28 and ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

and Policies EMP1, EMP2, TR1, TR3, TR4, TR5, R4, EN6, EN17, EN25, EN34, 

EN36, D1 and D12 of the non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons 

given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the Council considers that 

the application should be approved and planning permission granted subject to 

appropriate conditions, as set out above, and a legal agreement to secure the 

essential infrastructure requirements. 



¯ 

Scale 

1:1,250 

Agenda Item 8 

11/01766/F 

SS 

Woodstock Gap 

CC A 4095 

69.0m 

Page 109 


70.6m 

LINCE LANE

¯ 

BANBURY ROAD 

Tackley 

Scale 

1:15,000 

STATION ROAD 

JEROME WAY 

11/01766/F 

Page 110 

MILL LANE 

LINCE LANE 

CROWCASTLE LANE 


HATCH WAY 

OXFORD ROAD 

TROY LANE 

HEYFORD ROAD 

BLETCHINGDON ROAD 

PORT WAY 

SPRINGWELL HILL 

OXFORD ROAD 

HAMPTON GAY VILLAGE STREET 

AKEMAN STREET 

CAUSEWAY

Application No: 11/01766/F Ward: Kirtlington Date Valid: 22/11/11 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Stephen Bell 

OS Parcels 7977, 8962 and 9553 north of Lince Lane, Kirtlington 

Erection of commercial glasshouse and ancillary agricultural building, 

requiring the levelling of part of the site and new access on to Lince Lane. 


1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Bridgeside Farm is the name given to a recently acquired piece of land (approx. 

10.5 hectares) located between Enslow and Kirtlington. Roughly rectangular in 

shape and having a maximum depth and width of 230m and 115m respectively, the 

application site forms part of an arable field which makes up a significant proportion 

of the applicant’s plot. Fronting directly on to Lince Lane (A4095) the application site 

is bounded by Kirtlington Golf Club to the east and north and the Oxford Canal, The 

Enslow Marsh Sedgebed, and a wooded area to the west. The field lies just outside 

the Oxford Green Belt, but inside an Area of High Landscape Value. There are two 

footpaths in the close proximity, one runs alongside the canal (134/24 & 270/16) 

and the other cuts through the golf course (270/12). The site would also be visible 

from a footpath (270/13 & 134/1) on the opposite side of Lince Lane which provides 

a links the golf course to Bletchingdon. The ‘bridge’ referred to in the site name is a 

grade II listed late 18 th Century tilting canal bridge which is located to the west of the 

application site roughly in line with the north west boundary of the red line area. 

Planning permission is being sought to erect a large commercial glasshouse which 

has a footprint of 96.3m x 68.3m and a ridge height of 5.4m. Positioned immediately 

behind the glasshouse, when viewed from the road, would be a steel clad 

agricultural building (15m x 55m). The agricultural building, which has a ridge height 

of 8m, would be sub-divided into the following: boiler room; fuel store; refrigeration 

room; packaging store; rest room; and toilet. The ‘store’ areas account for most of 

the floor space. The biomass (wood chip) boiler would be served by an 11.6m high 

flue. 

The undulating field, which slopes away from the golf course down to the canal, will 

have to be levelled. It is estimated that the cut and fill required to level the site will 

roughly cancel each other out (the maximum amount of cut will be approximately 

5m deep). The applicant is also proposing to relocate the entrance to the field in an 

attempt to overcome issues with the existing vision splay. 

It is estimated that the operation will require a full-time member of staff, with a 

further six employees being hired on a part-time basis. The number of movements 

to and from site is therefore expected to be relatively limited, particularly as the 

strawberries will not be sold to passing members of the general public. The fruit 

produced would be destined for the supermarket shelf requiring a single HGV visit 

to the site each day. 

Page 111

1.5 

1.6 

1.7 

Despite the size of the glasshouse, the applicant argues that the 6,584m² of space 

is the minimum required to ensure long-term viability of his operation (strawberry 

production). Much is made of the eco credentials of the business. Aside from 

making use of state of the art equipment including a computer controlled 

environment, the applicant argues that all the water requirements for the business 

will be met by harvesting the rainwater from the roof of the glasshouse. The 

applicant is also proposing a reed bed to the west of the buildings which will deal 

with much of the operation’s waste material and the biomass boiler will use a 

carbon neutral fuel. 

An earlier application (10/01784/F) was withdrawn to allow the owner more time to 

address the proposal shortcomings by providing much more detail. This fresh 

application is supported by a Transport Statement, Landscape Impact Assessment, 

and an Arboricultural Report. 

Aside from these reports, the applicant has provided a brief overview of his 

business and his intentions for the site. It reads as follows: 

“I am 48 years old & have been involved in glasshouse growing for 32 years 

(17 years in soft fruit production). 

“I personally feel that the way forward for the industry is to build small units 

supplying local markets with fresh produce. 

“I am currently the managing director of a family run glasshouse business 

growing strawberries. My daughter is a director and is now ready to take over 

the management task which would leave me free to develop & manage the 

proposed glasshouses at Lince Lane, a site which I have owned since 2009. It 

is my intention to apply for a temporary agricultural dwelling, allowing my wife 

and I to live on site and manage the crop. For most of the year we would not 

need any outside help, but during the picking seasons we intend to recruit 

local labour, so avoiding the need to accommodate seasonal workers. 

“I hope to build a state of the art unit which is ecologically & environmentally 

friendly which does not use Polytunnels. 

“The principal customer will be one of the major supermarkets as they are 

very keen to source local ethically produced fruit over as long a season as is 

possible. One of the advantages of dealing with the supermarkets is that all 

the day’s fruit is picked up by one vehicle, usually in the late afternoon or early 

evening, thus avoiding the traffic issues associated with farm gate sales. 

“The glasshouse will produce two crops per year both in a high value season 

when U. K. fruit is in very short supply. Producing 65-70 tonnes of fruit per 

year the business should turnover £300k-£350k per year with a profit margin 

of approximately 15%.” 


2.1 

The application has been advertised by way of site notice. The final date for 

comment was the 22 March 2012. 

Page 112

As of the time of writing, 1 letter has been received. The following issues were 

raised: 

• Highway safety 

• Potential water shortage given volume of water required by operation 

• Potential problems with reed bed sewage system 


3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

Kirtlington Parish Council objects to the proposal on the following grounds: 

“scale of development too large, negative impact on the public view across the 

land, negative impact on the rural surroundings (ref also Cherwell DC 1996 

Local Plan, Policies C7, C8 and C9) 

“The Parish Council repeats its concerns about the access: the slight change in 

the access position will not improve road safety here. The straight section of 

road past the bend is used for speeding and overtaking. 

“The Parish Council repeats its scepticism about the water supply. 

“The Parish Council interprets this development as catering for fruit production 

on a substantial scale designed to cater for supermarket demand. There is 

scepticism about the stated employment level of the equivalent of 3 full-time 

jobs, and an expectation that this would be a 24-hour operation.” 

The Environmental Protection Officer raises no objection subject to informative. 

The Landscape Officer has raised no strong objection to the scheme and provided 

the following comments: 

“From the report it appears that the lower magnitudes/significance of 

effects on receptor / viewpoints 3 to 8 and the medium to high impact magnitude 

and moderate / substantial significance of effect associated with receptor 

experience on the Oxford Canal towpath 270/15 is appropriate – refer to 

viewpoints 1 and 2, pp 14. However, upon reading the EA’s response 

concerning the onsite fill material and whether it is appropriate for the 

development and if additional fill material is to be imported, this will increase the 

construction magnitude impacting on Lince Lane, the B 4027, Enslow and 

Kirtlington with increase in lorry traffic, associated noise, dust, and extension of 

construction timescales. I assume that a survey is to be implemented to 

ascertain the fill viability and the depth of bedrock. The work involved in 

removing the bedrock will also increase construction magnitude. 

“A large volume of topsoil will have to be taken off site. Topsoil is a valuable 

and diminishing resource that must be conserved. I would expect the topsoil to 

be sent to local development sites. 

“Because of the potential increase in magnitude of construction and the rather 

Page 113

3.4 

significant visual landscape impact of the development on receptors on the 

Oxford Canal (identified in viewpoints 1 and 2). I understand that with the 15 

year period of growth of the landscaping/woodland to the northwest site 

boundary indicates a low / negligible /slight evaluations – a photomontage of 

viewpoints 1 and 2 would clarify this – the early intervention of structure planting 

on this boundary would be welcomed prior to excavations/ ground works. For 

example planting must be implemented in the next planting season 12/13 after 

planning approval, if granted. Planting density and size of stock and 

maintenance is crucial to the success of the structure planting as a screen for 

receptors on the canal. 

“In the report I would welcome a consideration of the above mentioned matters, 

along with: 

a) more information about landscape mitigation measures, including a 

landscape masterplan; 

b) a photomontage of Viewpoints 1 and 2 showing before and after images 

with a 15 year period of landscape growth; 

c) the impact of glare on receptors and especially Oxford Airport (and 

specification/example of anti-glare glass as indicated in DAS). 

“The Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Sylva Consultancy shows the extent 

of the proposed woodland planting but with little detail. The tail end of the 

woodland planting, near the NW boundary needs to be thickened to ensure of an 

adequate screen for receptor/viewpoints 3 and 7. Understory planting is required 

to the woodland adjacent to the canal to ensure adequate screening for 

receptors on the canal. Detailed information regarding the species, the stock 

sizes and planting densities , including a landscape and maintenance 

specification (both to comply with HTA’s National Plant Specification – plant 

handling, establishment and maintenance) to ensure the landscaping is 

successfully established. All areas on site are to be identified as to the 

landscape treatment i.e grass, meadow, hardstanding/car parking etc.” 

OCC Highways Liaison Officer has raised no objections subject to condition. He 

comments as follows: 

“An appropriate vehicular access to County Council specifications will need to be 

constructed prior to development under a Section 278 Agreement. 

“The existing agricultural use generates few, if any vehicle movements per day. 

It is understood that staffing levels will consist of only 1 full-time member of staff, 

with 6 part-time being employed during harvesting periods. On this basis vehicle 

movements associated with the development are predicted to be low despite the 

relatively unsustainable location. It is not considered likely that staff will travel to 

the site by bus, or by foot, but there is some potential to cycle and cycle parking 

is to be provided. 

“A single LGV is expected to visit the site per day, with one further LGV 

delivering fuel once a week. A fortnightly waste collection is expected. In 

addition to the staff vehicle movements, this level of traffic generation is 

considered unlikely to raise any significant highway safety concerns. 

Page 114

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

3.8 

3.9 

“The construction of the development will require the extraction of a significant 

amount of material. However, subject to an appropriate access being 

constructed prior to development (including provision of visibility splays), it is 

considered unlikely that the predicted level of HGV movements over an 18 

month period will be a significant concern. Details of site management, including 

routeing, wheel washing, contractor parking etc will need to be secured by 

condition.” 

OCC Drainage Officer raises no objections subject to condition 

OCC Rights of Way Officer has not commented at the time of writing 

Environment Agency has raised no objections but have informed the applicant that 

they will need to acquire an environmental permit for the discharge of trade effluent 

into the proposed reed bed 

Thames Water raises no objections following the receipt of additional information 

from the applicant. 

London Oxford Airport (commenting on the 2010 application) did not raise any 

objections, but asked that the trees used to screen the development should be of a 

species that does not attract birds and that non-reflective glass should be used 

given the proximity of an aircraft manoeuvring area. 


4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development 

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 

PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 

PPG13: Transport 

PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control 

PPS25: Development and Flood Risk 

Policies CC3, CC4, C4, NRM1, NRM4, NRM5 and T4 of the South East Plan 2009 

Policies AG2, C7, C8, C13, C29, ENV1 and ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local 

Plan 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

5.2 

The Principle 

This type of development is relatively unusual in Cherwell. Indeed, there is only one 

recent similar proposal which was at Hill Farm on Blackthorn Hill (05/00502/F 

refers). Located just off the A41, this scheme was for the growing and processing of 

bean sprouts and oriental vegetables. It included the erection of a glasshouse and a 

processing facility which footprints of around 8,000m² and 4,700m² respectively. 

Despite receiving permission, following a protracted application process, 

thatapproval has not been implemented. 

There was much debate with the Hill Farm case as to whether the processing of the 

Page 115

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

5.6 

5.7 

5.8 

vegetables constituted an industrial rather than an ancillary agricultural operation. 

Both the applicant’s and the Council’s legal representation ultimately concluded that 

the processing (i.e. cleaning, packing, chilling and distributing) of the vegetables 

was an ancillary function that complied with the definition of agriculture as set out in 

Section 336 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. The fact that the 

vegetables would degrade quickly, i.e. the processing had to be done on site, was a 

key consideration. As strawberries also have a limited shelf life, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the growing and associated processing of strawberries is also 

agricultural. 

Having established its agricultural credentials, it is now a question of assessing the 

impact the buildings and the associated activity will have on the local environment 

against any agricultural/sustainability benefits to be derived from the operation. 

Visual Impact 

The most important consideration in this case is the visual impact the development 

will have on the surrounding landscape. The first thing to acknowledge is that the 

Enslow site is in a more visually sensitive part of the District than the Blackthorn Hill 

site. The application site is in an Area of High Landscape Value and is in close 

proximity to the Oxford Canal. It therefore has to be assessed against Policies C13 

and C29 as well as the district-wide landscape policies (C7 and C8) of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan (CLP). 

Although the proposed development would have an undoubted impact on the 

appearance of the surrounding countryside, the Development Control Practice 

website maintains that “a dogmatic stance that horticultural buildings should always 

be resisted as a matter of principle, purely because they are in an area of sensitive 

landscape is not likely to be supported (by the Inspectorate)…” 

It was therefore important to have a professional appraisal of the site - the applicant 

was therefore required to submit a landscape impact assessment. The report 

submitted focused on three individual criteria: landscape value; landscape quality; 

and overall sensitivity. For each of these categories the site was adjudged to have a 

medium rating. The report argues that the overall significance of visual effects 

would be slight to moderate adverse, reducing to slight adverse in the long-term. 

The same conclusion is also reached in respect of the landscape effects. 

The Council’s Landscape Officer’s (LO) analysis of the area does not contradict this 

appraisal. The site is already well screened from most directions; it is only the canal 

towpath that would afford the public significant views of the development. The LO 

concludes that providing the agricultural justification stands up to scrutiny, the 

proposal would be difficult to resist on landscape impact grounds. The LO has 

however recommended that the proposed landscaping could be improved so as to 

further reduce the impact of the development. 

Impact on the setting of a listed structure 

The glasshouse and steel clad agricultural building would be in close proximity to 

the grade II listed tipping bridge. Although the development would unquestionably 

harm the setting of the bridge, particularly in the short-term, the Conservation 

Officer did not feel that it would be possible to sustain at refusal at appeal based 

solely on these grounds. 

Page 116

5.9 

5.10 

5.11 

5.12 

5.13 

5.14 

5.15 

5.16 

As Members will be aware, the Council has commissioned external consultants to 

consider the merits of creating an Oxford Canal Conservation Area. Although it is 

quite probable that conservation area designation will ultimately be granted, this 

eventuality cannot have a significant bearing on the outcome of this application. It is 

also worth pointing out that the conservation area will largely be restricted to the 

canal and the towpath and would almost certainly not extend into the application 

site. 

Economic/sustainability credentials 

The one remaining Government objective identified in PPS7: Sustainable 

Development in Rural Areas (following the introduction of PPS4: Sustainable 

Economic Development) is to promote an agricultural sector that is sustainable, 

diverse and adaptable. 

The Government’s aspires to having a farming industry that achieves high 

environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and manages 

valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes both directly and indirectly to rural 

economic diversity; is itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality 

products that the public wants. 

From the information submitted, the applicant complies with these criteria. It would 

be difficult to argue that the development does not help encourage agricultural 

diversity by the growing of a high quality product for which there is an obvious 

market. Given the limited amount of labour required, it would also have a much 

better environmental footprint than strawberries that are shipped in from abroad. 

Concern has been voiced locally that the proposed operation would put undue 

pressure on the water supply for surrounding settlements. Thames Water originally 

re-iterated this disquiet, which is why further clarification of the scheme’s water 

harvesting system was sought. The veracity of the applicant’s calculations was not 

questioned and indeed allayed the concerns of the Thames Water officer dealing 

with the case. 

The effectiveness of the reed-bed soak-away system was also queried by an 

objector. Although the Environment Agency did not raise an objection they did point 

out that even if planning permission were to be granted, an environmental permit 

would be required before any works were carried out. As the applicant has 

significant experience of the industry, it is unsurprising that he was well aware of 

this and the other Environment Agency requirements. 

Although still a balanced decision, the HPP&DM is of the opinion that the merits of 

the scheme outlined above, outweigh any harm to both the surrounding landscape 

and the setting of the listed tilting bridge. The development is therefore considered 

to accord with Government guidance contained within PPS7. 

Highway Safety 

The OCC Highways Liaison Officer (HLO) had a number of concerns with the 

original scheme most notably the acceptability of the vision splay. Before 

resubmitting the applicant was encouraged to employ the services of a highways 

consultant to draw up a Transport Statement. Following discussions with the HLO, a 

new entrance onto Lince Lane was agreed which meets the necessary vision splay 

requirements (Since the last application was submitted, the speed limit along the 

Page 117

5.17 

5.18 

5.19 

5.20 

affected section of Lince Lane has been reduced from 60mph to 50mph). 

The HLO is also satisfied with the number of expected vehicle movements which, 

with the exception of the construction phase, will be limited to staff and a single 

HGV movement each day. It is worth re-iterating that there will be no sales to the 

general public from the site (condition 19 would prevent such sales). 

Air safety 

The applicant has confirmed that the proposed glazing will be non-reflective and will 

not therefore cause a problem for pilots flying in the vicinity of the glasshouse. To 

ensure that this is the case, if the application is approved, the details of the glass 

will be forwarded to the London Oxford Airport for comment. 

Other matters 

In his personal statement above the applicant alludes to the need for a dwelling. As 

with any other agricultural operation there is a procedure that will need to be 

satisfied before a dwelling can be erected on the site. The merits of such a proposal 

can only be considered when or if an application is submitted. 

Conclusion 

The HPP&DM concludes that any harm caused to the surrounding landscape and 

the setting of the nearby listed building is outweighed by the proposal’s agricultural 

and sustainability credentials. Furthermore, the highway/air safety concerns 

associated with the development can be appropriately mitigated by condition. As 

result the development is considered to comply with Policies CC3, CC4, C4, NRM1, 

NRM4, NRM5 and T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies AG2, C7, C8, C13, 

C29, ENV1 and ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. The HPP&DM 

therefore recommends this application for approval subject to condition. 


Approval, subject to the following conditions: 

1. 1.4A - Full Permission: Duration Limit (3 years) (RC2) 

2. Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, 

the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with: the 

Transport Statement produced by Badingham and dated 8 June 2011; the 

Landscape and Visual Report produced by Landscapevisual and dated the 7 

February 2012; and the arboricultural report Ref: 1215/AIA produced by Sylva 

Consultancy and the following approved plans: Proposed Glasshouse and 

Agricultural Building (1 of 4); and Site Location Plan (4 of 4) and the following 

revised plans received in the office on the 10/2/12: Block Plan (2 of 4); and 

Landscaping (3 of 4). 

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is 

carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority, and in 

accordance with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development. 

3. 2.2AA Details of materials and external finishes (RC4A) 

Page 118

4. 3.0AA Landscaping scheme (RC10A) 

5. 3.1AA Carry out landscaping scheme (RC10A) 

6. That prior to commencement of any development on the site, notwithstanding 

the details submitted, an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), undertaken 

in accordance with BS5837:2005 sections (Please specify if relevant) shall be 

submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works 

then to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed document. 

Reason - To ensure that no proposed operations impair the health of any 

retained trees in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and to comply 

with Policy C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the adopted 


7. No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision for the 

arboricultural protection measures has been approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. This scheme will be appropriate to the scale and duration 

of the works and should include details of: 

a) Induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters 

b) Identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel. 

c) Timing and methods of scheduled arboricultural site monitoring, record 

keeping, and the subsequent submission of information to the LPA. 

d) Procedures for dealing with variations and incidents. 

Please note, the Local Planning Authority may require the scheme of 

supervision to be administered by a qualified arboriculturist approved by the 

Local Planning Authority but instructed by the applicant. 

Reason - To ensure that no proposed operations impair the health of any 

retained trees in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the 

integration of the development in to the existing landscape and to comply 

with Policies G2 and EN1 of the Oxfordshire Local Structure Plan 2016 and 

Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

8. 4.0AB Access, specification proposed (RC13 BB) 

9. Prior to commencement of development a construction travel plan is to be 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Government 

advice contained in PPG13: Transport. 

10. 4.13CD Parking and manoeuvring area (RC13 BB) 

11. 4.14CC Cycle parking (RC66A) 

12. Prior to the commencement of the devepment vision splays measuring 2.4 

Page 119

metres x 215 metres shall be provided to each side of the access and 

maintained free free of obstructions over 0.9 metres in height thereafter. 



13. No vehicles associated with the development hereby by approved shall use the 

existing access, following the first use of the new access. 



14. The construction of the foul and waste water drainage system, including the 

reeedbed treatment system, shall be carried out in accordance with details 

which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to the commencement of development. 

Reason - To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in the interests of public 

health, to avoid flooding of adjacent land and property and to comply with 

Government advice in PPS25: Development and Flood Risk, Policy NRM4 of 

the South East Plan 2009 and Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

15. That no development shall commence on site until full details of a lighting 

scheme for the site, including the access drive, has been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the 

commencement of development. All external lighting shall be installed and 

thereafter operated in full accordance with the approved details. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to comply with 

Policies C28 and ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

16. The development hereby permitted shall be used only for the purposes of 

agriculture, as defined in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning 

Act, 1990. 

Reason - To ensure that the development is used for agricultural purposes 

only in accordance with Government guidance contained within PPS7: 


17. That no goods materials, plant or machinery shall be stored, repaired, operated 

or displayed in the open without the prior express consent of the Local 

Planning authority. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to comply with 


18. That only crops produced or grown within the application site shall be 

processed, stored and distributed within and from the buildings hereby 

approved. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the amenities of the area, in the interests of 

sustainability and to ensure a satisfactory form of development and to ensure 

Page 120

that the development is used for agricultural purposes only and to comply with 

Government guidance contained within PPS7: Sustainable Development in 

Rural Areas and PPG13: Transport and Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan. 

19. That the on site sale of agricultural produce to members of the public is not 

permitted. 



Planning Notes 

1. In respect of condition 8, a section 278 Agreement with Oxfordshire County 

Council will be required. The applicant is advised to speak to the Road 

Agreement on 01865 815008. 

2. ZZ - Contamination 

3. U1 - Construction 



The Council, as Local Planning Authority, has determined this application in accordance 

with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The 

development is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposal 

constitutes development for the purposes of agriculture and related processing and 

distribution which will not have a seriously harmful effect on visual amenity or highway 

safety. The development will also not harm the setting of the nearby listed building or 

adversely affect the Area of High Landscape Value. As such the proposal is in accordance 

with Government guidance contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development; 

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; PPS5: Planning for the Historic 

Environment; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPG13: Transport and 

PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control and Policies CC3, CC4, C4, NRM1, NRM4, NRM5 

and T4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies AG2, C7, C8, C13, C29, ENV1 and 

ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons given above and having regard 

to all other matters raised, the Council considers that the application should be approved 

and planning permission granted subject to appropriate conditions, as set out above. 

CONTACT OFFICER: Paul Ihringer TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221817 

Page 121

¯Agenda Item 9 

Heathfield Cottages 

Cottages 

Cattery 

Scale 

Heathfield 1:3,000 

Heathfield House 

68.9m 

Track 

67.6m 

The Lodge 

11/01784/F 

HEATHFIELD VILLAGE 

Golf Driving Range 

Page 122 

Pond 

UNNAMED-A34-DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (6803621) 

A34 BY BLETCHINGDON 



64.0m 

63.7m

¯ 

PINCHGATE LANE 

ISLIP ROAD 

Scale 

1:7,500 

B4027 FROM A34 ( 6819218) 

STREET THROUGH HEATHFIELD VILLAGE 

11/01784/F 

HEATHFIELD VILLAGE 


A34 BY BLETCHINGDON 

Page 123 


UNNAMED-A34-DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (6803621)


11/01784/F 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Investfront Ltd. 

Ward: Kirtlington Date Valid: 03/01/12 

Heathfield Golf Centre, Heathfield, Bletchingdon 

Change of use to caravan park to include replacement of existing building 

with new (office/reception, shop, store, launderette, kitchen, toilets, 

showers and washing facilities) together with static mobile to house 

managers accommodation and new bund 


1.1 

The site forms a former golf driving range at Heathfield Village. The site is 

essentially a field bounded to the south east by the A34 and by fields for the 

remainder of the site. A golf shop and covered range are located at the western 

entrance to the site. To the rear (west) of the site lies Heathfield Nursing Home and 

associated buildings, the Oxfordshire Inn and other hotel accommodation. Various 

equestrian uses lie further west. The site is mainly flat and contains a number of 

trees. The area is generally rural in character. The site lies within the Green Belt 

and within flood zone 2 and 3. 

1.3 The proposal seeks to change the use of the land from a golf driving range to a 

touring caravan park. As part of the development the existing golf shop and range 

building will be replaced by a similar sized building providing a launderette, toilets, 

showers, bin store, shop and office space for the site. It is also proposed to place a 

mobile home for the site manager at the entrance to the site. A new bund is also 

proposed on the south east boundary to shield the site from the A34. 


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of two site notices. One was placed at 

the entrance to the site on fencing at the golf shop. A further site notice was placed 

at the entrance via the B4027. At the time of drafting this report 13 letters of 

objection have been received. The material planning considerations raised as 

objections are as follows: 

• Impact on highway safety; 

• Other caravan parks are in the area; 

• Caravan park would disturb the dog kennels adjacent to the site; 

• Impact on wildlife; 

• Impact on character and appearance of the area; 

• Noise and disturbance; 

Two letters of support were also received which commented as follows: 

• Supports the rural economy, and 

• Provides employment and business to the area. 

Page 124


3.1 

Bletchingdon Parish Council –objects for the following reasons: 

• 150 mobile homes is far too many and will ruin the visual impact of the area. 

This is contrary to Planning Policy in the Green Belt which endeavours to 

avoid coalescence of settlements and safeguard the countryside from 

encroachment. 

• Point 6.8 [from Design and Access Statement] re access states that there 

are currently two points of access which suggests that they are considering 

using the new road from the B4027 to Heathfield Village. Coming from the 

A34 and turning in at this point would be extremely dangerous as there is no 

right hand turning lane. The Parish Council would also point out that the 

existing main entrance road is virtually a single lane access with no passing 

points. 

• 150 mobile homes would create a lot more movements than listed. These 

movements would cause problems when passing a large horse yard and 

would be disturbing when passing Heathfield House Nursing Home for the 

elderly. It would also be dangerous for residents of the Nursing Home if they 

wished to walk outside the grounds. The Parish Council notes that the 

application declares 33 parking spaces (as current) while the plan shows 81 

parked cars. It further notes that 150 touring caravans require 150 vehicles 

to bring them to the site. The expectation is that these cars will be parked 

on site. 

• There are established dog kennels next door to the site and noise from the 

mobile homes is likely to upset the dogs and cause them bark and create a 

general disturbance. This would also be an annoyance for the residents of 

the mobile homes and the current residents of Heathfield. Noise emanating 

from the mobile homes (300+ temporary residents) would also be disturbing 

to the residents of the Nursing Home. 

• The Parish Council is concerned that some of the mobile homes would 

become permanent homes if all year round accommodation is allowed. 

• There is really no need for another caravan park in the vicinity as we already 

have two in this parish (Diamond Farm and Greenhill Farm) and one in the 

nearby parish of Weston –on-the-Green (Godwins). 

• The Parish Council queries if provision for 150 accommodation units is the 

best use or even appropriate in what is acknowledged as a non-residential 

area of the parish. 

3.2 The Local Highway Authority – Raise no objection to the proposal with regard to 

parking and highway safety subject to a condition requiring the submission of 

signage details at the site . 

3.3 The Environment Agency – Raise no objection to the proposal with regard to 

flooding subject to a condition requiring details of foul drainage. 

3.4 Thames Water – Raise no objection with regard to water infrastructure. 

3.5 Arts and Visitor Services Manager - We would welcome the development of a 

Touring Caravan site in this area. Considering the proximity to key attractions 

within the county and good road links a high quality, inspected touring caravan 

Page 125

centre in this location would be beneficial in broadening the available amenities to 

this growing market. 

3.6 Recreation and Health Improvement Manager – The PPG17 Study identified that 

there is an over provision of golf courses in the district which is compounded by 

provision located just outside the Districts boundary. All courses in the District are 

provided by the private sector and they all have capacity, and a commercial need, 

to increase their users. Therefore loss of the Golf Centre at Heathfield would not 

have a detrimental effect within the District. 


4.1 

National Policy 

Planning Policy Statement 1:Delivering sustainable development 

Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts 

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in rural areas 

Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport 

Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation 

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk 

4.2 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 

GB1 – Development within the Green Belt 

GB2 – Change of Use within the Green Belt 

C7 – Landscape Conservation 

C30 – Development Control – Amenity 

4.3 South East Plan 2009 

BE1 – Management for an urban renaissance 

CO4 – Green Belts 

T4 – Parking 

LF9 – Green Belt Management 

SP5 – Green Belts 

NMR4 – Flooding 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 It is important to note that the reference to ‘mobile homes’ by the Parish Council is 

incorrect. Only one mobile home is proposed to serve as the managers 

accommodation. No other mobile homes are proposed. The site would be utilised 

for touring caravans only. 

5.2 Heathfield Golf Centre lies to the east of the B4027 and northwest of the A34. The 

site is mainly laid to grass with a golf shop and range building to the west. The site 

covers an area of just over 10 hectares. There are no public footpaths that cross 

the site. The site lies within the Green Belt. 

5.3 The proposal seek to change the use of the land to a caravan park. The site would 

be used by touring caravans with plots marked out within the site for caravans to 

park along with space for the car that towed the caravan. Electricity and water hook 

ups would be provide at each of the plots. Access roads and plots would be covered 

in grasscrete to allow safe access/egress and parking and to minimise its impact on 

the character of the area. It is intended to use the site all year round. 

Page 126

5.4 The existing golf shop and driving range building would be demolished and replaced 

with an amenity building of a similar footprint. The new building would provide a 

small shop with store, a launderette, shower rooms, toilets, a bin store, a campers 

kitchen, a staff restroom, a reception/office and waste and wash down area. The 

amenity building would be constructed of timber under a slate roof. Brick pillars are 

also proposed. 

5.5 A bund is proposed on the southeast to shield the development from the A34. 

Policy Position 

5.6 The development and improvement of recreational facilities in rural areas is 

supported by government guidance. The forward to Policy Guidance Note 17: 

Planning for open space, sport and recreation states that, 

‘the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can 

play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. 

Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and 

recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life and well being of people 

who live in rural areas.’ 

5.7 Paragraph 15 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural 

Areas also states, 

‘Planning policies should provide a positive framework for facilitating 

sustainable development that supports traditional land-based activities and 

makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a 

countryside location. Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the 

quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where 

possible, enhanced. They should have particular regard to any areas that 

have been statutorily designated for their landscape, wildlife or historic 

qualities where greater priority should be given to restraint of potentially 

damaging development.’ 

5.8 And at paragraph 39 that, 

‘In considering planning policies and development proposals for static 

holiday and touring caravan parks and holiday chalet developments, 

planning authorities should: 

(i) carefully weigh the objective of providing adequate facilities and sites 

with the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites, and 

examine the scope for relocating any existing, visually or environmentallyintrusive 

sites away from sensitive areas, or for re-location away from sites 

prone to flooding or coastal erosion; 

(ii) where appropriate (e.g. in popular holiday areas), set out policies in 

LDDs on the provision of new holiday and touring caravan sites and chalet 

developments, and on the expansion and improvement of existing sites and 

developments (e.g. to improve layouts and provide better landscaping); and 

(iii) ensure that new or expanded sites are not prominent in the landscape 

and that any visual intrusion is minimised by effective, high-quality 

screening.’ 

Page 127

The Green Belt 

5.9 Policy GB1 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 states it is the purpose of the 

Green Belt to: 

• Protect the special character of Oxford an its landscape setting; 

• Check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban 

sprawl; and 

• Prevent the coalescence of settlements. 

And that within the Green Belt, approval will not be given, except in very special 

circumstances, for development other than for agriculture, forestry, recreation, 

cemeteries or for other uses of land which preserves the openness of the Green 

Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. 

5.10 Policy GB2 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 states that a change of use of 

the land within the Green Belt for outdoor recreational purposes will normally be 

permitted provided: 

• There is no overriding agricultural objection; 

• The visual impact on the rural landscape is not unduly harmful; and 

• There is no other conflict with other polices within the plan. 

Permission for new buildings will only be approved where they are small in scale 

and can be demonstrated that that they are essential and ancillary to the use of the 

and can be located unobtrusively. This largely reflects the advice within Policy 

Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. 

5.11 PPG2 states at paragraph 1.6 that the use of land in the Green Belt has a positive 

role to play in fulfilling the following objectives: 

• to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban 

population; 

• to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban 

areas; 

• to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where 

people live; 

• to improve damaged and derelict land around towns; 

• to secure nature conservation interest; and 

• to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses. 

5.12 PPG2 advises at paragraph 3.1 that there is a presumption against inappropriate 

development within the Green Belt which is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt. 

However, paragraph 3.4 states that the construction of new buildings inside a Green 

Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purpose (other purposes are 

provided): 

‘essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, 

and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt 

and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.’ 

Page 128

Paragraph 3.5 advises that, 

‘Essential facilities should be genuinely required for uses of land which 

preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the 

purposes of including land in it. Possible examples of such facilities include 

small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor 

sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.’ 

5.13 Paragraph 30 of Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for open space, sport and 

recreation states; 

‘Planning permission should be granted in Green Belts for proposals to 

establish or to modernise essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation 

where the openness of the Green Belt is maintained. Development should be 

the minimum necessary and nonessential facilities (eg additional function 

rooms or indoor leisure) should be treated as inappropriate development. 

Very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt will 

need to be demonstrated if such inappropriate development is to be 

permitted.’ 

5.14 The use of the land would remain recreational and would change from a golf driving 

range to a caravan park. Existing and proposed trees and hedging will create plots 

within the site for caravans to park and hook up to services. A grasscrete access 

road within the site will allow vehicles to enter plots. Grasscrete will also be used 

for the plots to allow vehicles to park without the need to use tarmac within the site. 

No floodlighting is proposed or detailed within the site. 

5.15 The main consideration is whether the change of use of the land would harm the 

openness of the Green Belt. New development would be limited to the 

replacement amenity building, managers accommodation and new bund to the 

southeast, the site would remain open. The site is likely to be busy during peak 

times but this is part of the recreational use that PPG2 encourages at paragraph 

1.6. It is not considered that the use of the land for a caravan park will appear 

visually prominent or harm the character of the landscape or the openness of the 

Green Belt. 

5.16 The new amenity building would replace an existing building of a similar footprint. 

The design is considered acceptable and proposes materials of a high quality. The 

scale and bulk of the proposed building will be similar to existing building and its 

impact on the character and appearance of the area would be minimal. The use of 

the building would support the use of the land. Therefore, the new amenity building 

is considered acceptable as essential facilities that are required for the use of the 

land which preserves the openness of the Green Belt and therefore does not 

conflict with the purposes of including land in it. 

5.17 The applicant states that the managers accommodation is required to: 

• Carry out maintenance and repairs; 

• Checking on unoccupied caravans; 

• Deterring vandalism; 

• Dealing with emergencies or issues relating to site security. 

Page 129

5.18 It has to be made clear that the applicant is not applying for an essential workers 

dwelling under Annex A to Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development 

in Rural Areas. Day to day management, maintenance and site security would not 

justify an essential workers dwelling under Annex A, but that is not what is being 

applied for here. There is no intention to replace the proposed mobile home with a 

permanent dwelling in the future and its occupation can be controlled through a 

suitable condition. Therefore, a small unit of temporary accommodation can be 

justified in this instance. 

5.19 The mobile home would be sited at the entrance to the site, close to existing 

hedging. The building would measure approximately 9.6m (l) x 6.6m (w) x 3.4m (h). 

The home would provide two bedrooms with en-suite, a kitchen/dining room and 

lounge. The home be raised from the ground with a raised deck and would be 

constructed of timber under a flat roof. Given the size and location of the mobile 

home, it is not considered that it will appear visually prominent or harm the 

character of the landscape or the openness of the Green Belt. 

5.20 Therefore, the change of use of the land to a caravan park and associated 

development is considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would 

not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. 

Highways and Parking 

5.21 Oxfordshire County Council as Local Highway Authority were consulted on the 

proposal and commented thus: 

Roads adjacent the site are not public highway, the B4027 being the highway 

boundary both where it forms the slip to the A34 and at the access road 

close to Frogsnest Farm.. Whilst strictly beyond the remit of the Local 

Highway Authority, routes between the site and the highway raise some 

concern as typically they are narrow and winding being of a rural nature. Also 

of concern would be towing vehicles turning to/from the site accesses and 

B4027. 

Having inspected the site and considered these access routes, I recommend 

access for towing vehicles is directed along the B4027 via the access 

nearest to Frogsnest Farm and not the access to the A34 slip-road. 

Therefore I recommend a scheme of signage is submitted and approved 

prior to any development and subsequently that signage is provided prior to 

first use of the development. Marketing literature, website etc should also 

direct customers via this route. 

5.22 Therefore, as requested by County a condition requiring the submission of signage 

to be agreed and installed before the development commences. 

Flooding 

5.23 The site lies within flood zone 2 and 3. The Environment Agency have been 

consulted and do not raise any objections subject to a condition requiring the 

submission of surface water and foul drainage. 

Other Matters 

Page 130

5.24 Objectors and the Parish have raised an number of other matters that are 

considered material to the proposal. 

5.25 Game Goer Dog kennels – Concerns are raised that the caravan park will disturb 

kennelled dogs (120m south of the site) that will in turn will cause the dogs to bark 

and cause further nuisance to neighbouring properties and the caravan park itself. 

No evidence has been provided that the dogs will be disturbed or will bark as a 

result of the use of the land for caravanning. The site will also be managed so that 

noise is kept to a minimum during the night. 

5.26 Noise and disturbance – Most caravan parks operate strict entrance and exit 

times. No restaurant or drinking facilities are being provided and quiet times 

(normally 11pm – 7am) are enforced. There is no evidence that the use of the land 

for caravanning will disturb surrounding residential properties or that the site will be 

any nosier than existing uses in the immediate area (such as the Oxford Inn). 

5.27 Impact on Wildlife – There is no evidence that protected species exist on the site 

or that they will be disturbed as a result of the development. Planning permission 

does not override the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended). 

5.28 Other Caravan Parks – The operators of other caravan parks in the area have 

objected to the proposal stating that confusion will arise as tourists will not be able 

to find the correct park and that they are never at capacity. 

5.29 New signage will be erected to ensure that tourists are directed to the site. The fact 

that other caravan parks do not run to capacity is not a reason in itself to refuse 

permission. 

Conclusion 

5.30 Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable and would preserve the openness of 

the Green Belt. The development is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on the 

amenities of adjoining occupiers, the character and appearance of the area or 

highway safety. 

5.31 As a result, the proposal is recommended for approval. 



1. That the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than 

the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 

Reason – To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory 

Purchase Act 2004. 

2. Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the 

development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans and 

documents: Drawing No. SK.11-509-06, SK.509-07 Rev A, SK.11-509-09 and 

Page 131

SK.11-509-10 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out 

only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with Government 

Policy contained in PPS1. 

3. That samples of the timber and bricks to be used in the construction of the walls of 

the amenity building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development 

shall be carried out in accordance with the samples so approved. 

Reason - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and 

to comply with Policy BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the 


4. That samples of the slate to be used in the covering of the roof of the amenity 

building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be 

carried out in accordance with the samples so approved. 




5. That the mobile home shall be occupied by the manager of the site only and by no 

other person whatsoever and shall not be sold, leased or occupied as a separate 

unit of accommodation. 

Reason - This consent is only granted in view of the special circumstances and 

needs of the applicant, which are sufficient to justify overriding the normal planning 

policy considerations which would normally lead to a refusal of planning consent and 

in accordance with Policy H23 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

6. That the site shall accommodate not more than 150 caravans at any one time. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the visual amenities and character of the area, in the 

interests of highway safety and to comply with Government advice in PPS7: 


7. That no caravans, motor caravans or tents shall be stationed anywhere on the land 

for more than 28 consecutive nights and a register of occupiers shall be kept and 

made available for inspection by an authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority 

at all reasonable times. 

Reason - In order to limit the use of the site to that of touring and not long-stay 

residential caravans and tents to comply with Government advice in PPS7: 


8. That before the development commences a detailed plan of signage directing traffic 

to enter the site via the B4027 entrance only shall be submitted to approved by the 

Local Planning Authority. The approved signage shall be erected and maintained 

permanently thereafter. 

Page 132

Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Government advice 

contained in PPG13: Transport. 

9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed 

scheme for the surface water and foul sewage drainage of the development shall be 

submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The 

approved surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out prior to 

commencement of any building works on the site and the approved foul sewage 

drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any building 

to which the scheme relates. All drainage works shall be laid out and constructed in 

accordance with the Water Authorities Association's current edition "Sewers for 

Adoption. 

Reason - To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in the interests of public health, 

to avoid flooding of adjacent land and property and to comply with Government 

advice in PPS25: Development and Flood Risk, Policy NRM4 of the South East Plan 

2009 and Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

10. That no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for landscaping the site which 

shall include:- 

(a) details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their species, 

number, sizes and positions, together with grass seeded/turfed areas, 

(b) details of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as well as those to 

be felled, including existing and proposed soil levels at the base of each 

tree/hedgerow and the minimum distance between the base of the tree and the 

nearest edge of any excavation, 

(c) details of the hard surface areas, pavements, pedestrian areas, crossing 

points and steps. 

Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of 

a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C4 of the 

South East Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

11. That all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping 

shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the 

occupation of the building(s) or on the completion of the development, whichever is 

the sooner; and that any trees and shrubs which within a period of five 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 consent for any 

variation. 

Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of 

a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C4 of the 


12. No external lights/floodlights shall be erected on any building or on the land without 

Page 133

the prior express consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area in accordance with 

Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

PLANNING NOTES 

Ground conditions are not likely to be suitable for infiltration drainage. Low permeability 

ground conditions may be a issue for relying on soakaways for surface water drainage. 

The site appears to be primarily Greenfield, there may be some made ground associated 

with any golf course. There is always the potential for encountering contaminated material 

in made ground. Any visibly contaminated or odorous material encountered on the site 

during the development work, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be 

informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present. 



The Council, as local planning authority, has determined this application in accordance with 

the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The development 

is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposed development is of a 

design, size and style that is appropriate in its context and would not have a detrimental 

impact on the character and appearance of the area, the openness of the Green Belt, the 

amenities of adjoining occupiers or highway safety. As such the proposal is in accordance 

with the advice within Planning Policy Statement 1:Delivering sustainable development, 

Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable 

development in rural areas, Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, Policy Guidance Note 17: 

Planning for open space, sport and recreation and Planning Policy Statement 25: 

Development and Flood Risk,, saved policy GB1, GB2, C7 and C30 of the Adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and policy NRM4, CO4, SP5, BE1, LF9 and T4 of the South East 

Plan 2009. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised 

including third party representations the Council considers that the application should be 

approved and planning permission granted subject to appropriate conditions as set out 

above. 

CONTACT OFFICER: Graham Wyatt TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221811 

Page 134

¯ 

Scale 

1:500 

Agenda Item 10 

11/01808/F 

Page 135 

Stables 


FARNBOROUGH ROAD

¯ 

Scale 


MARCH ROAD 

11/01808/F 

UNNAMED--SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY(6811431) 

WHITEWAY 

FARNBOROUGH ROAD 

ROUNDHILL ROAD 

CHURCH LANE 

THE MEAD 

MAIN STREET 

Page 136 

IVY LANE 

MOLLINGTON ROAD 

UNNAMED--SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY (6802440) 

SOUTHAM ROAD 



11/01808/F 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Mr Thomas Doran 

Ward: Cropredy Date Valid: 14.09.11 

Stable Block Corner, Farnborough Road, Mollington 

Erection of day-room – re-submission of 11/00430/F 


1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

The site is situated at the address known as Stable Block Corner which is located 

within the wider triangular site immediately to the north of the junction between 

Farnborough Road and the A423 Southam Road and approximately 600m north of 

the village of Mollington. Access to the site in question is via the northern most 

access to the site from Farnborough Road. The area is locally designated as an 

Area of High Landscape Value. 

The application seeks permission for the construction of a single storey day room. 

At the previous Committee Meeting (23 February) Members deferred this 

application and instructed officers to seek amendments to significantly reduce the 

size of the day room. Since that meeting amended plans have been received which 

reduce the floor area of the room to 7.5m x 5.25m (half the size of the original 

submission). Height to ridge remains at 4.3m. The day room would be clad in 

brickwork under an interlocking concrete tile roof and would be fenestrated on the 

front, rear and south west elevations. 

Planning Permission was granted for the use of this particular part of the site as a 

residential caravan site for two Gypsy families in 2009 (planning ref: 09/0622/F). 

1.4 The building is proposed to be situated adjacent to the north west boundary hedge 

at right angles to an existing day room on the land which relates to the other gypsy 

family on the site. 

1.5 The proposed red line for the application includes land which is not authorised for 

use as gypsy residency and as such an amended plan is required prior to the 

determination of the application. 


2.1 

2.2 

The application has been advertised by way of a site notice attached to a road sign 

and the Farnborough Road/Southam Road junction. The final date for comment was 

12 January 2012. 

Two letters of representation have been received which raise the following issues 

(see Public Access for full content): 

� Environmental eye-sore 

� Creeping expansion 

� Detrimental visual impact 

Page 137

� New buildings not normally allowed on agricultural land 

� No statutory requirement for a day room 

� How can CDC ensure not used for accommodation? 

� Conditions are ineffectual/failure to enforce 

� What extra drainage is proposed? 

� Object to any further development 

� Why is CDC not providing other gypsy sites? 


3.1 

� Mollington Parish Council objects strongly to application for the following 

reasons (see Public Access for full content) 

� Several outstanding conditions 

� Enforcement yet to take place 

� Several commercial vehicles on site 

� New mobile home has recently entered the site 

� Well over the maximum permitted touring caravans 

� Several HGV containers 

� Significant amount of hedgerow removed 

� Site clearly visible from both the Farnborough and Southam road not just 

in the winter months. 

� Site is in an Area of High Landscape Value. 

� Compare this site with other caravan sites in the vicinity. 

� Planning Committee Members should visit the site. 

� Errors with Design and Access Statement 

� No statutory requirement for a day room 

� No building should be allowed the site. 

� Draft policy has led people to believe that the system is unfair and has 

led to tension and undermined community cohesion. 

� Unwillingness by CDC to enforce conditions 

� Application could be viewed as an attempt to build before Circular 

01/2006 is replaced. 

� Site becoming increasingly intrusive in what was a pleasant rural setting. 

� To allow further development would be inappropriate. 

� OCC Highways raises no objections to the proposal subject to the use 

remaining ancillary and as proposed 

� CDC Landscape Officer states that the field boundary hedge on the NW side of 

the site in the direction of Farnborough is rather thin at the base during winter so 

there will be some visibility as you approach from that direction. No additional 

impact from the approach off the A423 or the A423. The door is close to the post 

and rail fence - there should be some hardstanding shown around the entrance. 

Additional planting to reinforce the base of the existing hedge is recommended. 


4.1 

4.2 


PPS3: Housing 


South East Plan 

Page 138

4.3 

Policy CC1 (Sustainable Development) and C4 (Landscape and Countryside 

Management) 

Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

Policies C13 (AHLV) and C28 (Standards of layout, design and external 

appearance) 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

5.2 

5.2.1 

5.2.2 

5.2.3 

5.3 

5.3.1 

5.3.2 

5.3.3 

The key considerations for assessment, which are set out below, are: 

Principle 

Visual Impact/Area of High Landscape Value 


Principle 

With regard to the principle of the proposed day room, the authorised use of the 

land on which it is proposed is for a residential caravan site for gypsy families. In 

which case, any development ancillary to such a use could be considered to be 

acceptable in principle, subject to all other material planning considerations. 

Whilst the specific requirements of a gypsy and traveller site is not covered in 

National or Local Policy (which make reference to the need for gypsy sites and 

their location), the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Good Practice 

Guide for Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites has been published to concentrate 

on more specific issues relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites, which are referred to 

more generally in PPS3: Housing. The Good Practice Guide states that it is 

essential for an amenity building to be provided on each pitch and include, as a 

minimum a hot and cold water supply; an electricity supply; a separate toilet and 

hand wash basin, a bath/shower room, a kitchen and dining area. 

The requirement for an amenity room in relation to each gypsy pitch therefore is 

recognised by national government, and with regard to the specific merits of the 

scheme, these are discussed below. 

Visual Amenity/Area of High Landscape Value 

The site is not particularly visible in longer distant views on approach to the site 

from both directions on the Southam and Farnborough Roads. There is sufficient 

natural screening on all sides of the site to obscure such views. 

In shorter distant views, the site becomes more apparent from the west (from the 

Farnborough Road) and from the east (from the Southam Road). Views of the 

static and touring caravans, the stable block, fencing and vehicles can be seen 

through the existing boundary treatments from the adjacent highways. And whilst 

the site does present a different character area to the wider rural setting and area 

of High Landscape Value within which it is located, the use of parts of the site as 

residential use for gypsy families is authorised together with the siting of static and 

touring caravans. 

Reference has been made by the Parish Council and third parties to the fact that 

Page 139

5.3.4 

5.3.5 

5.4 

5.4.1 

5.4.2 

5.5 

5.5.1 

5.5.2 

previous conditions have not been complied with which includes the siting of the 

caravans and a landscaping scheme to reinforce existing planting, which were 

imposed to protect the visual amenities of the area. The Council is currently taking 

formal action against these breaches of condition in order to rectify these matters. It 

would be unreasonable for the Council to refuse to deal with this application based 

on the fact that the there are breaches of condition on the site. 

The proposed building (as amended) would be situated adjacent to the existing 

north western boundary hedge and within relatively close proximity to the existing 

stable block (albeit a recently erected close boarded fence divides the two). The 

proposed location for the building is within the authorised part of the site for gypsy 

residency and is in accordance with the guidance set out in the CLG Good Practice 

Guide. The building is low rise with a smaller footprint than the former stable block 

on the site (the authorised use for which is as ancillary accommodation in 

conjunction with the use of the site by another gypsy family) and would be in 

keeping, visually with the residential use of the site. In its proposed location it would 

not be situated in the most visible parts of the site from the road and would be seen 

within the context of the authorised use. As such it is not considered that the 

building would cause harm to visual amenity and nor would it be detrimental to the 

wider area which is recognised locally as one of High Landscape Value. For these 

reasons, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed amenity room complies with Policy 

C4 of the South East Plan and Policies C13 and C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local 

Plan. 

Members should note that whilst comparisons were made between this application 

and the application at the Smith’s Bloxham Road Caravan Site which was also 

heard by Members at the meeting on 23 February and proposed smaller buildings 

(5m x 3m), this application specifically proposes a day room to include a communal 

area where the families who live on the site can spend time together in one 

location. The facilities proposed at the Smith’s Bloxham Road Caravan Site were 

for amenity purposes only, providing washing and utility facilities, hence their 

smaller footprint. Reducing the size of the day room to 15sqm would not provide 

the day space that is required in this case. 


The construction of an ancillary day room, the function of which would be to provide 

additional facilities on the site for the residents who live there, would, by definition 

not result in increased vehicular movements to and from the site. The Local 

Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal subject to the use remaining 

ancillary and as proposed. 

For these reasons I am satisfied that the application complies with PPG13: 

Transport. 

Consultation Responses and Third Party Representations 

The comments made against the application by the Parish Council and third parties 

are noted and either addressed above or responded to below: 

The Council is fully aware of the concerns relating to the visual impact of the site 

Page 140

5.5.3 

5.5.4 

5.5.5 

5.5.6 

5.5.7 

5.5.8 

5.5.9 

5.5.10 

upon the surrounding area and is currently taking formal action to address the 

breached conditions which are in place to secure further planting and the siting of 

the caravans in order to reduce the impact of the site on the wider area. 

Planning permission has been granted to use parts of the site for gypsy residency 

and as such it is no longer in agricultural use, therefore the normal policies of 

constraint on agricultural land (other than for agricultural buildings) do not apply. 

The proposed development is for a day room, which by its very nature is ancillary 

accommodation to the existing residential use on the site. Therefore if this 

application is approved there would be no planning permission for the building to 

be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Use of the building as such would 

be unauthorised. 

HPPDM is fully aware of the breaches of condition on the site and had previously 

advised Members that it was not considered expedient to take enforcement action 

against these breaches. Members of the committee however have recently 

instructed HPPDM to take enforcement action against the breaches and this is 

currently taking place. 

A drainage scheme has previously been approved. No details are submitted with 

this application as to how the building would be linked to the approved drainage 

scheme, therefore a condition requiring the details of the drainage scheme for the 

building is recommended below. 

Third parties are within their rights to object to any further development on the site, 

however the Council must give full consideration to any application submitted which 

will be assessed on its own merits. 

Other Gypsy sites are available around the District and the provision for pitches 

has recently been expanded (with planning permission). 

All breaches of condition are being address through formal channels (number of 

caravans permitted, commercial vehicles in excess of 3.5tonnes, HGV containers. 

HPPDM notes the Parish Council’s views about the draft policy and their wish for 

Members to view the site prior to a decision being made. 

6. Recommendation: Approval 

Subject to the following conditions: 

1. That the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the 

expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning 

Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 

2004. 

2. Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the application shall be carried out 

Page 141

strictly in accordance with the following plans and documents: Application forms, 

Design and Access Statement and drawings numbered 1073-TD-4a and 1073-TD-7a 

and 1073-TD-3a. 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only 

as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with Policy BE1 of the South 

East Plan 2009. 

3. S.C. 4.21aa (RC19aa) 



The Council, as local planning authority, has determined this application in 

accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated 

otherwise. The development is considered to be acceptable in principle and on its 

planning merits as the proposal would not cause harm to visual amenity, the area of 

High Landscape Value and is acceptable in terms of its design and external 

appearance. Furthermore it would not be a risk to highway safety or convenience. As 

such the proposal is in accordance with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, 

PPS3: Housing, PPG13: Transport, Policies CC1 and C4 of the South East Plan 2009 

and Policies C13 and C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons given 

above and having regard to all other matters raised, the Council considers that the 

application should be approved and planning permission granted subject to 

appropriate conditions, as set out above. 


Page 142

¯ 

BICESTER ROAD 

Scale 

1:2,000 

SKINNER ROAD 

ANCIL AVENUE 

Agenda Item 11 

11/01907/F 

SYCAMORE ROAD 

Home 

Page 143 

LANES END 

Green View 

BLENHEIM DRIVE 

Yew 

SYCAMORE ROAD 


STATION ROAD 

BLENHEIM DRIVE

¯ 

SKIMMINGDISH LANE 

JARVIS LANE 

BOSTON ROAD 

PEREGRINE WAY 

TELFORD ROAD 

GAVRAY DRIVE 

WRETCHWICK WAY 

Scale 

1:15,000 

CHARBRIDGE LANE 

11/01907/F 

BICESTER ROAD 

THE GLADES 

ANCIL AVENUE 

WEST END 

STATION ROAD 

BLACKTHORN ROAD 

Page 144 

LAUNTON ROAD 


STRATTON AUDLEY ROAD


11/01907/F 

Applicant: 

Site Address: 

Ward: Launton Date Valid: 

19/01/2012 

Manor Oak Homes Ltd 

c/o Savills Ltd, Wytham Court, 11 West Way, Oxford 

Yew Tree Farm, Station Road, Launton, Bicester 

Proposal: Erection of 40 residential dwellings (including 3 No. barn conversions), public 

open space, improvements to an existing access and ancillary development 


1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

Site 

The Yew Tree Farm site extends to some 2.58 hectares currently used as a farm 

yard and paddock for animal grazing. It is approximately 2.5 miles from the centre 

of Bicester within the village of Launton. The site is on agricultural land which lies 

between the residential streets of Sycamore Road to its southwest and Blenheim 

Drive to the northeast of the site. It has a 30 metre wide frontage onto Station Road 

and the land beyond to the north is open countryside. 

The site is broadly rectangular and quite flat with an existing access onto Station 

Road through a low level stone wall. The main features of the site are the 

agricultural barns to the front at the Station Road end which face the Grade II listed 

Yew Tree Farmhouse situated outside the red line of the application. Other more 

modern agricultural buildings occupy the land further into the site where the land 

opens out into hedge lined small paddock areas. A large TPO’d oak tree is situated 

within the site next to the small spur half way along Blenheim Drive. 

Other constraints to the site include the archaeological interests with the site being 

close to the historic core of Launton. The site is also identified as being potentially 

contaminated. Finally, it is noted that two public footpaths cross the northwestern 

part of the site, one of which passes through to Sycamore Road, Ancil Avenue and 

onto Bicester Road; and the other crossing into the playing field. 

Proposal 

This application seeks full planning permission for the development of 40 residential 

units, 3 of which are barn conversions and the rest new build in the form of various 

house types from 2 storey 5 bed houses to 2 bed bungalows. 14 of the dwellings 

are proposed to be affordable which represents 35%. This development is 

concentrated in the southeastern half of the site between the built forms of 

Blenheim Drive and Sycamore Road. The remainder of the site, to the north west, 

is proposed to be public open space. There is also proposed public open space 

around the oak tree. 

Access to the site is proposed to remain directly from Station Road utilising the 

same farm access route between the original farmhouse on the southside and the 

barns to the north. The stone wall which runs alongside Station Road will remain, 

as will the stone wall which runs along the site boundary with Yew Tree Farmhouse. 

Page 145

1.6 

The new access is proposed to be to adoptable standard. 

There is no relevant planning history relating to this site. It is further confirmed that 

the site is not within the Green Belt or in an area of High Landscape Value. Also 

the site is not classified as being within a vulnerable flood plain or zone. 


2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

The application has been advertised by site notice and press notice. The final date 

for comment was 23 February 2012. To date there have been 18 responses 

received and whilst all the responses to the consultation exercise are detailed on 

the core file, available electronically via our website, a summary is provided below: 

Material planning matters 

• The proposed dwellings which back onto Sycamore Road are too high/large and 

too close to the boundary 

• Flooding and drainage. The situation has become worse since the Glades 

estate was built. 

• Windows will overlook existing rear gardens and therefore there is a loss of 

privacy issue on both the Sycamore Road side and Blenheim Drive 

• The proposed development will not blend in with the village at all. 

• Traffic problems particularly during morning and evening rush hour and 

especially along Station Road adjacent to the development entrance. 

• Conflict of users on the main road with the Jewsons trucks 

• Despite the reasonably good safety record there will be traffic problems at the 

junction of Station Road with Bicester Road because of the poor visibility which 

cannot be improved. 

• The proposed dwellings are out of keeping with existing properties – the site is 

flanked by bungalows either side 

• There are no facilities for the wildlife that currently live in the fields 

• Loss of an important open space which is enjoyed by residents and walkers 

• Loss of light. The development (particularly plots 23 to 27 inclusive) impinge on 

the 45 degree rule. 

• Loss of security particularly is public access is allowed between plots 24 and 25 

onto the top end of Blenheim Drive. 

• The scale of the development is disproportionate in comparison to the number 

of houses in the rest of the village. 

• Launton School is already oversubscribed and has no more capacity. 

• There is no footpath along Station Road at the sites junction so increase in 

movement would be increasingly unsafe for pedestrians. 

• The proximity of the listed building will mean that it will be harmed to make way 

for the new access road. 

• The gardens for the new plots are too short 

• This is green belt land. 

• Runs counter to the local plan policies. 

• Effect on bats, not just their roosting sites but their food source. 

• Other sites have been given planning permission but no building has taken 

place. 

Non-material matters 

Page 146

2.4 

• There is no need for the development – We now have Kingsmere in Bicester 

and soon to get the Eco development 

• Reduction in the value of properties in the vicinity 

• Increase in noise from children playing nearby 

• the new properties will affect views from houses along Sycamore Road 

• The developers and owners of the site don’t live in Launton so would not be 

affected by the proposal. The development is being pushed for their own 

personal gain with no consideration for the villagers some of whom have lived 

here all their lives 

• This proposal will lead to further development as access will be created further 

into the countryside. 

• Yew Tree Farm is one of only 2 working farms in the village. 

• The development of this site will bring more noise on top of the proposed HS2. 

• The site is close to 2 prisons which give some residents extra worry when the 

prisoners escape. 

• Many of the bungalow residents are ex-military who should be given extra 

consideration. 

13 other objections were also submitted before the application was registered. 

These are filed under 11/00018/SO (the screening opinion application) and raise 

issues similar to those already identified above. 


3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

Whilst all the responses to the consultation exercise are detailed on the core file, 

available electronically via our website, a summary of the submissions received is 

provided below: 

Launton Parish Council: Object on the following grounds: 

• Risk of flooding – despite recent improvements by CDC and OCC, local 

residential roads have flooded made worse by uncleared ditches preventing flow 

into the stream east of Station Road. 

• Traffic and highway safety – Existing traffic levels are relatively heavy 

particularly at peak periods aggravated by on street parking. The proposed 

realignment of the site entrance will restrict visibility for drivers leaving 

Sycamore Road and Blenheim Drive. Application 08/00694/F for 2 dwellings 

was dismissed at appeal because of inadequacy of the Blenheim Drive/Station 

Road junction. 

• Building land supply – Tony Baldry has questioned the validity of the 2.8 year 

shortfall because of the extant planning permissions. There is no need for a 

contribution from surrounding villages. 

• Design of the development – 2 storey dwellings are out of keeping with the two 

roads either side which are solely bungalows. 

• Scale – Any development of more than 30 homes is large scale which, 

according to a recent survey, is not what villagers want. 

• Overlooking – of particular concern with regard to plots 23 and 24. 

Environment Agency: No objection, subject to details required by condition 

relating to sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological 

and hydro geological context of the development. 

Page 147

3.4 OCC Highways: No objection, subject to further alterations to the internal and 

access, standard conditions and contributions towards localised bus stop 

improvements and local transport infrastructure. 

Site Access This has limited visibility so improvements will be required and this can 

be achieved. The County Council notes the local concern regarding the lack of 

footway on this side of Station Road and aspires to provide this facility in the future. 

As well as improving visibility at the access to the development, the proposed 

footway stretches from Blenheim Drive passed the site to Sycamore Road which will 

be an improvement for local residents. There is a pedestrian route from the 

Sycamore Road cul-de-sac through towards the primary school. Dropped kerbs will 

be provided to facilitate crossing over to the bus stop on the opposite side of Station 

Road. The new footway will have the benefit of alerting drivers to the presence of 

the site access and associated pedestrian activity, and could have a positive 

influence of vehicle speeds. All of these alterations to the public highway will be 

subject to detailed design and a Section 278 Agreement, with all costs being met by 

the applicant. 

Crossroads (junction of Station Road with Bicester Road) The submitted Transport 

Statement indicates that the impact of traffic from the development will be very 

minor. But, the nearby crossroads does not meet current standards for visibility. 

The initial mini roundabout proposal has been considered as a potential 

improvement. A safety audit was requested to further investigate its suitability. This 

report concludes that whilst improving visibility slightly, the roundabout would not be 

treated with the same caution as the junction and there may be an increased risk of 

accidents as a result. These findings are accepted by the Local Highway Authority, 

and the roundabout scheme is not accepted as an appropriate solution. 

The alternative slight carriageway and kerbline realignment at the crossroads is 

accepted as a more appropriate improvement, along with a review of signing and 

lining. The slight narrowing on Bicester Road is likely to deter vehicle speeds. 

Speed cushions are not considered appropriate in this location and for clarity an 

amended plan without them should be submitted. These alterations will be subject 

to a detailed design as part of the Section 278 process. All costs associated with 

these works need to be met by the applicant. 

Internal Layout The level of parking proposed is considered acceptable and is in line 

with the County’s new parking standards. A turning head to an appropriate standard 

is provided and will enable refuse and emergency vehicles to turn and leave the site 

in a forward gear. 

The wide nature of the internal access (up to 7 metres in places) is a concern, 

although it is acknowledged that this is to accommodate some on street visitor 

parking. A revised scheme has been received (drawing 7259/045l) attempting to 

address this, but these revisions are not considered sufficient. 

A wider access, some localised narrowing, and designed in on street parking are 

considered necessary prior to approval of the scheme. 

3.5 

3.6 

OCC Drainage: No objection. Further details are required and these can be 

conditioned if the application is approved. 

OCC Archaeology: No objection in principle and conditions are recommended 

should the application be approved as this is an area of some archaeological 

interest. There are some omissions and inaccuracies in the submitted report so 

further evaluation is required particularly given the known archaeological potential of 

the area (based on nearby past digs). The application should be responsible for the 

implementation of an archaeological field evaluation carried out by a professionally 

Page 148

3.7 

3.8 

3.9 


3.11 

qualified organisation. 

OCC Footpaths: Comments awaited. 

OCC Developer Funding Officer: No objection, subject to Section 106 agreement. 

Oxfordshire County Council wishes to secure a legal agreement for appropriate 

financial contributions to mitigate the effects of this development which would 

otherwise be a potential reason to refuse the application in line with policy H5 of the 

adopted Cherwell Local Plan, OA1 of the non-stat plan and policies CC7, S3, S5 

and S6 of the South East Plan. Contributions will be sought for primary, secondary 

and SEN school infrastructure; youth centre provision; adult learning; library; day 

resource car centre for the elderly; strategic waste management recycling centre; 

county museum resource centre infrastructure and fire and rescue. Approval of the 

application should be subject to a legal agreement for these financial contributions 

(totalling £528,407) plus an administration fee (£5,000) in order to protect the 

existing levels of infrastructure for local residents. There is likely also to be a need 

for highway, transport and legal costs on top. 

CDC Policy: The site cannot be considered as an ‘infilling’ proposal within the 

meaning of the village categorisation policy. The most recent Annual Monitoring 

Report (AMR) identifies a shortfall in housing land supply for the next 5 years. 

PPS3 requires, therefore, that applications be considered favourably and the draft 

National Planning Policy Framework suggests an additional 20% on top. On 6 th Feb 

2012, the Council’s Executive approved a Housing Land Supply Position Statement 

to assist in the monitoring and managing of the districts housing land supply 

position. This seeks to uphold the urban focus of existing and emerging policy to 

increase the supply of deliverable sites in the most sustainable locations whilst 

discouraging the sporadic release of land in less sustainable rural areas. 

CDC Urban Design: Whilst formal comments on this application are yet to be 

received, pre-application discussions have taken place which have influenced the 

layout, scale, materials etc. Attempts have been made to move away from a very 

strong and unimaginative linear influence to one that has sought to create a 

sequence of spaces. Of particular interest has been the relationship of the 

traditional barns to the wider site and the relationship of the listed building to those 

barns (addressed below). It is expected that the visual impact could be reduced 

from the main public vantage point of Station Road by the use of high quality 

materials including on the access track eg. use of Addagrip or similar. 

CDC Conservation: Whilst formal comments on this application are yet to be 

received a view on the situation regarding the relationship between the main listed 

farmhouse and the barns opposite and to the north east has been provided. 

Consideration has been given as to whether or not the barns are curtilage listed and 

it has been concluded that they are not. This decision is based on the advice by 

central government and case law which asks that the LPA consider how the listed 

building relates to the physical layout of the land, ownership/occupation past and 

present and their use or function, past and present. The existence of the wall which 

runs alongside the listed farmhouse has a strong influence on the decision and it is 

concluded that the barns are not curtilage listed. However, as undesignated assets 

within the setting of a listed building the barns will require a high standard of 

sensitive conversion. 

Page 149

3.12 CDC Ecologist: No objection, subject to condition ensuring compliance with the 

recommendations of the submitted Wildlife Protection & Mitigation Plan and an 

Informative advising of the requirement for a Habitats Regulations licence. The 

species of bats found or likely to be present are relatively common. Further surveys 

are required but the proposed option for mitigation is the worst case scenario which 

should be sufficient to obtain a licence from Natural England. The option to provide 

a shelter with bat loft in the area of open space to the north of the site, adjacent to 

the hedgerows is a good option but consideration needs to be given to the 

vulnerability of the shelter to disturbance at night or vandalism as it is not 

overlooked. 

3.13 

3.14 

3.15 

3.16 

3.17 

3.18 

CDC Landscape: No objection in principle though it is considered that the LAP 

should be provided on site within easy walking distance (100m or 1 minutes walk 

away). Also the pond and ditches should be accommodated within the design and 

not ignored. Requests within the Section 106 agreement relate to sums for the 

maintenance of the LAP, existing pond, existing ditch/water course, existing & new 

hedge planting, existing mature oak tree management and for informal amenity 

area/public open space. 

CDC Arboriculturalist: No objection subject to conditions. The survey indicates 

there to be only 3 no. trees worthy of consideration with all remaining trees, tree 

groups and hedgerows not considered to be a constraint to the development. The 

Oak tree should be retained and the footpath shown should avoid the root 

protection area. The 2 other trees (Oak and Sycamore), whilst outside the site 

boundary, are within influencing distance of plots 28 and 31 so would need to be 

considered further. It is good to see the proposed retention of the stand of Ash 

trees and hedgerows. 

With regard to the landscaping proposals, spaces to the front of the properties 

facing the access road would preclude any substantial or prominent landscaping so 

would appear sparse. Generally more space is needed also to the property fronts 

of the secondary accesses too and more planting should be shown in the public 

open space area. 

CDC Rights of Way: No objection subject to a condition relating to a requirement 

for details of how the existing rights of way will be maintained particularly with 

regard to signage and proper gaps where the paths enter/exit the site through the 

hedgerows. It would seem that the details provided in the D&A statement are 

inaccurate with regard to the alignment for footpath 9. However, none of the 

proposed houses will interfere with the line of the 2 main public rights of way. 

CDC Environmental Protection Officer: No objection subject to applying the set of 

contaminated land conditions in order to meet the requirements of PPS23. 

CDC Building Control: No objection. Based on the descriptions, drawings and 

photographs in the report it would appear that the conclusion drawn is reasonable. 

The barns can be converted with just remedial work to e.g. rotten timber, replacing 

mortar etc. 

CDC Housing (Strategic Team): With regard to the Section 106 obligations, there 

would be a requirement for 35% affordable for rent and shared ownership. All the 

housing should meet lifetimes homes standards as far as possible as well as HCA 

design and quality standards and code level 3. The housing should be dispersed 

Page 150

3.19 

3.20 

3.21 

throughout the development in clusters of no more than 4 units and be tenure 

neutral in design. 

CDC Head Recreation & Health Improvement Manager: With regard to the Section 

106 obligations, there would be a requirement for a public art contribution of £6,000 

to create a locally relevant work of art on or near the development. 

Thames Water: No objection. It has been identified that the existing waste water 

infrastructure is not able to accommodate the needs of this application so a 

Grampian style condition would be required. Similarly the existing water supply 

infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands so a 

condition is recommended. 

Police Architectural Liaison Officer: No objection. Minor issues of anti-social 

behaviour have been noted in the play area which will be accessible from the 

development using the proposed network of footpaths. The majority of the 7 

attributes for creating safe sustainable communities are referred to in the scheme. 

A condition is recommended. 

4. Policy Considerations 


Guidance 

South East Plan 

2009 Policies 

Adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan 1996 

saved policies 

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development 

PPS3 - Housing 

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment 

PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 

PPS9 – Biodiversity & Geological Conservation 

PPG13 – Transport 

PPS23 - Planning & Pollution Control 

PPS25 – Development & Flood Risk 

Cross Cutting – Policies CC1, CC4, CC6 & CC7 – Sustainable 

Development & Sustainable Communities, Design & Construction , 

Character of the Environment and Infrastructure & Implementation 

Housing – Policies H1, H2, H3, H4 & H5 - Regional Housing Provision 

and its Management, Affordable, Type & Size, Design & Density. 

Transport – Policies T1 & T4 – Management, Investment and Parking 

Natural Resource Management – Policies NRM1, NRM4, NRM5 and 

NRM11 – Sustainable Water Resources & Groundwater Quality, 

Flood Risk Management, Conservation & Improvement of Biodiversity 

and Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy 

Countryside & Landscape Management – Policies C4 & C6 - 

Landscape & Countryside Management and Countryside Access & 

Rights of Way management 

Management of the Built Environment – Policies BE1 & BE6 - 

Management for an Urban Renaissance and of the Historic 

Environment 

H13 – Housing in Category I Settlements 

H21 – Conversion of buildings within settlements 

TR1 – Transportation Funding 

R12 – Public Open Space provision within new housing developments 

Page 151

Non-Statutory 

Cherwell Local 

Plan 2011 

Cherwell Local 

Development 

Framework (LDF) 

Draft Core 

Strategy 2010 

Other relevant 

documentation 

C2 – Protected Species 

C7 – Landscape conservation 

C9 – Compatibility of development with rural location 

C27 – Design Considerations - Historic Settlement Pattern 

C28 – Design, layout etc standards 

C30 – Design control 

C31 – Incompatible uses (nuisance or visual intrusion) 

C33 – Setting of a listed building 

ENV1 – Pollution Control 

ENV12 – Contaminated Land 

Housing policies H1a, H3, H4, H7, H15 & H22, 

Transport & Development policies TR1, TR3, TR4, TR5, TR8 & TR11 

Recreation & Community Facilities policies R4, R8, R9, R10A 

Conserving & Enhancing the Environment policies EN1, EN15, EN16, 

EN17, EN24, EN25, EN27, EN30, EN34 & EN44. 

Urban Design & The Built Environment policies D1, D5 & D6 

General Policy OA1 

The draft document went through the first round of public consultation 

in the Spring of 2010. The second draft is due out for public 

consultation. The current plan indicates the strategy that the Council 

is putting forward and contains a series of key objectives and a 

number of policies highlighting a focus of growth in and around 

Bicester with limited growth in the rural areas towards larger and more 

sustainable villages thereby protecting open countryside areas. 

Policies seek to mitigate and adapt to climate change and ensure 

sustainable construction methods including SuDs. 

SD1 – Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change 

SD5 – Sustainable Construction 

SD6 – Sustainable Drainage Systems 

SD8 – Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity & the Natural 

Environment 

SD11 – Local Landscape Protection & Enhancement 

SD13 – The Built Environment 

H1 – Housing Distribution 

H2 – Ensuring Sustainable Housing Delivery 

H3 – Efficient and Sustainable Use of Land 

H4 – Affordable Housing Target 

H5 – Affordable Housing Requirements 

H6 – Housing Mix 

I3 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision 

I5 – Built Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities 

RA1 – Village Categorisation 

RA2 – Distribution of Housing in the Rural Areas 

In May 2007, the site was identified as 3 separate parcels (LA5, LA6 

and LA16) in the Bicester & Central Oxfordshire Sites Allocations 

Issues and Options Paper for consultation. 

Executive Committee Report, Housing Land Supply Position 

Statement, 06 February 2012 

Page 152

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

5.6 

The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are as follows:- 

• principle of the development in relation to Local Plan Policies for new housing 

and the barn conversions 

• Housing delivery and effect of the position statement 

• Highway safety 

• Siting, layout, scale & design 

• Landscape Impact including arboricultural matters 

• Effect on the heritage assets (setting of Yew Tree Farmhouse as a Grade II 

listed building and archaeological matters) 

• Ecology 

• Neighbour impact 

• Section 106 legal agreement 

Principle of the development 

Save for the small section of barn conversions near to the access point, the 

application represents new housing development on farmland. Before 

consideration can be given to the principle of the development, as Launton is a 

Category I settlement, consideration needs to be given to whether or not this site 

lies outside the built up limits of the village. If it is, then the application will be 

considered alongside policies which address new housing development in the 

countryside, namely Policy H18 and, where relevant Policy H6. If the site is 

considered to be ‘within the village’ then the requirements of Policy H13 will need to 

be met. 

Officers have consistently held the view that whilst boundaries to villages are not 

specifically defined, they can be readily identified by the established features on the 

ground. In essence, boundaries are drawn quite ‘tightly’ around the build up areas 

which in this case would lead us to conclude that the northeast and southwest 

boundaries to the village are formed by the rear gardens of the properties that back 

onto the site along Blenheim Drive and Sycamore Road. Therefore, we can 

conclude that the majority of the site is outside the boundary of the built up area and 

the proposal needs to be considered under the main policy H18 of the adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan. The southeast boundary is less clear given the more sporadic 

farm outbuildings but it is not considered to be infilling within the meaning of village 

categorisation policy. 

Policy H18 is clear in its requirements that planning permission will only be granted 

where the housing is essential for agriculture or, by virtue of Policy H6 would be 

small scale low cost housing development for which there is a specific and identified 

local housing need which cannot be met elsewhere. 

With regard to the barn conversions (3 No. in total), these would reasonably be 

regarded as being within the settlement so would be suitable for conversion under 

Policies H13 and H21 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. These buildings are not 

considered to be curtilage listed as part of the main farmhouse, see below. 

Having established that the principle of this development proposal would be 

contrary to policy, it is reasonable to further the consideration of the application by 

Page 153

5.7 

5.8 

5.9 


5.11 

taking into account any other material planning factors. Section 54(A) of the Town 

& Country Planning Act instructs the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to determine 

applications in line with the policies of the Development Plan unless material 

considerations would warrant not doing so. There would need to be demonstrated 

an exceptional need for the development of the site for the use proposed. 

Housing Delivery and effect of Position Statement 

The case for the applicants does not suggest that the site should be considered as 

one which seeks to contribute to the housing land supply shortage but rather one 

which has merit in any event. Nonetheless, as it has been concluded that the 

application would be contrary to policy, the view is held that the Council’s current 

position on housing delivery is a material consideration which should be weighed in 

the balance. The position highlights that the Council has less than a five year 

housing land supply, as required by PPS3, identified at the current time. PPS3 

requires that the Council has in place contingency planning to identify different 

delivery options in the event that actual housing delivery does not occur at the 

expected rate. 

Paragraph 71 of PPS3 states that where LPAs cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 

five year supply of deliverable sites it should ……”consider favourably planning 

applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the 

considerations in paragraph 69”. Paragraph 69 goes onto list what LPAs should 

have regard to when deciding planning applications including the quality of the 

housing, a good mix, environmental sustainability, effective and efficient use of the 

land and wider policy objectives. 

However there is concern that a piecemeal approach to considering applications, 

which seek to contribute to the housing land supply shortage, could lead to 

development occurring in an uncoordinated way in less sustainable locations and 

that the emerging Core Strategy could be undermined. At the Executive meeting of 

6 February 2012 Members considered a Position Statement on Housing Land 

Supply. The key element to take from the Position Statement is the suggested 

approach to managing supply; 

“…it is considered that until such a time that the Core Strategy supersedes this 

position statement, or the district returns to a five-year land supply position 

(whichever is the sooner), the shortfall in housing supply would be most 

appropriately met from the following sources: 

i. Development within the built-up areas of Banbury and Bicester 

ii. Development on sites identified for residential development in the Non- 

Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 

iii. Development on sites identified for other mixed use development in the 

Non-Statutory Local Plan 2011 (as part of mixed use proposals) 

iv. Extensions to the built-up areas of Banbury and Bicester which are 

demonstrably in accordance with or complimentary to the emerging 

Core Strategy 

v. Very limited development within the built-up areas of villages having 

regard to village categorisation policies. 

(All having regard to various other criteria) 

Members resolved to approve this Position Statement without amendments. 

It is clear that the proposed development does not accord with any of the criteria 

Page 154

5.12 

5.13 

5.14 

5.15 

5.16 

5.17 

set out above and is therefore contrary to the Council’s Position Statement which is 

a material consideration. 

Contrary to Paragraph 71 of PPS3, existing and emerging planning policy for 

Cherwell dictates an urban focused development strategy. The South East Plan, 

the saved (adopted) Cherwell Local Plan 1996, the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local 

Plan 2011 and the Draft Core Strategy all have a clear focus on growth at Banbury 

and Bicester in the interests of providing access to jobs, services, facilities, public 

transport, minimising the need to travel by private car and protecting the 

environment and character of rural areas. Development in the rural areas is 

restrained and focussed on meeting local needs. The focus on towns is supported 

by PPS3 and PPS7. The accepted Position Statement reflects these local and 

national policy principles whilst also taking a proactive approach to the current 

housing land supply position. Such a proactive approach is required as part of 

PPS3 and also reflects Policy H2 of the South East Plan which requires that LPAs 

work to allocate and manage a land supply to deliver both the district housing 

provision while ensuring appropriate regard to environmental and infrastructure 

issues. The Council’s Position statement is a proactive interim response to the 

identified shortage in housing land supply which also places specific emphasis on 

the need to protect the rural areas thus being mindful of the environmental and 

infrastructure issues resulting from development in the rural areas. 

Neither the applicant nor its agent has to date commented on the Position 

Statement but in the application submission they set out that given the site’s 

positive planning credentials the application should be approved. The deficient in 

the five-year housing land can only be to its advantage. 

If the Council was looking to approve an application to help contribute to the 

shortage in housing land supply it would have to be satisfied that the proposal was 

deliverable within 5 years. Being a full application this can be conditioned for 3 

years in the usual way so could comfortably contribute to meeting any shortage in 

housing land supply. It could also be subject to requirements through the Section 

106 agreement in particular to ensure a delivery of 35% affordable housing. 

In addition to the need to demonstrate deliverability PPS3 requires sites coming 

forward to meet the following requirements: 

• provide high quality housing; 

• provide a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements 

of specific groups, in particular, families and older people; 

• be suitable site for housing, including its environmental sustainability; 

• represent an effective and efficient use of land; 

• be in line with planning for housing objectives, reflect the need and 

demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not 

undermine wider policy objectives. 

These issues are covered through the more detailed assessment of the proposal in 

the subsequent paragraphs. 

Highway Safety and Parking 

The comments from the County Council Highways are noted and it can be reported 

that there have been no accidents or incidents at the junction of Station Road with 

Bicester Road. The independent safety audit concluded that ‘improvements’ such 

Page 155

5.18 

5.19 

5.20 

5.21 

5.22 

5.23 

as the proposed mini roundabout could in fact make matters worse. There is clearly 

a strong concern locally but there is no obvious problem in a technical sense with 

this junction. Whilst it does not meet visibility standards, the advice in ‘Manual for 

Streets’ says that this situation often has a calming influence on drivers producing 

less accidents; and this is borne out by the figures. The applicant has committed to 

undertaking any works necessary to improve this junction. 

Further internal site alterations are still awaited to improve the layout and this is 

achievable as are the site entrance improvements. Also, adequate parking 

provision has been proposed. Based on the advice from the County Council, it is 

considered that the application is acceptable in highway safety grounds, subject to 

the conditions recommended at the end of this report. 

Layout, Scale and Design 

The final layout has been produced following consultation with, planning officers, 

the urban design team and landscape services the latter of who has criticised the 

scheme as there is insufficient softening of the street scene as a result of the lack of 

front garden spaces. This limits the opportunities for further landscaping. However, 

this has to be weighed in the balance of ensuring there is a maximum amount of 

space between the rear of the proposed properties and the existing ones along 

Blenheim Drive and Sycamore Road. 

The layout and extent of development on the site does not go beyond that 

established by Sycamore Road. Indeed there is a set back from the boundary as it 

tapers towards the extent of Blenheim Drive with a softening of the boundary by the 

extended public space which leads onto the existing playing field to the west. The 

street scene is not dominated by parking spaces and the TPO’d oak tree is given an 

extended setting breaking up the built form. 

There is a mix of housing types which have been laid out addressing principles for 

designing out crime. The main issue has been whether or not there should be 

enhanced pedestrian routes through the site from Blenheim Road by the oak tree 

and on balance given the advice from TV Police this element should be removed, 

particularly as some residents have objected to this element. The proposed 

footpath in this situation makes it what is referred to as a ‘leaky’ cul-de-sac and 

research has shown that this may increase the vulnerability of an area to burglary 

and theft. 

The scheme has also been criticised by third parties because of the 2 storey 

housing element which is argued as not being characteristic of the area given that 

both Blenheim Drive and Sycamore Road are bungalow developments. However, 2 

storey properties do feature in the wider context and environs of the village and 

there is in fact a small element (4 in total) of single storey properties proposed (and 

a further 2 single storey barn conversions). Also, it is not the 2 storey element per 

se that would be the issue, but rather the impact they would have i.e. overall 

appearance in the wider area or effect on existing neighbours (addressed below). 

The design of the private and affordable housing seeks to ensure what is referred to 

as ‘tenure blindness’. The detailing has sought to be contemporary whilst being 

influenced by the traditional materials such as limestone (Cornbrash/Oolitic) with 

red brick and some timber weather boarding. Roofs will be slate effect plain tiles 

and chimneys are proposed on several of the plots. 

Page 156

5.24 

5.25 

5.26 

5.27 

5.28 

5.29 

With particular regard to the barn conversions, these are stable enough structures 

not to require rebuilt and are worthy of retention, particularly given their historic 

setting. The barns are proposed to be converted to three units (2 No. bungalows 

and a two storey dwelling). Existing windows and openings are used and there are 

no additions altering the original layout. 

Impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and trees 

The site is within the countryside and its present character and appearance is 

greatly valued. PPS7 advises that the countryside be protected for its own sake 

and current policies in the local plan (Policies C7 and C8) seek to retain tight control 

over all development proposals in the countryside. 

Of particular interest in this regard is whether or not the proposed site intrudes into 

the landscape to an unacceptable degree. At the present time, being flanked by 

linear developments either site, it would appear to be filling in the gap that is 

created. The overall effect, it is argued, would be that when viewed from the wider 

landscape, the built form would be largely lost against the backdrop of existing 

properties. If we look in particular at the evidence provided in Figures 7 and 8 of the 

Archaeological Assessment we can see how the village has evolved with linear 

developments (Blenheim Drive and Sycamore Road) and the development of this 

‘gap’ would suggest a logical and natural growth to the village without intruding into 

the most sensitive landscape areas. Given the spacious layout of the site, with 

many gaps and varied ridge heights and, to some extent the stepped front 

elevations, there is sufficient visual relief to suggest that any harm to the wider rural 

landscape character would not be at a level that would be so significant as to be 

detrimentally harmful. 

Views into the site from Station Road are somewhat hampered by the various 

outbuildings associated with the farm. The main farmhouse to the south of the 

access track and the barns to the north already suggest development within the 

wider site. The barns will remain as features at the front entrance to the site so 

would not appear to detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the rural 

landscape to an unacceptable degree. 

With regard to arboricultural matters, the survey indicates there to be only 3 No. 

trees worthy of consideration as all remaining trees, tree groups and hedgerows are 

not considered to be a constraint to the development. The Oak tree is being 

retained and the footpath can be conditioned to avoid the root protection area. The 

2 other trees (Oak and Sycamore), whilst outside the site boundary, are noted by 

the arboriculturalist as being within influencing distance of plots 28 and 31. 

However, they will largely affect the gardens to the properties and not the actual 

dwellings themselves so should not have an undue bearing on the overall layout. It 

is noted that it is good to see the proposed retention of the stand of Ash trees and 

hedgerows. 

Effect on the Heritage Assets 

PPS5 advises on how applications, that would affect heritage assets, should be 

considered. It should be noted that the overarching aim is that the ‘historic 

environment and its heritage assets should be conserved’. A key objective is ‘to 

contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past’. In this case, there are 

no Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Historic Parks & Gardens and no Conservation 

Page 157

5.30 

5.31 

5.32 

5.33 

5.34 

Areas. The desk based assessment revealed that whilst there are some historic 

archaeological remains within the wider study area, none are within the proposed 

development area. Also the farmhouse is Grade II listed but it has been determined 

that the barns are not curtilage listed. 

The application is supported by a Heritage Appraisal which confirms that the historic 

farm buildings at Yew Tree Farm significantly post date the farm house and form a 

much later phase. Further, the barns are separated from the farmhouse by the 

physical features namely the wall which would not make them candidates for 

curtilage listing. Nevertheless they make a major contribution to the character of 

the countryside reflecting the long history of agriculture in Britain and are regarded 

as undesignated heritage assets. To this end, any conversion would have to be of 

particular high standard especially given their significant presence at the entrance to 

the site and firmly positioned in the public domain within the setting of the listed 

farmhouse. 

It is noted that the treatment of the barns is sensitive in that the proposed alterations 

retain the barns simplicity of scale and form. The principal characteristics of the 

barns are the large open interiors, unbroken roof slopes and interest roof structures. 

New openings have been kept to a minimum and the roofs have small conservation 

roof lights thereby retaining the roofline. A full height window is proposed in barn 

the two storey barn (plot 38) to replace the wagon door opening. All new doors will 

be simple robust plank doors and similarly natural materials will be used for any 

windows. Together with the structural evidence in support of the view that no 

inappropriate alterations would be required for the conversion of these barns this 

proposal will ensure their successful retention and re-use into the future. The result 

will also not harm the setting of adjacent Yew Tree Farmhouse. 

In addition to Yew Tree Farmhouse, there are several other listed buildings within 

1km of the proposed development including Home Farm (opposite the 

Congregationalist Chapel on Station Road) and Grange Farm (further north along 

Station Road) but it is considered that the site is sufficiently distant and contained 

from their settings not to be affected by this proposal. 

Matters of archaeology also come under the domain of heritage assets and the 

application is supported by an archaeological assessment which has been 

scrutinised by the County archaeologist. The assessment concludes that, because 

of the potential to contain archaeological evidence from the Later Prehistoric and 

perhaps Roman periods, further evaluation would be required if the development 

were to proceed. 

Ecology 

The application is supported by an ecological survey to which was carried out in 

October last year identifying European Protected Species as well as other birds and 

reptiles. It is supplemented by further work regarding bat activity including a bat 

survey report dated September 2010 and a Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan 

dated January 2012. The main survey concluded that, aside from the bats, there 

are no other habitats of international, national or local importance that would be 

directly or indirectly affected by the proposal and no protected species have been 

recorded to date. The Council’s ecologist is satisfied that the recommendations in 

the submission are appropriate and the ecological enhancements will be beneficial 

in this location and in line with government guidance in PPS9. These are 

Page 158

5.35 

5.36 

5.37 

5.38 

recommended as conditions of the granting of planning permission. 

As bats have been identified in structures designated for development at the site, 

the applicants will require the prior acquisition of a statutory bat licence from Natural 

England. To this end the Council has a duty to determine whether the proposed 

development meets the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive. There are 3 

tests, the first 2 of which (that of imperative reasons of overriding public need and 

there being no satisfactory alternative) are often difficult to reconcile with private 

developments. However, it can be reasoned that the existing barns would benefit 

from re-use and may continue to deteriorate if not maintained and to ‘do nothing’ 

would be a missed opportunity given their historic integrity. Given the benefits 

associated with bringing the existing buildings into active use, in line with national 

guidance contained in PPS7, with the design and nature of the proposed conversion 

not being detrimental to the character of the locality or the buildings themselves, no 

satisfactory alternative to the proposed scheme has been identified. Further, the 

major benefits from the conversion of the barn complex are those of a social, 

economic and environmental nature evidenced by the use to which they will be put, 

the energy efficiency of the design and the maintenance of the character of the 

buildings in their surrounding. Renovation and conversion of the existing buildings 

is more environmentally acceptable to demolition and rebuilt particularly given the 

buildings historic context. 

It is considered that the scheme has been sensitively designed and is acceptable 

given the sensitive location with a range of mitigation and enhancement measures 

that can be implemented and delivered through an appropriately worded condition. 

Therefore, the scheme satisfies the three derogation tests under The Conservation 

of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010). It is further concluded that, as the 

species of bats found or likely to be present are relatively common, providing 

mitigation for the loss of a maternity colony (the worst case scenario likely at the 

site) is provided, this should be sufficient and the applicants would be likely to 

obtain a licence from Natural England. 

Neighbour Impact 

In terms of the material planning considerations raised by nearby residents, of 

principle concern has been the traffic situation and this is addressed under separate 

heading. Many other issues have also been raised and covered elsewhere in the 

report, so this section will deal specifically with any direct effect on the amenities 

currently enjoyed by the neighbours including overlooking and consequential loss of 

privacy, loss of light, overdomination and overshadowing. 

Turning first to the impact on Blenheim Drive, residents, generally with this estate 

being to the north of the site, there could be potential for overshadowing or loss of 

light given the site orientation. The closest built form is the gable to plot 32 which is 

some 17m from the rear building lines of nos. 25 and 27. The layout does not 

obscure the whole of the rear gardens to either property and there are significant 

gaps either side of the 9m gable providing relief for sunlight and daylight generally. 

The height to eaves at 5.2m is not excessive and there are no first floor windows 

proposed on the north east side elevation. Plot 33 and No. 19 and plot 23 and No. 

35 have ‘side on’ relationships but again the distances are acceptable and the 

nearest property to No. 19 is a bungalow which cannot overlook its most private 

space closest to the property. 

Page 159

5.39 With regard to Sycamore Road, this has a more favourable outlook generally with 

longer gardens and a greater distance between the rear building lines and the site 

boundary (approximately 22m which is within the Council’s guideline figure). Again, 

addressing the most acute relationships, plots 13, 16, 17 and 21 do indeed propose 

the largest of the house types but no windows are proposed on the elevations that 

could directly overlook the private gardens between nos. 12 and 38 Sycamore 

Road. There is also a significant break between the proposed dwellings at plot 

numbers 17 and 21 providing visual relief, and again between plots 16 and 13. Plot 

8 sides onto no. 8 Sycamore Drive but is a bungalow so the impact will be minimal. 

It is recommended, by condition, that the windows on the southern gable to plot 7 

be obscurely glazed and fixed at first floor. 

5.40 

5.41 

5.42 

Section 106 Legal Agreement 

The development will give rise to infrastructure and service requirements and is 

therefore liable for planning obligations. The following financial contributions 

towards general infrastructure related items, facilities or measures which will 

mitigate the effect of the development are being sought as follows. These will form 

the main heads of terms: 

a) Open space and outdoor sport and recreation – £ (to be advised) 

b) Indoor sports - £ (to be advised) 

c) Community facilities - £ (to be advised) 

d) Refuse bins and recycling banks - £2,700 

e) General Transport and Access impacts - £ 50,000 

f) Primary School Infrastructure - £178,424 

g) Senior School Infrastructure - £313,325 

h) Special Educational Needs Infrastructure - £8,108 

i) Youth Centre Provision - £3,874 

j) Library & stock - £9,500 

k) Adult learning - £1,208 

l) Day Resource Care Centre for the Elderly - £6,090 

m) Museum resource centre - £579 

n) Strategic Waste Management - £7,299 

o) Local Area Play (LAP) - £33,627 

p) Mature tree management - £3,036 

q) Pond maintenance @ £62.36 per m2 plus management 

r) Ditch/water course maintenance @ £54.71 per metre 

s) Hedge planting & management @ £39.08 per metre 

t) Informal amenity areas/public open space @ £36.61 per m2 

u) Public Art - £6,000 

A further fee for County Council administration of £5,000 is required and also 

contributions towards legal costs. 

Whilst there is a commitment by the developer to enter a legal agreement, at the 

time of writing, no such agreement has been entered into. It is likely that further 

negotiation will take place in respect of the amounts being sought before a final 

decision is made. Whilst some figures are yet to be included, to date the total 

contribution sought from the proposal is approximately £ 628,700. 

Other matters 

Whilst flooding was not identified as a constraint to the development of this site it 

has been raised by many third party representations. However, it would seem that 

Page 160

5.43 

5.44 

the problem is one of perception because neither the Environment Agency or the 

County Council drainage team have identified a problem here that cannot be 

managed by appropriate conditions on any planning permission. With regard to 

possible land contamination issues, whilst the applicant has submitted a desk top 

relating to environmental risk, this was undertaken without a site inspection, further 

enquiries or investigation of surface or ground conditions so the full contaminated 

land conditions are recommended to ensure the risks are minimised. 

Conclusions 

The development of this site would be contrary to adopted policy but that in itself 

should not be reason to refuse an application if it is otherwise acceptable. The 

proposal also runs counter to the Council’s recent position statement regarding the 

current identified housing shortfall. However, the applicant does not make a case 

here that this site is being promoted to fulfil a housing need but rather it has merit in 

its own right. It is a linear development which characteristically fills a gap between 2 

other linear housing schemes either side. It will not intrude into the landscape or 

look odd when viewed from the public domain. The barn conversions are sensitive 

and respectful of the historic setting and their retention will be of benefit. Also, the 

view is held that there would be no highway safety, parking or flooding problems 

(identified as being of particular local concern). 

Although the principle of the proposal is contrary to policy, all issues that have been 

identified as important have been adequately addressed and are demonstrated as 

being wholly compliant with other policies of the development plan. In weighing the 

balance of these issues presented, together with the acknowledged shortfall of 

housing in the district, the case tips in favour of approval of the scheme. Being a 

full detailed application by a housing developer, the scheme is likely to be delivered 

quickly and this will contribute to the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. Indeed 

the applicant has agreed to reducing the usual 3 year duration limit on the consent 

to 2 years. 


Approval, subject to: 

a) the applicant/s entering into an appropriate legal agreement to the satisfaction of the 

District Council to secure financial contributions as outlined in paragraph 5.40, 

b) the following conditions: 

1. SC1.4A Full Permission: Duration Limit (2 years) (RC2) 



documents listed below: 

Planning Support Statement dated March 2012, Design and Access Statement dated 

November 2011 by Manor Oak Homes and dwg nos. 7259/008A, 024, 025, 026, 027, 

028A, 029A, 030A, 031A, 032B, 033B, 034B, 035A, 036A, 037A, 038B, 039A, 040B, 

041B, 042B, 043A, 044A, 045K, 046, 047A, 049 and 050 received with the application. 

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only 

as approved by the Local Planning Authority and comply with Government guidance 

contained within PPS 1. 

3. SC3.OA Submit Landscaping Scheme (RC10A) 

4. SC3.1A Carry out Landscaping Scheme and Replacements (RC10A) 

5. Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off 

site drainage works has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning 

Page 161

Authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface 

water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works 

referred to in the strategy have been completed. 

Reason – In order to avoid sewage flooding, to ensure that sufficient capacity is made 

available to cope with the new development, in order to avoid adverse environmental 

impact upon the community and to comply with Government advice in PPS25 – 

Development and Flood Risk, Policy NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy 

ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

6. Development shall not be commenced until Impact Studies of the existing water supply 

infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies shall determine the 

magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable 

connection point. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with 

the recommendations of the Impact Studies. 

Reason – To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope 

with the additional demand in the interests of public health and to comply with Policy 

NRM1 of the South East Plan 2009. 

7. Development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme based on 

sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and 

hydrogeological context of the development including calculations and soakage tests 

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason – To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, 

to improve habitat and amenity, to ensure further maintenance of the drainage system 

and in order to comply with Government advice in PPS25 – Development and Flood 

Risk and Policy NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009. 

8. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment 

proposal by JPP Consulting dated November 2011 accompanying the application unless 

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (RC88A) 

9. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

recommendations set out in Bat Survey Report by Betts Ecology dated September 2010 

and the Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan dated January 2012 unless otherwise 

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (RC85A) 

10. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

recommendations and specifications set out in an Arboricultural Method Statement 

which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to 

the commencement of the development. 

Reason - To ensure that no proposed operations impair the health of any retained trees 

in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and to comply with Policy C4 of the 


11.No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision for the 

arboricultural protection measures has been approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. This scheme will be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and 

should include details of: 

a) induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters, 

b) identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel, 

c) timing and methods of scheduled arboricultural site monitoring, record keeping, and 

the subsequent submission of information to the LPA. 

d) procedures for dealing with variations and incidents. 

Reason - To ensure that no proposed operations impair the health of any retained trees 

in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the integration of the 

development in to the existing landscape and to comply with Policy C4 of the South East 

Page 162

Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a site walk over to 

further identify all potential contaminative uses on site, and to inform the conceptual site 

model, shall be carried out by a competent person and in accordance with DEFRA and 

the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the management of Land 

Contamination, CLR 11’ and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. No development shall take place until the Local Planning Authority 

has given its written approval that it is satisfied that no potential risk from contamination 

has been identified. 

Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land 

and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property 

and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely 

without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in 

accordance with Policy ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and PPS23: Planning 

and Pollution Control. 

13. If a potential risk from contamination is identified as a result of the work carried out 

under condition 12, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a 

comprehensive intrusive investigation in order to characterise the type, nature and 

extent of contamination present, the risks to receptors and to inform the remediation 

strategy proposals shall be documented as a report undertaken by a competent person 

and in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's ‘Model Procedures for 

the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’ and submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place unless the 

Local Planning Authority has given its written approval that it is satisfied that the risk 

from contamination has been adequately characterised as required by this condition. 

Reason – as condition 12. 

14. If contamination is found by undertaking the work carried out under condition 13, prior to 

the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of remediation 

and/or monitoring to ensure the site is suitable for its proposed use shall be prepared by 

a competent person and in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 

‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’ and submitted 

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take 

place until the Local Planning Authority has given its written approval of the scheme of 

remediation and/or monitoring required by this condition. 


15. If remedial works have been identified in condition 14, the remedial works shall be 

carried out in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 14. The 

development shall not be occupied until a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a 

validation report), that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out, 

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 


16.Prior to any demolition on the site and the commencement of the development a 

professional archaeological organisation acceptable to the Local Planning Authority shall 

prepare a first stage archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation, relating to the 

application area, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. 

Reason - To safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of archaeological 

importance on the site in accordance with PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 

17. Prior to any demolition on the site and the commencement of the development and 

following the approval of the first stage Written Scheme of Investigation referred to in 

condition 16, a programme of archaeological evaluation, investigation and recording of 

the application area shall be carried out by the commissioned archaeological 

Page 163

organisation in accordance with the approved first stage Written Scheme of 

Investigation. 

Reason - In order to determine the extent, character and significance of the surviving 

remains of archaeological interest and to safeguard the recording and inspection of 

matters of archaeological importance on the site in accordance with PPS5: Planning for 

the Historic Environment. 

18. Prior to any demolition on the site and the commencement of the development and 

following the completion of the archaeological evaluation, investigation and recording 

referred to in condition 17, a report of the archaeological evidence found on the 

application site and full details of a second stage Written Scheme of Investigation 

based on the findings, including a programme of methodology, site investigation and 

recording, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 



19. Prior to the commencement of the development and prior to any demolition (other than 

in accordance with the second stage Written Scheme of Investigation), the further 

programme of archaeological investigation shall be carried out and fully completed in 

accordance with the second stage Written Scheme of Investigation approved under 

condition 18. 



20. Following the completion of the fieldwork all post excavation work including all 

processing, research and analysis necessary to produce an accessible and useable 

archive and its deposition, and a full report for publication, shall be submitted to the 

Local Planning Authority in accordance with the revised Written Scheme of 

Investigation approved under condition 18. 

Reason – To safeguard the identification, recording, analysis and archiving of heritage 

assets before they are lost and to advance understanding of the heritage assets in their 

wider context through publication and dissemination of the evidence in accordance with 

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. 

21. That full details of the means of access between the land and the highway, including 

footway works to provide adequate visibility, shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. 

(RC13BB) 

22. That full specification details of the Bicester Road / Station Road crossroad 

improvements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Thereafter the agreed 

details shall be constructed prior to first occupation of the development. (RC13BB) 

23. SC4.10AA Estate Accesses, Driveways (RC14AA) 

24. SC4.13CD Parking and Manoeuvring Area Retained (RC13BB) 

25. A Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted. The 

Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented and operated in accordance with the 

approved details. (RC66A) 

26. SC6.6AB No Conversion of Garage (RC35AA) 

27. SC6.2AA No Extensions (RC32A) 

28. SC6.3A No New Windows (RC33) 

29. That the first floor windows in the south west facing gable elevation to the proposed 

property occupying plot 7 shall be fixed and glazed at all times with obscured glass. 

(RC6A) 

30. That the rooflight/s to the barn conversions shall be a conservation grade rooflight/s 

which shall fit flush with the roof plane. 

Page 164

Reason – To ensure that the completed development is in keeping with and conserves 

the special character of the heritage asset and to comply with Government advice in 

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment, BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and 

C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

31. That samples of the surface finishes for the areas of hardstanding shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of 

the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details 

so approved. 

Reason – To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and to 

comply with Policy BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the adopted 


32. Where detailed on the various plots, the external walls of the dwellings and the 

boundary walls shall be constructed in natural limestone which shall be laid, dressed, 

coursed and pointed in accordance with a sample panel (minimum 1m2 in size) which 

shall be constructed on site to be inspected and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority prior to the construction of the development hereby permitted. 

(RC5B) 

33. That samples of the brick to be used in the construction of the walls of the dwellings 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to 

the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the details so approved. (RC4A) 

34. That details of the render, including colour and texture, to be used in the construction of 

the walls of the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development 

shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. (RC4A) 

35. That samples of the tiles to be used in the construction of the new dwellings shall be 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the 

commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the details so approved. (RC4A) 

36. That samples of the slate to be used in the construction of the barn conversions shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the 


accordance with the details so approved. (RC5B) 

37. That any remedial stonework necessary for the repair or making good of the barns shall 

be carried out in natural weathered limestone of the same type, texture, colour and 

appearance as the stone on the existing buildings and shall be laid, dressed, coursed 

and pointed to match that of the existing buildings unless otherwise approved in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority prior to the works commencing. (RC5AA) 

38. That full design details of the timber windows and doors for the barn conversions shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the 


accordance with the approved details. 

Reason – To ensure that the completed development is in keeping with and conserves 

the special character of the existing heritage asset and to comply with Government 

advice in PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment, Policies BE1 and BE6 of the 


39. That the existing stone walls facing onto Station Road and which face onto the farm 

access track shall be retained and any remedial stonework necessary for the repair or 

making good of the walls shall be carried out in natural weathered limestone of the 

same type, texture, colour and appearance as the existing wall and shall be laid, 

dressed, coursed and pointed to match that of the existing wall unless otherwise 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the works commencing. 

Page 165

(RC5AA) 

40. Before commencement of the development details of how the existing rights of way will 

be maintained particularly with regard to signage and proper gaps where the paths 

enter/exit the site through the hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in 


Reason – To ensure that the proposed development maintains, enhances and 

promotes the Public Rights of Way and to comply with Policy C6 of the South East Plan 

2009. 

Planning Notes: 

1. Attention is drawn to the legal agreement in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking which 

has been made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2. The applicant is advised that the erection of flow control structures or any culverting of a 

watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Environment Agency under s.23 of 

the Land Drainage Act 1991 or s.109 of the Water Resources Act 1991. The 

Environment Agency resists culverting on nature conservation and other grounds and 

consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings. 

3. With regard to condition 7, the scheme shall include a full detailed design drawings and 

associated calculations, a report demonstrating how the final drainage scheme is in 

accordance with the principles with the approved surface water drainage strategy/FRA 

by R-FRA-N5104P-01-A, JPP Consulting, November 2011) and details of how the 

scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. 

4. With regard to condition 11, the Local Planning Authority will require the scheme of 

supervision to be administered by a qualified arboriculturalist approved by the Local 

Planning Authority but instructed by the applicant. 

5. For highway works requiring a Section 278 Agreement, the applicant is advised to 

contact the Road Agreements Team 01865 815700. All highway work costs will be met 

by the applicant. 

6. With regard to conditions 21, 22, 23 and 24, all the proposed specifications shall be to 

Oxfordshire County Council Highway Authority standard. 

7. With regard to condition 25, the Travel Plan shall include Sustainable Travel Information 

Packs which shall be provided to each of the households in the proposed residential 

development. As a minimum; this should contain information on the alternatives to 

single-occupancy car use available to residents, walking and cycling route maps, 

discounts, public transport information, the contact details of the Travel Plan Coordinator 

for the site and useful resources such as the Transport Direct Journey Planner 

website (www.transportdirect.info) to enable people to plan their own journeys. A copy 

of the Travel Information Pack should be sent to the Travel Choices Team. 



The Council, as Local Planning Authority, has determined this application in accordance 

with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The 

development is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits being of a layout, scale 

and design appropriate in its context and will not have a detrimental effect on the 

neighbouring residential amenities. It will not cause harm to the visual amenities of the 

wider rural landscape, acknowledged archaeological interests, highway safety, ecology or 

flooding. The proposal, therefore, complies with government guidance contained in PPS1 

(Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing), PPS5 (Planning for the Historic 

Environment), PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), PPS9 (Biodiversity & 

Page 166

Geological Conservation) and PPG13 (Transport), PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control), 

PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk), Policies CC1, CC4, CC6, T1, T4, C4, C6, BE1, BE6, 

NRM1, NRM4 and NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies H13, H21, C7, C9, C28, 

C27, C30, C33, ENV1 and ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons 

given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the Council considers that the 

application should be approved and planning permission granted subject to appropriate 

conditions, as set out above. 

CONTACT OFFICER: Rebecca Horley TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221837 

Page 167

¯Mill 


Fenbury 

Springfield 

Manor 

Tink-Tank 

Issues 

Old Bakehouse 

St Peters Close 

Scale 

1:2,500 

Wykham Arms 

(Ph) 

Bankside 

Eastbank 

Elm 

Pond FB 

Vicarage 

Pump House 

11/01915/F 

Inglenook 

The Old 

Gladstone 

Ivydene 

Nivantun 

Mast 

CHURCH LANE 

TCB 

HIGH STREET 

Hall Yew 

Home 

Church 

War 

CF 

123.4m 

School 

THE TOWN 

GREEN LANE 

South 

Newington 

Wingate Cottage 

Exeter 

Throstle 

Mill Stream Farm 

The 

College 

Forge 

Park 

Newton 

Chapel 

The Close 

Works 

Path (um) 

Arcadia 

The Stables 

Orchard 

The Gate House 

Jasmine 

GREEN LANE 

The Barn House 

The Gables 

Lavender Cottage 

Sands House 

Barretts 

House 

Phoenix Cottage Beech Lee 

The Barn 

BARFORD ROAD 

Old Forge 

Kaper Cottage 

Applegarth 

Holm Cottage 

Hollowfields 

Orchard 

124.1m 

The Thatched 

Page 168 

Quarryside 

End 

Langdale 

Stonelea 

Murroes 

Wardens Post 

SANDS LANE 

Foxland 

The Ranch 

Glantaf 

Krista 

Pump 

The Paddock 

Revere 

Gables 


Path (um) 

Hollow 

The Deans 

Pond 

The Hive 

Oddstones 

Aubreys Barn 

Cottage 

MOOR LANE 

BARFORD ROAD

¯Park 

Newton 

Cottage 

Works 

Orchard 

House 

Scale 

1:750 

GREEN LANE 

The Stables 

GREEN LANE 

Cherry 

Orchard 

11/01915/F 

Barretts 

The Gables 

The Barn 

BARFORD ROAD 

BARFORD ROAD 

The Thatched 

Cottage 

Phoenix Cottage 

Newgarth 

Page 169 

Quarryside 

124.1m 


Old 

Orchard 

Hollowfields 

Beech Lee 

SANDS LANE 

1 

Krista


11/01915/F 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: Hook Norton Date Valid: 

22/12/2011 

Mrs. Sarah Robinson-Smith 

Cherry Orchard, Green Lane, South Newington OX15 4JH 

Refurbishment of existing house, demolition of two existing extensions 

and construction of new side and rear extensions to form replacement 

kitchen and living room at ground floor level and two further bedrooms at 

first floor level. 


1.1 

The application relates to a detached dwelling over three floors and constructed of 

stone under a slate roof. The site lies on the corner of Green Lane and Barford 

Road with the property facing Green Lane. The area is generally rural in character. 

The building is listed grade II and lies within the South Newington Conservation 

Area. 

1.2 The proposal seeks to demolish two existing rear extensions and replace this with a 

two storey extension. A dormer window will be relocated as a result of the rear 

extension. A further two storey side extension is proposed while the other side an 

existing single storey wash house would be converted into a utility room. 


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of a site notice that was attached to a 

telegraph pole close to the property. The final date for comment was 09/02/2012 

No letters of representation have been received. 


3.1 

South Newington Parish Council – No objection. 

3.2 OCC Highways – No objection 

3.3 Ecology Officer – No comments 

3.4 OCC Archaeologist – from the details supplied it would seem unlikely that the 

small-scale nature of the proposals would justify an archaeological response 


4.1 


Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development 

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment 

Page 170


C28 – Development Control - Design 

C30 – Development Control – Amenity 


BE1 – Management for an urban renaissance 

BE6 - Management of the Historic Environment 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 The proposal seeks to extend the existing property to the rear with a two storey 

extension following the removal of a conservatory and a single storey extension. A 

further two storey extension to the side (south) is also proposed an existing single 

storey side (north) extension would be converted from a former wash room to a 

utility room. The building is constructed of stone under a slate roof and is over three 

floors. The site benefits from a very large curtilage with no direct neighbours. 

5.2 As the site lies within the South Newington Conservation Area, Section 72(1) of the 

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a 

requirement in relation to the consideration and determination of planning 

applications which affect conservation areas, that special attention should be paid to 

the desirability that the character or appearance of the conservation area should be 

preserved or enhanced. 

5.3 The rear extension would provide additional accommodation in the form of a kitchen 

with bedroom over. The extension would measure some 5.7m (w) x 4.6m (l) x 8.5m 

(h) and would be constructed of stone and slate to match the existing building. A 

dormer window would be relocated 1m southwards to allow the construction of the 

rear extension. Timber windows are proposed in all elevations and a timber door in 

the south side entering the garden. New openings from the main house into the 

extension would be created at ground and first floor levels. 

5.4 The side (south) extension would provide a living room with a further bedroom over. 

The extension would again be constructed of stone under a slate roof with dormer 

window facing the rear of the property. The extension has been amended following 

concerns over the size of the original proposal and has been reduced in size. The 

side extension would measure 5m (w) x 4.8m (l) x 6.8m (h). Timber windows are 

proposed in all elevations with timber doors to the south at ground floor entering the 

garden. The extension would be set back and lower than the main house in order to 

remain subservient. The existing washroom on the north elevation would be 

converted into a utility room and accessed via the new rear extension with the 

existing corrugated roof replaced with a slate covered roof. 

5.5 The design of the proposals are considered acceptable and the materials for the 

proposed extensions would compliment the existing building at the site. The size 

and scale of the proposals are in keeping with the main element of the dwelling. 

The setting back and lowering of the roof for the side (south) extension reduces its 

overall bulk. Therefore, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the 

character and appearance of the Conservation Area and given the distance from 

adjoining properties is unlikely to impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers to 

an unacceptable level. 

Page 171

Conclusion 

6.1 The proposal has been amended to reduce the size of the side extension. This 

amendment overcomes initial concerns regarding additions to the property. The 

proposal is therefore considered acceptable. The development would preserve the 

character of the Conservation Area and the character and appearance of the area. 




1. That the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than 

the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory 

Purchase Act 2004. 



documents: Drawing 010 Rev B dated Sept 2011, 011/1 Rev B dated Dec 2011, 

011/2 Rev B dated Sept 2011 and 012 Rev B dated Dec 2011 




PLANNING NOTE 

The County Archaeologist has indicated that the proposal does not appear to directly affect 

any presently known archaeological sites. However, the County Council's records do show 

the presence of known archaeological finds nearby and this should be borne in mind by the 

applicant. If archaeological finds do occur during development, the applicant is requested 

to notify the County Archaeologist in order that he may make a site visit or otherwise advise 

as necessary. Please contact : County Archaeologist, Department of Leisure and Arts, 

Oxfordshire County Council, Central Library, Westgate, Oxford, OX1 1DJ (Telephone 01865 

815749). 




the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The 

development is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposed 

development is of a design, size and style that is appropriate in its context and would not 

have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation 

Area or the amenities of adjoining occupiers. As such the proposal is in accordance with 

the advice within Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, 

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, saved policy C28 and 

Page 172

C30 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and policy BE1 and BE6 of the South East 

Plan 2009. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised 

including third party representations the Council considers that the application should be 


above 


Page 173

¯ Park 


Orchard 

House 

GREEN LANE 

Scale 

1:750 

The Stables 

GREEN LANE 

Cherry 

Orchard 

11/01916/LB 

Barretts 

The Gables 

The Barn 

BARFORD ROAD 

Cottage 

BARFORD ROAD 

The Thatched 

Phoenix Cottage 

Newgarth 

Page 174 

Quarryside 

124.1m 

Old 

Orchard 


Hollowfields 

Beech Lee 

1 

Krista 

SANDS LANE 

The Old Council Houses

¯ 11/01916/LB 

Issues 

Wykham Arms 

(Ph) Pond FB 

Manor 

Gladstone 

South 

Newington 

Fenbury 

Tink-Tank 

Springfield 

Old Bakehouse 

St Peters Close 

Scale 

1:2,500 

Bankside 

Eastbank 

Elm 

Vicarage 

Inglenook 

The Old 

Ivydene 

Nivantun 

Mast 

CHURCH LANE 

TCB 

HIGH STREET 

Hall Yew 

Home 

Church 

War 

CF 

123.4m 

School 

The 

College 

Forge 

THE TOWN 

Wingate Cottage 

Exeter 

Throstle 

Park 

Newton 

Chapel 

The Close 

Works 

Path (um) 

Arcadia 

The Stables 

Orchard 

GREEN LANE 

The Gate House 

Mill Stream Farm 

Jasmine 

GREEN LANE 

The Barn House 

The Gables 

Lavender Cottage 

Sands House 

Barretts 

House 

Phoenix Cottage Beech Lee 

The Barn 

BARFORD ROAD 

Old Forge 

Kaper Cottage 

Applegarth 

Holm Cottage 

Hollowfields 

Orchard 

Quarryside 

124.1m 

The Thatched 

Page 175 

End 

Langdale 

Stonelea 

Murroes 

Wardens Post 

SANDS LANE 

Foxland 

The Ranch 

Glantaf 

Krista 

Pump 

The Paddock 

Revere 

Gables 


Path (um) 

Hollow 

The Deans 

Pond 

The Hive 

Oddstones 

Cottage 

MOOR LANE 

Aubreys Barn 

BARFORD ROAD


11/01916/LB 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: Hook Norton Date Valid: 

22/12/2011 

Mrs. Sarah Robinson-Smith 

Cherry Orchard, Green Lane, South Newington OX15 4JH 

Refurbishment of existing house, demolition of two existing extensions 

and construction of new side and rear extensions to form replacement 

kitchen and living room at ground floor level and two further bedrooms at 

first floor level. 


1.1 

The application relates to a detached dwelling over three floors and constructed of 

stone under a slate roof. The site lies on the corner of Green Lane and Barford 

Road with the property facing Green Lane. The area is generally rural in character. 

The building is listed grade II and lies within the South Newington Conservation 

Area. 

1.2 The proposal seeks to demolish two existing rear extensions and replace this with a 

two storey extension. A dormer window will be relocated as a result of the rear 

extension. A further two storey side extension is proposed while the other side an 

existing single storey wash house would be converted into a utility room. 


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of a site notice that was attached to a 

telegraph pole close to the property. The final date for comment was 09/02/2012 

No letters of representation have been received. 


3.1 

South Newington Parish Council – No objection. 

3.2 OCC Highways – No objection 

3.3 Ecology Officer – No comments 

3.4 OCC Archaeologist – from the details supplied it would seem unlikely that the 

small-scale nature of the proposals would justify an archaeological response 

3.5 Design & Conservation – Cherry Orchard is an asymmetrical building with classic 

proportions. The proposed extension to the side elevation looks to retain this 

appearance and ensure that the building is still readable as originally intended. The 

rear extension looks to replace the more modern additions, which I believe replaced 

the original rear extension. The proposal to include the existing utility area 

(containing the copper) will ensure that this building is retained in good condition. 

Page 176

We would strongly recommend retaining the copper as this is of high historical 

importance and a feature lost to many buildings over recent years. Internally, the 

replacement staircase is justifiable as the current staircase can be seen as a H&S 

hazard. 


4.1 


Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment 


C18 – Listed Buildings 


BE6 - Management of the Historic Environment 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 The proposal seeks to extend the existing property to the rear with a two storey 

extension following the removal of a conservatory and a single storey extension. A 

further two storey extension to the side (south) is also proposed an existing single 

storey side (north) extension would be converted from a former wash room to a 

utility room. The building is constructed of stone under a slate roof and is over three 

floors. The site benefits from a very large curtilage with no direct neighbours. 

5.2 As the site lies within the South Newington Conservation Area, Section 72(1) of the 

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a 

requirement in relation to the consideration and determination of planning 

applications which affect conservation areas, that special attention should be paid to 

the desirability that the character or appearance of the conservation area should be 

preserved or enhanced. 

5.3 The rear extension would provide additional accommodation in the form of a kitchen 

with bedroom over. The extension would measure some 5.7m (w) x 4.6m (l) x 8.5m 

(h) and would be constructed of stone and slate to match the existing building. A 

dormer window would be relocated 1m southwards to allow the construction of the 

rear extension. Timber windows are proposed in all elevations and a timber door in 

the south side entering the garden. New openings from the main house into the 

extension would be created at ground and first floor levels. 

5.4 The side (south) extension would provide a living room with a further bedroom over. 

The extension would again be constructed of stone under a slate roof with dormer 

window facing the rear of the property. The extension has been amended following 

concerns over the size of the original proposal and has been reduced in size. The 

side extension would measure 5m (w) x 4.8m (l) x 6.8m (h). Timber windows are 

proposed in all elevations with timber doors to the south at ground floor entering the 

garden. The extension would be set back and lower than the main house in order to 

remain subservient. The existing washroom on the north elevation would be 

converted into a utility room and accessed via the new rear extension with the 

existing corrugated roof replaced with a slate covered roof. 

5.5 The design of the proposals are considered acceptable and the materials for the 

Page 177

proposed extensions would compliment the existing building at the site. The size 

and scale of the proposals are in keeping with the main element of the dwelling. 

The setting back and lowering of the roof for the side (south) extension reduces its 

overall bulk. The Conservation Officer has considered the external and internal 

alterations and is satisfied with the works and the potential impact on the fabric of 

the listed building. 

Conclusion 

6.1 The impact of the proposals are considered acceptable and the materials proposed 

are acceptable in their context. The proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the 

architectural and historic character of the listed building. Given the above, the 

proposal is recommended for approval. 




1. That the works to which this consent relates shall be begun not later than the 

expiration of three years beginning with the date of this consent. 

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed 

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the 

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 



documents: Drawing 010 Rev B dated Sept 2011, 011/1 Rev B dated Dec 2011, 

011/2 Rev B dated Sept 2011 and 012 Rev B dated Dec 2011 




3. The staircase, windows and doors shall be constructed from timber and details, at a 

scale of 1:20 including a cross section and colour/finish, shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of 

the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the 

approved details 

Reason - To ensure appropriate materials are used which preserve the listed 

building and to comply with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C18 

of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

4. That full design and construction details of the dormer window(s) shall be submitted 

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the 

commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in 


Reason - To ensure that the completed development is in keeping with and 

Page 178

conserves the special character of the existing historic building and to comply with 

Government advice in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, Policy BE6 of 

the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C18 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

5. That samples of the slate to be used in the covering of the roof of the extensions 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to 

the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the samples so approved. 




6. That samples of the stone to be used in the construction of the walls of the 

extensions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 






7. That full construction details of the connection between the new extensions and the 

original structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 


carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason - To ensure that the completed development is in keeping with and 

conserves the special character of the existing historic building and to comply with 

Government advice in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, Policy BE6 of 

the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C18 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT AND 



the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Government advice 

contained within PPS5 and the development plan unless material considerations indicated 

otherwise. The works carried out to the listed building are considered to be acceptable as 

the conversion works are considered to be sympathetic to the architectural and historic 

character and significance of the historic asset. As such the proposal is in accordance with 

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, Policy BE6 of The South East Plan and Policy 

C18 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to 

all other matters raised, the Council considers that the application should be approved and 

listed building consent granted subject to appropriate conditions, as set out above. 


Page 179

¯Agenda Item 14 

11/01932/F 


Scale 

1:5,500 

UNNAMED M40 DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (6808595)UNNAMED M40 DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (6808687) 

Page 180 


¯ 

SOMERTON ROAD 

CAMP ROAD 

HIGH STREET 

SOMERTON ROAD 

NORTH STREET 

CHILGROVE DRIVE 

RAGHOUSE LANE 

EAST STREET 


Scale 

1:24,000 

11/01932/F 

UNNAMED-B4100-SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY (6803644) 




STREET TO HORWELL FARM 

WATER LANE 

Page 181 


STATION ROAD 





ARDLEY ROAD 

MIDDLETON ROAD

Application No: 11/01932/F Ward: Caversfield Date Valid: 11/01/12 

Applicant: 

Site Address: 

Bolsterstone Innovative Energy (Ardley) Ltd 

Land North of Willowbank Farm, Fritwell Road, Fewcott 

Proposal: Variation of condition 21 of 08/02495/F (APP/C3105/A/09/2116152) 


1.1 

This application seeks consent to vary the wording of Condition 21 of application no. 

08/02495/F. The original application was for the erection of 4 no. turbines and 

ancillary development at the above address and was granted planning permission 

on 6 July 2010 by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State following a 

lengthy public inquiry. 

1.2 Condition 21 is worded as follows; 

‘No development shall take place until written confirmation has been provided to the 

local planning authority that a Safety Report has been submitted to an approved in 

writing by the operators of London Oxford Airport in consultation with the Civil 

Aviation Authority in relation to the safe operation of London Oxford Airport with the 

proposed wind farm in place. The turbines shall be operated in accordance with the 

terms of the safety report.’ 

1.3 The applicant’s suggested wording for the variation is as follows; 

‘Fitting and maintenance of the air navigation warning lights fitted to the turbine shall 

accord with Pager Power document 55701 entitled Lighting Operation 

Recommendations – Fewcott Wind development, dated 25 November 2011.’ 

1.4 This application is for the variation of a condition of a planning consent and as such 

is a Section 73 application. The effect of approving such an application is to issue a 

new consent for the proposal. The principle of the development was found to be 

acceptable by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State therefore the 

Council should only consider the implications of the variation itself and any other 

material change in circumstances since the application was determined. 

1.5 

1.5.1 

1.5.2 

Planning History 

Extracts from documents submitted during the Inquiry into application no. 

08/02495/F will be referred to later in the report. 

In August 2011 the applicants submitted an application to discharge conditions 21 

and 22 of 08/02495/F (11/00218/DISC). Condition 21 is set out above at paragraph 

1.2 and condition 22 is as follows; 

No development shall take place until written confirmation is received by the local 

planning authority and approved in consultation with London Oxford Airport and 

Civil Aviation Authority that radar mitigation measures in accordance with CAP 

(Policy and Guidance on Wind Turbines) (and any other relevant CAA guidance in 

force at the time) can be implemented by London Oxford Airport such that radar 

operation at London Oxford Airport will be safe when the turbines become 

operational. 

Page 182

1.5.3 

1.5.4 

1.5.5 

The submission included a letter from the applicant setting how they had sought to 

comply with the conditions. Discussions between the applicant, LOA and the 

Council have been ongoing but to date no decision has been issued with regard to 

discharging these conditions as there are particular issues on which agreement 

can’t be reached. 

In April 2011 the applicants sought to amend the detail of Condition 23 of the 

consent to allow the use of 200 candela aviation lights instead of 25 candela lights 

approved by the Inspector. It is understood that the applicants made this request to 

satisfy the requirements of London Oxford Airport. Given the way in which the 

condition was worded it was possible to amend it with the written approval of the 

local planning authority. Prior to agreeing to this amendment the Council sought 

clarification from London Oxford Airport (who also sought advice from the CAA) and 

the Ministry of Defence Safeguarding department. The MOD raised no objections 

stating that 25 candela lighting is the minimum requirement for their purposes. 

London Oxford Airport were satisfied with 200 candela lights assuming the lights are 

LED type or similar with back up on each turbine in case of failure and the lighting 

fixtures being subject to regular cleaning and maintenance. 

The reason for imposing the condition restricting the lighting to 25 Candela was in 

order to protect residential amenity by limiting intensity of the air navigation lights. 

However based on the information submitted on 11 April 2011 it is understood that 

200 candela aviation lights with variable intensity are likely to have less of an impact 

on residential properties than omni-directional 25 candela lights. 


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and press notice. The 

final date for comment was 23 February 2012. No correspondence has been 

received from the general public in relation to this specific proposal. 


Please refer to the electronic copy of consultation responses, available on Public 

Access, for the full responses. 

3.1 Although the application only seeks to vary Condition 21 Ardley with Fewcott 

Parish Council has also referred to the variation of Condition 22. The response is 

summarised as follows; 

History 

• London Oxford Airport (LOA) objected to proposal on grounds of aircraft 

safety as turbines were on approach to airport 

• Established that revised form of radar installation would overcome main 

objection but LOA was unwilling to proceed without some commitment as to 

costs from the applicant 

• Applicant agreed to contribute up to £100,000 towards costs which was 

acceptable to LOA subject to securing the contribution. Applicant unwilling 

to provide such security and Inspector suggested it be dealt with by 

Condition – wording was agreed by both the applicant and LOA. 

Page 183

Current Position 

• The intensity of the air navigation warning lights as stated at Condition 23 

has been increased without consultation with the Parish but with the 

agreement of the applicant, LOA and CDC, with no justification. 

• An approved safety report has not yet been submitted to CDC but it is 

assumed this will deal with lighting and radar mitigation. 

Parish Council’s Position on proposal 

• Objects on the following grounds; 

1. CDC should not discharge either condition 21 or condition 22 without the 

consent of LOA as stated in the Inspector’s report 

2. Aircraft safety and the safety of people on the ground is paramount and for 

CDC to discharge these conditions without the consent of LOA could 

amount to negligence in the event of an accident attributable to the effect of 

the wind turbines 

3. HOW Planning LLP has at great length set out to rubbish these condition 

but it is the Parish Council’s view that CDC should resist this as it was 

specifically designed by the Inspector to get over the log jam and therefore 

must be regarded as an exception 

4. The Parish Council is well aware of the cost constraints placed on Councils 

but if the applicant threatens to appeal to the Inspectorate, CDC should not 

compromise their position and give way to the applicant on the grounds of 

cost. 

3.2 A solicitor on behalf of London Oxford Airport has made the following points; 

• There are two issues arising from the Safety Report, namely the 

acceptability of air navigation warning lights fitted to the turbines and 

Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) 

• The Lighting Operation Recommendation dated 25 November 2011, 

produced by Pagerpower is agreed. The recommendation now 

satisfactorily deals with repair and maintenance of the lighting 

• LOA does not agree to the proposed wording of Condition 21 as the 

condition as revised would entirely ignore the Safety Report in relation to 

IFPs 

• The applicants are asking the Council to discharge the condition in so far as 

it relates to IFPs, without obtaining the written confirmation that the Safety 

Report has been approved by the Airport in consultation with the CAA. The 

issue here is simply one of safety. 

• It is not possible on basic safety grounds for the Airport to provide details of 

new or amended IFPs until such time as the radar installation is fully 

operational. The relevant installation procedures are currently in progress 

and it is expected that the IFPs can be designed accordingly once these 

have been carried out and the radar is Safety Regulatory Group (SRG) 

approved for operational use (expected May 2012). 

• It is the Airport’s duty to demonstrate to the CAA that it can operate safely 

at all times; safety has to be the paramount objective in terms of satisfying 

condition 21 and the District Council is in no position to override the 

Airport’s objections in this respect, given the wording of the condition 

imposed by the Inspector on appeal. 

• The airport believes that the Council has previously set out the correct 

Page 184

current position is a letter to the applicants of 7 November 2011 in which it 

was stated, “…however, the Council finds itself in a difficult position as the 

condition requires that written confirmation be provided to the Council that a 

safety Report be submitted to an approved by the operators of the Airport. 

This effectively puts the Airport as the determining body and therefore it has 

some control as to how quickly this condition could be discharged…if the 

Council were to approve this condition without the written agreement of the 

Airport it could be liable if at a later date safety measures were found to be 

inadequate.” 

• The Instrument Flight Procedure Notes document supplied by Pagerpower 

dated 9 December 2011 cannot give the Council any comfort whatsoever 

that safety would not be compromised 

• The author of the report is not a qualified IFP designer 

• The Airport does not know how the radar will be used and how future air 

traffic services will be provided – that is the point of testing the procedures 

which will be carried out as part of the radar development 

• In the critique by Davidson Ltd it is stated that there are requirements both 

extant and anticipated that will result in changes to IFPs – Pagerpower’s 

document contradicts this 

• The Davidson critique states that no design or detailed technical analysis of 

the development was carried out 

• Although application is in respect of Condition 21 only it is necessary to 

consider condition 22. 

• The Inspector states at paragraph 91 that; “The proposal would have an 

adverse effect on aviation interests; the adverse effect would be the extra 

work in making the radar capable of working satisfactorily with the turbines 

in place. The ‘no adverse effect’ test would be met only if the radar is not 

installed at all, or of the Airport was relieved of the extra work in making the 

radar accommodate the wind farm.” 

• Wind turbines are known to cause interference through signal clutter which 

can give rise to safety issues on radar operations. Such turbines must 

comply fully with the CAA’s CAP 764 Policy and Guidelines on Wind 

Turbines which indicates that suitable mitigation measures must be taken in 

order to safeguard the Airport from such risks. In light of this, no wind farm 

development should proceed without the explicit consent of LOA who may 

need to take advice from its contractors or other third parties as to the 

potential impacts on its operations and any mitigation options available. In 

this case, the airport has made it clear to both the Council and the 

developer that they expect the full cost of mitigation measures to be borne 

by the developer before the development proceeds. 

• In addition to the capital cost of the radar mitigation measures there will also 

be an annual fee to maintain the compliance of the installation and for 

hosting it at the Airport together with the provision of any upgrades 

necessary for the life of the radar system. The airport will expect the 

applicants to fully cover all such costs as is common with wind turbine 

development at other airports. 

3.3 The Civil Aviation Authority has stated that Oxford Airport is responsible for the 

safeguarding of their aviation operations and as such they are the experts on local 

aviation issues affecting the airport. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Oxford 

Airport to satisfy themselves as to the impact of proposed developments upon their 

Page 185

operations, including the discharge or variation of any related conditions. 

4. Relevant Key Planning Policies 

4.1 National Planning Policy 


PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 

PPS22: Renewable Energy 

Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22 

4.2 South East Plan 

NRM14 – Sub-regional targets for land-based renewable energy 

NRM15 – Location of Renewable Energy Development 

4.3 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

C7 – Topography and character of the landscape 

C8 – Sporadic development in open countryside 

4.4 Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 

EN21 – Renewable energy schemes and impact on local environment 

EN34 – Character and appearance of landscape 

4.5 Draft Core Strategy 

SD3 – Renewable energy proposals 

4.6 Other relevant documents 

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Construction Study (CAG September 2009) 

Council’s Planning Guidance on the Residential Amenity Impacts of Wind Turbine 

Development (February 2011) 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

In considering this submission for the discharge of Condition 21 Officers reached 

the view that the two main issues which remained unresolved in relation to the 

Safety Report submitted in an attempt to discharge the condition were; 

a) ensuring the installation and maintenance of appropriate lighting and; 

b) the testing/modifications of the Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs). 

The applicants have submitted a light maintenance programme as an addendum to 

the Safety Report which is satisfactory to LOA. It would be possible to require 

through a revised condition that the submitted maintenance programme be 

complied with, thus satisfying LOA in this respect. 

In relation to IFP’s the applicants submission was supported by a Review of the 

Pager Power Report into IFPs carried out by a UK CAA approved IFP Design 

Organisation. The Review concludes that new IFPs will be required as a result of 

the installation of radar at LOA but that it was not envisaged that a new IFP will be 

affected by the wind turbines. The applicant’s case therefore is that the airport 

should be able to operate safely when the turbines are installed and operational. 

The Council does not benefit from access to expert knowledge in aviation issues 

and as such Officer’s were willing to except the conclusions of this report given that 

Page 186

5.4 

5.5 

5.6 

5.7 

they originated from a UK CAA approved IFP Design Organisation. The Council 

often relies on expert advice submitted on behalf of applicants for example in 

relation to ecological issues. However as a result of the wording of the existing 

condition 21 the Council cannot discharge the condition without the agreement of 

LOA and as such the opinion of LOA was sought. When officers contacted LOA it 

was requested that if they were to maintain objections on the grounds previously 

expressed that they should be substantiated with a report from a suitably qualified 

expert. Such a report has not been forthcoming but LOA do maintain their 

objections in the form set out in the consultation responses at Para. 3.2. 

When considering the wording of the original condition it is apparent that it is 

unusual as it requires the Safety Report to be submitted to and approved in writing 

by the operators of LOA, a third party. Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning 

permission clearly states that; 

‘It is unreasonable to impose a condition worded in a positive form which 

developers would be unable to comply with themselves, or which they could 

comply with only with the consent or authorisation of a third party (for example, a 

condition which requires an aerodrome owner to impose a particular pattern of 

aircraft routeings, where air traffic services for the particular aerodrome are the 

responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority or the National Air Traffic Service). 

Similarly, conditions which require the applicant to obtain an authorisation from 

another body should not be imposed.’ (Para. 38) 

The wording of the condition means that the Council cannot discharge the condition 

without the consent of LOA and this would seem inappropriate for two reasons. 

Firstly it takes the matter completely out of the control of the Council and the 

applicant and secondly, LOA does not have the same requirements as Council’s to 

act reasonably and it may well be that LOA could be considered as acting 

unreasonably in this instance as it is becoming clear from the content of some of 

the correspondence received from them that they are seeking to secure sufficient 

funding from the applicants to enable the complete installation and continuous 

upgrade/maintenance of the mitigation measures required for the radar when the 

wind farm becomes operational. Contrary to what the Parish Council understand 

to be the position it is believed that the applicants had been willing to contribute a 

sum of £100,000 towards a mitigation strategy (discussed at the time of the Inquiry) 

but it would seem that LOA now consider that this sum is not sufficient. It also 

appears to come down to a matter of timing because if the application for the 

turbines had been approved and implemented before the radar was installed the 

cost of mitigation would be entirely the responsibility of the airport and certainly not 

a matter for the Council to get involved in. 

The Council has a duty to act reasonable and cannot withhold consent for 

applications or refuse to discharge conditions unless there is a reasonable 

argument to do so. If applicants consider the Council has acted unreasonably 

there is the opportunity to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. This is an 

opportunity currently open to the applicant’s but it appears that the applicants are 

seeking to resolve the issues without resorting to costly and time consuming 

appeals. They are also of the view that they have done everything within their 

power to demonstrate that the safety of the airport will not be compromised by the 

wind farm. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the planning system can’t be used to secure 

Page 187

payments between applicants and independent commercial third parties and as an 

aside it is worth considering the fairness of requiring that the applicants for this 

application pay the entire cost of mitigation and upgrade/maintenance when it is 

clear that other wind turbines may be constructed in the future that may also affect 

the operation of the radar. At this time it is understood that similar negotiations are 

ongoing between LOA and Cherwell Valley Services about appropriate 

contributions, yet this would seem to be doubling up on costs/contributions if LOA 

are expecting the applicants for the wind farm to pay for the entire mitigation 

package. 

5.8 The revised wording of Condition 21 suggested by the applicants simply requires 

that they comply with the agreed maintenance for the lighting. If this was to be 

agreed by the Council it would in effect result in the original condition 21 being 

discharged or complied with and would not necessarily require that the applicants 

comply with other aspects of the Safety Report. This is not considered to 

satisfactorily deal with the issues that the Inspector sought to secure or the fact that 

LOA maintain their objections, although these remain unsubstantiated. 

5.9 Officers therefore consider that the following wording would be appropriate; 

‘That work to construct the turbine on site shall not be commenced until an 

aviation Safety Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

local planning authority, in consultation with London Oxford Airport and the CAA 

(or any successor body), in relation to the safe operation of LOA with the 

proposed turbines in place. The turbines shall only be operated in accordance 

with the terms of the Safety Report.’ 


5.11 

5.12 

The objections from LOA seem to be twofold. Firstly that any revised IFPs can’t be 

tested until the radar is fully operational, possibly in May 2012 and secondly that 

the applicants have not agreed to pay for the entire radar mitigation strategy. It 

would seem unreasonable for LOA and the Council to withhold consent based on 

issues that are constantly evolving, and have been since the original application 

was submitted back in 2008, and as such are out of the control of the applicant. 

When the application was submitted for the wind turbines and it was being 

considered by Committee Members it was an aspiration of LOA to install radar and 

as such Members were advised in the committee report that; 

‘given that the issue of radar was only brought to light some time after the end of 

the statutory consultation period, it did not form part of the original consultation 

response and the potential of installation remains only an intention, it is not 

considered reasonable to either hold up the determination of the application or 

recommend refusal on these grounds.’ 

During the Inquiry process it was clear that LOA had made progress towards the 

acquisition of radar and this led to the discussion around the safe operation of 

radar when the turbines are installed and operational. The Inspectors decision 

includes reference to the fact that LOA stated that it is not envisaged that there 

would be an outcome where no appropriate form of technical mitigation would be 

available; it would be a matter of cost. The decision, at paragraphs 89 to 91, went 

on to state; 

‘The evidence is that the appellant is prepared to contract with London Oxford 

Airport Limited to make a reasonable contribution towards meeting the extra 

costs of technical mitigation of the adverse effects expected to be caused to the 

Page 188

5.13 

5.14 

5.15 

operation of a future radar installation by the appeal proposal. But 

notwithstanding the stated intention of both parties, no such agreement is before 

me. Instead, both parties suggest that the matter could be addressed by a 

Grampion Condition. 

No case was put that, if the appeal were allowed and the wind farm built without 

such a condition, the Airport would be constrained to install a radar system that 

would lack the features necessary to mitigate the effect of the appeal proposal. 

There is no reason to conclude that the future operation of the Airport would be 

compromised if the appeal proposal were brought into use. But it seems to me 

that aviation interests are wide, and extend to the cost of the planned radar 

system. 

Paragraph 96 of the Wind Technical Annex to PPS22 places the onus on the 

appellant to prove that the proposed wind farm would have no adverse effect on 

aviation interests. It is common ground that the proposed radar would be more 

expensive if it made provision for the wind farm if it did not. And there is no 

dispute that an unmodified radar would be inadequate if the wind farm was built. 

Therefore the proposal would have an adverse effect on aviation interests: the 

“no adverse effect” test would be met only if the radar is not installed at all, or if 

the airport was relieved of the extra work in making the radar accommodate the 

wind farm.’ 

LOA have taken from this that the applicants should be responsible for covering the 

entire cost of the radar mitigation measures, yet this is not what the final decision 

and the conditions imposed by the Inspector conclude. To reiterate, Condition 22 

reads as follows; 

‘No development shall take place until written confirmation is received by the 

local planning authority and approved in consultation with London Oxford Airport 

and the Civil Aviation Authority that radar mitigation measures in accordance 

with CAP 764 (Policy and Guidance on Wind Turbines) (and any other relevant 

CAA guidance in force at the time) can be implemented by London Oxford 

Airport such that radar operation at London Oxford Airport will be safe when the 

turbines become operational.’ 

It is the view of Officers, following the receipt of legal advice, that LOA is not correct 

in stating that the applicants have to pay for the implementation of the mitigation 

measures, merely that a report should be prepared confirming that there are 

measures that could be put in place by London Oxford Airport. Whilst it is relevant 

to consider the above paragraphs, as the issues have been raised by London 

Oxford Airport and the Parish Council it seems that the two conditions can be 

considered independently and that areas of disagreement in relation to condition 22 

should not distort the issues of dealing with the variation of condition 21. 

Therefore to conclude it would seem that there is some dispute between the 

applicants and LOA. LOA consider that the applicant’s evidence in relation to IFPs 

covered by the Safety Report is not sufficient or reliable, therefore the issue should 

not be ignored and the condition should not be amended in a manner that 

disregards the concerns of LOA. However the applicants have attempted to show 

that there would be no adverse impact on IFPs as a result of operating the turbines 

and yet LOA has not provided any substantiated evidence to the contrary. The 

proposed reworded condition 21 therefore requires that a Safety Report be 

Page 189

5.16 

submitted by the applicant to the Council, providing the applicants with the 

opportunity to expand on their existing reports. LOA will then be consulted on the 

matter and if they maintain their objection they should substantiate it with a full 

report carried out by a suitably qualified expert. Furthermore LOA may be in a 

better position to comment on the effects on IFPs as the radar is expected to 

become fully operational in May 2012. Without clear evidence, consent should not 

be withheld pending the outcome of testing when the timing is in the control of a 

third party and subject to change of an indefinite nature. If, when the applicants 

seek to discharge the amended condition 21, LOA fails to substantiate their 

objections the Council would be able to consider if it thought the Airport was being 

unreasonable and potentially discharge the condition, something which is not 

currently within the Council’s power. Whilst the discharge of condition remains in 

the control of LOA it would seem that the issue is out of the control of both the 

applicant and the Council providing no assurances to the applicant that the issue 

can ever be resolved, potentially resulting in a consent that can’t be implemented, 

an unreasonable outcome. 

Whilst the Council is not yet in a position to discharge the conditions relating to 

aviation conditions it should be possible to resolve these issues when the Council 

considers that sufficient information has been presented so as to demonstrate that 

the airport can operate safely when the turbines are in place. Once this is done the 

Council will have fulfilled its responsibility. The responsibility to ensure that LOA is 

operated safely lies directly with the airport itself and as such the matter of how the 

safety and mitigation measures are implemented is one to be agreed between the 

applicants and the airport. 

6. Recommendations 

a) That Condition 21 be amended, not in accordance with the applicant’s suggestion but in 

the following manner; 

‘That work to construct the turbine on site shall not be commenced until an aviation Safety 

Report covering the issues of aviation lighting and Instrument Flight Procedures has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, in consultation with 

London Oxford Airport and the CAA (or any successor body), in relation to the safe 

operation of LOA with the proposed turbines in place. The turbines shall only be operated 

in accordance with the terms of the Safety Report. 

b) and that the remaining conditions be imposed as set out in the Inspectors decision dated 

6 July 2012 with the exception of Condition 23 as discussed at Paragraph 1.5.4. 

CONTACT OFFICER: Caroline Roche TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221816 

Page 190

¯Pond 

9 

MAULE CLOSE 

1 

Path (um) 

BARFORD ROAD 

Scale 

1:1,500 


12/00005/F 

Bloxham Mill Business Centre 

Bloxham Mill Business Centre 

Page 191 


Pond

¯ 

TADMARTON ROAD 

COURTINGTON LANE 

THE AVENUE 

BROOKSIDE WAY 

Scale 


GREENHILLS PARK 

QUEEN STREET 

SOUTH NEWINGTON ROAD 

KINGS ROAD 

THE POUND 

12/00005/F 

HIGH STREET 

CHURCH STREET 

ROSE BANK 

GASCOIGNE WAY 

BRICKLE LANE 

MAULE CLOSE 

STRAWBERRY HILL 

HOGG END 

BARFORD ROAD 

Page 192 

THE RIDGEWAY 

BLOXHAM ROAD 

BLOXHAM ROAD (PLACE HOLDER) 

Wireless Station 

(Disused) 

MILTON ROAD 


Application 

No:12/00005/F 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Bloxham Mill Ltd 

Ward: Bloxham and 

Bodicote 

Bloxham Business Centre, Barford Road, Bloxham 

Date Valid: 04.01.12 

Construction of a D1/D2 amenity building at Bloxham Mill Centre to 

provide a childcare woodland day nursery and dance studio. 


1.1 Located on the southern side of Bloxham approx 1.2km from the village centre, 

Bloxham Mill Business Centre is a privately owned enterprise and has established 

itself as a resource for the locality and the Small Medium Enterprise (SME) 

community of North Oxfordshire since 2002. The centre is a satellite location for 

many national businesses, providing 36,000 sq.ft of office space and various B1 

business uses and occupies some 235 employees in the two storey building. 

1.2 The complex is well served by landscaped, onsite parking provision, and secure 

cycle storage and is accessed via a long driveway off the Barford Road opposite a 

residential area. 

1.3 

The site is within an Area of High Landscape Value and identified as a notable/UK 

BAP Priority & Section 41 Species area of lowland mixed deciduous woodland. 

The site has naturally occurring Arsenic Chromium Nickel and is potentially 

contaminated land. There are no listed buildings in proximity and it is not within a 

Conservation Area. 

1.4 Planning permission is sought for the Construction of a two storey, timber framed, 

D1/D2 amenity building within the wooded area in the North East section of the 

existing operating site to provide a childcare woodland day nursery and dance 

studio. 

1.5 The two storey, flat roof building has been designed to accommodate the needs of 

the two proposed users, the specialist Day Nursery accommodation, complete with 

internal amenity and administrative spaces covers a gross internal floor area of 

310m², whilst the Dance Studio is 184m². The building has been designed to sit 

into the middle of the present woodland/copse clearing retaining a margin of 11m 

from the northern and southern boundaries, retaining a number of established 

mature trees. 

1.6 The external materials chosen include oiled vertical timber boarding and self 

coloured render and standing seam zinc roof, the appearance of which will mellow 

into its surroundings. The ground floor elevations will include decorative galvanised 

mild steel lattice panels which pick up on the woodland setting. 

Page 193


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of a site notice. The final date for 

comment was 13 th February 2012. 

2.2 No third party comments have been received. 


3.1 Bloxham Parish Council – No objection raised but comment that clear plans to be 

submitted showing improvements to the entrance and drive so that two cars can 

pass on the access road, and that the pathway on the Barford Road should be 

extended so as to allow full and safe pedestrian access to the proposed facility. 

3.2 Oxfordshire County Council (highways) – Vehicular access, parking and turning 

provision is appropriate for the proposed use, therefore no objection subject to 

conditions. 

They comment that: The site is located to the periphery of Bloxham. It is poorly 

located in terms of accessibility, without complete footway links or cycle provision 

and with only very limited availability of public transport services. However; other 

employment uses on-site have potential to link trips thus reducing the impact of the 

proposal. The submitted documents assert there is limited nursery provision in 

Bloxham and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that Bloxham residents 

are travelling further to access similar services. The existing site travel plan has 

been amended to incorporate the proposal with aim of encouraging sustainable 

travel. It is also noted that local plan policy is permissive of development in locations 

such as this. Having considered the supporting documentation and made a site visit 

the accessibility of the site does not raise any significant concerns. 

3.3 Thames Water – No objection 

3.4 Head of Planning Policy & Economic Development - The employment site is located 

on the edge of the village, within the Area of High Landscape Value. The proposal is 

for the erection of a new building to the east of the site, to be located partially within 

an existing woodland area. This woodland area is identified on the constraints map 

layers as potential BAP priority habitat, biodiversity policies therefore apply. There 

are no specific local policies in relation to D1 and D2 uses, however the proposal is 

set within an existing employment site and therefore EMP4 in the Adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan and NSCLP apply. 

3.5 Ecology Officer – No objection to the proposal the Habitat Survey didn't find any 

protected species, but identified one particular ash tree that had bat potential. 

Looking at the tree survey, this tree will be reduced but not removed. It also said 

that the site was good for nesting birds, but the trees were very thin and straight and 

therefore not much potential. Suggests condition in respect to nesting birds 

3.6 Arboricultural Officer – Raises no objection subject to condition. The arboricultural 

Page 194

eport accurately lists the trees which will be affected by the development and the 

recommendations set out in the schedule are accepted. The recommended 

protection of the retained trees is in accordance with BS 5837 and will prevent 

inadvertent damage during the construction. 


4.1 National Policy Guidance: 

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Climate Change Supplement 

PPS4: Planning for sustainable economic growth 

PPS7: Sustainable development in rural areas 

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 


Draft National Planning Policy Framework – July 2011 

4.2 Regional Policy in the South East Plan 2009: 

4.3 

CC4:Sustainable design and construction 

CC6:Sustainable communities and character of the environment 

RE5: Smart growth 

NRM5: Conservation and improvement of biodiversity 

NRM7: Woodlands 

NRM11: Development design for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

T4: Parking 

T5: Travel plans and advice 

C4: Landscape and countryside management 

S3: Education and skills 

S5: Cultural and sporting activity 

CO2: Economy 

Local Policy in the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996: 

C1: Nature conservation 

C4: Ecology – habitat creation 

C7: Landscape conservation 

C8: Sporadic development 

C13: Area of High Landscape Value 

C14: Trees and landscaping 

C28: Layout, design and external appearance to be compatible with the character of 

the context of a development proposal 

EMP4:Employment generating development in the rural areas 

4.4 Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan: 

EMP4: Existing employment sites 

TR3: Travel plans and transport assessments 

TR5: Road safety 

TR11: Parking 

Page 195

R11: Community facilities 

EN22: Nature Conservation 

EN23: Ecological surveys 

EN24: Protection of sites and species 

EN30: Countryside protection 

EN34: Landscape character 

EN35: Woodland retention/local landscape 

EN37: Trees, hedges and landscaping 

D3: Local distinctiveness 

D9: Energy efficient design 

4.5 Draft Core Strategy 

Policy RA4 : Directing Employment in Rural Areas 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 The main issues for consideration in this application are; 

- policy context and principle of development 

- proposed users, layout and design of building 

- visual amenity/landscape impact 

- access, parking and highway safety 

- ecology 

- trees 

5.2 Policy Context and principle of development 

This application must be determined in line with the development plan unless other 

material considerations indicate otherwise; the main policy considerations for an 

application of this sort are set out in Section 4 above. 

5.3 There are no specific local policies in relation to D1 and D2 uses, however the 

proposal is set within the curtilage of an existing employment site and therefore 

Policy EMP4 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Non-Statutory Cherwell Local 

Plan 2011 would generally apply. These policies allow for the construction of 

additional buildings for employment generating development within the boundaries 

of an existing employment site (both within settlement and the wider countryside) 

provided that it complies with the criteria set out: 

EMP4 adopted Cherwell Local Plan 

(a) Within an existing acceptable employment site, including redevelopment 

(b) Conversion of an existing building or group of buildings 

(c) Within, or adjacent settlements, for a minor extension to an existing 

acceptable employment site 

EMP4 Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 

(i) the proposal and any associated activities can be carried out without undue 

detriment to residential amenity, highway network, village character, the 

landscape character, the environment, designated buildings or features 

Page 196

(ii) the proposal is for small firms, whose source of supply, commercial 

linkages, labour supply and market make a specific location necessary for 

them 

(iii) the proposal will not give rise to excessive or inappropriate traffic and will 

wherever possible contribute to the general aim of reducing the need to 

travel by private car. 

5.4 In terms of compliance with adopted policy EMP4, the proposal does not in the 

opinion of the HPP&MD sit comfortably. The development comprises the 

construction a two storey building located approx 180m east of the existing Bloxham 

Mill Business Centre, which is to accommodate two new businesses not associated 

with the existing Business Centre. It could therefore only be loosely compliant with 

criteria (a) and does not accord at all with criterion (b) or (c). That said, the building 

has been designed to an appropriate scale and through the choice of materials to fit 

with the rural environment and woodland setting. Therefore whilst it would be an 

introduction of a new building in a rural location it would in essence have no 

significant harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. 

5.5 The proposal would accord however with the provisions of the Non-Statutory 

Cherwell Local Plan Policy EMP4. Paragraph 4.75 of this policy states: 

“An “existing acceptable employment site” will be interpreted as an employment 

site with planning permission, or a site which has been in existence for at least 10 

years and is operating satisfactorily i.e. without detriment to the amenities of 

neighbouring properties, the surrounding road network etc. … The policy recognises 

that it will often be possible to allow redevelopment or the construction of additional 

buildings within the boundaries of an existing employment site, both within 

settlements and the wider countryside, helping to protect existing employment 

opportunities and where appropriate, leading to the creation of new jobs in the rural 

areas”. 

5.6 Policy EC12 of PPS4 advises that Local Planning Authorities should support small 

scale economic development where it provides the most sustainable option in 

villages, or other locations, that are remote from local service centres, recognising 

that the site may be acceptable location for development even though it may not be 

readily accessible by public transport. 

5.7 The Business Centre has been operating for the past 10 years from the site with no 

detriment to the locality and as stated in paragraph 5.4, HPP&MD does not consider 

that the proposed building would cause any harm to the character of the rural 

landscape and therefore no further detriment to the amenities of the locality or 

surrounding road network. It is likely that the facilities within the proposed building 

will be used by some of the people employed in the Business Centre and will be 

creating a much needed childcare facility for the village and together with the dance 

academy would lead to local facilities available to the community and as such also 

accords with Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 Policy R11. Furthermore, 

paragraph 6 of PPS7 advises that Local Planning Authorities should identify and 

support suitable sites for small scale local community facilities to meet the needs of 

Page 197

the whole community, including childcare provision and disabled users. 

5.8 Therefore in respect to the principle of the development, HPP&MD is of the opinion 

that whilst not generally in accordance with adopted policy, the proposal does not 

cause significant harm to the rural landscape, will be providing employment 

opportunities within an existing employment site and will be providing new local 

facilities for the community and complies with Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 

2011 Policies EMP4 and R11. 

5.9 Proposed users of the site, layout and design of building 

From a policy perspective PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development states that 

“Planning Authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and 

inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and 

private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should 

contribute positively to making places better for people. (paragraph 34). 

5.10 Policy CC6 of the South East Plan addresses sustainable communities and 

character of the environment and seeks to ensure that development respects and 

where appropriate enhances, the character and distinctiveness of settlements and 

landscapes throughout the region. Development should also use innovative design 

processes to create a high quality built environment which promotes a sense of 

place. 

5.11 The proposal is a for a new two storey timber framed building and associated 

external amenity, located within a wooded area in the North East section of the site. 

This area lies at the end of the currently developed and used copse car parking to 

the Business Centre and will be directly accessed from it. 

5.12 The building relates directly to the specialist Nursery use and woodland 

management issues associated with the proposed user Acorn Childcare who are 

committed to providing outstanding early year’s education and outdoor learning for 

children in their care. A full report by Acorn Childcare has been provided in support 

of the application which outlines the structure of their organisation, expands upon 

the appraisal of the site by them and the viability of the scheme in relation to local 

need. Acorn Childcare will occupy the ground floor element of the proposed 

building. The report also highlights the lack of day nursery facilities in Bloxham 

offering full day care all year round for babies and young children and the limited 

availability in Banbury, which has been identified in OCC’s: Childcare Sufficiency 

Assessment 2011. Therefore the use will be addressing a recognised childcare 

need. 

5.13 The second user of the building is The Sharon Green Dance Academy, currently 

operating locally from the Old School House in Bodicote. A range of tuition is 

provided for children and adults as well as providing mobility and physical classes 

for all age groups, including wheelchair-bound personnel, dementia sufferers and 

special needs. A full report has also been prepared in support of the proposed use 

by the dance academy and has advised that Bright Yellow Care Group and Leonard 

Cheshire Disability (both based at the Bloxham Mill Business Centre) are interested 

in mental and physical stimulation classes provided by the dance academy at the 

Page 198

site. The academy’s current premises do not support such classes due to lack of 

space, internal toilet facilities and car parking. The academy will occupy the first 

floor element of the proposed building. 

5.14 As stated previously, the building has been designed to accommodate the needs of 

the two proposed users and provides good amounts of daylight and ventilation into 

the centre of the building. The building sits in the middle of the present woodland 

clearing retaining a margin of 11m from the northern and southern boundaries and 

retains a number of established mature trees, which are identified in the supporting 

Arboricultural report. Additional planting is proposed as part of a further landscaping 

scheme, particularly a low level to reinforce the woodland margins. 

5.15 In terms of its form, scale and appearance, the building is a two storey flat roof 

design which slopes away from the front at a height of 5.5m to the rear at a height 

of 5m with a single storey element of 2.8m, upon which is a roof garden/terrace 

enclosed by a glass balustrade. The external materials chosen complement the 

design and include oiled vertical timber boarding and self coloured render and 

standing seam zinc roof, the appearance of which will mellow into its surroundings. 

The ground floor elevations will include decorative galvanised mild steel lattice 

panels which pick up on the woodland setting. 

5.16 Visual amenity/landscape impact 

The existing Business Centre building occupies the western part of the 1.60 ha Site, 

with the carparking area to the east leading to the small woodland/cope. This 

section of the site has been identified as a local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 

priority habitat; of Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’ with the potential to be rich 

in a range flora and fauna. Within the centre of this woodland is a clearing, it is here 

that the proposed building is to be sited. Some trees will be removed but essentially 

the more significant mature trees will be retained. 

5.17 The site is part of a larger area recognised as having High Landscape Value 

therefore policy C13 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan applies. The wider area is 

recognised as being of particular environmental quality but the actual site has no 

more specific landscape designations. The policy seeks to conserve and enhance 

such areas and as such a high design standard will be required. It is considered 

that as the proposal has only localised visual impacts the overall area designation is 

conserved. 

5.18 Policy EN34 of the Non-Statutory Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance the 

character and appearance of the landscape through the control of development and 

addressing issues relating to visual intrusion into the open countryside, topography, 

setting of settlements and historic features and landscapes. The assessment 

against this policy is similar to that which has been discussed above. The site is 

well contained and as such does not have a significant impact on the wider open 

countryside and the topography of the landscape is not changed in any materially 

harmful way. 

5.19 Clearly the woodland/copse setting and the additional landscaping are key elements 

associated with the childcare facility and the benefits provided from the woodland 

Page 199

environment it specialises in, through outdoor learning and creativity. Through the 

design, choice of materials and scale of built form the proposed building will sit 

comfortably within the landscape and will not cause harm to the wider rural Area of 

High Landscape Value. The proposal therefore accords with the national and local 

policies in respect to design and landscape impact. 

5.20 Access, parking and highway safety 

Bloxham Mill Business Centre complex currently provides 175 parking spaces. As 

a consequence of the proposal an additional 14 parking spaces are required for 

staff and ‘drop off’ for the day nursery. The Business Centre has an existing Travel 

Plan in operation, to which an addendum has been prepared outlining the existing 

site traffic movements and proposed impact of parking traffic movements for the 

proposed uses. Essentially whilst the site accommodates 175 parking spaces, on a 

typical working day, as surveyed in November 2011 period the existing maximum 

parking usage at any one time was 132 spaces. Maximum usage occurs during the 

mid morning and mid afternoon periods with minimal usage before 8.30am. 

5.21 The Travel Plan Addendum indicates that the proposed day nursery has two peak 

periods of activity at each end of the working day, starting at 7.30am – 9.00am and 

ending 4.00pm – 6.30pm. The proposed dance studio use will have the main traffic 

movements late post school 4.00pm – 5.00pm and then 6.00pm – close at 9.30pm. 

Dance classes comprise upto 20 persons. 

5.22 PPG13 and Policy TR4 of the South East Plan 2009 seeks to ensure standards of 

road safety and parking provision are maintained. The site is accessed off the 

Barford Road and utilises an existing established bell mouthed access and driveway 

leading to the Business Centre, in the 10 years of operation the applicant has 

advised that there have been no reports of incidents or accidents relating to 

vehicles or pedestrians entering or leaving the site. The applicant proposes a one 

way traffic system, around the site to aid traffic flow at peak times. 

5.23 HPP&DM agrees with the local highway authority’s assessment in that the site is 

poorly located in terms of accessibility, without complete footway links or cycle 

provision and with only very limited availability of public transport services. 

However, other employment uses on-site have potential to link trips thus reducing 

the impact of the proposal. The submitted documents assert there is limited nursery 

provision in Bloxham and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that Bloxham 

residents are travelling further to access similar services. 

5.24 Notwithstanding the concerns of the Parish Councils the acceptability of the access 

and parking provision has been confirmed by the local highway authority and no 

objection has been raised. It is therefore considered that no improvements to the 

access are necessary and that the development will not cause harm to highway 

safety and accords with PPG13 and Policies T4 and T5 of the South East Plan 

2009. 

5.25 Ecology 

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation places a duty upon local planning 

authorities to ensure that a protected species survey be undertaken prior to 

Page 200

determination of a planning application. The presence of a protected species is a 

material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development 

proposal. PPS9 states that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of a 

protected species, and the extent to that they may be affected by the proposed 

development is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all 

relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the 

decision.” 

5.26 Paragraph. 98 of Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – 

statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system states that, “local 

planning authorities should consult Natural England before granting planning 

permission” and paragraph 99 goes onto advise that “it is essential that the 

presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be 

affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning 

permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have 

been addressed in making the decision.” 

5.27 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC 

2006) states that “every public authority must in exercising its functions, must have 

regard to the purpose of conserving (including restoring / enhancing) biodiversity” 

and; 

Local planning authorities must also have regards to the requirements of the EC 

Habitats Directive when determining a planning application where European 

Protected Species (EPS) are affected, as prescribed in Regulation 9(5) of 

Conservation Regulations 2010, which states that “a competent authority, in 

exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the 

Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those 

functions”. 

5.28 Articles 12 and 16 of the EC Habitats Directive are aimed at the establishment and 

implementation of a strict protection regime for animal species listed in Annex IV(a) 

of the Habitats Directive within the whole territory of Member States to prohibit the 

deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. 

5.29 Under Regulation 41 of Conservation Regulations 2010 it is a criminal offence to 

damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place, but under Regulation 53 of 

Conservation Regulations 2010, licenses from Natural England for certain purposes 

can be granted to allow otherwise unlawful activities to proceed when offences are 

likely to be committed, but only if 3 strict legal derogation tests are met which 

include: 

1) is the development needed for public heath or public safety or other 

imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a 

social or economic nature (development). 

2) Is there any satisfactory alternative? 

3) Is there adequate mitigation being provided to maintain the favourable 

Page 201

conservation status of the population of the species? 

5.30 Therefore where planning permission is required and protected species are likely to 

be found to be present at the site or surrounding area, Regulation 9(5) of 

Conservation Regulations 2010 provides that local planning authorities must have 

regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected 

by the exercise of those functions and also the derogation requirements (the 3 

tests) might be met. Consequently a protected species survey must be undertaken 

and it is for the applicant to demonstrate to the Local planning authority that the 3 

strict derogation tests can be met prior to the determination of the application. 

Following the consultation with Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist advice 

given (or using their standing advice) must therefore be duly considered and 

recommendations followed, prior to the determination of the application. 

5.31 In respect of planning applications and the Council discharging of its legal duties, 

case law has shown that: 

1) if it is clear/perhaps very likely that Natural England will not grant a 

licence then the Council should refuse planning permission 

2) if it is likely that Natural England will grant the licence then the Council 

may grant planning permission 

3) if it is unclear/uncertain whether Natural England will grant a licence 

then the Council must refuse planning permission (Morge has clarified 

Woolley) 

[R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council – June 2010 Court of Appeal case] 

[R (Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council – May 2009 High Court case) 

NB: Natural England will not consider a licence application until planning 

permission has been granted on a site, therefore if a criminal offence is likely 

to be committed; it is in the applicant’s interest to deal with the 3 derogation 

tests at the planning application stage. 

5.32 In respect to the application site, it is identified as a potential BAP priority habitat; 

‘Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’ with the potential to be rich in a range flora 

and fauna. a Phase I Ecology Habitat survey has been undertaken which has found 

that there are no protected species on site, however the Council’s ecologist has 

advised that any trees to be removed should be undertaken outside the bird nesting 

season. 

5.33 Consequently it is considered that art.12(1) of the EC Habitats Directive has been 

duly considered in that the welfare of any protected species found to be present at 

the site and surrounding land will continue and be safeguarded notwithstanding the 

proposed development. The proposal therefore accords with PPS9 and Policy C2 of 

the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

5.34 

Trees 

There are no trees on site subject to a TPO and the site is not within a Conservation 

Page 202

Area, however the trees do offer a high amenity value and therefore most of the 

significant trees on site should be retained. A comprehensive Tree Report has 

been provided with the submission which identifies these significant trees to be 

retained together with method statement recommendations during the construction, 

for the protection of those retained trees. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has 

considered the report and raises no objection to the proposal and its impact on the 

copse of trees in which the building is to be positioned. The proposal therefore 

accords with the guidance contained in PPS7 and Policies NRM5, NRM7 and C4 of 

the South East Plan 2009 and Policies C4, C7 and C14 of the adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan. 

5.35 Other matters 

The proposed development will have no serious impact on the amenity of any 

neighbouring property and whilst the site is potentially contaminated land, there is 

no need for a full assessment in this case, a planning note to the applicant relating 

to naturally occurring contaminates will be provided. 



1. SC 1_4A (Time limit for implementation) 



documents: Site location and drawing nos. 6007.10, 11 and 12 received with the 

application. 




3. That samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the walls and roof of 

the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 






4. That no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for landscaping the 

site which shall include:- 

(a) details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their species, 

number, sizes and positions, together with grass seeded/turfed areas, 

(b) details of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as well as 

those to be felled, including existing and proposed soil levels at the 

base of each tree/hedgerow and the minimum distance between the 

base of the tree and the nearest edge of any excavation, 

Page 203

(c) details of the hard surface areas, pavements, pedestrian areas, 

crossing points and steps. 

Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation 

of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C4 of the 


5. That all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of 

landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following 

the occupation of the building(s) or on the completion of the development, 

whichever is the sooner; and that any trees and shrubs which within a period of five 

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 

consent for any variation. 

Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation 

of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C28 of the 


6. That before the development is first occupied, the parking and manoeuvring areas 

shall be provided in accordance with the plan hereby approved and shall be 

constructed, laid out, surfaced, drained and completed in accordance with 

specification details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, and shall be 

retained unobstructed except for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles at all 

times thereafter. 

Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Government advice 

contained in PPG13: Transport. 

7. No removal of trees/scrub shall take place in the bird nesting/breeding season 

between the months of March to August inclusive. 

Reason: Nesting birds are protected from harm/disturbance under the Wildlife & 

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and to ensure that the development will not 

cause harm to any protected species or its habitat in accordance with Policy NRM5 

of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

recommendations set out in Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the land near 

Bloxham Mill Business Centre by Martin Ecology dated August 2011 unless 

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason - To protect habitats of importance to nature conservation from any loss or 

damage in accordance with the requirements of PPS 9: Planning and Biodiversity, 

Policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan. 

Page 204

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and 

specifications set out in the Tree Report SB/JS/226/TS including the Tree Protection 

Plan (TPP) submitted by Sacha Barnes Ltd dated November 2011 unless otherwise 

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason - To ensure that no proposed operations impair the health of any retained 

trees in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and to comply with Policy C4 

of the South east Plan 2009 and Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. 

10. Prior to occupation, the submitted travel plan addendum to reduce dependency on 

the private car, shall be incorporated and operated. 

Reason – In the interests of sustainability and to ensure a satisfactory form of 

development, in accordance Policy T5 of the South East Plan 2009. 

11. That the building shall be used only for the purpose of a childcare nursery and 

dance studio and for no other purpose whatsoever, including any other purpose in 

Class D1 and D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) 

(Amendment) (England) Order 2005. 

1. 

Reason – In the interests of highway safety and in order to maintain and safeguard 

the character and amenities of the area in accordance with Policies T4 and BE1 of 

the South East Plan 2009 and Policies C28 and C31 of the adopted Cherwell Local 

Plan and guidance contained in the PPS7: Sustainable development in rural areas 

and PPG13: Transport 


The applicant is advised by Thames Water that with regard to surface water 

drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage 

to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is 

recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or 

regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is 

proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be 

separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are 

not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to 

discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services 

will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that 

the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing 

sewerage system. 

2. The applicant is advised that pursuant of condition no. 6, Thames Water have 

advised that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all new car parking area to prevent 

oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses, the details of which should be 

included in the further detail required under that condition. 

3. The applicant’s and/or the developer’s attention is drawn to the requirements of the 

Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Clean 

Air Act 1993, which relate to the control of any nuisance arising from construction 

sites. The applicant/developer is encouraged to undertake the proposed building 

Page 205

operations in such a manner as to avoid causing any undue nuisance or 

disturbance to neighbouring residents. Under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution 

Act 1974, contractors may apply to the Council for ‘prior consent’ to carry out works, 

which would establish hours of operation, noise levels and methods of working. 

Please contact the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Manager on 01295 221623 for 

further advice on this matter. 

4. It is known that in some areas of the northern part of Cherwell District elevated 

concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic, chromium and nickel and in Souldern, 

Somerton, Upper Heyford, Lower Heyford and Kirtlington elevated levels of naturally 

occurring arsenic exist above soil guideline values produced by DEFRA. While 

these elements are not considered a risk to residents occupying the completed 

development, there exists a potential risk to residents using the garden for home 

grown produce or where regular contact with the soil occurs due to ingestion and 

dermal contact. A risk may also occur to building site workers during construction, 

due to dermal contact and inhalation of potentially contaminated soil and dust. The 

applicant is therefore requested to ensure contact with the soil is minimised, 

especially where young children are present and not to grow home grown produce 

until such a potential risk has been shown to be negligible. In addition, to ensure 

that all site workers are informed of this potential risk and that appropriate health 

and safety requirements are used to protect the site workers. For further information 

please contact the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer. 




the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The development 

is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposal pays proper regard to 

the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and has no undue adverse 

impact upon the amenities of any neighbouring properties, highway safety, landscape 

character or ecology. As such the proposal is in accordance with National Policy Guidance 

contained in PPS1, PPS4, PPS7, PPS9 and PPG13, Policies CC4, CC6, RE5, NRM5, 

NRM7, NRM11, T4, T5, C4, S3, S5 and CO2 of the South East Plan and Policies C1, C4, 

C7, C8, C13, C14, C28 and EMP4 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Policies EMP4, 

TR3, TR5, TR11, R11, EN22, EN23, EN24, EN30, EN34, EN35, EN37, D3 and D9 of the 

Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011. For the reasons given above and having proper 

regard to all other matters raised the Council considered that the application should be 


above. 

CONTACT OFFICER: Tracey Morrissey TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221812 

Page 206

EADY ROAD 

GORDON ROAD 

ROPER ROAD 

GIBSON DRIVE 

REID PLACE 

¯ 

CARSWELL CIRCLE 

DOW STREET 

NETTLETON DRIVE 

HARRIS ROAD 

Scale 

1:9,100 

Airfield 

12/00040/FAgenda Item 16 

(dis) 

SODEN ROAD 

Upper Heyford Airfield 

LARSEN ROAD 

CAMP ROAD 

Page 207 





Heyford Airfield

ROPER ROAD 

¯ 

DOW STREET 

Scale 

1:7,809 

Airfield 

(dis) 

SODEN ROAD 


12/00040/F 

Upper Heyford Airfield 

TRENCHARD CIRCLE 

LARSEN ROAD 

CAMP ROAD 

Page 208 



Heyford Airfield 

UNNAMED--SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY (6808673)


12/00040/F 

Applicant: 

Site Address: 

Ward: 

The Astons and Heyfords 

Paragon Fleet Solutions 

Date Valid: 

12.01.2012 

Paragon Fleet Solutions, Heyford Park, Camp Road 

Proposal: Change of use to allow the continued use of land, buildings and 

other structures and continued retention of security trench, 

concrete rings and temporary lamp posts until 1 st April 2014. 


1.1 The application site for this proposal covers part of the former RAF/USAF 

Upper Heyford base. It is identified on the appended site plan and measures 

approximately 61 hectares in size, the Heyford base being approximately 505 

hectares in total. In terms of the uses on site, its military use ceased in 1994 

and since then the site has been used for a series of temporary uses. 

1.2 The base was designated a conservation area in 2006, its primary 

architectural and social historic interest being its role during the Cold War. The 

nature of the site is defined by the historic landscape character of the distinct 

zones within the base. The designation also acknowledges the special 

architectural interest, and as a conservation area, the character of which it is 

desirable to preserve or enhance. This provides the context and framework to 

ensure the setting and appearance of the Cold War landscape are preserved. 

This application includes a small part of the Technical Area but is 

predominantly on the Flying Field and crosses a number of character zones as 

classified in the Conservation Appraisal which can be summarised as: 

• 1A Central Runway: 

Open landscape dominated by the uniform planes of meadow 

grassland and hard surfaces and by the wide horizons. The area is 

surrounded by HASs (Hardened Aircraft Shelters) and includes the 

control tower. The CWS (County Wildlife Site) is located towards the 

eastern end of the area. 

• 1D South Aircraft Shelters 

The open aircraft shelters located in this area lack the dominant 

presence of the HASs. Current usage has robbed the landscape of any 

defining characteristics. 

• 3 Runway East Terminal: 

This area has some of the characteristics of 1A but the land dips 

slightly to the east and there are wide views across the more-or-less 

level surrounding farmland of the Fritwell and Caulcott Plateaux. The 

Page 209

overall character is therefore very different from 1A and the area lies 

outside the 1940s core, having been constructed in the 1950s. 

• 6 Southeast HASs: 

This area has a distinctive character because the HASs and ancillary 

structures are relatively close together. But the visual link with the 

major part of the Landscape of Flexible response is poor and it lacks 

the simplicity and openness of Area 1. 

• 7. The Tanker Area: 

This is an indeterminate area dominated by the grassland of the tanker 

standings. It is largely without a character of its own and is influenced 

by the mass of buildings beyond the boundary to the south. 

1.3 The majority of the site is runway, taxiway or other hardstanding and it is the 

use of this land for storage of vehicles that is the main element of this 

application. A large part of it (17 hectares) was authorised for “Car 

Processing” at appeal in January 2010 but this application seeks to extend the 

use of the remainder of the site for which planning permission was not granted 

for a further temporary period until April 2014. 

1.4 The current application is a resubmission seeking planning permission for a 

“phased and structured transfer” of the car processing use on to the land 

authorised by the appeal decision in 2010. A previous application for the same 

proposal was withdrawn prior to its consideration by Committee in October last 

year. That application sought consent until 30 June 2013, the applicant now 

seeks permission until 1 st April 2014. The details of the transfer are set out in 

a number of documents that accompany the application but namely a Revised 

Transitional Arrangements Table (March 2012), Planning Statement and 

Design and Access Statement. 

1.5 

There are also several buildings within the redline site boundary but the 

majority of those are now authorised by the appeal or subsequent planning 

decisions in B1, B2 or B8 uses. In heritage terms none of them are listed or 

scheduled, the nearest statutorily protected building is the control tower 

(building 340) and the impact upon this building was fully considered at the 

appeal and indeed the layout of the future entrance to the car process area 

amended as a result. The other buildings do have a general level of local or 

regional significance and, in the case of Buildings 350,172 and 151 (A Frame 

Hangers); 370, Squadron Headquarters; and 125, Station Armoury (Paragon’s 

HQ Building) are of national significance. 


2.1 The application was advertised in the press and by site notice. It was clear 

for determination on 10 th February 2012. No public comments have been 

received. 

Page 210


3.1 Upper Heyford Parish Council: No objection. Support the employment 

brought by paragon to the site 

3.2 Steeple Aston PC-No objection 

3.3 English Heritage: Do not wish to comment 

3.4 Oxfordshire County Council (as Highway Authority): No objection 

3.5 Highways Agency: No objection 

3.6 CDC-Economic Development Officer: 

Paragon is an important employer that has over the years contributed to the 

maintenance of the fabric of Heyford Park. It has provided direct and indirect 

employment and skill development in a wide range of office, technical and 

transport activities. The proposed continuation of activity supports the 

aspirations of the Cherwell Economic Development Strategy to assist the 

success of local businesses and the wider economy. 

Whilst it is unfortunate that the transitional arrangements have not been fully 

adhered to, the long-term benefits of Paragon are clear. I therefore support 

the proposal which should enable Paragon to continue to prosper in Cherwell 

on the condition that the proposed new schedule will be strictly adhered to, 

and that day-to-day operation will respect the sensitivity of its surroundings. 

Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Planning Policy) 

Any temporary or transitional measures required to facilitate the 

implementation of the lasting arrangement for the site should not prejudice, 

discourage, or provide a disincentive to, implementing that lasting 

arrangement. 


4.1 National Planning Guidance contained in: 

• PPS1-Delivering Sustainable Development 

• PPS4-Planning for Sustainable Growth 

• PPS5-Planning for the Historic Environment 

• PPS7-Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 

• PPS13-Transport 

The Government also published last year the new National Planning Policy 

Framework although at this stage it is a consultation document rather than 

policy. 

Page 211

4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (The South East Plan) 2009 

(SEP) 

• CC7: Infrastructure and Implementation 

• CC1/CC2/CC4: Sustainable Development 

• NRM11: Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy 

• BE6: Management of the Historic Environment 

• RE3 Employment 

• T4:Parking 

• T7: Rural Transport 

4.3 Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (OSP) 

• Saved Policy H2-Upper Heyford 

4.4 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (ACLP) 

• C23: Conservation Areas 

• C18: Historic Buildings 

• TR1: Transportation Measures 

• TR7: Traffic on Minor Roads 

4.5 Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan (NSCLP) 

• UH1, UH2, UH3, and UH4-Upper Heyford 

• TR1-TR3 Transport Travel 

• TR3 Mitigation 

• TR5 Road Safety 

• TR6 Public Transport 

• TR8 Cycling/Walking 

• TR16 Large vehicle Traffic 

• TR36 Traffic in rural Areas 

• D7 Mixed Uses 

• EM1/EMP4 Employment 

• EN1/EN2 Environmental Protection 

• EN7 Noise 

• EN46 Heritage-Enabling Development 

4.6 Cherwell Local Development Framework (LDF) 

Draft Core Strategy-February 2010 

• The draft document went through the first round of public consultation 

in the spring of 2010. A revised draft is due out shortly for further 

public comment. Heyford is identified as the major single location for 

growth other than Banbury and Bicester. Of course the Strategy is an 

emerging document that has little weight at the present time. 

4.7 In addition: 

• RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area -Designated April 2006 

• RAF Upper Heyford Comprehensive Planning Brief (SPD adopted 5 th 

March 2007) (RCPB) 

Page 212

5 Planning Policy and the Development Plan 

Background 

5.1 As Committee will be aware, these are changing times in which applications 

to develop land are being considered, both nationally and locally. However, 

the main policy issues over the fundamental matter of whether to allow 

development, any development, at Heyford have been resolved. A short 

explanatory background is required however to put the current application into 

context and to set out the relevant development plan policies applicable. 

Oxfordshire Structure Plan 

5.2 The Structure Plan (OSP) which had effectively been replaced by the South 

East Plan (SEP) included, unusually for such a strategic document, a site 

specific policy for Upper Heyford. This policy, H2, was saved by the SEP and 

remains in place despite the proposed revocation of the regional plan. 

Although the thrust of the OSP was to direct development towards urban 

centres, paragraph 7.7 of the Structure Plan advises that; “Land declared 

surplus by the Ministry of Defence at the former airbase at Upper Heyford 

represents an opportunity to achieve an appropriate balance between 

environmental improvements to a rural part of Oxfordshire, conservation of 

the heritage interest from the Cold War, and reuse of some existing buildings 

and previously developed land located in the former technical and residential 

areas of the base.” Policy H2 provided for a new settlement of 1000 

dwellings including … employment opportunities and required the 

development of the base to be in accordance with a comprehensive 

development brief for the site. 

The policy in full states: 

Upper Heyford 

H2 a) Land at RAF Upper Heyford will provide for a new settlement of 

about 1000 dwellings and necessary supporting infrastructure, 

including a primary school and appropriate community, recreational 

and employment opportunities, as a means of enabling environmental 

improvements and the heritage interest of the site as a military base 

with Cold War associations to be conserved, compatible with achieving 

a satisfactory living environment. 

b) Proposals for development must reflect a revised comprehensive 

planning brief adopted by the district council and demonstrate that the 

conservation of heritage resources, landscape, restoration, 

enhancement of biodiversity and other environmental improvements 

will be achieved across the whole of the former air base in association 

with the provision of the new settlement. 

Page 213

c) The new settlement should be designed to encourage walking, 

cycling and use of public transport rather than travel by private car. 

Improvements to bus and rail facilities and measures to minimise the 

impact of traffic generated by the development on the surrounding road 

network will be required. 

The Revised Comprehensive Planning Brief 2007 (RCPB) 

5.3 The RCPB was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 

March 2007. While it does not form part of the statutory development plan, it 

expands on, supplements and provides guidance to Policy H2 of OSP 2016. 

The RCPB 2007 SPD is a significant material consideration in the processing 

of planning applications concerning the site at the former RAF Upper Heyford 

airbase. 

5.4 The Brief specifically intends to assist in the quality delivery of: 

• a settlement of about 1,000 dwellings as a means of enabling environmental 

improvements, conservation of the site’s heritage interests while achieving a 

satisfactory living environment; 

• necessary supporting infrastructure for the settlement including primary 

school appropriate community, recreational and employment opportunities 

• conservation of heritage interest 

5.5 The RCPB sets out the vision for the site and identifies seven elements 

Including, and relevant to this application: 

ii) A community that is as sustainable as possible, in the provision of 

community facilities and in balancing dwellings and employment 

opportunities, given the site’s location 

iii) The preservation of the stark functional character and appearance of the 

flying field beyond the settlement area, including the retention of buildings of 

national interest which contribute to the area’s character (with limited, fully 

justified exceptions) and sufficient low key re-use of these to enable 

appropriate management of this area. 

iv) The achievement of environmental improvement within the site and of 

views of it to include the removal of buildings and structures that do not make 

a positive contribution to the special character or which are justified on the 

grounds of adverse visual impact, including in proximity to the proposed 

settlement, together with limited appropriate landscape mitigation, 

enhancement of ecological interest and reopening of historic routes. 

Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2001 (ACLP) 

5.6 The Cherwell Local Plan was adopted in November 1996. Although the plan 

was intended to cover the period to 2001 it remains part of the Statutory 

Development Plan. The Cherwell Local Plan was adopted shortly after the 

former airbase was declared surplus and therefore does not have any policies 

specifically in relation to the site. 

Page 214

Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 (NSCLP) 

5.7 The Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan (NSCLP) was originally produced as a 

replacement for the adopted local plan. The plan was subject to first and 

second draft deposit stages and pre-Inquiry changes were incorporated. 

However the decision was taken by the Council to discontinue work on the 

plan on the 13 December 2004 and withdraw it from the statutory local plan 

process as there was no realistic prospect of it being adopted prior to 

Government changes and the new planning system coming into force which 

would have prevented its subsequent adoption. However to avoid a policy 

void, the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 (NSCLP) was approved by 

the Council as interim planning policy for development control purposes on 

the 13 December 2004. The NSCLP therefore does not form part of the 

statutory development plan and as such is of reduced weight but as interim 

planning policy it is a material consideration in the consideration of the current 

application. The NSCLP 2011, contains four specific policies, UH1-4, relating 

to the former airbase, UH1 seeks to create employment opportunities broadly 

compatible to the number of residents. 

5.8 

Conservation Area Appraisal 

The RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area was designated in April 2006. A 

Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) was produced for the site and adopted by 

the Council in April 2006. The CAA includes the historic significance of the 

site, analyses its character and heritage assets, assesses the special interest, 

negative factor’s affecting the site and summarises the issues. It describes 

the site as; ‘The landscape setting and hardened concrete structures of the 

former RAF Upper Heyford have the power to communicate the atmosphere 

of the Cold War.’ 

The CAA identifies the following key areas in the summary of issues; 

1. Protection of the Historic Buildings and Landscape 

2. Vulnerability of the site to fragmentation 

3. Reuse of the retained buildings 

4. Incorporation of a new settlement 

6 Planning History 

6.1 

The former airbase was confirmed surplus to MOD requirements in 

September 1994 just before the current Local Plan was adopted in 1996. 

The ACLP does not contain any policies specifically relating to the site. A 

revised Structure Plan was adopted by the County Council in 1998 and 

included policy H2 which sought to address the future of the site. Policy H2 

identified: 

Page 215

• the site for a development of about 1,000 dwellings and supporting 

infrastructure including employment opportunities; 

• that the future of the site be guided by a comprehensive planning 

brief adopted by the Council; 

• substantial landscaping and other environmental improvements be 

provided; and that 

• the new settlement be designed to encourage journeys by foot, cycle 

or public transport rather than by car. 

6.2 A Comprehensive Planning Brief (CPB), as required by OSP 2012 Policy H2, 

was first adopted by CDC in 1999. The CPB sought to guide development 

proposals for the base and included the clearance of all structures located 

beyond the proposed settlement area and restoration of the land. The CPB 

included draft Local Plan policies which were adopted for development 

control purposes. 

6.3 In 2005, a revised Structure Plan 2016 was adopted. Policy H2 was retained 

in an amended form identifying the purpose of development on the site as 

enabling to deliver environmental improvements, conservation of the 

heritage interest across the whole site, compatible with achieving a 

satisfactory living environment. 

6.4 In November 2005, a Conservation Plan was produced for the flying field. 

The plan was jointly commissioned by CDC, English Heritage (EH) and North 

Oxfordshire Consortium (NOC). The plan identified the historic importance of 

the site as a Cold War landscape and the importance of individual structures 

on the site. The plan identified greater levels of significance for the site than 

EH had previously identified. A further assessment of the areas excluded 

from the Conservation Plan was commissioned by CDC and completed in 

March 2006. These studies were used to inform the decision to designate 

the whole site as a conservation area in April 2006. A Revised 

Comprehensive Planning Brief was adopted as an SPD in March 2007. In 

the RCPB approximately 7 hectares were set aside for car storage together 

with use of a number of buildings by the company then operating the car 

business. However, at the later Public Inquiry this figure was not considered 

adequate for the company’s needs. 

6.5 Over the last 10 years numerous applications have been made seeking 

permission to either develop the whole site or large parts of it and most the 

land subject of the current application was granted temporary planning 

permissions pending the long term and lasting arrangement to be secured in 

Page 216

line with the OSP. Numerous cases have gone to appeal the most relevant 

to the current application, and most recent, was application ref 

08/00716/OUT. This outline application proposed: “A new settlement of 1075 

dwellings, together with associated works and facilities including employment 

uses, community uses, school, playing fields and other physical and social 

infrastructure (as amended by plans and information received 26.06.08).” 

6.6 Following a major public inquiry that commenced in September 2008 the 

Council finally received the appeal in January 2010. The appeal was 

allowed, subject to conditions, together with 24 conservation area consents 

that permit demolition of buildings on the site. 

6.7 Although the appeal was lodged on the basis of non-determination the 

Council resolved to object to the proposal on several grounds including its 

failure to conform to the Planning Brief for the site, that the development was 

unsustainable, the type of employment was inappropriate, transport 

measures were inadequate to cope with the development, damage to the 

character and appearance of the conservation area and the information 

submitted was inadequate or failed to justify the proposal. The reasons for 

refusing the conservation area consents were either the loss of buildings that 

contributed positively to the conservation area, that a cleared site would 

detract from the conservation area and/or their demolition was premature 

without an approved scheme for redevelopment. 

6.8 Due to the scale of the development proposed, the appeal was referred to 

the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for 

determination. The decision letter from the Secretary of State (SoS) can be 

read in full on the Council’s web site: 

http://cherweb.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/05757874.pdf . 

6.9 The SoS considered there to be three main issues: the policy context for the 

proposal, with particular reference to the development plan and PPG15; 

Design Principles and PPS1; and Housing and Sustainability of location. 

There was also a fourth matter, planning conditions and obligations. 

6.10 On policy, the SoS thought the development was in general conformity with 

the Oxfordshire Structure Plan policy H2 which sought to provide a 

community of about 1000 dwellings with schools and employment 

opportunities, though not the Council’s Development Brief for the site, and 

that it would enable environmental improvements, conserve heritage 

interests and provide appropriate level of employment. In terms of 

Page 217

employment, the SoS recognised that businesses were well established and 

there were 500 people currently employed in car processing. Economic 

benefits were a “weighty material consideration” although they did not seem 

as such to outweigh the harm to the character of the conservation area. 

However the Inspector refers to the need to balance heritage interests 

against exceptional circumstances to justify overriding the presumption to 

preserve and enhance the conservation area. On reuse of buildings, it was 

considered their retention would outweigh the breach in the number of jobs 

limited on the site. Shops would provide a service to the community and the 

employment would stop Heyford becoming a dormitory town. 

6.11 The SoS concluded the development would substantially accord with the 

development plan, meaning Structure Plan policy H2, limited weight was 

given to the Council’s development brief for the site. A sustainable and 

reasonable balance was secured between retaining the built and natural 

heritage, and providing an appropriate and proportionate level of 

employment in the context of the site’s location and access to services. In 

granting the planning permission, it was therefore felt justifiable to allow the 

24 conservation area consents, again subject to conditions. As part of the 

decision, 71 conditions were imposed on the grant of planning permission 

and 5 on the conservation consents. 

6.12 The grant of planning permission authorised many of the uses being 

undertaken at the site and sets out the template for future development. In 

terms of the main employment use, i.e. car processing, the SoS agreed with 

the Inspector that harm would be caused to the Conservation Area and 

would not achieve environmental improvements. However, it was outside the 

core historic area, in the least significant part of the site overall and largely 

concealed from public views. A balance had to be struck between 

preservation and enhancement and the exceptional circumstances argument 

put forward by the appellant. In the end, it was resolved to accept the 

reduced area of 17 hectares and alter the entrance to the site to lessen the 

visual impact of car storage. 

6.13 As far as the overall development of the settlement area is concerned 

however, it is a long way from the end of the story and Committee will recall 

the application that proposed to revise the settlement area masterplan 

(ref10/01642/OUT) which Committee approved in March, although that has 

limited relevance to the current proposal. 

6.14 Finally, and of more relevance to the current application and as mentioned 

Page 218

7 Appraisal 

previously above, permission was sought last year for the same proposal 

(ref: 11/01247/F), the only difference being the time period for the 

permission. That had originally requested consent until June 2014 but was 

negotiated down to June 2013. The current application seeks permission 

until April 2014. 

Background 

7.1 Planning permission granted at the appeal included use of 17 hectares of the 

flying field (mainly hardstanding and consisting of the former runways and 

taxiing area) for car processing. This was defined as the inspection, valeting, 

washing, repairing, tyre replacement, processing and delivery of cars and 

other car processing activities as may be required from time to time. This 

area was based on the minimum operational requirement of the business 

taking place by the current applicant. This land was considered to be the 

least sensitive part of the overall site being outside the core area of national 

significance, largely concealed from public views and from the Aves Ditch 

public footpath. The applicant currently has a lease on some 61 hectares of 

the base although only about 40% of it is in operational use. 

7.2 Nonetheless, the site was in the Conservation Area and in the view of the 

Inspector its use would still cause harm but, after weighing up the economic 

benefits and possible level of job losses, the SoS considered what was 

approved to be a reasonable balance between what he considered to be 

exceptional economic circumstances and conservation. In the context of the 

current application it should be noted the applicant was agreeable to this 

reduced area of operation. 

7.3 However, since that time the applicant has found the need to continue using 

much of the unauthorised hard standing, including the main runway, for car 

storage and their logistical operation. This is not only in breach of the 

permission granted at appeal but contrary to two separate enforcement 

notices served by the Council in 2008. These were both appealed but put 

into abeyance. If the current application is refused permission the Planning 

Inspectorate will reactivate the appeals and a further public inquiry may be 

reconvened to hear them. For Committee’s information, the enforcement 

notices were served to come into effect on 6 th October 2008 and gave one 

year for Paragon to comply with the requirements to clear the land. It does 

not appear to the Officer’s that any attempt to comply with these notices (or 

the appeal decision) has been made by the applicant. 

7.4 The current application seeks to agree a period of transition in which time the 

current levels of use over an area of almost 25 hectares will be reduced 

down to the 17 hectares authorised at appeal, although the final figure is 

Page 219

7.5 

believed to be nearer to 16.2 hectares, and which it seeks to arrive at by 

April 2015. This is based on a three year period by which time elements of 

the business can be transferred elsewhere and the Heyford site reconfigured. 

In discussions with the applicant before the previous application 

was submitted, the period of transition had started at 5 years, dropped to 4 

years was submitted for 3 years but after even more negotiations whilst 

processing application 11/01247/F a final end date based on a two year 

period was agreed. The current application is based again on a two year 

transition period hence the request for a temporary consent until 2014 as 

opposed to the previous submission until 2013. 

The actual transition involves a three phased process whereby if permission 

is granted (according to the Transitional Arrangements Plan): 

1-On grant of permission vehicles will be removed from the runway; the site 

area drops from 24.8ha to 19.4ha (61.3 to 47.9 acres). 

2-By October 2012 the site area drops to 18ha (44.5acres) by the cessation 

of the use of a taxiway. As part of the reconfiguration of the western area the 

existing prefabricated gatehouse would be removed and Building 3205 

converted for such use. This would also coincide with the formation of a new 

transporter load/unloading area instead of its current operation on the more 

sensitive eastern runway. A new refuelling facility will also be provided 

subject to a separate permission being granted. 

3-In the final phase the eastern taxiway ceases to be used but a new hard 

standing is created on the former tanker area resulting in the final site area of 

16.2 ha (40 acres). So by April 2014, not only will the physical footprint be 

adjusted to that approved but all taller vehicles will be restricted to a smaller 

less sensitive part of the site and all temporary lighting and security features 

not benefitting from full permission will be removed. 

Main Issues 

7.7 The new application raises a number of issues but the two main ones are 

considered to be: 

• Employment and 

• Impact on the Conservation Area, Heritage and Environment 

7.8 Employment 

7.9 

To make the community sustainable it is necessary to provide employment 

opportunities and this is set out in OSP H2, RCPB and UH1(iii) of the 

NSCLP. The RCPB states: Upper Heyford “is located in an unsustainable 

location and therefore, if it were not for the proposed dwellings, the site 

would not be viewed as a suitable location for employment generating 

development. However, to create a sustainable settlement, the opportunity 

Page 220

for employment accessible to the residents should be provided. To maximise 

the opportunities for residents to work close to where they live a range of 

employment opportunities will be sought. Employment provision should be 

within and part of the settlement to enable access by foot and be 

conveniently served by public transport. The premises could support local 

services and contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of the settlement.” 

It goes on to say: 

“A RANGE OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD BE PROVIDED 

TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE NUMBER SHOULD 

REMAIN APPROXIMATELY IN BALANCE WITH THE ECONOMICALLY 

ACTIVE POPULATION.” 

Historically, the use subject of the current application has been authorised by 

temporary consents granted first in 1995 and renewed by short term 

permissions ever since. Permissions were granted as an exception to 

policies on sustainability and to replace employment lost by the closure of 

the base and to raise revenue for the MoD. It was recognised in the 2007 

RCPB that many of these businesses have now become established with a 

local workforce and therefore need to be handled with a degree of sensitivity. 

The criteria for considering each case whether new or existing uses are 

acceptable was set out in the RCPB: 

“i. the use is compatible with the aspirations for the settlement 

ii. the use would not adversely affect residents or other business 

through noise, traffic movements, requirement for outside storage, 

working outside normal business hours 

iii. the use would not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding 

landscape, historic interest of the site or nearby villages.” 

7.10 At the moment the car processing operations do provide a stable economic 

base to the site and probably about a third of the total employment. The long 

term retention of Paragon on the base was permitted through the appeal to 

be part of the so called “lasting arrangement” and is not at issue with the 

current application. 

7.11 The Company have also pointed out that they are responsible for significant 

levels of direct and indirect employment in the local economy; provide a wide 

range of employment opportunities including with a high level of skills; it is a 

recognised centre of excellence in the automotive industry and in IT; it 

provides considerable training and career development opportunities; and it 

creates social and economic spinoffs in the local community. 

7.12 At present however, the automotive industry is suffering from considerable 

economic pressures and is not expected to go through a recovery phrase for 

Page 221

another 2 or 3 years. It is the applicant’s submission that it will not be 

possible to fully invest and undertake the complete operational requirements 

placed on them by the appeal decision other than under the arrangements 

set out in the transitional programme set out as part of this application. In the 

meantime they intend to focus their main aims on maintaining their economic 

base at Heyford and helping support the delivery of key economic aims and 

objectives whilst at the same time scaling down the physical footprint of the 

car processing operation. 

Impact on the Conservation Area, other Heritage Issues and the 

Environment 

7.13 In terms of local policy, policy H2 of the OSP seeks to “provide for a new 

settlement of about 1000 dwellings and necessary supporting infrastructure, 

including … employment opportunities, as a means of enabling 

environmental improvements and the heritage interest of the site as a military 

base with Cold War associations to be conserved… The majority of 

significant heritage assets on site are to be preserved through the main 

permission and unilateral undertaking secured with it. 

7.14 

With regard to Policy H2, the Inspector thought “changes of use should serve 

and be subservient to achieving environmental improvements, securing the 

heritage interest of the site and achieving a satisfactory living environment 

(and within those, provide some employment and some of the other 

necessary infrastructure). Whilst it would not impact adversely on the living 

environment of the NSA, the 17ha of outdoor car staging would not achieve 

an environmental improvement and it would seriously harm the character of 

the Conservation Area.” 

7.15 She also considered the defining character of the flying field to be its 

openness. She agreed with EH that” the southern taxiway relates closely in 

character and purpose to the main runway and that they are both key 

features of the Conservation Area. Those features with their ultimate purpose 

of delivering “flexible response” and all the earlier concepts of Cold War 

airborne deterrence is the essential element in the Conservation Area. I saw 

that Paragon’s present use of the main runway is highly destructive to the 

character of the site.” She went on: “The cars cannot sensibly be viewed as a 

transitory impact. When one leaves the ranks it is replaced by another 

awaiting processing.” 

7.16 In terms of direct impact on heritage, in the supporting documentation the 

applicant’s state they propose to cease use of the main runway within 30 

days of the grant of planning permission. This part of the flying field is a Core 

Area of National Significance and is on the central plateau, a highly 

prominent feature in the landscape. As such, the end of car processing and 

storage on this area is of great benefit to the heritage interest of the site. 

Page 222

7.17 The revised transitional arrangements now include more detail on the 

mechanism of reducing the scale of car processing at the site; setting out the 

ancillary works (removal of fencing/barriers and the installation of the same 

for the new areas of storage) required for each stage of the transition. This 

greater level of details gives Officers greater certainty that the revised 

transitional arrangements are likely to be achievable and likely to be adhered 

to by the applicant. 

Other Issues: 

Transitional arrangements-RCPB Policy 

7.18 In the RCPB it was anticipated that the temporary uses governing the 

commercial operations would be wound down. It was expected this would 

occur through an agreed timescale which is exactly what is being proposed 

now. The RCPB envisaged a period of five years as this would be the time 

anticipated to complete the new settlement. It is accepted the settlement is 

not likely to be completed for some years but circumstances have changed, 

most significantly with the appeal decision. The applicant had several years 

up to the Public Inquiry to prepare a strategy to reorganise the site and 

indeed the business profile. It is recognised however, that changing 

economic circumstances have made agreeing and implementing transitional 

arrangements difficult. 

Access and Highways 

7.19 Whilst the Highway Authority had some initial concerns they now advise 

there is no material impact, do not object to the development, and do not 

require any conditions. 

Residential Amenity 

7.20 Whilst the proposal integrates commercial activity close to proposed 

residential development in line with the guidance contained in the NSCLP 

and PPS3, the issue of residential amenity has to be a major consideration 

bearing in mind the industrial operations likely to be undertaken in proximity 

to the proposed residential buildings. The proposed use of the tanker area 

would bring commercial activity much closer to the now approved masterplan 

for the residential development and as this was agreed at appeal the Officers 

do not think there is likely to be any direct effect to justify refusal of 

permission, particularly when the uses closest to housing have been in 

operation as such for some 15 years. 

Page 223

8.0 Conclusion 

8.1 The Inspector and Secretary of State at appeal, as Officers do now, had to 

take a balanced view. The appeal decision granted permission for 17 

hectares of land for car processing with that size accepted by the appellant, 

now applicant. The applicant has not complied with that decision. A further 

extension of time is requested. 

8.2 It is unfortunate that the applicant has not been able to comply with the terms 

and conditions on the planning permission granted at appeal or with the 

accompanying legal agreement. However these are difficult economic times 

and Upper Heyford is not a normal development site. Whilst there will be 

harm to issues of heritage and to the conservation area this will be relatively 

short term when viewed over the period since the base was closed and car 

processing commenced here, and as the Secretary of State and Inspector 

did, they need to be balanced against the benefit of securing local 

employment of a type that fits the heritage context of the base. The 

application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions, as it 

represents a pragmatic balance of the Council’s duties towards conservation 

and economic interests. 

Recommendation 

Approval subject to the conditions set out below; 

1) That at the 1 st April 2014 the uses specified in your application shall be 

discontinued other than within the area hatched in red (annotated as ‘Approved 

Vehicle Processing Hard Standing Area) on plan P.0754_07-1 and the land shall be 

restored to its former condition on or before that date. 

Reason – To enable the Council to review the position at the expiration of the stated 

period and as the long term use of the land for car parking is considered harmful to the 

character and appearance of the Conservation Area and permission is only granted in 

view of the special/personal circumstances of the case which are such as to override 

basic planning objections to the development. 

2) Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the 

development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Revised Transitional 

Arrangements Table dated March 2012. 


only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with Central 

Government guidance contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development. 

3) Within three months of the date of this permission, a lighting strategy shall be 

provided. The strategy as approved shall be implemented within 6 months of the date 

of this permission and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the 

details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning 

Page 224

Authority. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the visual amenities, character and appearance of the 

conservation area in accordance with Policy C23 and C28 of the adopted Cherwell 

Local Plan. 

4) Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the construction of 

a hard surfaced parking area on the former tanker area shall be provided. The parking 

area shall be constructed and available for use as approved within 18 months of the 

date of this permission and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with 

the details as approved 



Local Plan. 

5) The area of the application site comprising open hardstanding identified for car 

processing (defined so as to comprise the inspection, valeting, washing, repairing, tyre 

replacement, processing and delivery of cars and other car processing activities as 

may be required from time to time) shall only be used for activity which is related to 

car processing, and specifically shall not be used for the parking of any other vehicle 

associated with any other use or activity present on the application site. 



Local Plan. 

6) No car rental or related activities for use by members of the public shall be 

permitted from the identified car processing area 

Reason – Such use would be inappropriate on the flying field, generate an 

inappropriate level of traffic and be contrary to Central Government guidance 

contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development. 

7) A scheme and programme for the provision of security for the car processing area 

including below ground pressure sensors and infra red cameras and the removal of 

the existing concrete rings shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning 

Authority within 3 months of the grant of planning permission and approved in writing. 

Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the 

approved timescale. 



Local Plan. 

8) No part of the development shall be commenced until a detailed green travel plan, 

prepared in accordance with the Department of Transport’s Best Practice Guidance 

Note "Using the planning process to secure travel plans" and the emerging 

Oxfordshire County Council guidance on Developer Travel Plans, including an HGV 

routeing agreement, also covering the construction phases and including a timetable 

Page 225

for its implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. 

Reason - In the interests of highway safety, transport sustainability, to reduce the 

impact of vehicle movements on the amenities of surrounding villages and to comply 

with Government advice contained in PPG13: Transport. 

PLANNING NOTES 

1) Your attention is drawn to a Legal Agreement related to this development or land 

which has been made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 

1990, Sections 111 and 139 of the Local Government Act 1972 and/or other enabling 

powers. 

2) Your attention is drawn to the need to have regard to the requirements of UK and 

European legislation relating to the protection of certain wild plants and animals. 

Approval under that legislation will be required and a licence may be necessary if 

protected species or habitats are affected by the development. If protected species 

are discovered you must be aware that to proceed with the development without 

seeking advice from Natural England could result in prosecution. For further 

information or to obtain approval contact Natural England on 0300 060 2501. 



The Council, as local planning authority, has determined this application in 

accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, 

Government advice contained within PPS5, in accordance the Revised 

Comprehensive Planning Brief, the development plan and other material 

considerations. The development is considered to be acceptable on its merits as part 

of a transitional arrangement in which the scale of operation is reduced in accord with 

an agreed timeframe in order to secure a lasting solution on the use of this part of the 

flying field. The Council have taken into account and balanced the potential harm to 

the character and appearance of the Conservation Area against the need to provide a 

balanced mix of employment opportunities sought through saved policy H2 of the 

Oxfordshire Structure Plan. The development is considered to be acceptable on its 

planning merits as the proposal is in accordance with Policy H2 of the Oxfordshire 

Structure Plan 2016 and UH1 of the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan. For the 

reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the Council 

considers that the application should be approved and planning permission granted 

subject to appropriate conditions, as set out above. 

CONTACT 

OFFICER: 

Andrew Lewis TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221813 

Page 226

¯ 

69 

26 

52 

67 

75 

71 

46 

65 

77 

73 

79 

MOOR POND CLOSE 

28 

FALLOWFIELDS 

8 

13 

LONGFIELDS 

Scale 

1:1,250 

1 

38 

36 

FALLOWFIELDS 

6 

40 

Issues 

2 

60 

48 

58 

1 

66 

26 

2 

23 

76 

80 

74 

4 

78 

22 

100 

12/00152/F 

84 

82 

25 29 

12 

37 

32 

Tk 

Page 227 

BESSEMER CLOSE 

68.7m 

Sub Sta 

Garage 

CLOSE 



SL 

LAUNTON ROAD 

MP 19 

Tk 

1416 

12

¯ 

CEDAR DRIVE 

BASSETT AVENUE 

BALLIOL ROAD 

MAPLE ROAD 

WITHINGTON ROAD 

LINDEN ROAD 

PRIORY ROAD 

VICTORIA COURT 

STATION APPROACH 

Scale 

1:5,000 

DEANS COURT 

LONGFIELDS 

LONDON ROAD VICTORIA ROAD 

KEBLE ROAD 

GREEN CLOSE 

FALLOWFIELDS 

GREBE ROAD 

MURDOCK ROAD 

WHITLEY CRESCENT 

12/00152/F 

PEMBROKE WAY 

HERTFORD CLOSE 

FIELDFARE CLOSE 

NUTHATCH WAY 

NUFFIELD CLOSE 

SANDERLING CLOSE 

BESSEMER CLOSE 

Page 228 

WHIMBREL CLOSE 

THE BUNTINGS 

MALLARDS WAY 

ARKWRIGHT ROAD 

SISKIN ROAD 

LAUNTON ROAD 

GAVRAY DRIVE 

THE BRAMBLINGS 


BATTLE CLOSE 

CHURCHILL ROAD 

WEDGWOOD ROAD 

GRANVILLE WAY 

REDWING CLOSE 

SANDPIPER CLOSE 

HERON DRIVE 

FALCON MEAD


12/00152/F 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: Bicester Town Date Valid: 07/02/12 

Joblings Garage Ltd., Mr. Paul Jobling 

Unit 3A, Bessemer Close, Bicester OX26 6QE 

Retrospective – Change of Use from B8 to B2 


1.1 

Bessemer Close is a cul-de-sac occupied by a range of buildings that are or were in 

commercial use. At the entrance to Bessemer Close is Joblings Garage and the 

vacant Lear Corporation building. Behind Joblings Garage is a group of three 

buildings of which two are occupied by Space Module (storage rental facility) and 

the end building forming the application site. 

1.2 The application site is a two storey building of brick construction under a pitched 

roof. The site has parking to the front and side of the building. To the north of the 

site lies a further building currently occupied by First Line (suppliers of automotive 

components) and a large hard surfaced/parking area associated with the building. 

To the west of the application site lies residential areas with properties along the 

eastern side of Fallowfields backing onto the site. 

1.3 The application seeks to change the use of the building from B8 (storage or 

distribution) to B2 (general industrial). The building is currently occupied by a 

company called ‘The Granite House’ who supply granite, quartz and marble to the 

trade and public. The material is cut/milled at the site using diamond cutting 

machines and other handheld tools. 

1.4 The site has recently been the subject of an enforcement notice and appeal that 

was dismissed. The details of the enforcement notice and appeal will be 

considered fully later in this report. 


2.1 

The application has been advertised by way of two site notices. One was placed 

directly outside the site in Bessemer Close and a further notice placed in 

Fallowfields on a telegraph pole opposite number 22. The final date for comment 

was 8 th March 2012. At the time of drafting this report 4 letters of objection have 

been received from two properties (three letters from 30 Fallowfields & one letter 

from 32 Fallowfields) and one letter of support from the owner of the Granite House 

(who is not the applicant). The material planning considerations raised as 

objections are as follows: 

• Forms incorrectly completed 

• Noise from site. 

• Noise assessment flawed. 

• Silica being produced and not controlled 

Page 229

2.2 

One objector has commented on the fact that the application does not include the 

roller shutter door and water tanks within the application. The Council cannot insist 

on what an individual applies for. The owner is aware that the roller shutter door 

and water tanks remain unlawful, but these elements are not the root of the 

concerns at the site. One has to take a view on the roller shutter door as and when 

the owner applies for permission. Failure to apply may result in the Council taking 

action against them. However, this can only be done where it is expedient to do so 

and where it is in the public interest. This application is only for the change of use 

of the building. 

2.3 The letter of support from the owner comments that: 

• a full noise assessment has been carried out, 

• a new milling machine has been installed, 

• noise levels have been reduced and complies with CDC officers 

expectations. 


3.1 

Bicester Town Council – Whilst welcoming the application and its potential for 

specialized employment, has concerns that this application must meet the 

appropriate statutory guidelines with regard to noise levels and the impact on 

immediate residents. 

Bicester Town Council would have no objection to this application if an assurance is 

given that this proposed change of use is not transferable. 

3.2 The Local Highway Authority – No objection to the proposal. 

3..3 Anti-Social Behaviour Manager – Recommends approval subject to conditions 


4.1 


Planning Policy Statement 1:Delivering Sustainable Development 

Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 

Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise 


C30 – Compatible with scale and character of street scene and standards of 

amenity and privacy. 

C31 – Compatible with character of the area and does not cause unacceptable 

levels of nuisance or visual intrusion 

ENV1 – Development that causes detrimental levels of noise, vibration, smell, 

smoke, fumes or other types of environmental pollution will not normally be 

permitted 

5. Appraisal 

Background 

Page 230

5.1 

Members may recall this site from a previous application (11/00995/F) that was 

presented to the committee on 11 th August 2011. The application was 

recommended for refusal as it was considered that the site gave rise to 

unacceptable levels of noise to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining 

residential occupiers at Fallowfields. Members of the committee agreed with the 

recommendation and the application was refused planning permission for the single 

reason of noise impact. 

5.2 The site lies within an established commercial area and it is accepted that B1 (light 

industrial) and B8 (storage or distribution) are uses that are normally compatible 

adjacent to residential areas. However, B2 (general industrial) uses can cause 

problems with regards to noise nuisance and other impacts on residential amenity. 

5.3 Saved policy ENV1 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 states that 

developments that are likely to cause material detrimental levels of noise will not 

normally be permitted. The policy states further at paragraph 10.4 that, ‘The 

Council will seek to ensure…in particular the amenities of residential properties, are 

not unduly affected by development proposals which may cause environmental 

pollution. 

5.4 PPG24 (Planning and Noise) also states at paragraph 10 that, 

‘Much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the 

construction and improvement of essential infrastructure will generate noise. 

The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such 

development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that 

development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They 

should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use 

may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of 

appropriate conditions.’ 

5.5 Following the refusal of 11/00995/F an Enforcement Notice was served on the site 

requiring that the milling of stone and other materials to cease. The owner 

appealed against the Enforcement Notice under ground (a), that planning 

permission should be granted. 

5.6 Following a site visit with a Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, the appeal 

was dismissed on 23 rd January 2012 as it was considered at paragraphs 10 and 11 

of the decision that, 

10. Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise (PPG24) explains in 

Annex 3 how the likelihood of complaints about noise from such activities can 

be assessed. Using information from such an assessment, mitigation and/or 

attenuation measures can be investigated to achieve a rating level at which 

complaints would be unlikely. However, there is no evidence that the 

appellant has carried out such a noise assessment. Instead, the changes 

made have been on what the appellant says is an incremental approach but 

which might also be described as a ‘trial and error’ basis with claimed decibel 

reductions but no strategy to achieve a particular rating level at a specific 

point such as the site boundary. 

11. On the totality of the evidence before me I consider that the magnitude 

Page 231

and character of the sounds produced by the items of equipment is such that 

the development carried out causes harm to the living conditions of the 

occupiers of nearby properties. The development therefore conflicts with 

policy ENV1 of the Cherwell Local Plan adopted in November 1996. This 

policy was saved by a Direction issued by the Secretary of State in 

September 2007 and continues to have effect. Although neither party has 

suggested any conditions that might nevertheless allow planning permission 

to be granted, PPG24 includes a number that could be appropriate. 

However, these require an assessment of background noise levels to have 

been made and the rating level to be achieved at a specific point to have 

been calculated and set. As I have no evidence about any of these 

parameters no such condition could be drafted and, even if it could, there is 

no evidence that its requirements could be achieved. 

5.7 The owner of the site had 28 days to comply with the Enforcement Notice and the 

milling and cutting of stone, granite and quartz should have ceased on 20 th February 

2012. Visits to the site have been made on a daily basis by Council Officers and 

only two instances of milling have been heard. Advice from the Legal Department is 

that this does not constitute a continuous breach and further evidence would be 

required before a prosecution could be brought forward. 

5.8 This application seeks to address the concerns raised by the Council regarding 

noise at the site should be assessed by way of its impact on the amenities of 

adjoining residential occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance caused as a result 

of the operations from the site. 

5.9 Following the appeal decision, the applicant commissioned a noise report from 

Acoustical Investigation and Research Organisation (AIRO). This report concludes 

that, 

‘it is considered that the acquisition of a new machine to limit the need for hand 

grinding should enable noise emissions from the building at The Granite House 

to be limited so that the rating level does not exceed the background noise 

level at existing residential properties. 

5.10 The Anti-Social Behaviour Manager (ASBM) was consulted on the application and 

the AIRO report. While comments from consultees are normally abridged, it is 

important to provide them verbatim in this case to ensure that the basis of the 

recommendation is fully understood. The comments are as follows: 

The planning history associated recent planning history of this site is that a 

retrospective planning application was submitted seeking approval for the 

change in the permitted us of the building from B8 to B2. This planning 

application was refused on noise grounds and planning enforcement action 

authorised. The applicants appealed the Council’s decision to take enforcement 

action but the Planning Inspectorate upheld the Council’s position. 

Prior to the current planning application being made the occupants of the 

premises, on the advice of the Councils' Anti Social Behaviour Team, sought 

the advice of acoustic consultants. The consultants brief was to prepare a 

report quantifying the amount of noise being emitted from the premises and to 

assess the likely impact of changes in the specification of the equipment being 

used within the building. The company engaged to carry out these works was 

Page 232

the Acoustical Investigation & Research Organisation Ltd. The report they 

produced is numbered DLW/6594. 

Prior to producing this report they sought our advice as to the performance 

standard we would be seeking in order that we would not have objections to 

their clients planning application on noise grounds. Our advice was that for the 

noise emitted from the premises to be considered acceptable it the rated level 

of noise should not exceed background. 

It should be noted that the reference to 'the rated' level means that the noise 

should be assessed in accordance with British Standard BS 4142:1997 Method 

for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. 

We further advised the noise at weekends and noise outside those which would 

be considered 'normal' working hours should be taken in to account. Concern 

was also expressed that based on the experience of measuring noise close to 

The Granite House premises and visits made to residential properties in 

Fallowfields the structure of the building containing The Granite House 

operation could have an affect on the way sound was propagated. We provided 

AIRO with our own measurements of the background noise taken in 

Fallowfields. 

Whilst there was some discussion as to what levels should be used and 

considered 'background' for the purposes of making the assessment AIRO 

accepted our measurements. 

Noise measurements were taken within the building whilst the processing of 

granite was taking place. The shaping of granite with hand grinding equipment 

was identified as the activity producing most noise. A range of noise 

measurements were taken reflecting the various machinery operating within the 

building. The measurements included the grinding and cutting of granite using 

hand held tools and the sawing and milling of granite using a fixed equipment. 

The noise produced by air compression equipment used to power the fixed 

equipment was also captured during these measurements. 

As hand grinding and cutting has and was identified as being the activity that 

produced the most noise an assessment was also made of the noise impact of 

specialist equipment that could replace hand grinders. This assessment was 

based on data provided by the equipment manufacturers. 

These measured and predicted values were used to calculate the various 

amounts of noise being emitted from the various elevations of the building. This 

exercise confirmed our belief that the roof of the building was the element of 

the structure that performed most poorly in terms of sound attenuation. By 

combining the quantity of sound emitted from each elevation of the building a 

total figure can be obtained and those figures, when corrected for tonality and 

distance indicate that the predicted sound levels at two specified properties in 

Fallowfields were shown to be at or just below the day time background level. 

When compared with the weekend background level the sound level form 

machining was predicted to exceed background by between 1 and 3 dB. 

It is my interpretation of the report that the hand grinding and shaping of granite 

products would generate unacceptable levels of noise. The noise prediction 

Page 233

exercise demonstrated that by the use of alternative equipment it would be 

possible to achieve sound levels at premises in Fallowfields that when 

assessed in accordance with British Standard BS 4142:1997 would indicate 

that justified noise complaints would be unlikely. 

It should be stressed that this does not mean noise from The Granite House 

would be inaudible at properties in Fallowfields at all times. The reason for this 

being that the BS4142:1997 assessment process compares the integrated 

average sound level measured over 1 hour with the background level. It is 

therefore possible for some noise to be heard for short periods without 

exceeding the specified noise target. 

The AIRO report goes on to suggest that with the exception of the slight 

exceedances on Saturday mornings with use of alternative equipment for 

cutting and shaping granite the Councils recommended noise target can met. 

This equipment has now been installed and has been demonstrated. Its 

performance reflects that predicted in the AIRO report. 

One further activity that has been carried out at The Granite House in the past 

that has produced excessive and unacceptable levels of noise is dressing or 

levelling of the bed of the stone saw/mill. The carrying out of this operation 

would without doubt result in an exceedance of the Councils noise target. 

Equally under certain conditions the milling of granite has resulted in elevated 

levels of noise being heard at properties at Fallowfields. 

Having assessed the evidence presented by AIRO on behalf of the applicants 

and considered this information in the context of our own observations of the 

premises in operation I would conclude that it is now possible to approve a 

planning application for the change of use of these premises. However any 

approval granted must be subject to [the following] panning conditions. 

5.11 Therefore, the ASBM accepts that the noise levels have been reduced sufficiently 

though the installation of a new milling machine and recommends that the 

application is approved subject to conditions. 

5.12 It should be noted that the appeal decision is a material consideration in the 

determination of this application. The Inspector dismissed the appeal as he 

considered that the noise from the site caused harm to residents of Fallowfields. 

However, he also confirmed that in the absence of an assessment of background 

noise he could not approve the application subject to conditions. The report from 

AIRO provides this information and overcomes the concerns raised by the 

Inspector. 

Other Matters 

5.13 Noise Assessment Flawed – Following an objection which stated that the noise 

assessment undertaken was flawed, the applicant commissioned a further response 

from AIRO. The response takes into account all the comments made by the 

objector and concludes that, 

‘Having carefully considered the observations made by an objector to the 

planning application (set out in email dated 21 February 2012 and provided to 

Page 234

AIRO), we confirm that, in our opinion, AIRO report DLW/6594 dated 30 

January 2012, provides a rigorous, objective and independent environmental 

noise assessment of the situation pursuant to the planning application.’ 

5.14 The report referred to has been assessed and accepted by the ASBM. Therefore, 

there is no doubt that the report is correct and is not flawed as suggested. 

5.15 

Forms Incorrectly Completed – The Council has a local validation checklist for all 

planning applications. This check list states what must be submitted in support of 

an application before it will be registered as valid. The staff that check applications 

for validity cannot and do not know the constraints of every site and rely on the 

application forms to provide the correct information. However, the forms were 

correctly completed although some of the information was incorrect. This does not 

have a bearing on the decision. 

5.16 Silica Hazard – The ASBM has taken samples of dust at the site for analysis. 

However, this does not affect the decision being recommended. Should silica be 

identified as a hazard the ASBM has separate powers to control the issue. 



1. That the building shall be used only for the purpose of milling and cutting of stone, 

granite and quartz and for no other purpose whatsoever, including any other 

purpose in Class B2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use 

Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005. 

Reason - In order to maintain the character of the area and safeguard the amenities 

of the occupants of the adjoining premises in accordance with Policy BE1 of the 

South East Plan 2009 and Policies C28 and C31 of the adopted Cherwell Local 

Plan. 

2. That the rated level of noise emitted from the building shall not exceed 46 dB Laeq 

1hr between 08:00 and 18:00 hrs Monday to Friday and 43 dB Laeq between 09:00 

and 12:30 hrs on Saturdays as measured 10 metres from the building and at a 

microphone height of 4 metres from ground level. 

Reason - To ensure the creation of a satisfactory environment free from intrusive 

levels of noise and to comply with advice in PPG24: Planning and Noise, and 


3. That the operational use of the premises shall be restricted to the following times:- 

Monday-Friday - 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. 

Saturday - 8.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. 

Sunday and Public Holidays - No time. 

Reason - In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy 

BE1 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies C31 and ENV1 of the adopted 

Page 235





the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The 

development is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposed 

development is of a design, size and style that is appropriate in its context and would not 

have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation 

Area or the amenities of adjoining occupiers. As such the proposal is in accordance with 

the advice within Planning Policy Statement 1:Delivering Sustainable Development, 

Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Planning Policy 

Guidance 24: Planning and Noise, saved policy ENV1, C30 and C31 of the Adopted 

Cherwell Local Plan 1996. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other 

matters raised including third party representations the Council considers that the 

application should be approved and planning permission granted subject to appropriate 

conditions as set out above. 


Page 236

¯ 

Scale 

1:1,500 

171.7m 

Pond 

Pond 

Spring 


12/00244/CM Agenda Item 18 

The Gate Hangs High 

(PH) 

Ferris Hill Farm 

Page 237 

175.6m 


GP 


176.9m 


¯ 


Scale 

1:5,000 

12/00244/CM 

Page 238 





12/00244/CM 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: Hook Norton Date Valid:22 

February 2012 

NL Matthews incorporating Banbury Plant Hire 

Ferris Hill Farm, Hook Norton Road, Sibford Ferris 

Variation of conditions 3 and 5 of 07/00058/CM (for the extension of 

operational area and enlarged and relocated materials recycling building) 

to vary the tonnage of material treated from 24,999 tonnes to 44,000 

tonnes and extend the operating hours (OCC Ref: MW.0032/12) 


1.1 The application site is the Banbury Plant Hire site, on former agricultural land to the 

rear of The Gate Hangs High public house to the North of Hook Norton, accessed 

from the Sibford Road. 

1.2 This consultation seeks the comments of Cherwell District Council on a planning 

application currently being dealt with by Oxfordshire County Council to vary the 

conditions attached to the Banbury Plant Hire site as set out in the proposal above. 

1.3 Condition 3 of that consent states: 

No operations authorized by or required by this permission shall be carried out and 

plant shall not be operated, other than during the following hours:- 

Between 0800 and 1700 hours Monday to Fridays 

Between 0800 and 1200 hours on Saturdays 

No operations shall take place on Sundays and Public and Bank Holidays and 

Saturdays immediately following Public and Bank Holiday Fridays. 

Reason – To protect the amenities of adjoining properties. 

1.4 The application seeks consent to amend this condition to: 

No operations authorized by or required by this permission shall be carried out and 

plant shall not be operated, other than during the following hours:- 

Between 0700 and 1800 hours Monday to Fridays 

Between 0700 and 1300 hours on Saturdays 

No operations shall take place on Sundays and Public and Bank Holidays and 

Saturdays immediately following Public and Bank Holiday Fridays. 

Reason – To protect the amenities of adjoining properties. 

1.5 Condition 5 currently states: 

The annual throughput of construction and demolition waste at this facility shall not 

Page 239

exceed 24,999 tonnes per annum. 

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development carried out is 

in accordance with approved plans and details. 

1.6 This application to OCC seeks to amend this condition to allow the processing of 

not more than 44,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The information presented by the 

applicant suggests that approval of this figure would not cause harm to the amenity 

of the area, or harm to highway safety or convenience because the number of 

similar businesses in the area has reduced and the working practices of this 

business have been altered for efficiency reasons and have limited the scale of 

highway movements. 


2.1 

As this application is a County Matter, all publicity has been undertaken by 

Oxfordshire County Council. 


3.1 

As this matter is a County Matter, all formal consultations have been undertaken by 



4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 



PPS10: Sustainable Waste Management 


The South East Plan: Policies BE1, CO4, waste policies 

Adopted Cherwell Local Plan: Policies GB1, C7 

Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 The key issues to consider in responding to this consultation from the County 

Council are the impact of the proposal on the character and the amenities of the 

area. Whilst Officers note that there is only one property immediately adjacent to the 

site (The Gate Hangs High PH), the majority of the traffic relating to the operation of 

the site travels towards, and through Milcombe, meaning that any additional vehicle 

movements, particularly earlier in the day could have a potentially adverse impact. 

5.2 Officers note the relatively minor alteration to the operating times at the site, but it is 

considered that taken in tandem with the potential increase in the throughput of 

waste (from 24,999 to 44,000 tonnes), considers that the cumulative impact would 

have an unacceptable impact on the amenities and character of the area. 

Page 240

5.3 Officers have no wish to prejudice any sustainable economic development of this 

rural business, especially in the current economic and financial climate, but 

considers the protection of the character and amenities of the area to be worthy of 

robust protection. As such, it is essentially the proposed increase in the scale and 

subsequent impact of the proposal given the location and nature of the site which 

leads Officers to recommend objecting to this proposal. 


That Oxfordshire County Council be advised that Cherwell District Council objects to 

this proposal as the impact of the operation of the site on the amenities of local 

residents and residents of surrounding villages could increase to unacceptable 

levels by virtue of the increase to the intensity, scale and hours of operation of the 

site. 



CONTACT OFFICER: Simon Dean TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221814 

Page 241

¯Agenda Item 12/00249/CM 

19 

Pond 

Spring 

Pond 

Scale 

1:1,000 

The Gate Hangs High 

(PH) 

Ferris Hill Farm 

Page 242 



¯ 


Scale 

1:5,000 

12/00249/CM 

Page 243 





12/00249/CM 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: Hook Norton Date Valid: 24 

February 2012 

NL Matthews incorporating Banbury Plant Hire 

Ferris Hill Farm, Hook Norton Road, Sibford Ferris 

Variation of condition 16 of 07/00058/CM (for the extension of operational 

area and enlarged and relocated material recycling building) to allow until 

31 October 2012 or the completion of the construction of the concrete 

apron (OCC Ref: MW.0034/12) 


1.1 The application site is the Banbury Plant Hire site, on former agricultural land to the 

rear of The Gate Hangs High public house to the North of Hook Norton, accessed 

from the Sibford Road. 

1.2 This consultation seeks the comments of Cherwell District Council on a planning 

application currently being dealt with by Oxfordshire County Council to vary the 

conditions attached to the Banbury Plant Hire site as set out in the proposal above. 

1.3 Condition 16 of that consent states: 

A concrete surface shall be constructed on land outlined in red on approved plan 

H175 001B within three months of the erection of the building. The concreted 

surface of the site and site access shall be maintained in a good state of repair and 

kept clean and free from mud and other debris at all times until such time as the site 

is no longer required for these operations. 

Reason – In the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment. 

1.4 The application seeks consent to amend this condition to allow an extended period 

of time for compliance with this condition. The applicant is requesting more time for 

compliance (until 31 October 2012) as the operational use of the building and 

ground conditions have so far prevented completion of the concrete apron. 


2.1 

As this application is a County Matter, all publicity has been undertaken by 



3.1 

As this matter is a County Matter, all formal consultations have been undertaken by 


Page 244


4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 



PPS10: Sustainable Waste Management 


The South East Plan: Policies BE1, CO4, waste policies 

Adopted Cherwell Local Plan: Policies GB1, C7 

Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 The key issue to consider in responding to this consultation from the County Council 

is the impact of delayed compliance with the condition on the reasons for imposing 

that condition. The condition was imposed “in the interests of highway safety and 

safeguarding the local environment”. It is not appropriate for the District Council to 

comment on highway safety matters in a case such as this, so the consideration 

falls to the impact of delayed compliance on the local environment. 

5.2 As the area for the concrete apron is within the site, delayed compliance will not 

have any significant impact on the local environment. 

5.3 Officers have no wish to prejudice any sustainable economic development of this 

rural business, especially in the current economic and financial climate, so do not 

wish to offer any objections to this extension of time, providing the County Council 

ensures compliance by the newly suggested date. 


That Oxfordshire County Council be advised that Cherwell District Council raises no 

objections to the proposal, subject to the County Council ensuring and monitoring 

compliance with the new time limit. 




Page 245

37 

¯Agenda Item 12/00245/LB 

20 

39 

1 

37 

The Bungalow 

38 

TCB 

Yew Tree 

WYKHAM LANE 

45 

28 

116.1m Scale 

30 

2449 

1:1,000 

53 

WHITE POST ROAD 

HIGH STREET 

34 

32 

117.3m 

Knyveton 

Tall Timbers 

Brown Thatch 

GP 

The Lodge 

Ivy Cottage 

Hornton End 

House 

Works 

Works 

Page 246 

El Sub Sta 

CHAPEL LANE 

Cornerways 

Bodicote House 

White 

Rivendell 

Butterflies 


Oakwood House 

BROAD GAP 

Henbury Lodge 

26 

2

¯ 

Scale 

1:2,500 

WYKHAM LANE 

PADDOCK FARM LANE 

MALTHOUSE LANE 

GOOSE LANE 

12/00245/LB 

SYCAMORE DRIVE 

SALT WAY 

HIGH STREET 

WHITE POST ROAD 

Works 

CHAPEL LANE 

Page 247 

EAST STREET 

BROAD GAP 


LOWER CLOSE 

RYDES CLOSE 

Bodicote 

OXFORD ROAD 

THE RYDES 

WEEPING CROSS 

SIDELEIGH ROAD 

PARK END 

WATERCRESS CLOSE


12/00245/LB 

Applicant: 

Site 

Address: 

Proposal: 


Ward: Bloxham and 

Bodicote 

Old Bodicote House, White Post Road, Bodicote 

Date Valid: 24 

February 2012 

Strengthening work on second floor, work consisting of new steelwork to 

support the floor as indicated on drawing 5918-001-003, floor to be used 

for offices 


1.1 

The application site is Old Bodicote House, a Grade II listed 18 th – 19 th Century 

stone built [former] stately home under a complex slate roof. The building has been 

linked to the 20 th Century council office building, and its use as offices has led to a 

number of unsympathetic internal alterations and an accumulation of minor changes 

and upgrades, common to office buildings undergoing modernisation and 

computerisation. 

1.2 The proposal is for internal works for the structural upgrading of the second-floor of 

a similar type to the works previously carried out to the first floor. 

1.3 The proposals are the result of extensive pre-application discussions between the 

Conservation Team of the Council and the applicants, and follow the publication of 

‘Historical and Architectural Survey’ of the building, carried out by the Council in 

2009. 

1.4 The application is supplemental to an earlier approved scheme for the wider 

refurbishment of the building, considered by this Committee in March 2011 under 

application reference 10/01867/LB. 


2.1 The application has been advertised by way of a press notice and site notice. The 

final date for comments is 29 March 2012. 

2.2 At the time of writing, no third party representations were received; any comments 

received will be 


3.1 

Bodicote Parish Council – no comments received 

3.2 Conservation Officer – no objections, subject to conditions 


Page 248

4.1 National Policy Guidance: 

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 

4.2 Regional Policy in the South East Plan 2009: 

BE6 – Management of the Historic Environment 

4.3 Local Policy in the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996: 

C18 – Development proposals affecting a listed building 

5. Appraisal 

5.1 

As the application site is a Listed Building, in determining the application special 

regard must be paid to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and/or 

any features of special architectural or historical interest which it possesses. 

5.2 The structural works to the building are considered to be necessary and 

appropriate; they will preserve the building and consequently preserve the inherent 

special architectural and historic interest. The strengthening works to the floor 

structures allow the retention of the existing oak beams, which are substantial and 

are in themselves of historic interest; dictating as they do the size of the rooms. The 

works also allow the building to be brought back into active use; a state widely 

recognised as being the best way of securing long-term preservation of the historic 

building. 

5.3 The works are similar in scale and nature to the already approved structural works 

to the first floor. 

5.6 In conclusion the proposal is considered to be minor and sympathetic to the 

architectural and historic character of the building. In addition, the proposal offers a 

significant improvement to the preservation and retention of the historic fabric of the 

building and therefore its significance. 

5.7 The scheme is therefore considered acceptable in terms of the relevant national, 

regional and local policy and is recommended for approval. 


Approval, subject to; 

i) the expiry of the consultation period; 

ii) referral of the application to the secretary of state and; 

iii) the following conditions; 

1) SC 1_5A (Time for implementation of Listed Building Consents) 

2) Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the 

development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and 

documents submitted with the application, including the material and finishing details 

set out therein. 

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out 

only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with government 

guidance in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. 

3) SC 5_7B (Making good in materials to match) 


1) The applicant is reminded that this building is included in the Statutory List of 

Page 249

Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest, and no works to the exterior or interior 

of the building, which materially affect the character may be carried out without the 

prior express consent of the Local Planning Authority (given through the submission 

of an application for, and subsequent grant of Listed Building Consent). This consent 

gives approval only to those works shown on the plans and details submitted to and 

approved in this application. 

2) The applicant is further reminded that the carrying out of unauthorised work to a 

listed building is an offence, punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both, as detailed 

in Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

3) T1 – Third party rights 

4) O1 - Archaeology 

Summary of Reasons for the Grant of Planning Permission and Relevant 

Development Plan Policies 

WLB2 “BE6” and “C18” 


Page 250


Tree Preservation Order (No. 11/1999) 

The Pre School, Fir Lane, Steeple Aston 

22 March 2012 

Report of Head of Public Protection 

and Development Manager 

PURPOSE OF REPORT 

To seek the revocation of Tree Preservation Order no 11-99 relating to one 

beech tree to the front of The Pre School, Fir Lane, Steeple Aston (copy plan 



This report is public 


(1) Revoke Tree Preservation Order 11/99 at the site of The Pre School, 

Fir Lane, Steeple Aston. 

Summary 

1.1 The District Council made an emergency TPO September 1999. 

1.2 This has subsequently declined in health becoming a hazard and 

removed under the dead, dying and dangerous exemption (5 day 

notice) in 2003. 


1.3 A recent review of the Order brought to light the fact that the tree over 

which the order had been made is no longer there. A replacement for 

the tree, which would have assumed the same protection as the tree 

removed was not conditioned as part of the “five day notice” due to 

space constraints, therefore a Preservation Order is no longer required. 

1.4 A Preservation Order cannot simply be removed. It requires a formal 

order revoking the order. The original order may then be endorsed 

stating that t has been revoked and the copy kept available for public 

inspection can be withdrawn 

Page 251

Background Information 

1. Statutory powers are provided through : 

i. Section 198 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 

(section 333). 

ii. Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 

(regulations 8 and 9) 

Key Issues for Consideration/Reasons for Decision and Options 

None 

Implications 

Financial: The cost of processing the Order can be contained 

within existing estimates. 

Comments checked by Karen Muir, Corporate 

Systems Accountant, Karen.muir@cherwelldc.gov.uk 

01295 221559 

Legal: The Council has the power under s198 Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990 to make a tree 

preservation order if it appears expedient in the 

interests of amenity. The committee must consider 

any objections and representations duly made. 

Comments checked by Ross Chambers, Solicitor, 

ross.chambers@cherwell-dc.gov.uk 01295 221690 

Risk Management: The existence of a Tree Preservation Order does not 

remove the landowner’s duty of care to ensure that 

such a tree is structurally sound and poses no 

danger to passers by and/or adjacent property. The 

TPO legislation does contain provisions relating to 

payment of compensation by the Local Planning 

Authority in certain circumstances, but these relate to 

refusal of applications to carry out works under the 

Order and no compensation is payable for loss or 

damage occurring before an application is made. 

Wards Affected 

The Astons and Heyfords 

Comments checked by Claire Taylor, Corporate 

Performance Manager, 

claire.taylor@cherwellandsouthnorthants-dc.gov.uk 

0300 0030113 

Page 252

Document Information 

Appendix No Title 

Appendix 1 Plan 


TPO file reference 11-1999 

Report Author Mark Harrison, 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221804 

Mark.Harrison@Cherwell-dc.gov.uk 

Page 253

Appendix 1 - Plan 

Page 254



Two Trees to the Front of Stradella, 

Twyford Grove, Adderbury 

22 March 2012 





relating to two trees to the front of Stradella, Twyford Grove, Adderbury (copy plan 





(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 12/2011 at the site of Stradella, 

Twyford Grove, Adderbury be confirmed without modification in the 

interest of public amenity. 

Summary 

Introduction 

1.1 The District Council made an emergency TPO on 8 September 2011 

following an assessment of the trees prompted by a planning 

application submitted by the resident and owner of Stradella. 

1.2 The trees to be protected are a Lime and Horse Chestnut situated to 

the front of the property adjacent to Twyford Grove. 

Conclusion 

No objections to the TPO have been received. 


1. It is recommended that the Committee confirm Tree Preservation Order 

Page 255

12/2011 without modification. 



i. Section 198 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 


1.2 The Scheme of Reference and Delegation authorises the Head of 

Development Control and Major Developments to make Tree 

Preservation Orders under the provisions of Section 201 of the Town 

and Country Planning Act 1990, subject to there being reason to 

believe that the tree in question is under imminent threat and that its 

retention is expedient in the interests of amenity. The power to confirm 

Tree Preservation Orders remains with the Planning Committee. 

1.3 The above mentioned Tree Preservation Order was authorised and 

made on 19 August 2011. The statutory objection period has now 

expired and no objections to the Order have been received. 


None 

Implications 





01295 221559 


















Page 256


Adderbury 





0300 0030113 





Report Author Mark Harrison, Arboricultural Officer – North 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221804 


Page 257


Page 258



Lime Tree House Main Road, Swalcliffe, OX15 5EH 

22 March 2012 





relating to one beech tree to the front of Lime Tree House Main Road, 

Swalcliffe, OX15 5EH (copy plan attached as Annex 1). 




(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 13/2011 at the site of Lime Tree 

House Main Road Swalcliffe OX15 5EH be confirmed without 

modification in the interest of public amenity. 

Summary 

Introduction 

1.1 The District Council made an emergency TPO on 13th September 

2011 following an assessment of the trees prompted by a conservation 

area 206 notification submitted by the agent acting on behalf of the 

resident and owner of Lime Tree House. 

1.2 The tree to be protected is a Beech situated in a shrub bed adjacent to 

the drive 

Conclusion 




Page 259






2. The Scheme of Reference and Delegation authorises the Head of 

Development Control and Major Developments to make Tree Preservation 

Orders under the provisions of Section 201 of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990, subject to there being reason to believe that the tree in 

question is under imminent threat and that its retention is expedient in the 

interests of amenity. The power to confirm Tree Preservation Orders 

remains with the Planning Committee. 

3. The above mentioned Tree Preservation Order was authorised and made 

on 9 September 2011. The statutory objection period has now expired and 

no objections to the Order have been received. 


None 

Implications 





01295 221559 
















Order Page and no 260 

compensation is payable for loss or


Sibford 






0300 0030113 





Report Author Mark Harrison, Arboricultural Officer (North) 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221804 


Page 261


Page 262



Beech Tree, Etheldredas Church, Little Lane, Horley 

23 February 2012 





relating to one beech tree to the front of St Etheldredas Church, Little Lane, 

Horley (copy plan attached as Annex 1). 




(1) Confirm Tree Preservation Order 19/2011 at the site of St Etheldredas 

Church, Little Lane Horley without modification in the interest of public 

amenity. 

Summary 

Introduction 

1.1 The District Council made an emergency TPO on 28th November 2011 

following an assessment of the trees prompted by a conservation area 

206 notification submitted by the agent acting on behalf of the Diocese 

of Oxford 

1.2 The trees to be protected are two Birch and a Walnut situated along the 

eastern boundary of the church grounds. 

Conclusion 





Page 263





2. The Scheme of Reference and Delegation authorises the Head of 

Development Control and Major Developments to make Tree Preservation 

Orders under the provisions of Section 201 of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990, subject to there being reason to believe that the tree in 

question is under imminent threat and that its retention is expedient in the 

interests of amenity. The power to confirm Tree Preservation Orders 

remains with the Planning Committee. 

3. The above mentioned Tree Preservation Order was authorised and made 

on 28 November 2011. The statutory objection period has now expired and 

no objections to the Order have been received. 


None 

Implications 





01295 221559 




















Page 264


Wroxton 



0300 0030113 





Report Author Mark Taylor, Arboricultural Officer (North) 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221804 


Page 265


Page 266


Decisions Subject to Various Requirements – Progress Report 

22 March 2012 


and Development Management 


This report aims to keep members informed upon applications which they 

have authorised decisions upon to various requirements which must be 

complied with prior to the issue of decisions. 

An update on any changes since the preparation of the report will be given at 

the meeting. 



The Planning Committee is recommended: 

(1) To accept the position statement. 

Details 

The following applications remain outstanding for the reasons stated: 

Subject to Legal Agreement with Cherwell District Council 

01/00662/OUT 

(24.3.11) 


Begbroke Business and Science Park, Sandy Lane, 

Yarnton 

Subject to legal agreement re:off-site highway works, 

green travel plan, and control over occupancy now 

under discussion. Revised access arrangements 

refused October 2008. Appeal dismissed. 

Decision to grant planning permission re-affirmed 

April 2011. New access road approved April 2011 

Page 267

Development commenced in November 2011 and 

due to open in April 2012 

10/0010/00640/F Former USAF housing South of Camp Rd, Upper 

Heyford 

Subject to legal agreement concerning on and off site 

infrastructure and affordable housing. May be 

withdrawn upon completion of negotiations on 

10/01642/OUT 

10/0110/01021/F Otmoor Lodge, Horton-cum-Studley 

10/01302/F 

(4.11.10 and 

3.11.11) 

10/01667/OUT 

(8.9.11) 

10/01780/HYBRID 

(11.8.11) 

11/01530/F 

(1.12.11) 

11/00524/F 

(6.10.11) 

11/01369/F 

(5.1.12) 

Subject to legal agreement concerning building 

phases and interim appearance. Draft agreement 

prepared. Alternative applications refused Jan 2012. 

Further discussions to be held 

Land south of Bernard Close, Yarnton 

Subject to legal agreement concerning on and off site 

infrastructure and affordable housing 

Land between Birmingham-London rail line and 

Gavray Drive, Bicester 

Subject to obligation linking previous agreement to 

this application 

Bicester Eco Town Exemplar site, Caversfield 

Subject to completion of a legal agreement as set out 

in resolution 

42 South Bar Street, Banbury 

Subject to obligation to secure financial contributions 

to outdoor sports facilities and other off-site 

infrastructure 

Cherwell Valley MSA, Ardley 

Awaiting confirmation of appropriateness of the 

intended condition concerning radar interference 

OCVC (south site), Broughton Rd. Banbury 

Subject to legal agreement re public art and 

comments of local drainage authority 

Page 268

11.01484/F 

(5.1.12) 

11/01624/LB 

(26.1.12) 

11/01732/F 

(26.1.12) 

Implications 

Phase 3, Oxford Spires Business Park, Langford 

Lane, Kidlington 

Subject to Env.Agency comments and receipt of 

Unilateral Undertaking 

Bodicote House, White Post Road, Bodicote 

Awaiting clearance by Secretary of State 

Oxford Office Village, Langford Lane, Kidlington 

Subject to Unilateral Undertaking and comments of 

Oxford Airport 

Financial: There are no additional financial implications arising 

for the Council from this report. 


System Accountant 01295 221559 

Legal: There are no additional legal implications arising for 

the Council from accepting this monitoring report. 

Comments checked by Nigel Bell, Team Leader 

Planning and Litigation 01295 221687 

Risk Management: This is a monitoring report where no additional action 

is proposed. As such there are no risks arising from 

accept the recommendation. 


All 


Comments checked by Nigel Bell, Team Leader 



- None 


All papers attached to the planning applications files referred to in this report 

Report Author Bob Duxbury, Development Control Team Leader 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221821 

bob.duxbury@Cherwell-dc.gov.uk 

Page 269



Progress on the Exemplar Application at NW Bicester 


Planning Committee 22 March 2012 

Report of Director of Development 


To advise Members of the progress that has been made towards the completion of 

the S106 agreement for NW Bicester 




(1) Note the progress towards completion of the legal agreement for the 

exemplar development at NW Bicester which, once signed, will enable the 

planning permission to be issued. 

(2) Note the progress with regard to the masterplan for NW Bicester. 

(3) Consider the requirement of Section 143 of the Localism Act 2011 to take into 

account local finance considerations. 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

1.1 Members will probably recall that there was a resolution to grant planning 

permission for the Exemplar application at NW Bicester. The August 2011 

committee reports can be viewed at 

http://modgov.cherwell.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=1687. This 

report is to update Members on the progress of matters that needed to be 

addressed prior to the issue of the planning permission. 

1.2 The report further considers material changes that have taken place since 

the resolution to grant planning permission in August 2011, specifically the 

enactment of the Localism Act and the duty to take into account local 

financial considerations, so far as material to the application, when handling 

Page 270

applications for planning permission. 

Proposals 

1.3 The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to the following 

matters; 

� Confirmation that the scheme meets building for life Silver Standard 

• The conclusion of a review of the viability work (carried out on an open 

book basis) 

• Completion of a S106 agreement (in accordance with the Heads of 

Terms set out below but subject to the clarification of the infrastructure 

fund as identified above) 

• Conditions set out in the report 

1.4 In addition the report contained the following paragraph; 

The applicant will note that concerns around funding for infrastructure and 

service needs must be addressed through the masterplan and an outline 

application for the whole of the NW Bicester site. Prior to the completion 

of the s106 agreement satisfactory progress on the masterplan must have 

been made including an agreed way forward for the wider development to 

fund the necessary service needs arising from the increase in population 

from the NW Development as a whole. 

1.5 Since the resolution to grant planning permission the Localism Act has also 

been enacted. This includes the amendment to S70 of the Town & Country 

Planning Act to include ‘any local finance considerations, so far as material to 

an application’ as a matter to which the local planning authority shall have 

regard in dealing with applications for planning permission. 

1.6 These matters are considered further below. 

1.7 Building for Life 

1.8 Building for Life is a method of appraising the design of schemes developed 

by Cabe. The PPS requires Eco Towns to meet at least silver standard. The 

scheme works on a scoring basis and at the time that the application was 

reported to committee the scheme did not meet silver standard as certain 

details were not available. However following the resolution to grant planning 

permission further work has been carried out relating to the method of 

construction of dwellings and building for life awards points in relation to the 

inclusion of modern methods of construction. These details have now been 

provided to ATLAS who carried out the original assessment on behalf of the 

Council, and their confirmation that the scheme now meets Silver Standard is 

Page 271

awaited and Members will be updated verbally at committee. 

1.9 Conclusion of Viability Work 

1.10 In August 2011 when the application was originally considered viability work 

had been undertaken. Further work has since been completed to check that 

the build costs within the original appraisal were appropriate. The Councils 

consultant has confirmed this is the case and therefore there is no 

amendment to the position set out in the original report with regard to viability. 

1.11 Completion of the S106 Agreement 

1.12 Although detailed Heads of Terms (see attached) were part of the resolution 

to grant planning permission there has still been considerable work to be 

undertaken in the detailed drafting of the agreement. This work is now largely 

complete and it is anticipated that the outstanding issues in relation to the 

drafting will be resolved by the date of the committee. 

1.13 Conditions 

1.14 Conditions were included in the original committee report for the application. 

Following the resolution to grant planning permission some minor changes 

have been sought to the conditions to allow for the discharge of the conditions 

on a phased basis and to address some detailed development of the design 

that has taken place since the resolution to grant permission. It is 

recommended that the final agreement of the wording is delegated to the 

Head of Public Protection and Development Management in consultation with 

the Chair of the Planning Committee. 

1.15 Master Plan Progress 

1.16 The exemplar application is accompanied by a framework masterplan. It 

shows how the proposals can fit with a scheme for the wider site. Never the 

less it was acknowledged that further work was required to develop the 

masterplan for the NW Bicester site as a whole. Since August further work 

has been done with regard to the masterplan including work on energy and 

water strategies for the site, archaeological work, updating of ecological 

surveys and potential housing mix. However there remains further work 

necessary to develop a comprehensive masterplan to accompany an outline 

application for the site. This includes further work on energy, waste and 

water, employment, transport, green infrastructure and design. It is 

anticipated that the masterplan will be developed during 2012 to accompany 

an outline application for the site. 

1.17 In August 2011 the committee report was clear that not all the contributions 

sought in connection with the Exemplar application were affordable from the 

scheme. The report advised; 

1.18 Oxfordshire County Council objected to the application at the committee on 

the 14 July raising concerns about the lack of funds to meet the full level of 

obligations they have sought to address the needs of the population of the 

development. The delivery of community infrastructure is a concern for all the 

public bodies that have sought contributions that may not be able to be met. 

Most public bodies are facing reduced resources at the current time making it 

particularly important that new development mitigates the impact of the 

increased population that it brings about. There is therefore a need to 

Page 272

alance the reasonable requirements for funding for community infrastructure 

and the need to ensure that development, that in other respects is acceptable 

and will bring benefits through investment, employment and homes to meet 

identified needs, can go ahead. In the case of the current application as a first 

phase of a development it is potentially carrying higher costs than later 

phases may need to and therefore it is envisaged that current concerns 

around funding may be addressed through the masterplan and an outline 

application for the whole of the NW Bicester site. It is proposed, with the 

applicants agreement, to commence work on identifying the necessary 

development to serve the whole site and the mehanism for delivery of the 

necesary infrastructure in parallel with the completion of the drafting of the 

S106 agreement for this application. Oxfordshire County Council would want 

to see that there has been progress on the masterplanning and funding for 

infrastructure before they would complete a joint S106 Agreement. 

1.19 Since August more work has been done with regard to the viability of 

masterplan proposals as well as progressing base line assessments and work 

to feed in to an amended plan. 

1.20 The viability work has considered the likely costs associated with developing 

the scheme and values arising from the development. As with most large 

schemes this has shown some difficulties in demonstrating viability in the 

current market. However a number of approaches have been looked at to 

ensure the scheme is viable. This includes looking at land values, costs, 

potential growth in sales values, design and density and reduction in the costs 

of providing community infrastructure by looking at options for joint use and 

co location, town wide provision and different methods of procurement. This 

demonstrates that there are a number of ways in which the scheme could be 

viable whilst still delivering the high sustainability standards the PPS on Eco 

Towns set out. 

1.21 The comments of the County Council will be reported verbally at the meeting. 

1.22 Ultimately proposals to develop land beyond the exemplar application site will 

need to be the subject of a planning application. Accompanying any 

application, the Council would expect detailed Heads of Terms setting out the 

level of infrastructure to be provided to support the proposed development. At 

this stage therefore it is not looking to prejudge the outcome of such 

consideration but merely ensure that a scheme supported by essential 

community infrastructure could be delivered. The current work provides such 

reassurance. 

1.23 Localism Act 2011 

1.24 The Localism Act introduces a number of changes to the planning system. 

With regard to the consideration of planning applications it places additional 

requirements for developers to consult before submitting major application 

proposals and a requirement for local planning authorities to have regard to 

local financial considerations, so far as material to the application, when 

dealing with applications for planning permission. 

1.25 Although the new consultation obligation applies only to prospective 

applications for permission the Exemplar application was the subject of 

extensive pre-application discussions details of which are set out in the 

original committee report. This would have complied with the Act’s 

Page 273

equirements had they been in force at the relevant time. 

1.26 The Localism Act through the amendment of S70 of the Town & Country 

Planning Act inserts a new requirement to have regard to local finance 

considerations so far as material to the application when dealing with 

applications for planning permission alongside the existing requirements of 

consideration of the development plan and other material considerations. The 

Localism Act further defines Local financial considerations as; 

(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a 

relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or 

(b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of 

Community Infrastructure Levy; 

1.27 Grants or financial assistance includes New Homes Bonus (NHB) which is 

now provided to the Council on the basis of the number of new homes 

provided within the District. It could also include The Eco Town Grant Funding 

that has been provided. The District does not currently have a Community 

Infrastructure Levy. 

1.28 The receipt of NHB will be of benefit for the district. As the Exemplar 

development would contribute to meeting the District Housing need, and if 

this need was not met on this site it would need to be met elsewhere in the 

District it is not considered that the grant of NHB by this provision adds any 

significant weight in the consideration of the merits of the application. 

However HCA funding for affordable housing has been identified for the 

delivery of affordable housing specifically in relation to the current application. 

1.29 The Eco Town Grant Funding was received on the back of proposals to 

develop a 5000 dwelling eco development at NW Bicester. However the grant 

is not tied to any particular planning application. Therefore in considering the 

current application it is considered that the development plan and other 

material considerations, as set out in the original committee report, continue 

to be the matters that carry greatest weight in the determination of the 

application. 

Conclusion 

1.30 Since the original resolution was taken in August 2011 there have been no 

material change in circumstances that would lead to a different 

recommendation on the application. 

1.31 Significant progress has been made since August and that the requirements 

set out at that time for the entering of the legal agreement have now been 

met. it is anticipated that the S106 agreement will shortly be signed enabling 

the planning permission to be issued 

Page 274


2.1 Application 10/01780/HYBRID 

2.2 PPS1 

2.3 Localism Act 2011 


3.1 To consider the progress that has been made to enable the issuing of the 

planning permission for application 10/01780/HYBRID 

The following options have been identified. The approach in the recommendations is 

believed to be the best way forward 

Option One To note the progress towards the issuing of the planning 

permission 

Option Two To ask for the report into the application to be brought 

back to the committee to amend the requirements for the 

issuing of the planning permission. 

Consultations 

Oxfordshire County 

Council 

Implications 

To be reported verbally at the meeting. 

Financial: This report does not raise any new financial 

considerations but does highlights the requirements for 

the Localism Bill to have regard to the local financial 

considerations in planning decisions. 

Comments checked by Karen Muir, Corporate Systems 

Accountant 01295 221559 

Legal: The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to 

various matters. This report updates the Planning 

Committee on progress on those matters and other 

material considerations that have arisen since the 

Committee’s resolution. 

Comments checked by Ross Chambers, Solicitor 01295 

221690 

Risk Management: This report does not raise any new risk management 

considerations 

Comments checked by Ross Chamber, Solicitor 01295 

221690 

Page 275


Caversfield 



Appendix 1 Plans 


Application 10/01780/HYBRID, PPS1, Localism Act 2011 

Report Author Jenny Barker , Team Leader Development Management & 

Major Developments 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221828 

Jenny.barker@Cherwell-dc.gov.uk 

Page 276

¯ 

Scale 

1:5,000 


Page 277 

UNNAMED-B4100-Single Carriageway (6809193) 

MULLEIN ROAD 

GERMANDER WAY 

UNNAMED-B4100-Single Carriageway (6808913) 

(c) Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey 100018504. 

BANBURY ROAD 

SOUTHWOLD LANE

¯ 

ARDLEY ROAD 

BAINTON ROAD 

Scale 

1:20,000 

BICESTER ROAD 


BICESTER ROAD 

HOWES LANE 

DRYDEN AVENUE 

SHAKESPEARE DRIVE 

BUCKNELL ROAD 

BUCHAN ROAD 

DANES ROAD 

LORDS LANE 

ORCHARD WAY 

LEACH ROAD 

GEORGE STREET 

BARRY AVENUE 

KINGSCLERE ROAD 

KENNEDY ROAD 

LILY CLOSE 

PURSLANE DRIVE 

HUDSON STREET 

Page 278 

KING'S END 

MULLEIN ROAD 

QUEENS AVENUE 

UNNAMED--Single Carriageway (6804237) 

BANBURY ROAD 

UNNAMED--Single Carriageway (6808694) 

SOUTHWOLD LANE 

HOLM WAY 

BLAKE ROAD 

ROMAN WAY 

SHEEP STREET 

MANORSFIELD ROAD 

BUCKINGHAM ROAD 

BASSETT AVENUE 

KEBLE ROAD 

LONGFIELDS 

LAUNTON ROAD 

TURNPIKE ROAD 

CHURCHILL ROAD 

SKIMMINGDISH LANE 

MURDOCK ROAD 

(c) Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey 100018504. 

BOSTON ROAD 

GRANVILLE WAY 

GAVRAY DRIVE 

JARVIS' LANE


Appeals Progress Report 

22 March 2012 


and Development Management 


This report aims to keep members informed upon applications which have 

been determined by the Council, where new appeals have been lodged. 

Public Inquiries/hearings scheduled or appeal results achieved. 





Details 

New Appeals 


1.1 11/01391/F – Land at Bury Court Farm, North of Hanwell, 

Warwick Road, Banbury – appeal by Regeneco Ltd against the 

refusal of planning permission for the erection of a temporary wind 

monitoring mast – Written Reps 

1.2 11/01565/F – 60 Queensway Banbury – appeal by Mr Eddy Davis 

against the refusal of planning permission for a proposed two storey 

side extension – Householder Written Reps 

1.3 11/01403/CLUE – Arncott Racetrack, Murcott Road, Upper 

Arncott - appeal by Schyde Investment ltd against the refusal of an 

application for a Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use 

of the land as a motor-cross practise/race track- Inquiry 

Page 279

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.7 

1.8 

11/01272/F – 42 The Paddocks, Yarnton - appeal by Ms A 

Williams against the refusal of planning permission for the erection 

of a timber fence and gates ( retrospective)- Householder Written 

Reps 

11/01841/F- 162 Barry Avenue Bicester – appeal by Stewart 

Robinson against the refusal of planning permission to raise the 

front of house up by one level removing dormer window and 

replacing with a hip front roof- Householder Written reps 

11/01049/F – Land to the rear of Far Close, Crossing Lane 

Claydon – appeal by Mr N Gardner against the refusal of planning 

permission for the erection of 3 no. chalet bungalows and garages 

and upgrading existing access to Crossing Lane – Written Reps 

11/01682/F – Field Farm, Bainton Crossroads, Stoke Lyne- 

appeal by Mr Gordon Jones against the refusal of planning 

permission for the use of the land for the temporary stationing of a 

mobile home for an essential worker, associated decking and 

ancillary outbuilding ( part retrospective) - Hearing 

12/00013/EUNDEV – Land at Field Farm, Bainton Crossroads, 

Stoke Lyne – appeal by Mr Gordon Jones against the service of an 

enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control – Without 

planning permission, the change of use of the land to a mixed use of 

agriculture and residential use by the siting and residential 

occupation of a mobile home and erection of associated decking - 

Hearing 

1.9 11/00042/EUNDEV- 14 Woodstock Road East, Begbroke - 

appeal by Mr M Bott against the service of an enforcement notice 

alleging a breach of planning control – Without planning permission, 

a wooden building has been constructed in the rear garden of the 

property- Written Reps 

1.10 12/00020/ECOU- Bishops End, Burdrop, Banbury – appeal by Mr 

Geoffrey Richard Noquet against the service of an enforcement 

notice alleging a breach of planning control – Without planning 

permission, the material change of use of the land from a public 

house (use Class A4) to a residential dwelling house (Use Class 

C3)- Inquiry 

Page 280

Forthcoming Public Inquiries and Hearings between 22 March 2012 and 

19 April 2012 

2.1 Inquiry commencing at 10.00am on Tuesday 17 April 2012 at the 

Council Chamber, Bodicote House, White Post Road, Bodicote to 

consider the appeal by Berkeley Homes (Oxford & Chiltern) Ltd 

against the non – determination of application 11/01409/OUT for the 

erection of 65 dwellings and associated access, open space and 

landscape works and provision of a sports pitch with changing 

facilities and car park at OS Parcel 4100 adjoining and South of 

Milton Road Adderbury 

Results 

Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State have: 

3.1 Dismissed the appeals by J A Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd against the 

refusal of applications 11/00234/OUT for the erection of 2 

dwellings (Appeal A) and application 11/00812/OUT for the 

erection of 1 dwelling (Appeal B) at land off Webbs Way 

Kidlington (Delegated) – In the Inspector’s view, the erection of 2 

dwellings as proposed in Appeal A would not preserve or enhance 

the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. With regard 

to Appeal B, the Inspector did not accept that a single dwelling 

would be detrimental to the Conservation Area. Both schemes 

involve similar access arrangements linking the new development 

with Webbs Way across land within the Oxford Green Belt. The 

Inspector considered that it was inevitable that a road in this 

location, however discreet, would have a visual impact on the 

landscape and encroach upon countryside in a sensitive location on 

the edge of the settlement. Both schemes would be contrary to the 

provisions of national guidance and policy GB1 of the Cherwell Local 

Plan. The schemes had also given rise to concerns regarding 

overlooking and loss of privacy. In view of the potential separation 

distances between the proposed and existing dwellings, the 

Inspector agreed with the Council that this did not warrant a further 

reason for refusal of planning permission. 

Implications 

Financial: The cost of defending appeals can normally be met 

from within existing budgets. Where this is not 

possible a separate report is made to the Executive 

to consider the need for a supplementary estimate. 


System Accountant 01295 221559 

Page 281

Legal: There are no additional legal implications arising for 

the Council from accepting this recommendation as 

this is a monitoring report. 

Comments checked by Nigel Bell, Team Leader- 


Risk Management: This is a monitoring report where no additional action 

is proposed. As such there are no risks arising from 

accepting the recommendation. 


All 


Comments checked by Nigel Bell, Team Leader- 



- None 


All papers attached to the planning applications files referred to in this report 

Report Author Bob Duxbury, Development Control Team Leader 

Contact 

Information 

01295 221821 

bob.duxbury@Cherwell-dc.gov.uk 

Page 282

Public reports pack PDF 10 MB - Cherwell District Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?