Virginia Way Drayton Road - Vale of White...

www.dhaarchitecture.co.uk

Copyright © 2014 DHA Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved. Limited

reproduction and distribution permitted for the sole purpose of the

planning of this named development only.

Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.

Licence number 100042157.

Do not scale other than for Local Authority Planning purposes.

dha architecture ltd

revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonLocation Plan

081314-WIM-OX-06 A

22.05.2014

1:1250 @ A3

JeH

20m 60m40m

20m

40m

60m

eference 1:1250

Application Site

Virg

inia

W

ay

D

r

a

y

t

o

n

R

o

a

d

A09.06.14 JeH

Redline revised to bellmouth.

Appendix 1

Front Elevation Side Elevation

Rear Elevation Side Elevation









revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type AB

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-AB-L-E1 -

22.05.2014

1:100 @ A3

MjS

-- -

-

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

the

lane

s

Side ElevationFront Elevation

Side ElevationRear Elevation









revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type D

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-D-B-E2 -

20.05.2014

1:100 @ A3

SH

-- -

-

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

the

bouc

le


Rear Elevation Side Elevation









revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type F

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-F-A-E1 -

20.05.2014

1:100 @ A3

MjS

-- -

-

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

lime

aven

ue










revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type G

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-G-M-E1 -

24.04.2014

1:100 @ A3

SH

-- -

-

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

man

sion

hous

e









revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type K

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-K-A-E1 A

20.05.2014

1:100 @ A3

MjS

A06.06.14 AK

Dormer windows position and width revised

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

lime

aven

ue









revisionreference

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonHouse Type M

Proposed Elevations

081314-WIM-OX-M-L-E1 -

07.10.2014

1:100 @ A3

SH

2m 4m 6

2m

4m

eference 1:100

the

lane

s

AB/B.B

K/B.B

K/B.B

J/L.S

F/L.S

J/B.S

N

ew

Pum

pin

g

Sta

tion

AB/L.B

AC/L.B

AB/L.B

AB/L.B

AC/L.B

D/B.T

A/B.B

K/L.B

A/L.B

C/L.S

C/L.S

C/L.S

AB/L.B

AB/L.B

AC/L.B

J/L.S

D/B.B

C/B.S

K/B.B

AC/L.B

A/L.B

1BM/L.B

C/L.S

1BM/L.B

1BM/L.B

AD/L.B

cycle

s

2

x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

G/M.B

G/M.B

G/M.B

G/M.B

G/M.B

G/M.B

K/L.S

K/L.B

AB/B.B

AC/B.T

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

C/B.S

GP

TS

TS

11

12

90

93

89

91

96

94

95

102

72

69 - 70

75

103

68

74

71

76

73

78

77

81

79

80

39

42

38

41

40

44

47

43

45

49-50

48

51 - 52

55 - 56

58

117

60

61

62

63

64

65

105

106

107

59

126

127

128

129

130

147

157

151

150

149

148

116

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

32

33

34

35

36

36

AA/B.B

2 x 2BM

ss

Open Space

Open Space

bs

gas stn

66 - 67

2x

2x

2x

cs

K/A.T

J/A.B

A/A.B

1

2

155

154

153

D/A.T

K/A.B

C/A.B

152

K/B.S

A/B.B

F/B.T

F/L.S

AC/L.B

AC/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/L.B

A/B.B

A/B.B

K/B.S

A/B.B

H/B.B

H/B.B

K/B.S

110

109

108

101

100

99

98

114

92

82

83

85

86

87

88

D/A.B

E/L.T

F/L.B

158

146

K/A.T

F/A.T

E/L.B

AB/A.B

AD/A.T

AB/A.B

AB/A.B

AC/L.B

1BM/L.B

AC/L.B

138

139

137

136

135

131

132

133 - 134

145

143

144

AB/L.BAC/L.B

AC/L.S

140

142

141

125

H/B.B

cycle

s

2 x

c

y

c

l

e

s2

x

c

y

c

l

e

s

2

x

57

54

53

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

46

156

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

cycle

s

2 x

cycles

2 x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

4 - 9

AB/B.B

Block 2

6 x 2BF

AB/B.B

AA/B.B

cycle

s

2

x

cs

bs

103

13

14

15

16

AA/B.B

24

19 - 23

cs

bs

Block 1

5 x 2BF

17

18

AB/B.B

AB/B.B

AB/B.B

AB/B.B

26

25

27

28

30

29

AA/B.B

31

2 x 2BM

bs

cs

cycle

s

2

x

cycles

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycles

2 x

AB/A.T

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

c

y

c

le

s

2

x

AD/L.B

104

C/B.T

115

K/B.B

K/B.B

K/L.B

H/B

.B

L/B.B

L/B.B

L/B.B

L/B.B

L/B.B

L/B.S

L/B.S

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

cycle

s

2 x

1BM/L.B

2x

K/L.S

D/B.B

D/B.B

84

M/L.B

H/L.BM/L.B

1BM/L.B

L/B.B

K/B.B

H/B.B

M/B.T

M/B.T

K/B.S A/B.B

A/B.B

113

112

111

H/B.B

J/B.S

97

M/B.T

K/B.B

D/B.T

K/B.B

K/B.B

E/B.B


Copyright © 2014 DHA Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved. Limited reproduction and distribution

permitted for the sole purpose of the planning of this named development only.

Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100042157.


reference


revision

t.e.w.

0118 934 9666

[email protected]

drayton road, abingdonProposed Planning Layout

081314-WIM-OX-01 C

22.05.2014

1:500 @ A1

PI/JeH

10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 60m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

eference 1:500

& 134 - 137 revised. Schedule revised to reflect layout revisions.

K A

Housetype Codings

B

Architectural

Character

Unit Type Material

/ .

Architectural Character

A Lime Avenue

B The Boucle

L The Lanes

Material

B Brick

R Render

T Tile Hanging

A 09.06.14 JeH Roofscapes updated to 1BM units. Road access and Plots 1-3

B 23.09.14 JeH Revised to incorporate Local Authority and client comments.

NB Trees shown indicatively only

C 09.10.14 JeH Revised to incorporate client comments.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 21, 22, 23, 24 May 2013

Site visit made on 24 May 2013

by J.P. Watson BSc MICE FCIHT MCMI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 11 July 2013

Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/13/2191911

Land east of Drayton Road, Abingdon, Oxfordshire

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Hallam Land Management Ltd against the decision of Vale ofWhite Horse District Council.

• The application Ref P12/V2266/FUL, dated 24 October 2012, was refused by noticedated 24 January 2013.

• The development proposed is described as 160 residential dwellings, open space, a new

access off Drayton Road, engineering (including ground modelling) works, infrastructureworks (including drainage works, utilities provision and site reclamation), car parking

and lighting.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 159 residential

dwellings, open space, a new access off Drayton Road, engineering (including

ground modelling) works, infrastructure works (including drainage works,

utilities provision and site reclamation), car parking and lighting; at land east of

Drayton Road, Abingdon, Oxfordshire in accordance with the terms of the

application, Ref P12/V2266/FUL, dated 24 October 2012, subject to the

conditions set out in Schedule A to this Appeal Decision.

Preliminary

2. The application was made in the terms set out above but subsequently

modified to include 159 dwellings rather than 160.

3. Planning obligations prepared under section 106 of the Town and Country

Planning Act were before the Inquiry as follows, and I have regard to them:

i) A deed of agreement between the local planning authority, the site owners

and the Appellant. The deed is dated 23 May 2013.

ii) A deed of agreement between the Oxfordshire County Council, the site

owners and the Appellant. The deed is dated 23 May 2013.

iii) A unilateral undertaking by the site owners and the Appellant in favour of

Oxfordshire County Council. The deed is dated 30 May 2013. An unsigned

draft of the deed was available at the Inquiry.

4. I agreed at the Inquiry to accept two late representations. One was a

completed version of the unilateral obligation, the text of which was available

Appendix 3

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/A/13/2191911

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

at the inquiry. The other was document 50, the appellant’s response to a

document submitted by the local planning authority immediately before its

closing submissions (document 47). Both documents were delivered within the

time allowed at the Inquiry and I consider no prejudice to have arisen.

5. Various changes were made to the proposal between its determination by the

local planning authority and the Inquiry, as identified in the first Statement of

Common Ground (23 April 2013) and the list of drawings at Schedule B to this

appeal decision. The changes were minor and not such as to create the

possibility of prejudice.

6. In addition to the accompanied visit that I made on 24 May 2013 to the appeal

site and Stonehill House, I made unaccompanied visits before, during and after

the Inquiry to publicly accessible places referred to in evidence, including

among others Drayton Road, Ock Street, Marcham Road, Spring Road and

public land off Masefield Crescent.

Main Issues

7. Whether, in the light of the development plan, the National Planning Policy

Framework and all other relevant considerations, the balance of the benefits

associated with the appeal scheme compared with the harm associated with it

is such that the appeal should be allowed. Particular considerations are:

a) The need for new housing in the area;

b) The site’s location outside any established settlement;

c) The traffic implications of the scheme;

d) The scheme’s landscape and visual effects;

e) The arrangements that would be made for water supply and drainage;

and,

f) The provision that would be made for affordable housing and off-site

infrastructure.

Reasons

Introduction: Planning Policy

8. The development plan consists of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 (“the

LP”).

9. The Council’s decision notice refers to the following LP policies, which I consider

in the light of paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the

Framework”):

GS1 Locational Strategy. Consistent with the Framework in this appeal

except insofar as it relies on there being an up to date local plan

(given the lack of a five-year housing land supply, as explained

below).

GS2 Development outside existing settlements. While the Council cannot

demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, this policy should be

considered inconsistent with the Framework and little weight

attributed to it.



H10 Development in built-up areas. The appeal site is not in a built-up

area and so this policy is not relevant to the appeal.

H11 Development in built-up areas. The appeal site is not in a built-up

area and so this policy is not relevant to the appeal.

H13 Development outside built-up areas. As GS2.

DC1 Design. Consistent with the Framework.

NE4 Sites of nature conservation importance. Policy NE4 is inconsistent

with Framework paragraph 118 in that NE4 sets a more demanding

threshold of harm to sites of nature conservation importance.

Relatively less weight should be attributed to Policy NE4.

NE9 Development in the Lowland Vale. An expression of “recognising the

intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside” in Framework

paragraph 17, and consistent with that.

DC8 Infrastructure and service requirements. Not now at issue in this

appeal.

DC9 Neighbouring amenities etc. Consistent with Framework paragraph

17.

DC12 Water quality and resources. Consistent with but more limited than

Framework paragraph 109 bullet 4.

DC13 Flooding. Inconsistent with the sequential approach of the Framework

paragraphs 100 to 104.

DC14 Flooding. Inconsistent with Framework paragraph 103.

TR9 Transport implications of development. Not a “saved” policy and so of

very limited weight in any event. Not necessarily consistent with

Framework paragraph 32 since TR9 does not establish the required

“adequate” level of mitigation to be the avoidance of “severe” impacts

required by the Framework.

10. The Consultation Draft Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2029 – Part 1 –

“Strategic Sites And Policies” was published in February 2013. As it is at an

early stage in its preparation I afford only limited weight to it. The

Consultation Draft Local Plan proposes to safeguard land for a possible

southern bypass for Abingdon, and a second Thames crossing. The bypass is

not a strategic priority for the local highway authority. Its route would not be

compromised by the appeal scheme. The Consultation Draft Local Plan focuses

on strategic sites (of over 200 dwellings) and does not propose to allocate the

appeal site for strategic scale housing or any other use.

11. There is no Neighbourhood Plan in existence or preparation for the area that

includes the appeal site.

The Need For New Housing In The Area

12. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”)

says that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered

up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year

supply of deliverable housing sites. It is common ground between the Local



Planning Authority and the Appellant that in the Vale of White Horse District

there is less than five years’ supply. The Council refers to its five-year housing

land supply statement of July 2012, which shows a 3.3 year supply. The same

report shows a continuously growing cumulative shortfall in housing supply

throughout the period 2006 to 2012 and observes that that clearly constitutes

“persistent under-supply” if measured in terms of the delivery of completed

housing. The accumulated shortfall amounted to 1010 dwellings (that were

planned to be built during 2006-12) not provided.

13. At its paragraph 47, the Framework says that where there has been a record of

persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should also

allow for a buffer of 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period), so as

to give a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure

choice and competition in the market for land. The 20% buffer should clearly

be incorporated with the 3.3 year supply, which therefore reduces to 2.8 years

(on the basis of the Council’s 31 March 2012 figures). As to the accumulated

shortfall, the Framework seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and

to defer dealing with the shortfall other than at a brisk pace would be contrary

to that objective. The Appellant argues that the shortfall should be made good

in the first five years – an approach that would be consistent with the buffer

period established by paragraph 47. If that were to be done then the housing

supply presented in the Council’s July 2012 statement would reduce to some

2.3 years, a little less than one-half of the Framework requirement.

14. The Council monitors the housing market. Its 2007 Strategic Housing Market

Assessment reported the local economy to be robust and buoyant, but reported

the limited supply of dwellings on the market and the lack of sufficient new

build to be likely to sustain high house prices. Much more recently, the

Council’s Local Plan 2029 Part 1 Strategic Sites and Policies consultation draft

document continues to promote economic growth in the Science Vale UK area

and refers to the need for associated housing growth. And historic and

projected reductions in average household size (reported in the Council’s Local

Plan 2029 Part 1 Topic Paper 4 “Housing” March 2013 consultation draft) tend

to increase the pressure on the housing stock. The shortfall exists not only in

market housing but also in terms of affordable housing; it is common ground

that in April 2013 there were 1175 households in the District on the housing

waiting list and accepted by the Council to be in significant, urgent or

exceptional housing need.

15. The Council remains optimistic, expecting a good level of supply in the medium

term. But events often do not match expectations, and the Framework is clear

that is circumstances such as those which obtain in the District now, with a

substantial shortfall in the supply of new housing such that relevant housing

policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse

impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole.

Abingdon

16. Abingdon is closely related to the Science Vale UK employment sites and has

(among others) its own employment sites at Abingdon Business Park and

Abingdon Science Park. It is the largest town in the District and more people

are employed at Abingdon than any other centre in the Vale. Although only

about 26% of the District’s population live at Abingdon, the 2008 Housing

Needs Assessment found over half of those requiring market housing to prefer



locating in Abingdon; and 58% of existing households seeking affordable

housing favoured Abingdon. At that time the Housing Needs Assessment

reported requirements for some 1285 market dwellings and some 369

affordable homes in Abingdon over a three-year period.

17. The Council refers to Core Policy 6 of the Consultation Draft Local Plan, which

would set out a spatial strategy for the Abingdon on Thames and Oxford Fringe

Sub-Area, which extends past Botley in the north, several miles west of

Abingdon to Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor, and south beyond Drayton.

But, for the reason I have given in paragraph 10, I attribute little weight to that

draft Policy; it does not outweigh Framework paragraphs 47 and 49.

18. I conclude that the appeal scheme would make a valuable contribution toward

meeting a keenly-felt need for new market and affordable housing in Abingdon,

and I attribute considerable weight to that.

The Site’s Location Outside Any Established Settlement

19. Saved policy GS1 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 (July 2006) (“the

LP”) set out the general locational strategy, which was to concentrate

development at Abingdon and the four other main settlements all defined by

the development boundaries on the proposals map; and to locate further

development at other stated places in the District. The appeal site is outside

the development boundary for Abingdon. LP saved policies GS2 and H13 forbid

development outside the built-up areas of existing settlements except in

particular stated circumstances, none of which can be found in the appeal

proposal. The location of the development would not be compliant with those

LP policies.

20. However, there is no dispute that, in view of the absence of a five-year housing

land supply, paragraph 49 of the Framework establishes that policies for the

supply of housing (including GS1, GS2 and H13) are not up to date; and that

therefore the final bullet point of Framework paragraph 14 applies.

21. I therefore conclude that the fact that the appeal site is outside the

development boundary of any settlement as shown in the LP is not of itself a

consideration that weighs heavily against the appeal proposal.

22. Furthermore, it is instructive to consider, in the light of the final provision of

Framework paragraph 14 and its footnote 9, the various designations attached

to land around Abingdon. To the north, the town is constrained by the Green

Belt; to the east, south and much of the west the land within the District

boundary is in the food plain. Only to the south west of the town (an area that

includes the appeal site) is there land which is free of the high level constraints

identified by footnote 9 as areas in which specific policies in the Framework

indicate development should be restricted; and even in that south-western

sector there is a block of land, facing the appeal site across Drayton Road,

designated as an ancient monument – and therefore in the lee of footnote 9.

The appeal site is one of only a very limited number of locations contiguous

with the town where specific policies in the Framework do not indicate

development should be restricted. The Council drew attention to recent

planning permissions for housing at Kingston Bagpuize and Marcham, both of

which are rural locations. A conclusion of the Council’s Analysis of travel

patterns of people living in new homes built between 2001 and 2007 in the

Vale of White Horse is that “the rural areas are generally the least sustainable



locations in terms of travel patterns, being the areas most heavily dependent

on the car and even in the villages with the best range of services and facilities

a low proportion of new residents meet their needs there.”

23. Framework paragraph 34 requires developments that generate significant

movement to be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the

use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised, while taking account of

other Framework policies.

24. The appeal site is at the periphery of the town and so its residents would be

likely to exhibit travel patterns than are less sustainable than the average for

Abingdon as a whole. Nevertheless, it is common ground between the

Appellant and the Council’s officer report that the site is in reasonable distance

of local neighbourhood facilities in south Abingdon, and to the town centre; and

is suitably located to make use of and support the further provision of

community and commercial facilities for the town. In Abingdon, Thameside

Primary School and Caldecott Primary School are within walking or cycling

distance. And, by virtue of those factors and the development constraints on

other land around Abingdon which drive residential development to the

villages, the need for residents of the site to travel would be likely to be less

than is the case for development coming forward elsewhere in the area.

25. Bus services providing direct access to Oxford, Abingdon, Milton Park, Didcot,

Wantage and Grove pass the site at reasonable frequencies during the working

day, although these can be affected by congestion on Drayton Road. A travel

plan (secured through the planning obligation with Oxfordshire County Council)

would be introduced for residents, including measures to raise awareness, to

help with travel planning, to encourage walking and cycling, to promote car

sharing and to provide information about bus services. New bus stops would

be provided on the site frontage. A cycleway passes the site. A car club has

been considered but rejected because of the unsuitability of car clubs for

conditions in Oxfordshire; car clubs are successful in densely populated urban

areas with limited parking availability. The use of sustainable transport modes

would be maximised within the constraints of the area.

26. Framework paragraph 34 would therefore be satisfied.

The Traffic Implications of the Scheme

Policy

27. Paragraph 32 of the Framework sets out transport-related considerations of

which development control decisions such as this should take account. The

third of those is whether…

“improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost

effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development

should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual

cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

28. LP saved policy DC5 addresses the same point in a different way, permitting

development provided that…

(ii) “the road network can accommodate the traffic arising from the

development without causing safety, congestion or environmental problems”;



(v) “off-site improvements to the highway infrastructure (including traffic

management measures), cycleways, footpaths and the public transport

network can be secured where these are not adequate to service the

development”; and,

(vi) “the scheme is designed to minimise the impact of vehicles and give

priority to the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, the users of public transport and

those with impaired mobility.”

29. There is a clear difference between the two approaches; the framework sets a

test of severe impact which is not present in policy DC5. This is a case in

which application of paragraph 215 of the Framework should lead to greater

weight being given to the Framework policy than to the policy in the existing

plan. It is therefore germane to consider whether the residual cumulative

impacts of the development would be severe.

Development Traffic

30. The development would take vehicular and pedestrian access from the B4017

Drayton Road. The new road junction at the access would be controlled by

traffic signals which would incorporate a pedestrian crossing facility to give

access between the site and the proposed northbound bus stop on Drayton

Road. There would also be a southbound bus stop on the site frontage. The

operation of the proposed signals has been checked with standard software and

found to be satisfactory. The statement of common ground on transport

matters (between the Appellant and Oxfordshire County Council, the local

highway authority) says that the proposed junction layout is acceptable in

principle subject to detailed design of the junction. Drayton Road has a speed

limit of 50mph at the site and the necessary visibility would be available along

the road and within the junction. I am satisfied that the site access would

function satisfactorily and meet relevant current design standards.

31. The traffic generation of the appeal development has been assessed with the

TRICS database in the usual way and the results are set out in the transport

statement of common ground. The modelled vehicle trip distribution and

assignment to the network are based on existing traffic flow patterns and that

approach, and the approaches taken in the transport assessment in respect of

general traffic growth and committed development, are agreed by the appellant

and the County Council. Some interested parties report that drivers who turn

right from Drayton Road into Preston Road then follow various routes (to the

town centre via St Helen’s Wharf, or returning to Drayton Road further north)

but the numbers involved are small and I accept the development traffic

distribution and other design flows shown in the transport assessment.

32. There is no contention that the appeal scheme would have any severe traffic-

related effect to the south of the appeal site. The High Street/Abingdon Road

junction in Drayton has been modelled with development traffic present and

found to operate within capacity in the 2016 assessment year.

33. North of the site, Drayton Road passes through a number of junctions and then

meets the A415 road immediately north of the River Ock. Drayton Road is the

southern arm of the junction, Marcham Road is the A415 to the west, Ock

Street is the A415 to the east and Spring Road is the continuation of the

B4017 to the north. Colwell Drive meets Marcham Road a few hundred metres

west of the Drayton Road/Marcham Road junction.



34. Mitigation measures are proposed by the Appellant and agreed by the County

Council at the Drayton Road/Preston Road signal-controlled junction and on the

eastern arm of the Marcham Road/Colwell Drive roundabout. The transport

assessment estimates the combined effect of the scheme and the mitigation

measures (compared with the 2016 design year baseline conditions) to be to

bring the Drayton Road/Preston Road signals within capacity, and to reduce

queue lengths on the eastern arm (Marcham Road) approach to the Marcham

Road/Colwell Drive roundabout. The effect on the eastern approach to that

roundabout would be to bring the eastern approach within capacity, with

queuing substantially less than in the 2016 baseline situation. That would

reduce traffic delay on the Marcham Road approach to the Colwell Drive

junction, and reduce any tendency for that queue to extend so far back along

Marcham Road as to reach the Drayton Road/Marcham Road junction or the

pelican crossing on Marcham Road near that junction.

35. The transport assessment reports that two other roundabout junctions on

Drayton Road, between the appeal site and Ock Street, would continue to

operate within capacity with the development in place.

Drayton Road/Marcham Road Junction

36. This junction takes the form of a double mini roundabout, and there is a signal

controlled pelican crossing on Marcham Road, reported in the transport

assessment to be 20 metres west of the junction. Traffic from the site would

approach this junction along Drayton Road. It is common ground that site-

related traffic approaching the junction in that way would be maximised during

the morning peak hour. During that hour northbound site-related traffic on this

part of Drayton Road would be some 30 vehicles per hour, with a further 11

going the opposite way. In the 2016 assessment year, the “do-minimum”

traffic flows, without the development, on the same part of Drayton Road in the

morning peak hour are shown by the transport assessment to be 609 vehicles

northbound and 627 vehicles southbound.

37. Long traffic queues currently form on the Drayton Road approach to this

junction, particularly but not necessarily exclusively during the morning peak

hour. Several interested parties report substantial travel times along Drayton

Road that vary from day to day, according to the degree of congestion, and the

same is borne out by the results of various travel time surveys brought to the

inquiry.

38. By the end of the inquiry, the County Council’s position was that the measure

of severity in the scheme’s traffic effects should be principally the delay to

northbound traffic on Drayton Road in the morning peak hour, while being

mindful of other effects. The County Council had gained access to information

from the “Strat-e-gis” travel time database, which reported an average travel

time of 566 seconds for the northbound journey along Drayton Road between

Preston Road and Marcham Road, measured during the morning peak hours on

Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during school terms between September

2011 and June 2012. The corresponding distance is 922 metres and so the

average speed of travel is about 1.63 metres per second.

39. The Appellant argues that its traffic survey carried out on 15 January 2013 is to

be preferred to the “Strat-e-gis” data for the validation of microsimulation

modelling. My current purpose is to establish a qualitative understanding of

the effect the scheme, if there was no traffic mitigation at the end of Drayton



Road, would have on road transport in the area. In that, I rely on the “Strat-e-

gis” data because they provide travel time information for a substantially

greater length of Drayton Road (as far south as Preston Road) than do the

January data (as far south as Caldecott Road).

40. Clearly, and as established at the Inquiry, the northbound queue on Drayton

Road forms when traffic is able to emerge from the road’s northern end only at

a rate which is less than that at which traffic arrives at the southern tail of the

queue. When that situation is reversed, the queue will start to get shorter.

The length of the queue at any time after it has started to form is the

difference between the total number of vehicles to arrive at the back of the

queue and the total number of vehicles to emerge from the front of the queue.

And the act of adding more traffic to the tail of the queue would not affect the

capacity of traffic to emerge from the front of the queue.

41. Application of the agreed method of assigning development traffic to the

network gives the result in the morning peak hour that 30 vehicles associated

with the development would pass through the whole queue between Preston

Road and Marcham Road.

42. Although those site-related vehicles would leave the head of the queue in due

course, the traffic behind them would be further back than it would otherwise

have been. And that would be the case if all the site-related traffic emerged

together or, as is much more probable, if it was distributed throughout the

morning peak hour. The overall length of queue to be discharged between the

onset of queuing and the time when the queue cleared would be increased (due

to traffic that left the development during the peak hour) by a queue length of

about 180 metres.

43. Figure 1 on page 12 of appendix J to Miss Baker’s Rebuttal proof of evidence

shows that a northbound queue formed in Drayton Road before 07:30 on the

survey day and remained there until at least 09:00; and the longer queue with

the development would take longer to clear at the end of the peak period.

Some vehicles would be delayed in the queue beyond the end of the peak hour.

The 180-metre increase in the queue length would take about 110 seconds to

transit and so the time spent in the queue would be increased by about 19%,

on the basis of the “Strat-e-gis” monthly average data. And, if conditions at

the head of the queue were unchanged, that delay would affect all following

traffic until the queue cleared.

44. Drayton Road provides the main access into Abingdon from Drayton and other

villages to the south west, and from the suburb of Caldecott. It is clear from

written representations and statements by interested parties at the Inquiry that

congestion on the road is often serious. For many trips there is no convenient

alternative route. Interested parties report degrees of congestion that are

greater than those reported from the various surveys that were given in

evidence, and there were reports that the road serves as an alternative to the

A34 trunk road for some traffic when the A34 is particularly congested. The

Oxford Bus Company is concerned that the development traffic would increase

travel time between Saxton Road and Stratton Way during peak traffic periods,

and would reduce the reliability of bus services on Drayton Road (an effect of

which would be to reduce the transport sustainability of the appeal proposal).

If the appeal development were to proceed without mitigation of the effect it

would have on transport conditions on Drayton Road, it is therefore clear that



the transport effects of the development on that road would significantly

increase congestion that is already serious, and that would be a severe effect.

Mitigation

45. The Appellant proposes that the traffic effect of the appeal scheme on Drayton

Road should be addressed principally by measures to increase the capacity of

the Drayton Road/Marcham Road junction, an overall approach that I consider

sound.

46. It has been observed for the appellant that traffic seeking to enter the Drayton

Road/Marcham Road junction from Drayton Road is sometimes prevented from

doing so by traffic held up by a red traffic signal at the pelican crossing across

Marcham Road a short distance from the junction. When I visited this site I

saw such a queue to form on several occasions when it had the effect

described. The pelican crossing was seen to be called frequently during a

survey conducted for the appellant in a morning peak hour. This is indicative

of a level of pedestrian demand such that a signalled crossing facility should

continue to be provided at or close to the road junction.

47. Accordingly, the junction has been modelled to test the hypothesis that

alteration of the pedestrian facilities would provide sufficient relief to traffic

entering the junction from Drayton Road so as to avoid a severe traffic effect

arising from the appeal development. Three options were tested, referred to in

the evidence as follows:

Option 2 – Introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of

Drayton Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0002 rev A), and

retention of the existing crossing on Marcham Road;

Option 3 – Introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of

Drayton Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0002 rev A) and

relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road (as shown on

drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0003); and,

Option 4 – Relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road

(as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0003).

48. The options were tested with the VISSIM microsimulation software. Pedestrian

use of the proposed new crossing in Ock Street (Option 2) would, by

interrupting the east-to-west flow through the junction, create gaps in the

circulating traffic for vehicles from Drayton Road to enter; and by transferring

some pedestrian activity away from the Marcham Road crossing (to the

proposed Ock Street crossing) would reduce the frequency of tailbacks from

the Marcham Road crossing into the junction across Drayton Road. Relocating

the Marcham Road pelican crossing further west along Marcham Road (Option

4) would increase the queuing space between that crossing and Drayton Road

and so would reduce the frequency of tailbacks into the junction across Drayton

Road, but it would also make pedestrian access to the relocated crossing less

convenient for those pedestrians who do not need to go so far along Marcham

Road. Option 3 combines both traffic effects and makes more provision for

pedestrians.

49. The test results are presented in the form of assessed journey times through

the junction. Initially it was assumed that half the pedestrian activity would

transfer to the new Ock Street crossing. In comparison with the “2016 do-



minimum” situation (i.e. without the appeal development), the modelling

results for the AM peak show that all proposed with-development options would

provide a significant benefit to the northbound route (which includes Drayton

Road). During the PM peak the modelled northbound and eastbound

movements through the junction would have similar journey times with or

without the appeal scheme plus any mitigation option; the southbound and

westbound movements would be noticeably slower. In terms of total journey

time per vehicle passing through the junction in the AM peak, options 2, 3 and

4 were found by the model to provide improvements on the “2016 do-

minimum” situation. In the PM peak options 2 and 3 are not found significantly

different from the “2016 do-minimum” case, but option 4 would be worse by

some 10 seconds per vehicle.

50. Subsequently, the modelling was repeated for the AM peak on the revised basis

that only 25% of pedestrian crossing activity would transfer to the new Ock

Street crossing. The result was that Option 2 with the development would then

lead to a increase in northbound journey time, of the order of 25 seconds per

vehicle. Journey times for other movements during the AM peak would be

largely the same as in the “50%” case.

Scrutiny

51. The VISSIM model used in the assessment has been independently scrutinised.

The consultancy AECOM found no error in the material that, in their view,

would significantly affect its fitness for purpose. The consultancy Halcrow

found some causes for concern, set out in summary form in the final section of

a note dated 22 April 2013. It seems to me that the Appellant’s reply dated 13

May is a sufficient response to those matters which it seeks to address.

Halcrow also put the view that the model’s apparently good degree of fit with

journey time survey data from January 2013 is misleading, because January is

not regarded as a “typical” month for traffic survey purposes; that the “Strat-e-

gis” database shows a much higher degree of congestion on Drayton Road than

does the VISSIM modelling; and that the proportion of pedestrian activity that

would transfer to the mooted new pelican crossing in Ock Street cannot be

reliably estimated. The Appellant’s responses seem to me to go some way

towards meeting those criticisms. They are that the particular survey day in

January 2013 lacked anything to distinguish it in traffic terms from “typical”

days in “typical” months; that respected technical guidance issued variously by

Transport for London and the Highways Agency counsels against the use of

journey time data sources that do not include a “floating car” (i.e. direct

observation) component, and that the January 2013 survey included enough

direct observations of journey time to be reliable; and that a sensitivity test

has been undertaken with regard to the distribution of pedestrian activity at

Ock Street and Marcham Road.

Design Conclusion

52. I am therefore satisfied that the Appellant’s modelling gives adequately reliable

predictions of the effects that the various options, with the stated pedestrian-

crossing assumptions, would be likely to have on traffic conditions at the

Drayton Road/Marcham Road junction with the development in place.

53. There remains uncertainty as to the proportion of pedestrian movements

across the A415 that would be likely to transfer from the Marcham Road

crossing to the new Ock Street facility. If 50% transferred, then the traffic



consequence of the development would not be severe and paragraph 32 of the

Framework would be satisfied. If none transferred, and the Marcham Road

pelican was not moved, then there would be no effective mitigation and the

traffic consequences would be severe, as I have found. If the Marcham Road

pelican was moved west (and no new crossing provided in Ock Street), as

Option 4 proposes, then the traffic objective may well be served but

pedestrians would be disadvantaged by the extra walking distance and perhaps

tempted to try to cross the A415 other than at a crossing, with an attendant

increase in risk. (The Appellant’s survey shows the largest pedestrian

movement over the existing crossing to be en route between Drayton Road and

Spring Road).

54. I conclude that Option 3 should be provided, as necessary mitigation of the

transport effects of the scheme. Alone of the options it would provide relief to

the Drayton Road entry to the junction whether pedestrians choose to cross the

A415 on Ock Street or on Marcham Road. Option 3 would make proper

provision for pedestrians and reliably accommodate the development traffic

while avoiding a severe transport impact. That would be compliant with

Framework paragraph 32 bullet 3.

Implementation Process

55. Attention was drawn at the Inquiry to section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation

Act 1984. Local traffic authorities are authorised to establish, alter or remove

pedestrian crossings on roads for which they are the traffic authority but before

doing so the local traffic authority shall consult the chief officer of police about

their proposal to do so, shall give public notice of the proposal, and shall inform

the Secretary of State in writing. The necessary mitigation of the traffic effect

of the appeal scheme includes the establishment of two new (pelican)

pedestrian crossings and the removal of the pelican crossing currently in

Marcham Road near Drayton Road.

56. The local planning authority put the view that the proposed work to pedestrian

crossings should be the subject of consultation and notice through section 23,

that the Courts have found (in The Queen on the Application of Hilary

Wainwright v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council) that responses

made to the local traffic authority as a result of such consultation and notice

should be considered by the local traffic authority and that such consideration

might identify some matter that points away from the work being carried out.

On that basis it was argued by the local planning authority that the works are

not suitable for a Grampian condition relating to the pedestrian crossing work

to be imposed.

57. The Appellant refers to the case of R. v. Warwickshire County Council ex parte

Powergen plc, in which the Court of Appeal held that, following a successful

planning appeal by a developer, the relevant highway authority had no option

but to co-operate in implementing the planning permission by entering into a

section 278 agreement. The matters at issue in that planning appeal included

the adequacy and safety of the proposed site access, which had been a reason

for refusal of planning permission by the local planning authority.

Warwickshire County Council had contended that the proposed access would be

unsafe but the planning inspector had found to the contrary. The Court’s

decision was based on three considerations, which I briefly summarise as

follows:



i) The highway works in question were (a) central to the planning

application and (b) considered in full detail at the planning appeal;

ii) The planning permission was granted on appeal to the Secretary of

State rather than by the local planning authority;

iii) There were no new facts or changed circumstances following the

Inspector’s determination of that appeal.

58. In the current case:

a) There have been opportunities for the local traffic authority and the

local planning authority to consider and make representations regarding the

safety and other effects of the proposed new crossings. The proposed new

crossing in Ock Street appears as figure 7.2 in the Transport Assessment which

accompanied the planning application. The proposed new crossing in Marcham

Road was first promoted by the Appellant in May, some days before the

inquiry, and it seems to me that enough time was available for proper

consideration (by those who were aware of it) of that proposal, which is

straightforward, and the articulation of objections. Evidence was given for the

Appellant that the proposed crossings would relate satisfactorily to their

surroundings, and no specific criticism of the form of either was made by the

local traffic authority. I have previously considered the evidence given with

regard to modelling, and with regard to the effect on pedestrians. There were

unsubstantiated suggestions that the alterations might interact adversely with

the air quality management area in Abingdon, or with an extension to that Area

that has been suggested to the District Council; but the changes in traffic

volumes resulting from the development would be small and congestion would

be likely to fall during the morning peak and remain substantially unchanged in

the evening peak; which points away from harm to air quality.

b) The Appellant has made a unilateral undertaking (“UU”) through

section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whereby contributions

would be made to the County Council upon notification that the County Council

intends to carry out the crossing alterations. The contributions would be,

among other things, towards the design and implementation of the Marcham

Road works, the Ock Street works, and towards a further detailed assessment

of the proposals for the Marcham Road works and the Ock Street works to

enable the County Council to determine whether to undertake those works.

This countenances a degree of uncertainty as to whether the works would

proceed.

c) There is a requirement for consultation by the local traffic authority

before carrying out the crossing alterations, whereas in the Powergen case

there was no such requirement. Thus it is possible that new relevant facts or

circumstances may emerge from the section 23 process, and there is no reason

for me to conclude that such new facts or circumstances would or would not be

such as to prevent the crossing alterations being carried out. It is therefore

uncertain that the necessary mitigation of the scheme’s traffic effects would be

carried out; and, if they were not, then the scheme’s traffic effects would be

severe and therefore unacceptable in the terms of Framework paragraph 32.

There might be no such matters; but if there were then it seems to me that the

County Council should consider them before deciding whether to carry out the

crossing alterations. Hence, if I were to allow the appeal then the resulting

planning permission should recognise the possibility that some matter may



result from the section 23 process that renders the County Council unable to

properly carry out the work. Since the crossing alterations would be a

necessary prerequisite of the development, a Grampian condition would be

appropriate. Its purpose would be to avoid severe transport effects that would

otherwise arise from the development, and it would relate the development of

the appeal site to the provision of the new pelican crossings.

59. I have considered representations made in correspondence after the Inquiry

regarding the form that such a condition should take. The Local Planning

Authority is concerned that such a condition might not be enforceable, because

of the uncertainty I have described at 58c) previously; but it seems to me that

if a connection between development and necessary mitigation, required by

condition, was severed then subsequent enforcement would be practical and

reasonable. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Annex to Circular 11/95 are relevant.

60. The Appellant firstly considers the Unilateral Undertaking to provide sufficient

surety, and holds that no planning condition is necessary. The UU contains

seven covenants: five relate to various payments, one to notification should the

ownership of the site change, and one relates to notification of the intended

date for implementation of the development. None of those establishes that

the development would not be implemented if the necessary mitigation works

were not carried out, and so a planning condition is necessary.

61. The Appellant points out that it would be the use of the appeal development

that would give rise to the effects whose avoidance makes the pelican crossing

works necessary; and concludes that development and mitigation should be

connected in such a way as to prevent occupation of the development prior to

completion of the pelican crossing alterations, rather than in such a way as to

prevent the start of development prior to completion of the pelican crossing

alterations. But, because of the uncertainty I have described, the approach the

Appellant favours could result in development taking place at the appeal site

while there is no realistic prospect of the necessary pelican crossing works

taking place; indeed, those works might never take place if some insuperable

impediment were to arise. The Appellant suggests that there should be a time

limit after which the development might be occupied even if the pelican

crossing works were not complete; but the passage of time would not mitigate

the severe traffic effect that use of the scheme would have if the pelican

crossing mitigation was not provided, and the outcome of the statutory

consultation cannot be foreseen. Even if the development was built but not

occupied, and no pelican crossing mitigation provided, the situation would be

unsatisfactory not least in that there would be no benefit associated with the

development to offset its associated environmental harm (which I summarise

in my paragraph 113). But I see no reason to delay the start of development

at the appeal site if the County Council gave written notice, as envisaged by

the Unilateral Undertaking, that it intends to carry out the Ock Street works

and the Marcham Road works.

62. I therefore conclude that a Grampian condition is necessary, and that it should

preclude development at the appeal site until the earlier of these events:

a) The local planning authority has received written confirmation, issued

by Oxfordshire County Council, that the Ock Street Works and the

Marcham Road Works are to be carried out;



b) The Ock Street Works and the Marcham Road Works have been

carried out and their signals are first in operation.

Traffic Implications: Conclusion

63. With the identified mitigation measures near the Drayton Road/Marcham Road

junction (which should be the subject of a planning condition), the Drayton

Road/Preston Road junction and the Marcham Road/Colwell Drive junction, the

scheme would not have a severe effect on traffic conditions.

Landscape And Visual Effects

64. The site is a single field of semi-improved grassland. The northern side of the

field abuts the back gardens of dwellings in Virginia Way, the urban edge of

Abingdon. There is a tree belt to the east of the site, with farm land beyond,

and Stonehill Farm with its associated land is to the south-east. The site’s

southern boundary is hedged and has some individual trees. The western side

of the site faces Drayton Road through a screen of mature lime trees. The land

here is generally level or nearly so (the site gently slopes down to the north

east) except for the body of permissive access land on the opposite side of

Drayton Road, which land rises to the west.

65. The landscape in this area is identified by the Oxfordshire Wildlife and

Landscape Study as being of the Lowland Village Farmlands type, and the

appeal site is typical of the land in that area. The Vale of White Horse

Landscape Assessment, Advice on the Landscape Impact of further

development south of Abingdon (2008) describes the site as being “partially

visible from the B4017 [Drayton Road] through the lime trees on its western

boundary. The southern and eastern boundaries are screened by tree belts.

The field is fully visible from the southern edge of Abingdon. The small fields to

the north of Oday Lane including the grounds of Stonehill House have strong

boundary hedges and tree groups and areas of new woodland planting. This

has created a small scale and enclosed landscape which is well screened on all

sides. There are restricted views from Oday Lane.”

66. The appeal site is not subject to any landscape quality designation at a

national, regional or local level.

67. LP Policy DC6 requires all development to include hard and soft landscaping

measures designed to (i) protect and enhance the visual amenities of the site

and its surroundings including, where appropriate, existing important landscape

features; and (ii) maximise the opportunities for nature conservation and

wildlife habitat creation. Framework paragraph 58 aims to ensure that

development is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and

appropriate landscaping, paragraph 61 seeks the integration of new

development into the natural, built and historic environment, and paragraph

109 advocates minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

biodiversity where possible. It seems to me that policy DC6 is broadly

consistent with the Framework, but there are differences in emphasis: for

example, in respect of biodiversity the Framework seeks net gains where the

LP seeks maximisation. The only landscape feature on the site of any

importance is the group of lime trees along the Drayton Road frontage; I

consider the degree of that importance later.

68. The Council’s reasons for refusal of planning permission include (among other

things):



“1(iii) The site lies within an edge of settlement countryside area and having

regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal would lead to a progressive

detraction in the rural character of the area and be detrimental to the visual

amenity of the area, the rural landscape and to amenities of the locality”; and,

“3 The site lies within a rural fringe countryside area that clearly defines

the built up area settlement boundary of Abingdon. The development would

lead to a progressive detraction in the rural character of the area and be

detrimental to the visual amenity, the rural landscape and to amenities of the

locality and wildlife through the unsatisfactory nature of the proposals

identified removal of mature boundary frontage trees along Drayton Road and

from pressure and proximity of development on other boundary landscaping to

the site.”

69. I consider those matters one at a time, and then turn to other related matters

raised at the Inquiry.

Effect On The Rural Character Of The Area

70. Clearly, the appeal proposal would change the rural field that is the appeal site

into part of the urban settlement of Abingdon. That would change the outlook

from the rear of properties in Virginia Way from an agricultural view to a

residential view. I am satisfied that the new development would not have any

unacceptable overbearing or other adverse visual effect on the Virginia Way

properties. Nor, by virtue of intervening vegetation and distance, would there

be any adverse effect on the setting of Stonehill House, reported to be a grade

II listed building.

71. Views into the site from the east, south and west would be filtered by

vegetation. Some of the line of lime trees would be removed, and that would

reduce the screening effect of the group; but a strong screening effect would

remain. From the north beyond Virginia Way, lengthening views toward the

site are limited and obscured by intervening development. Because the site is

well screened, the visual effect of its change of use from grazing to residential

would be confined to viewpoints quite close to it. For the same reason, the

scheme’s effect on the landscape would be restricted to the site and its

immediate environs. There would be no effect on existing long open views

within or across the Lowland Vale to which LP Policy NE9 refers. Framework

paragraph 61 requires planning decisions to address the integration of new

development into the natural environment. The harm to the rural character of

the area would be limited in extent and, where it would be experienced, slight

in degree.

Visual Amenity, and Boundary Frontage Trees

72. The Council’s evidence in respect of visual amenity is that the row of lime trees

on the site’s western boundary offers considerable visual amenity. The tree

preservation order to which they are subject is made in respect of the group.

The trees make a worthwhile contribution to the roadside scene. It was also

argued that the penultimate bullet point of paragraph 118 of the Framework

applies to the group. But there was no evidence that the trees constitute an

irreplaceable habitat; rather they were agreed to be of no special biological

merit and, in any event, not of such age as to be regarded as “aged or

veteran”. Evidence for the Council was that the group is of particular value

because it screens the permissive access land and a playing field off Masefield



Crescent from views of Didcot Power Station several kilometres away. The

evidence was that the cooling towers at Didcot are to be taken down in 2015.

Any value added to the tree group by its screening of the power station would

therefore be lost then. I conclude that the visual amenity value of the lime

tree group should be considered for this appeal in terms of its contribution to

the roadside scene.

73. The appeal scheme would remove ten adjacent trees of the 47 limes in the

group in order that access could be taken from Drayton Road. The form of the

access is such as to minimise the loss; which does not of itself make the loss

acceptable, but does indicate that there is no scope for an alternative design to

reduce the tree loss. There would remain two mature limes on the frontage

north of the access and, to the south of the access, the remainder of the group,

augmented by four new replacement lime trees of advanced nursery size. I

have considered the visual effect that the modified tree group would have on

the roadside scene, in comparison with that which is there now. Although

there would be a net loss of six trees, and for some years the four new trees

would be distinguishable from the mature members of the group, the current

impression of a large body of similar trees at the roadside would remain. The

public visual amenity associated with the frontage trees would be changed but

the change would be slight and acceptable. The scheme would integrate into

the natural environment while causing only slight harm (Framework paragraph

61).

Wildlife

74. It is common ground between the Council and the Appellant that the site is of

low biodiversity value and that there are no significant ecological issues that

would prevent the development of the site.

75. The Oxfordshire Badger Group reports that badgers regularly visit the gardens

of properties that directly back on to the appeal site, and believe the appeal

site to be important to badgers as it contains badger paths that lead to

foraging areas. Others report badger setts and bat roosting sites on land near

the site and badgers foraging on the site, and grass snakes have been found at

Stonehill House and Virginia Way.

76. Bat surveys have been conducted on the site. No bat roost was identified to be

lost as a result of the scheme. Bats forage in the group of limes and would be

likely to continue to do so with the scheme; the gap that would be formed in

the tree group would not be so large as to prevent them. The site boundaries

are the main corridors for movement by bats. The scheme would strengthen

and enhance those features. Further enhancements for bats are proposed in

the scheme landscaping design, with plant species that attract night flying

insects to provide new foraging opportunities for bats. The scheme would

provide satisfactorily for bats, consistent with Framework paragraph 118 bullet

4.

77. The Ecological Appraisal reports that habitats within the site are of low

ecological value and limited botanical interest. If the development were to

proceed then the circumstances of the badgers that visit the site would change.

The semi-improved grassland would be replaced with residential development,

similar to that which badgers reportedly currently cross the site to reach.

Measures are suggested in the Ecological Appraisal for the protection of

badgers during construction of the development, and those should be



incorporated in a planning condition. Apart from that, there is no evidence that

significant harm would come to the local badger population and so the

requirement of Framework paragraph 118 in that respect would be met. Nor

is there any evidence that grass snakes rely on the site or would be harmed by

the appeal development.

78. The Environment Agency has suggested that a watercourse buffer zone should

be provided where the site is close to a watercourse near its eastern boundary.

The proposed development is set back from the boundary in a way that would

accommodate such a zone, and a planning condition is needed to ensure that

the part of this corridor that is on the site would be beneficial to wildlife.

79. Overall I conclude that satisfactory provision would be made for wildlife on the

site.

Pressure On Boundary Landscaping To The Site

80. The Council is concerned that the scheme might cause harm to the trees on the

site boundary, either through disturbance of tree roots or through design

details that would lead to pruning of the trees.

81. Attention was drawn to proposed parking areas between plots 21 and 49 and

between plots 77 and 78. The parking areas would overlap the root protection

areas of trees that are to be retained. The advice of the relevant British

Standard 5837:2012 is that structures (including parking areas) should by

default be “located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. However, where

there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical

solutions might be available that prevent damage to the trees.” The question

of technical solutions is one that should be explored through a planning

condition.

82. The same parking areas would also be in part beneath the canopy of lime or

sycamore trees, where honeydew is likely to fall and be a nuisance. The

Council says that the rear gardens of plots 18 to 21, which would be shorter

than others nearby, would be beneath tree canopies to an inconvenient degree.

And various properties near the site perimeter would look out onto mature

trees at or close to the end of the garden, perhaps suffering loss of light in

habitable rooms as a result. Attention was drawn to the potential for these

circumstances to lead to repeated pruning of some trees, or felling, that might

diminish their contribution to the character of the area. Only the group of

limes on the site frontage is subject to a tree preservation order. In addition to

that group, the Council draws attention in this context to trees at the rear of

plots 78-84, and trees T23 and T24.

83. The appellant’s assessment of sunlight availability at perimeter properties was

prepared on the basis of summer conditions. During the winter the shadowing

effect of the trees would be less as they are deciduous. The assessment allows

for the shadowing effects of trees and the proposed houses. It shows the large

part of each rear garden to be in a position to receive direct sunlight for several

hours each day. The Council contends that the lime tree canopies are not

shown accurately on the drawings, and I saw on site that there are some

inaccuracies. I also saw that the canopy of the lime tree group relates to the

carriageway in Drayton Road in broadly the same way as shown on the

drawings, which provides a degree of general validation. It seems to me

possible that there might be a need for limited pruning of some lime and other



trees on the site from time to time, but I am not persuaded that this would

cause serious harm to protected trees if properly regulated.

Other Landscaping On The Site

84. Two main public open areas are proposed. Both are proposed to be grassed,

with individual trees. Parking bays are set at the margins of both. The central

area would include a children’s play area, with various items of play equipment.

The Council considers that this would be improved by the inclusion of more

footpaths, benches and amenity planting. I agree that amenity planting

adjacent to the parking bays would soften their appearance, particularly when

in use. That can be the subject of a condition. But the addition of more

footpaths, benches and other planting on what is in absolute terms a modestly-

sized area would introduce an unacceptable degree of clutter.

85. A larger public open area would be in the north-eastern part of the site. This

would incorporate an attenuation area into which surface water runoff from the

site would discharge during rainstorms to be temporarily retained; at most

times this area would be dry. Further interest would be added in the north-

eastern area by the varying ground levels, the new trees in the site and the

mature trees near the boundary. But, as in the central area, there should be

amenity planting next to the parking bays; and this is an area which should

accommodate seats and litter bins.

86. Attention was drawn at the Inquiry to general design principles set out in

Appendix A of the supplementary planning document Open Space, Sport and

Recreation Future Provision. The Council considers the third, fourth, sixth and

seventh of those design principles to be not met, all of which are to do with

children’s play. I conclude that, in addition to the elements I have described,

there should be elements in the north-eastern area that would offer children a

varied, interesting and physically challenging environment; and that could be

the subject of a planning condition.

87. The introduction of trees and native hedging to the site, which is currently

semi-improved grassland of low biodiversity value, would satisfy Framework

paragraph 109; and I have noted the enhanced foraging opportunities for bats.

88. Overall, I am satisfied that, subject to conditions and with the exception of

possible future limited harm due to future pruning of the group of lime trees at

the site’s frontage, the scheme would be consistent with Framework paragraph

58’s requirement that development should respond to local character and

reflect the identity of local surroundings.

Water Supply and Drainage

89. The Council’s statement of case confirmed in respect of the fourth reason for

refusal that the main issue in respect of drainage is the capacity of the foul

water system. Thames Water has been consulted and has confirmed that there

is sufficient capacity at Abingdon Treatment Works to accept the proposed foul

water flows from the 160 dwellings off Drayton Road, Abingdon without any

upgrade to the works itself. Thames Water has also confirmed that there are

adequate clean water supplies in the area to serve the appeal development.

The fourth reason for refusal was not pursued at the Inquiry.



90. It is common ground between the Council and the Appellant that this matter

can be properly dealt with by a planning condition, and I find no reason to

differ.

Affordable Housing And Off-Site Infrastructure

Affordable Housing

91. LP policy H17 requires 40% of the dwellings provided at the appeal site to be

affordable to local people who are unable to rent or buy a house appropriate to

their needs on the open market, and describes necessary characteristics of

such housing. That approach is consistent with Framework paragraph 50 and

so I attribute full weight to it.

92. The planning obligation between the site owners, the Appellant and Vale of

White Horse District Council makes provision for affordable housing at the site

in accordance with LP policy H17. I am satisfied that the planning obligation

meets the three tests in Framework paragraph 204 in that respect, and so I

attribute full weight to it in that respect.

Off-Site Infrastructure

93. LP Policy DC8 provides for the making available of the necessary social and

physical infrastructure and service requirements for the use of future occupiers

of the development. That approach is consistent with Framework paragraph

203 and so I attribute full weight to it.

94. The planning obligation between the site owners, the Appellant and Oxfordshire

County Council provides for contributions to the provision of local school

accommodation, youth services, libraries, waste management, and the County

Museums as well as off-site highway works and bus stops at the site entrance,

modification of the Marcham Road/Colwell Drive roundabout (described in my

paragraph 34), and for a travel plan and its implementation. I am satisfied

that in all these respects the planning obligation meets the three tests in

Framework paragraph 204, and so I attribute full weight to the planning

obligation in those respects. The planning obligation also makes provision for a

transport contribution toward the Science Vale UK and, while I note paragraph

7.6 of the Transport Statement of Common Ground, I find insufficient evidence

to support that element of the obligation; and so I attribute little weight to that

element of the obligation. But that has no bearing on my decision.

95. The planning obligation between the site owners, the Appellant and Vale of

White Horse District Council makes provision for various on- and off-site

elements. The on-site elements include a work of art, street nameplates and

waste and recycling bins and the off-site elements include sports facilities and

equipment for the Police. I find insufficient evidence to support the work of art

contribution and so I attribute little weight to it. I am satisfied that in all other

respects the planning obligation meets the three tests in Framework paragraph

204, and so I attribute full weight to the planning obligation in those respects.

96. The unilateral undertaking given by the site owners and the Appellant in favour

of Oxfordshire County Council provides a mechanism for payment to the

County Council in relation to the pelican crossing works in Ock Street and

Marcham Road, which I find in my paragraph 54 to be necessary. I am

satisfied that the unilateral undertaking meets the three tests in Framework

paragraph 204, and so I attribute full weight to it.



97. In my paragraph 58 I have considered potential constraint on the execution of

the pelican crossing works in Ock Street and Marcham Road. Subject only to

that (which is the subject of a planning condition), I am satisfied that the

planning obligations and unilateral undertaking I have described would make

all necessary provision for off-site infrastructure associated with the scheme.

Other Matters Raised

98. Many of the matters raised at the Inquiry or in written representations by

interested parties were also the subject of evidence given by the Council or the

Appellant.

99. The dwellings that would be built would comply with the Building Regulations

and would comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. Mr Scharf

argues from bases such as The Carbon Plan: Delivering Our Low Carbon Future

that a higher level should be required, in anticipation of future requirements.

The sustainability of the development would thus be improved. A draft

planning condition was tabled at the conditions session. Core Policy 30 of the

Consultation Draft Local Plan would require all new residential development to

meet at least level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

100. I attribute little weight to the Consultation Draft Local Plan because it is at

an early stage in its preparation. The Building Regulations are the medium

through which the Government promulgates sustainability standards for new-

build homes and I do not criticise the Appellant’s intention to comply with

them.

101. Attention was drawn to the illustrative mix of groups in the community in

Framework paragraph 50, which identifies actions that local planning

authorities should take. The Council provided no demand assessment to show

the mix of housing types proposed in the appeal to be inappropriate and it

seems to me that, with apartments and houses to accommodate households of

between 1 and 6 people, and with different types of tenure, the development

would offer a reasonable degree of choice.

102. Several interested parties were concerned that local GP surgeries lack

capacity to serve the development. But the evidence was that the three

surgeries nearest the site are all taking on patients. Each practice’s website

extends a welcome to new patients from Abingdon and an area that includes

the appeal site.

103. The owner of Stonehill House refers to additional issues:

i) Drainage: the flood risk assessment includes sections on drainage.

Surface water drainage of the appeal site would be via an infiltration basin,

which would add to the existing natural processes for ground water purification.

The development would have no significant environmental impact in relation to

water.

ii) Amenity in the grounds of Stonehill House, sometimes used as a

retreat for people suffering from trauma: There are trees on the common

boundary and treatment of the site perimeter, including the section between

the grounds of Stonehill House, is the subject of a condition.

104. Nothing in these or other matters raised leads me to change my decision.



Conclusion

105. Paragraph 49 of the Framework is clear that:

Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in

favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing

should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot

demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

106. The Council and the Appellant agree that, notwithstanding the Council’s

aspirations, the supply of deliverable housing sites in the District is significantly

less than a five-year supply and it seems to me that the supply is of the order

of one-half of the Framework requirement. Relevant policies for the supply of

housing in the District are therefore to be considered out-of-date.

107. It remains the case that section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be in accord with the

development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The

Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and I have

previously considered the relationships between development plan policies and

the Framework.

108. The Framework tells us in its paragraph 6 that the purpose of the planning

system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The

policies in Framework paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the

Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice. The

Framework identifies at paragraph 14 a presumption in favour of sustainable

development, which means that, in making development decisions where the

development plan’s relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission

should be granted unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework

taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be

restricted.

109. Framework footnote 9 sets out examples of specific policies in the

Framework that might indicate development should be restricted. None of

those applies in this case, and no other such policy in the Framework was

identified as doing so at the Inquiry (although much other land near Abingdon

is subject to such constraints). The second proviso in my paragraph 108

therefore falls away.

110. I therefore consider the balance between adverse impacts and benefits

associated with the appeal proposal, when assessed against the policies in the

Framework taken as a whole.

111. In assessing the adverse impacts of the appeal scheme I make allowance for

mitigation measures that would accompany the scheme, and for planning

conditions in Schedule A.

112. There are six particular considerations in this case:

i) The need for new housing in the area. There is in the District a

housing land supply of at most 2.8 years (my paragraph 13). I have



found a keenly-felt need for market and affordable housing in

Abingdon, to which I attribute considerable weight (18).

ii) The site’s location outside any established settlement. Although the

location would not comply with LP Policies, I have found that

Framework paragraph 14 applies and that Framework paragraph 34

would be satisfied.

iii) The traffic implications of the scheme. I have found that, subject to

the carrying out of various specific off-site works, the traffic

implications of the scheme would not be severe.

iv) The scheme’s landscape and visual effects. There would be limited

slight harm to the rural character of the area (71). There would be

slight harm to the group of lime tree on the site frontage and the risk

of pruning (73, 83).

v) Water supply and drainage. This can be dealt with by a planning

condition (90).

vi) The provision that would be made in respect of affordable housing and

off-site infrastructure. Subject to a planning condition, I have found

that the planning obligations and undertaking given would make all

necessary provision in these respects (92, 97).

113. The Appellant, the Council and interested parties drew attention to the

effects the scheme without mitigation might have on traffic and on the social

and physical infrastructure and service requirements of future occupiers of the

development. Those matters would be addressed through the planning

obligations and through planning conditions and so do not figure in the

balance. The residual harm would include:

i) Limited slight harm to the rural character of the area; and,

ii) The creation of a gap in the line of protected lime trees on the site’s

Drayton Road frontage, and the possibility that other trees in the

group might be harmed by pruning.

114. I have assessed those harms against relevant individual policies in the

Framework and have found the harm to be slight (my paragraphs 71 and 73).

115. The benefit associated with the scheme would be the provision of 159 units

of market and affordable housing, in the context of continuing housing

provision shortfall.

116. The Framework emphasises the importance of housing development: for

example, its paragraph 47 refers to boosting significantly the supply of

housing, and to meeting the needs for affordable and market housing. For that

reason and for the reason given in my paragraph 18 I therefore attribute

significant weight to the housing provision the scheme would bring.

117. I conclude that the adverse impacts of granting permission for the appeal

scheme would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in the Framework.



118. I have considered all other matters raised, but nothing leads away from the

conclusion that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted,

subject to conditions.

Planning Conditions

119. I have described the need for some planning conditions elsewhere in this

appeal decision. Others were considered at the Inquiry. Schedule A to this

appeal decision sets out the necessary planning conditions.

120. The local planning authority suggested a time limit of one year for the start

of development, to ensure that the housing shortfall is swiftly met. In view of

the various approvals that are needed for this scheme, too short a deadline

might have a contrary effect. Also, it is not the commencement of

development that would necessarily help to address the shortfall, but the

completion of at least some of the development. Yet a condition requiring

completion of development is not acceptable in the terms of Circular 11/95. I

therefore apply the standard 3-year maximum.

121. I have shortened suggested condition 6 as details of internal boundary

treatments are shown on drawing 832-002 revision C. Article 3.14 of the

planning obligation with Oxfordshire County Council has the same effect as the

first sentence of suggested condition 8, and so that part of that condition is not

necessary. Suggested condition 11 would be unenforceable in respect of the

suggested repair regime since it would require the cause of a highway defect to

be established beyond dispute. In respect of contamination, this is a greenfield

site and the submitted Geo-Environmental desk study found only a low risk of

contamination, which is not in dispute. A precautionary condition is therefore

appropriate rather than the approach suggested in suggested condition 20,

which would require the unnecessary duplication of work already undertaken.

In other respects I have acted on suggestions made at the Inquiry.

J.P. Watson INSPECTOR



Schedule A: Planning Conditions

1) Commencement

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years

from the date of this decision.

2) Approved Drawings

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved drawings listed in Schedule B, except as controlled or

modified by conditions of this permission, or as approved in writing by the

local planning authority.

Reason: to define the permission.

3) Materials

The exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be

constructed only in the materials specified on the drawings hereby

approved or in materials which have been previously approved for the

purpose in writing by the local planning authority. Full details of the

design, materials and finishes of all windows, window sill and lintels,

external doors and rainwater goods and the treatment of all verges and

eaves of the new buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority. The development shall be built in

accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

4) Landscaping

(i) Other than as provided elsewhere in this condition, all hard and

soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the details

set out in the drawings hereby approved or in accordance with details

which shall previously have been approved in writing by the local planning

authority.

(ii) No building shall be commenced within 30 metres of the

western boundary of the site until a scheme for the Drayton Road

frontage landscaping treatment has been approved in writing by the local

planning authority and new planting carried out in accordance with that

approved scheme.

(iii) No development shall take place until a scheme for the

provision and management of a watercourse buffer zone, on those parts

of the site that are within 8 metres of the watercourse near the eastern

edge of the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. The watercourse buffer zone shall contain

elements conducive to wildlife associated with the watercourse and shall

be protected from recreational use. Development shall take place as

approved.

iv) No development shall take place until proposals for the

provision of litter bins and seating at the open space at the north-eastern

corner of the site, for elements in the north-eastern area that would offer

children a varied, interesting and physically challenging environment and

for amenity planting adjacent to the parking bays on that open space



and on the central open space, have been approved in writing by the

local planning authority. Development shall take place as approved.

v) The landscaped areas shall be maintained for a period of 5

years from completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs which

die or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting

shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those

originally planted. Any replacements are to be maintained for a period of

five years.

Reason: to secure the environmental quality of the development and to

comply with the General Design Principles in the Supplementary Planning

Document “Open Space, Sport and Recreation Future Provision” July

2008.

5) Tree Protection

Prior to the commencement of any site works or operations relating to

the development hereby permitted, an arboricultural method statement,

which must include a tree protection plan, to ensure the satisfactory

protection of retained trees during the construction period shall be

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

shall be carried out as approved. The arboricultural method statement

shall include the following:

i) A specification for any tree surgery to trees to be retained in order to

prevent accidental damage by construction or other activities prior to the

occupation of the new dwellings;

ii) The specification of the location and type of protective fencing and/or

ground protection near trees to be retained during the construction

period, as recommended by the current edition of BS 5837 “Trees in

relation to design, demolition and construction”, and details of the timing

and duration of its erection;

iii) Identification of areas for the storage or stockpiling of materials,

temporary on-site parking, site offices and huts, mixing of cement or

concrete, and fuel storage;

iv) Drawings to show the root protection areas of all trees to be retained;

v) The position specification and the means of installation of drainage

and any underground service routes near retained trees. Drainage and

service runs shall not be placed in the root protection area of any tree to

be retained, unless previously approved in writing by the local planning

authority. Underground installation works in the RPA shall be in

accordance with a method statement previously approved in writing by

the local planning authority, which statement shall comply with the NJUG

Guidelines for the planning and installation and maintenance of utility

apparatus in proximity to trees, 2007, volume 4.

vi) Details of the materials and method of construction of any roadway,

parking, pathway or other surfacing in the root protection area of any

tree to be retained, which shall be of a “no dig” construction method in

accordance with the principles of Arboricultural Practice Note 12 Through

the trees to development.

vii) Provision for and the timing of the supervision and monitoring of all

works in the root protection areas of trees to be retained, to ensure



compliance with the protective measures specified, by an appropriately

qualified arboricultural consultant; and arrangements for notifying the

local planning authority of the completion of each stage and for the

regular reporting on the works to the local planning authority.

Reason: to safeguard trees which are visually important.

6) Boundary treatment

No development shall take place until details of the site perimeter

boundary treatment have been approved in writing by the local planning

authority. Treatment of the common boundary with Stonehill House

shall be such as to maintain seclusion along that boundary.

Development shall take place as approved and shall be maintained

thereafter.

Reason: to maintain visual and residential amenity.

7) Tree management plan

No development shall taken place until the local planning authority has

issued written approval of a post-development tree management plan for

all retained trees in open spaces on the site. This shall include an

operational plan for the scheduled and ad-hoc tree maintenance required

and shall comply with BS3998:2010 Recommendations for tree work.

The management plan shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: to safeguard trees which are visually important.

8) Access

(i) All of the roads and footways shown on the approved layout

drawing and all of the ancillary highway works and street lighting shall be

provided in accordance with the specification in Oxfordshire County

Council’s Residential Road Design Guide or as may otherwise be approved

in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) No dwelling shall be occupied until it is connected to Drayton

Road by such of the roads footways and street lighting as are necessary

to provide such a connection (other than the wearing course).

(iii) Before the first dwelling on the site is first occupied the visibility

splays at the site access to Drayton Road (shown on drawing VN50148-

SK-001 rev F in the planning agreement with Oxfordshire County Council

dated 23 May 2013) shall be established and thereafter shall be

permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision.

Reason: in the interest of highway safety and to provide reasonable living

conditions for residents during construction of the development.

9) Car Parking Spaces

No dwelling shall be occupied until the car parking spaces for that

dwelling have been constructed, surfaced, drained and marked out.

Thereafter, the spaces shall be kept free of any obstruction to such use.

The parking spaces shall be built to prevent water discharging onto the

highway.

Reason: in the interest of highway safety.

/over



10) Construction Traffic Management Plan

Prior to the commencement of any development (other than any works

agreed in writing by the local planning authority) a Construction Traffic

Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Plan

shall be complied with throughout the construction period, and shall

provide details of the following:

(i) Routeing protocol for vehicles entering the site from the nearest

“A” road;

(ii) Parking facilities for construction workers, other site operatives

and visitors;

(iii) Loading and unloading of spoil, materials and plant;

(iv) Vehicle wheel washing facilities.

All construction traffic serving the development shall enter and leave the

site direct from Drayton Road and not via any other access point.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and residential amenity.

11) Children’s Play Space

The area of land designated on the approved drawings as a play space for

children shall be used exclusively for that purpose. Equipment shall be

provided as shown on the approved drawings. A management plan shall

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

before any dwelling on the site is first occupied. The management plan

shall include the stage at which the play area shall be provided relative

to the occupation of the development and the management and

maintenance of the area for a minimum period of five years from its first

provision.

Reason: to meet the need for children’s play space.

12) Archaeology

No development shall take place until an archaeological investigation has

been undertaken by a professional archaeological organisation in

accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has previously

been approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

programme of work shall include all processing, research and analysis

necessary to produce an accessible and useable archive and a full report

for publication which shall be submitted to the local planning authority.

Reason: to safeguard the recording of archaeological matters.

13) Refuse Bin Storage

No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been provided with adequate

space to accommodate a 240 litre wheeled bin, a 180 litre wheeled bin

and a 23 litre bin (or as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the

local planning authority) on a solid surface.

Reason: to make adequate provision for the storage and removal of

domestic waste.

/over



14) Fire Hydrants

No development shall take place until details of a scheme to provide fire

hydrants in the development has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until

the hydrant serving it has been provided in accordance with the approved

details.

Reason: to secure a satisfactory level of fire hydrants in the interests of

fire safety.

15) Flood Risk and Drainage

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the surface

water and foul water drainage of the development has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development

shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The

drainage scheme shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and

on an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the

development. The drainage strategy shall following the principles

detailed in the flood risk assessment (“FRA”) produced by Brookbanks

Consulting ref. 10200/FRA/01 dated 23.10.12 and the following

mitigation measures detailed in the FRA shall be followed:

(i) Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100

year (including a 30% allowance for climate change) critical storm

through the use of infiltration so that it will not exceed the runoff from

the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event and not

increase the risk of flooding off-site.

(ii) Finished floor levels are set no lower than 150mm above the

surrounding ground level.

(iii) A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the

development (i.e. arrangements for adoption by any public authority or

statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation

of the system throughout the lifetime of the development).

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of

the relevant phase and subsequently in accordance with the

timing/phasing arrangements embodied in the scheme, or within any

other period as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the local

planning authority.

Reason: to ensure the effective and sustainable drainage of the site in

the interests of public health and the avoidance of flooding either on or

off site, in accordance with Framework paragraph 103.

16) Contaminated Land

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found

to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise

agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out

until the local planning authority has received and approved a

remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination is to

be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall then be implemented as

approved.

Reason:



17) While the development is under construction, the measures summarised

in paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Ecological Appraisal shall be

implemented.

Reason: For the protection of badgers while the development is under

construction.

18) Pedestrian Crossing Alterations

No development shall take place until the earlier of these events has

taken place:

a) The local planning authority has received written confirmation,

issued by Oxfordshire County Council, that highway alterations are to be

carried out comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock

Street to the east of Drayton Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-

SK-0002 rev A and including any alterations thereto arising from the

detailed design of the works) and the relocation of the existing crossing

further west on Marcham Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-

0003 and including any alterations thereto arising from the detailed

design of the works);

b) Highway alterations have been implemented comprising the

introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton

Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0002 rev A and including

any alterations thereto arising from the detailed design of the works) and

the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road (as

shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0003 and including any alterations

thereto arising from the detailed design of the works), and the

associated traffic signals are first in operation.

Reason: to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from

the development.



SCHEDULE B: APPROVED DRAWINGS

Drawing

Number

Revision Title

HLM028-16 - Site location plan

832-001 C Site plan

832-002 C Boundary treatments

832-003 - Perspective view

832-004 B Street elevations

5182-L-01 C Landscape

10020-PL-01 E Levels drawing

VN5148-SK-01 D Site access

5182-L-02 B Trees to be removed

HLM028-017 B Affordable housing provision

HLM028-018 B Open space provision

832-1A-100 - Apartment 1A

832-2A-100 - House 2A: Plans and elevations

832-2B-100 - House 2B: Plans and elevations

832-2LTH-100 - House 2-LTH: Plans and elevations



832-3C-100 - House 3C: Plans and elevations

832-3E-100 - House 3E: Plans and elevations

832-3F-100 - House 3F: Plans and elevations

832-3LTH-100 - House 3-LTH: Plans and elevations



832-4C-100 - House 4C: Plans and elevations

832-4E-100 - House 4E: Plans and elevations


832-GAR-100 - Garages: Plans and elevations



ANNEX 1: APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Richard Ground, of Counsel Instructed by the Solicitor to the Council

He called: Mr Steven J Sensecall BA(hons) DipTP MRTPI

Mr Tim Stringer

Mr Roy Newton BEng MSc MCILT

Mr David Lear BSc IEng FIHE

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Ian Dove, QC Instructed by Mr Nicholas Freer, David Lock

Associates Limited

He called Mr Nicholas Freer MSc MRTPI

Miss Jennifer Baker BSc MSc DIC IEng AMICE

Mr Brett Coles BA(hons) DipTP DipLA MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Ms Nicola Blackwood MP

Mr Mark Chattoe Abingdon-on-Thames Town Council

Mrs Anthea Eno

Dr Bob Eeles

Cllr Neil Fawcett

Mr Daniel Scharf MA MRTPI

Mrs Janet Moreton

Mrs Anne Dodd

Cllr Michael Badcock

Dr Les Clyne



ANNEX 2: DOCUMENTS

1 Extract from urban capacity study.

2 LPA note: Local Development Scheme 2012-2016

3 Pedestrian Survey report: Marcham Road/Drayton Road, and

summary

4 Extract from TfL “Traffic Modelling Guidelines”

5 Journey time surveys summary

6 Extract from Highways Agency “Guidelines for Microsimulation

Modelling”

7 VISSIM seed run diagrams

8 NDC Journey Time Model Summary

9 Journey time: latest model results

10 Journey time comparison: 75/25 pedestrian sensitivity

11 Increased journey time sensitivity

12 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellant

13 Explanation of additional AM peak sensitivity tests

14 Note: Cumulative housing figures

15 Appeal Decision 2169598: Land at Preston

16 Section 106 agreement: Vale of White Horse DC, Hallam Land

Management Limited and others

17 Section 106 agreement: Oxfordshire County Council, Hallam Land

Management Limited and others

18 Aecom Technical Note: Base and Proposed VISSIM model review,

Issue 1

19 SKM Technical note: VISSIM modelling – update 3

20 Extract from TfL “Traffic Modelling Guidelines”

21 E-mail from Oxford Bus Company to Oxfordshire County Council

22 Appeal Decision 2163208: Land at Westergate

23 Secretary of State’s Decision Letter: Redevelopment of Reynard

Mills Business Park

24 DMRB extract: Vol 12 section 2 part 1 chapter 3 para 3.1.4

25 Consistency of development plan policies with the NPPF: Appellant

26 Plan of tree details, south-west corner of site

27 Planning Advisory Note: Broad Landscape Zones

28 Public access to information relating to the appeal

29 Assessment of Saved Local Plan policies for consistency with the

National Planning Policy Framework: LPA

30 Statement of common ground on transport matters

31 Unilateral Undertaking: Hallam Land Management Limited and

others (version at the Inquiry: not completed)

31A Unilateral Undertaking: Hallam Land Management Limited and

others (completed version)

32 Note to the Inquiry: Strat-e-gis Data Volume used for Drayton

Road Northbound Journey Time Figures: LPA

33 Note on Non-strategic planning applications referred to in

Mr Sensecall’s evidence in chief

34 Procedure for viewing paper copy of application file

35 Note to the Inquiry: Strat-e-gis Data Volume used for Drayton

Road Northbound Journey Time Figures: Appellant

36 Revised figures to Appendix 3 of Mr Coles’s proof of evidence:

figure 1 revA, figure 2 revA, figure 3 revA, figure 4 revA.

37 Note: Legal background to proposals for pedestrian



crossings/speed limit zone extensions

38 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: extracts

39 The Queen on the Application of Hilary Wainwright v Richmond

upon Thames London Borough Council

40 R. v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen plc

41 Statement by Abingdon-on-Thames Town Council

42 Statement by Mrs Anthea Eno

43 Statement by Mrs Anne Dodd

44 Bundle of papers by Dr Les Clyne

45 Bundle of papers by Mr Daniel Scharf

46 Table of GP List sizes in Oxfordshire

47 E-mail timed at 14:39 on 24/5/13: “Strat-e-gis note”

48 Draft planning conditions: 23 May 2013

49 Revision A to draft planning conditions:23 May 2013

50 Appellant’s response to document 47

51 Closing submissions on behalf of Vale of White Horse District

Council

52 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

NOTES REVISIONS

DATE

DRAWING NUMBER

SCALE

REVISION

PLANNING

832-001

1:500 @ A1 OCT 2012

DRAYTON ROAD, ABINGDON

HALLAM LAND MANAGEMENT

SITE PLAN

STATUS

DLA ARCHITECTS PRACTICEINTEGRATED ARCHITECTURE

email: [email protected]

T: 01908 259719 F: 01908 605747

CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MK9 3BP

50 North Thirteenth Street

© DLA ARCHITECTS PRACTICE LTD

without prior permission.

may not be used or reproduced

DLA Architects Practice and

All information is copyright of

be advised immediately.

Any discrepancies are to

checked before implementation.

All dimensions are to be

use figured dimensions only.

Do not scale this drawing -

3F

4C

4B

4B

4B

2A

2A

2A

2A

2-LTH

2-LTH

GG

G

3F

3F

GG

3E 3E

GG

5A

G

5A

G

5A

G

5A

G

5A

4C 5A

G G

3F 3F3F

3B

GGG

2A 2A 2A 2A 3F

3F

3-LTH

3-LTH

3F

3-LTH

3-LTH

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

4D

3F

3C

3C

G

G

G

3C

3F

3A

2A

2A

G

3F3F

3F3F

3F3F

3-LTH3-LTH

2A

2A

2A

2A

3F3F

3F3F

3F

GG

G

4C3F

3B

3B

3B

GG

G

G

4A

4B

G

3F

3F

G

G

3A

3A

G G4A

4B

G

3-LTH3-LTH

3E

3E

G G3-LTH 3-LTH

G

G

5A

4A

G G

3E3B

GG

3F

3F

GG

3F

2A

2A

2A

3-LTH3-LTH

3A

3A

GG

3C

G

3E

3E

G

G

G

3C

3F

3F

3F

3F

4B

G

G

G

G

3E

3E

G

G

3F

3C

G

G

3E

3EG

3C

G

3C

3F

2A

G

G

3B

3F

G

3B

3F

G

3F

4C

G

4B

5A

2A

2A

2A

2A

2A

2A

3F

3A

2-LTH

2-LTH

2A

2A

2A

G

GG

G

G

4B

G

3F

3A

2A

2A

2A

2A

01-02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53 5455

56

5758

59

6061

62 6364 65 66 67

68

6970

7172

73 74 75 76 77

78-79

80-81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

9596

97

98

99

100101

102 103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111112113114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130131

132133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140141

142143

144145

146

147148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159-160

(x2)

1A

(x2)

1A

(x2)1A

(x2)1A

N

0 25 50

Footpaths: Tarmac - dropped kerbs with tactile paving at crossings.

Hardstandings: Brushed concrete.

External Surface Materials

Roads: Tarmac with rolled in chippings. Conservation Kerbs.

Shared Surfaces and Parking Courts: Block paviors.

Appendix 4

DRAYTON PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

DPC NO: 2014-13 VWHDC NO: P14/V1196/FUL

Land East of Drayton Road Abingdon

159 Residential Dwellings, Open Space, a New access off Drayton Road (to include removal of 7 TPOd Lime Trees), engineering works, infrastructure works, car parking and lighting

Objection

Preamble The primary concern of Drayton Parish Council is that this development is simply in the wrong place. The Planning Inspector, Mr JP Watson, in his report on the appeal hearing for the original application, states that the latter conflicted with saved policies GS1, GS2 and H13 of the VOWH Local Plan 2011. GS1 set out the general locational strategy, which was to concentrate development at Abingdon and the four other main settlements in the Vale. The Inspector concedes that the appeal site is outside the development boundary for Abingdon. He adds that saved policies GS2 and H13 ‘forbid development outside the built-up areas of existing settlements except in particular stated circumstances, none of which can be found in the appeal proposal’ (para 19).

The fact is that the South Abingdon site will extend the town further out into open countryside and significantly close the gap between Abingdon and Drayton. Drayton wishes to remain a distinct and self-contained community, which retains its village atmosphere so that it does not become a mere suburb of Abingdon. The kind of outgrowth which South Abingdon represents is not likely to stop north of Oday Hill. If it is built, then a few years down the line, there will inevitably be pressure to build in the next field to the south, and so on. In 50 years time, this process of creeping coalescence could cause Abingdon to swallow up Drayton completely, a sad and avoidable outcome.

Whatever their validity, these factors were for Mr Watson negated by the fact that the Local Plan’s policies for the supply of housing were not up to date, and that the Vale lacked a 5-year land supply; in fact, he calculated that its current land supply was, allowing for a 20% buffer imposed due to past under-delivery, probably less than 3 years.

This decision was admittedly in line with many similar decisions made up and down the country, in places where other local authorities were declared to lack the necessary 5 year land supply. This does not make it any more palatable. Whilst acknowledging that there was a need to accelerate the sluggish pace of new house-building across the UK, this particular NPPF dictum has resulted in widespread dismay as local people have watched one unsuitable site after another being approved against the wishes of local people, often in place of other sites which are more suitable and better located.

It cannot be right that the lack of a 5 year land supply should be held to trump all other considerations: the inevitable result has been a tide of inappropriately sited and opportunist applications from developers who can afford the best legal advice and have the sort of resources to fight their cause which are not available to local authorities. These developers don’t care about the damage they may cause to communities or the environment because they make their profit and then move on.

It may be argued that the NPPF is central government policy, so we have to accept it. But government housing policy is contradictory. On the one hand it preaches the gospel of localism, and on the other it

Appendix 5

overrides local people’s wishes and aspirations. To be fair though, it did produce a mechanism capable of reconciling these seemingly opposing interests: this was the Neighbourhood Development Plan. An NDP cannot be used to block development, but it gives local people the power to influence its location, and have some input into the type and size of dwellings, their design, and access arrangements, amongst other parameters. It can advocate additional housing if it thinks this would bring corresponding community benefits. The point being that local people are much more likely to be accepting of new development if they were consulted on these matters and were able to assert their own preferences. Drayton Parish Council has a vested interest in these matters because it is engaged in drawing up its own Neighbourhood Development Plan. Early on in the process, the PC noted the Planning Inspector’s comment (para 11) that ‘There is no Neighbourhood Plan in existence or preparation for the area that includes the appeal site’. This was strictly correct in so far as the proposed site lies outside Drayton Parish. However, the site actually shares a border with Drayton Parish, so it can hardly be said that development of the site would not affect Drayton’s NDP, or vice versa. Drayton launched its NDP, aka Drayton 2020, at a public meeting in the Village Hall in September 2012, which happened to coincide with Taylor Wimpey’s first application. It should be pointed out that the Parish area had been registered in preparation for the NDP launch some time earlier; and one of the housing sites under consideration in Drayton had prior planning permission dating back several years. Furthermore, back in the spring of 2012, the extent of landowner interest in developing sites for housing in Drayton was already abundantly clear when the Vale invited site screening applications through its IHSP (Interim Housing Supply Policy). Potentially, these sites amounted to a greater number of new houses being built in Drayton than in any other village in the Vale. The Vale planners were aware of this in September 2012, and Drayton residents were certainly aware of it. By the time Taylor Wimpey’s appeal hearing took place, in May 2013, Drayton’s NDP was well under way, and in fact in that month, the Drayton 2020 Steering Group held its second major public consultation meeting. It is therefore surprising, to say the least, that even at this stage Mr Watson apparently knew nothing of Drayton’s Plan, or at least failed to acknowledge its existence. It is generally argued that developments in towns are inherently more sustainable than those in villages or outlying areas. While this may hold water as a guiding principle, the Inspector noted that ‘the appeal site is at the periphery of the town and so its residents would be likely to exhibit travel patterns that are less sustainable than the average for Abingdon as a whole’. The site is actually 2 kilometres from the town centre, and although there are two primary schools nearby and a small parade of shops in Reynolds Way, it is questionable whether the site is more sustainable than any of the sites in Drayton. The current draft of Drayton’s NDP envisages development on 3 possible sites: Barrow Road, at the northern edge of the village; Manor Farm, fairly central; and South of High St – also fairly central, and identified by the Vale in its Feb 2014 Housing Delivery Update as a ‘strategic’ site. We would argue that any one of these sites is in reality more sustainable than the South Abingdon site. Barrow Road is close to the village school and will provide a new safe route for children, avoiding the main road (B 4017). It is near to an existing bus stop, and a newsagent and two other local shops are closer to it than South Abingdon is to the shops in Reynolds Way. The site will provide 2 new much needed football pitches and other sports facilities, plus a new pavilion. It will also free up land next to the Village Hall for other recreational uses. Manor Farm is adjacent to the newsagents, and a couple of hundred metres from bus stops in either direction, and the same distance from the Post Office. It will provide an entirely new village green to open up the east central side of the village, and provide an exciting new facility for all residents. South of High St is also central, and close to bus stops, the village green and the Post Office. It is hoped that all three of these developments will result in a more integrated village, with better

recreational facilities, especially for the youngsters in Drayton, who are poorly provided for at present. Obviously, not all residents are equally enthusiastic about the prospect of expansion, especially those whose existing properties are closest to the new developments, but it is natural that people should be concerned about major changes to their environment, and everyone has legitimate concerns about the impact of increased traffic on an already over-stressed road network. Drayton’s NDP has involved a great many local people, through a whole series of working groups, public meetings, and public consultations. It remains to be seen how it will fare at examination and referendum stages, but the process exemplifies the concept of localism in practice, and our developments have been subjected to vastly more public scrutiny and corrective criticism than the South Abingdon site could ever be. In total, the Drayton Neighbourhood Development Plan may potentially produce around 250 new homes in this one village, i.e. 100 more than the South Abingdon site. The question is, is there room (given the constraints of the existing road network) for Drayton’s new housing and the South Abingdon development? One thing is certain. The South Abingdon site has few friends. The neighbouring residents are adamantly opposed to it, making their feelings clear at a meeting at the Guildhall. The Vale planning department refused the original application. The local MP, Nicola Blackwood, spoke out strongly against it. Even among people in favour of more housing in principle, no local person thinks this site is a sensible location. Drayton Parish Council’s view is partisan of course, but we feel that the housing sites in Drayton (all of them) should be given precedence over the South Abingdon site, on the grounds that they will enhance the local community and environment, rather than detract from it, as the Taylor Wimpey site is likely to do. They will also add to community coherence and the viability of local shops and pubs. Specific Issues 1 Transport Traffic issues are much the most controversial feature of this site, although it has to be admitted that the same is true of the sites in Drayton and other nearby villages. Much is made of Taylor Wimpey’s’ efforts to get people out of their cars and to use alternative modes of transport, but these are not convincing. To persuade people to use the bus service, new bus stops will have to be created on the Drayton Road. These will slow up the service by creating an additional stop, and add to congestion because it does not appear the stops can be set back from the road in lay-bys. The congestion will be worse because of the proximity of the new set of traffic lights required at the access road into the new development. This set of lights will be very close to the Preston Road lights, also impeding progress. The development may be far enough from town to discourage many people from walking, but not far enough to make them think that catching the bus would be worthwhile, especially given the delays at peak times. They will therefore tend to resort to their cars. There is a cycle path along the edge of the new development. This path is very underused by cyclists, mainly because of its evident shortcomings. North of the Oday Hill turn-off it is too narrow, and beyond Preston Road, the path is too fragmented, with frequent road crossings, and, north of Saxton Road, the path narrows again. In autumn and winter, the path bordering the development is slippery with fallen leaves and rutted with fallen twigs. It is too narrow for cyclists to pass pedestrians safely, and both are within inches of fast moving traffic along the Drayton Road. Dedicated cyclists prefer to take their chances on the roadway, and the less dedicated probably will just not bother, cycle vouchers or not. Although this sounds negative we would like to see the cycle path network extended, to create new routes between Drayton and Sutton Courtenay, and Drayton and Milton Park. The problem is that if cyclists are to be encouraged to use them, cycle paths have to be wide enough to be usable and safe. Car sharing might help to reduce overall car use, but as Mr Watson commented in his report, car clubs have been rejected because of the unsuitability of car clubs for conditions in Oxfordshire. They are

‘successful in densely populated urban areas with limited parking availability’ (para 25), less so in rural or ‘peripheral’ areas where people need to travel longer distances and will not easily give up the use of their own vehicles. In short, we do not believe the strategies proposed will make much overall difference to the total number of vehicle movements in and out of the development. 159 homes means probably around 250-300 cars. We don’t know how many of these will head south to work in the morning peak period (e.g. to Milton Park, Didcot Parkway, Harwell etc), but those whose destinations are in Abingdon or beyond will likely head north, adding to the considerable congestion along Drayton Road to the Ock Street double roundabout. The Planning Inspector made it a condition of planning permission that mitigation measures must be applied – moving the pedestrian crossing in Marcham Road further to the west, and installing a new crossing to the east in Ock Street. An independent traffic consultant’s report indicated that the proposed changes would not be safe for pedestrians, and OCC rejected the proposals. We might add that any freeing up of traffic turning left along the Marcham Road would be more than compensated for by the blocking of traffic turning right into Ock Street by the new crossing there. Due to the nature of the double roundabout, the new obstacle to turning right would seem to be far more problematic than the present situation. All of which begs the question as to how an equivalent number of houses in Drayton (or up to 100 more!) would produce any different result. We would argue that there are sufficient existing bus stops in the village, so no need to clog up the roadway with any more. Drayton is sufficiently far away from the centre of Abingdon to make a bus trip more worthwhile. More houses would mean more people using the service, and possibly a more frequent service would become viable. A significant number of people living in Drayton already travel south to go north, heading for the Milton Interchange, then north on the A34 – as an alternative to the hopelessly slow morning peak journey going north on the B 4017. Psychologically this might be less likely for people living on the South Abingdon development. Informal travel surveys indicate that a large number of Drayton residents head either south to work, or east along the High Street towards Sutton Courtenay and Milton Park. We recognise these are tenuous arguments. Nevertheless, the Vale gives them at least implied weight, by designating South of High Street a ‘strategic’ site, meaning that they consider it suitable for up to 200 new homes. Drayton have made clear in their NDP that they want these 200 homes distributed across its three sites, not concentrated in one. The combined total across all three sites exceeds 200, as explained, but ultimately it is up to the Vale Planners and the Highways Dept of OCC to determine how these intractable issues are to be resolved. We hold to our belief that Drayton is in fact a more sustainable location than South Abingdon. 2 Site Layout The revised site layout does appear something of an improvement on the original version, being more coherent and easy to ‘read’, with prominent ‘landmark’ buildings at the end of roads, and something closer to a grid pattern, rather than what one design consultant has called ‘wiggly worms’. We would like to see the affordable homes more evenly distributed among the private homes. Whatever the location, they should not differ visibly in appearance or amenity from the private dwellings. Obviously ‘cheap’ doors, windows, and other external fittings are features of affordable dwellings on some sites- we would not find that acceptable on this one. The design of the apartment buildings/maisonettes looks unappealing. The houses look fairly bland standard designs without much detailing, sense of place – i.e. referencing of local styles and materials, or variety.

3 Drainage The attenuation pond in the public open area in the north-east of the site appears to have been abandoned in favour of the provision of ‘porous paving’. The latter may work, as long as residents do not subsequently pave over their driveways, front gardens etc with non-porous paving, to provide more parking spaces, avoid having to mow grass etc. Could a planning condition be made to prevent residents from doing this, or at least specifying approved types of surface? The north-east area is now to be left as plain grassland? The Planning Inspector commented that it should at least accommodate seats and litter bins (para 85). 4 Sustainability The design brief states that the application ‘will comply with the relevant national expectation and provision in the Code for Sustainable Homes. This is Code 3…’ This may be the level specified in Building Regulations but we believe the Vale is hoping to up this to Code 4 in its completed Local Plan. Although Code 3 may be the statutory requirement, the Government did assert some years ago its intention to require zero carbon emissions by the year 2016. This target looks unachievable, but it would be in the spirit of progressively raising the bar on insulation standards to aim for Code 4 instead. 5 Site Context We have already commented on the site location, but would like to note an observation made in the design brief in the section ‘Opportunities and Constraints’. This reads ‘The existing 20th century development to the north of the site presents an uneasy edge to this part of Abingdon and the proposed development provides the opportunity to provide a more suitable and sympathetic urban edge’. I am sure that the residents of Virginia Way will be fascinated to hear that they form an ‘uneasy edge’ on the south side of town. And country dwellers everywhere will be reassured to learn that by simply extending the urban envelope further outwards it is possible to make that edge more ‘sympathetic’. Astonishing what development can do. Richard Williams Chairman, Drayton Parish Council and Planning Committee.

of 18

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

District: Vale of White Horse Application no: P14/V1196/FUL Proposal: 158 residential dwellings, open space, a new access off Drayton Road (to include the removal of 7 TPO'd Lime Trees), engineering works, infrastructure works, car parking and lighting. (as amended by drawings received 13 October 2014) Location: Land East of Drayton Road, Abingdon

Oxfordshire County Council’s view and comments on the development proposal are set out below. This contains officer advice and where received the comments of local members.

Overall view of Oxfordshire County Council:-

No objection subject to the conditions, legal agreement and informatives in theannexes

Comments: No overall comment

Officer’s Name: Paul Fermer Officer’s Title: Locality Manager Southern Oxfordshire (South & Vale) Date: 25 February 2015

Appendix 6

of 18

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL District: Vale of White Horse Application no: P14/V1196/FUL Proposal: 158 residential dwellings, open space, a new access off Drayton Road (to include the removal of 7 TPO'd Lime Trees), engineering works, infrastructure works, car parking and lighting. (as amended by drawings received 13 October 2014) Location: Land East of Drayton Road, Abingdon

Transport This application has been made on behalf of Taylor Wimpey for the provision of 159 residential units on land to the south of the settlement of Abingdon.

The development site was the subject of a previous application for 160 residential dwellings (P12/V2266/FUL) submitted in October 2012 on behalf of Hallam Land Management Ltd. That application was initially refused by notice (January 2013) but subsequently granted subject to conditions following an appeal (July 2013 –Ref: APP/V3120/A/13/2191911).

Since the appeal, the site has been acquired by Taylor Wimpey, who is submitting this revised application. Many of the agreed Statements of Common Ground (between the Appellant and Oxfordshire County Council, acting as the local highway authority,) concerning the traffic impacts of residential development on this site will be applicable to the new application as;

The proposed number of dwellings included the current application is of a comparable magnitude to that previously consented; and,

The proposed vehicular access location is the same as that previously consented.

The key differences between the previously consented application and the current one are;

The internal layout of the site; and,

Mix of dwelling sizes (number of bedrooms);

Recommendation:

No objection subject to conditions

Key issues:

Traffic Impact,

Amended Pedestrian Crossing Provision,

Car Parking,

Site Access Arrangements,

Drainage,

Public Transport,

Travel Plan; and,

Provision for Sustainable

of 18

Legal Agreement required to secure: (see detailed comments section for more details)

Section 106 Agreement – Town & Country Planning Act

- Section 106 contribution of £2,737 per dwelling required towards delivery of Science Vale Transport Strategy,

- Section 106 Contribution of £785 per dwelling towards development of Science Vale bus network including higher service frequency along the Drayton Road,

- Section 106 Contribution of £20,000 for new bus stop infrastructure, inclusive of two pole/flag/information case units, two shelters and a two real-time information units, and;

- A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £1,240 will be required.

Section 278 Highway Act 1980

- Provision of bus stops on Drayton Road, adjacent to the site,

- Widening of the shared use pedestrian / cycle route which runs adjacent to the development site along Drayton Road from Preston Road to Stonehill Lane,

- Provision of new pelican crossing on Ock Street and relocation of crossing on Marcham Road.

Section 38 Highways Act 1980

- Main access road through the site.

Conditions:

Site Access

Condition: Prior to the commencement of development, details of vehicular access to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include visibility splays in both directions. The access and visibility splays shall be provided prior to the occupation or use of the development and, thereafter, the visibility splays shall be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety (Policy DC5 of the adopted Local Plan).

Car Parking Spaces

Condition: No dwelling shall be occupied until the car parking spaces for that dwelling have been constructed, surfaced, drained and marked out. Thereafter, the spaces shall be kept free from any obstruction to such use. The parking spaces shall be built to prevent water discharging onto the highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

New Estate Roads

Condition: All of the roads and footways shown on the approved layout drawing and all of the ancillary highway works and street lighting shall be constructed/provided in accordance with the specification in Oxfordshire County Council’s Residential Road Design Guide.

of 18

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to provide reasonable living conditions for residents during construction work (Policies DC5 and DC9 of the adopted Local Plan)

Construction Traffic Management Plan

Condition: Prior to the commencement of any development (other than any works agreed in writing by the local planning authority) a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Plan shall be complied with throughout the construction period, and shall provide details of the following;

Routing protocol for vehicles entering the site from the nearest ‘A’ road;

Parking facilities for construction workers, other site operatives and visitors;

Loading and unloading of spoil, materials and plant; and,

Vehicle wheel washing facilities.

All construction traffic serving the development shall enter and leave the site directly from Drayton Road and not via any other access point.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity.

Travel Plan

Condition: The travel plan will need to be approved by the Oxfordshire County Council’s Travel Plans team prior to the first occupation and on-going monitoring of the plan for 5 years post final occupation will be required.

Reason: To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.

Pedestrian Crossing Alterations

Condition: No development shall take place until highway alterations have been implemented comprising the introduction of an additional signalised crossing on Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road and the relocation of the existing signalised crossing further west on Marcham Road.

Reason: To avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.

Informatives:

The site is located adjacent to Drayton Road, which has two buses per hour (one on evenings and Sundays) operating to Abingdon, Oxford, Didcot and beyond (the X1 and x2 services). Drayton Road forms part of the County’s Premium Bus Route network (with a target of four buses per hour) and is also part of the Science Vale Bus Network.

The Drayton Road bus lane scheme was designed and costed at around £2 million around 8 years ago. It would provide major benefits to bus travel along the Drayton Road corridor.

of 18

Detailed Comments:

A Transport Assessment has been prepared by SKM Colin Buchanan (May 2014) in support of the full planning application for residential development on the 5.1 hectare site. A Draft Travel Plan (May 2014) has also been provided in support of the application. We have the following observations in realtion to the contents of the Transport Assessment, Travel Plan, Design & Access Statement and the Appeal Decision Notice (APP/V3120/A/13/2191911).

Traffic Impact

Abingdon currently experiences significant traffic congestion and there are substantial problems regarding the capacity of the network in and around the town and junctions in the vicinity of the application site.

An assessment of the traffic impact of the proposed development and traffic modelling was conducted as part of the Transport Assessment submitted with the application P12/V2266/FUL in 2012. This was discussed in depth at the appeal in May 2013, where the County Council made representations about the impact of the development on the transport network and the robustness of the modelling work. This included the impact of the proposed crossings on Marcham Road / Ock Street and their ability to mitigate the impact of the development.

The Planning Inspector concluded that he was;

“…satisfied that the appellant’s modelling gives adequately reliable predictions of the effects that the various options, (with the stated pedestrian crossing assumptions), would be likely to have on traffic conditions at the Drayton Road / Marcham Road junction with the development in place.”

Amended Pedestrian Crossing Provision

The Appeal Decision Notice includes a condition that to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development, an existing crossing on Marcham Road should be relocated further west (away from the junction), and a new crossing should be installed on Ock Street.

The Decision Notice also states:

“There is a requirement for consultation by the local traffic authority before carrying out the crossing alterations… Thus it is possible that new relevant facts or circumstances may emerge from the Section 23 process, and there is no reason for me to conclude that such new facts or circumstances would or would not be such as to prevent the crossing alterations being carried out. It is therefore uncertain that the necessary mitigation of the scheme’s traffic effects would be carried out; and, if they were not, then the scheme’s traffic effects would be severe and therefore unacceptable in the terms of Framework paragraph 32.”

Oxfordshire County Council consulted on the crossings in accordance with Section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and received a number of objections to the proposals.

The final decision by the County Council on the crossing proposals were made by Cabinet on 16th December 2014 where it was resolved to;

- Approve implementation of the proposals for two proposed pelican crossing on A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street, Abingdon as advertised; and,

- Officers to monitor closely the safety performance and traffic delays following the completion of the works.

of 18

Implementation of the pedestrian crossing alterations, as identified during the appeal will therefore need to delivered through a planning condition as part of this development.

Car Parking

The Transport Assessment does not identify the total number of car parking spaces proposed, although this information is provided on the application form. The provision of 365 car parking spaces stated on the application form is within the permitted maximum of 376 as set out in Oxfordshire County Council’s Parking Standards.

Site Access

The site access arrangements proposed for application P12/V2266/FUL were approved as part of the Appeal. The inspector commented that he was;

“Satisfied that the site access would function satisfactorily and meet relevant current design standards.”

The consented arrangement comprises a traffic signal controlled junction formed with B4017 Drayton Road, to incorporate a pedestrian crossing facility which will enable access to the proposed northbound bus stop on Drayton Road.

The Statement of Common Ground on transport matters (between the appellant and Oxfordshire County Council) states that the proposed junction layout is acceptable in principle, subject to detailed design of the junction.

The geometry of the proposed site access junction is shown in Figure 4.1 (Proposed Site Access) of the Transport Assessment for the current application (P14/V1196/FUL). The signal heads are shown in Figure 7.4 (Proposed Bus Stop Location) of the Transport Assessment. Whilst we agree that a signalised junction arrangement is acceptable in principle, we have the following comments in relation to the proposed geometrical parameters;

1. Drayton Road has a speed limit of 50mph at the location of the proposed site access. A plan demonstrating that visibility splays can be achieved in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council’s Visibility Criteria should be provided. (https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/roadsandtransport/transportpoliciesandplans/residentialroaddesignguide/tsd.pdf)

2. Appendix 6 of the Transport Assessment comprises a swept path analysis of a large refuse vehicle. This indicates that a large vehicle departing the site in a southbound direction would have to use the opposite site of Drayton Road to complete a left turning manoeuvre. It is unclear whether sufficient space exists to permit refuse vehicles to complete this movement when a vehicle is waiting at the stop-line on the southern arm (thus occupying some of the roadspace that the refuse vehicle would have to encroach into). This issue should be clarified and addressed by an improved layout.

3. There is no street lighting on this section of Drayton Road (it terminates at the current settlement boundary). Provision of street lighting in the vicinity of the site access junction will improve personal security for pedestrians travelling between the site and the centre of Abingdon during the hours of darkness. As the proposed development will extend the existing settlement boundary of Abingdon southwards, street lighting provision also be extended southwards as far as the site proposed access.

4. No widening of the B4017 is proposed to accommodate a right turning lane for movements from Drayton Road (south) into the development site. The LinSig

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/roadsandtransport/transportpoliciesandplans/residentialroaddesignguide/tsd.pdf

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/roadsandtransport/transportpoliciesandplans/residentialroaddesignguide/tsd.pdf

of 18

modelling which has been provided in support of the application shows a four stage signalised arrangement. The southern arm of Drayton Road will run in two stages – one opposed by southbound movements; and then in a dedicated stage which will enable opposed right turners to clear.

When the southern arm of Drayton Road is running opposed, the right turning vehicles (which are waiting for a gap), will block northbound movements, resulting in queuing and delay.

The LinSig modelling has been based on a forecast demand of 17 vehicles in the PM peak wishing to make the opposed right turn from Drayton Road (south) into the site. This is based on an assumed split for arrivals of 73% from the north 27% from the south.

In the AM peak period, (when much of this traffic will be departing the site), an assumed split for departures of 58% to the north and 42% to the south has been assumed. If the AM north: south distribution split had also been used for the PM peak (assuming vehicles return from the same direction they departed to), the opposed right turning demand would be 27 rather than the 17 modelled (63 arrivals forecast x 42% split).

Sensitivity testing should be undertaken to demonstrate that the junction would still operate within capacity using the assumed AM Peak distribution split.

5. Vehicles will be impeded from reaching the stop-line for the Drayton Road (south) arm when a bus is parked in the bus bay, (dropping off or picking up passengers). This will limit the number of vehicles which can be discharged from this arm. Whilst it is accepted that there is likely to only be up to 4 buses per hour travelling northbound, it does not appear that this constraint has not been reflected in the modelling.

Drainage

The FRA is acceptable. A detailed engineering drawing of drainage design needs to be supplied.

Public Transport

Development of the local bus network in terms of frequency, speed and reliability is of fundamental importance to providing new residents with meaningful choice of transport mode, and thus mitigating increases in the numbers of cars. This development must contribute towards the cost of this improved network.

The site is some distance from the nearest bus stops on Drayton Road, so the developer must deliver new stops (hardstandings, connecting footpaths and possible road widening) with the general s278 access arrangements.

Travel Plan

A Draft Travel Plan has been submitted as part of the application. This will need to be agreed by Oxfordshire County Council’s Travel Plan team prior to the first occupation. The developer has committed to funding the implementation of the travel plan, including the Travel Plan Coordinator post for a period of 5 years.

It is essential that the agreed Travel Plan is robust enough to assist in mitigating the impact of the development by looking for ways to reduce the need to travel and by encouraging residents to walk, cycle, use public transport and car share. It is noted that the draft Travel Plan includes measures targeting these areas.

The development will require a monitoring fee of £1,240 in accordance with the adopted OCC guidance document.

of 18

Provision for Sustainable Modes

The application contains some information on sustainable modes of travel but additional information on pedestrian and cycle links within the development and from the development to the surrounding area is requested;

- The plan showing ‘Opportunities and Constraints’ on page 12 of the Design & Access Statement shows a ‘potential pedestrian access’ via Lucca Drive. However, this route is not shown on page 17 on the ‘Preliminary Layout Redesign Approach’ plan and there appears to be no reference to this in the Transport Assessment. This link would be beneficial to provide more direct access to nearby local schools and the Sustrans National Cycle Network route 5 which runs into the centre of Abingdon to the north and towards Didcot and Milton Park to the south. This route should be provided as a shared use route,

The Design & Access Statement accompanying this application refers to the cycleway to the west of the site as an opportunity (page 11) and it is highlighted as one of the benefits of the site which will help to promote sustainable travel. A shared use footway / cycletrack was constructed in 1997 (and improved in 2004) between Sutton Wick Lane at Drayton and Preston Road in Abingdon. Due to site constraints, the standard of this 1.2km length facility is variable, with a c. 190 metre section alongside the development site being particularly narrow (1.5 metres). There is no verge separating the track from the busy B4017 (AADT c. 10,300, speed limit 50mph), and additionally with a low wall, vegetation reduces the effective width on the east side of the track.

National guidelines on shared use recommend shared use provision should be 3 metres width, with additional 500mm (minimum) ‘buffers’ between hazards / obstacles such as carriageways and walls (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9179/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf).

Bearing in mind that both Drayton and Steventon are within comfortable cycling distance of Abingdon (and e.g. potentially onward journeys to Oxford by the very good public transport provision between Abingdon and Oxford), there seems a strong case for improving pedestrian and cycle provision here in support of LTP objectives; while other improvements on the route between these villages and Abingdon are also desirable; improving the current sub-standard provision adjacent to the development site would be an especially high priority.

The narrow width here was the main reason for the walking route between Drayton and Abingdon being rejected as a safe route for school children at an appeal held in 2012.

Therefore, a S278 agreement to widen this shared use route along Drayton Road from Preston Road to Stonehill Lane is sought. The widening of this path will encourage residents of the development to travel by sustainable modes rather than using their car. This will form one of a number of measures to mitigate the transport impact of the development.

A pedestrian and cycle link from the B4017 (Drayton Road) to Lucca Drive (through the development site) would also be beneficial.

Housing Mix

It is noted that the number of proposed 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings identified in the Transport Assessment (May 2014) and on the Application Form (May 2014) are inconsistent. Overall the total number of dwellings is the same and therefore this discrepancy is not considered to be of material significance, however clarification should be provided.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9179/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9179/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf

of 18

Officer’s Name: Neil Taylor Officer’s Title: Temporary DC (Transport) Officer Date: 25 February 2015

of 18


Archaeology

Recommendation:

No objection subject to conditions

Key issues: A programme of archaeological investigation has revealed evidence of later prehistoric settlement and activity. There is no evidence of archaeological features that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument being present. We would recommend that should planning permission be granted that a condition is attached that requires the applicant to undertake a programme of archaeological investigation in advance of the development.

Legal Agreement required to secure: None

Conditions: 1. Prior to any demolition and the commencement of the development a professional

archaeological organisation acceptable to the Local Planning Authority shall prepare an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation, relating to the application site area, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

2. Following the approval of the Written Scheme of Investigation referred to in condition 1,

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

of 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 the NPPF (2012).

Informatives: None

Detailed Comments: A programme of archaeological investigation has been undertaken, including geophysical survey and two phases of archaeological field evaluation. This has revealed evidence of later prehistoric activity and settlement within a wider field system. The area contains a number of features that include ditches, post holes and pits have been revealed along with what appears to be an area of cobbling. The features are not demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument being present. We would, therefore, recommend that, should planning permission be granted, the applicant should be responsible for ensuring the implementation of a staged programme of archaeological investigation to be undertaken in advance of development. This can be ensured through the attachment of a suitable negative condition. If the applicant makes contact with us at the above address, we shall be pleased to outline the procedures involved, provide a brief upon which a costed specification can be based. Officer’s Name: Hugh Coddington Officer’s Title: Archaeology Team Leader Date: 15 July 2014

of 18


Education

Recommendation:

No Objection subject to the conditions

Key issues: £544,354 Section 106 required for necessary expansion of permanent primary school capacity in the area. The Thameside Primary School is the catchment school for this development and has limited spare places. £ 668,870 Section 106 required for necessary expansion of permanent secondary school capacity in the area. The Larkmead is the catchment school for this development and has limited spare places. £30,656 Section 106 required as a proportionate contribution to expansion of Special Educational Needs provision in the area.

Legal Agreement required to secure: £544,354 Section 106 developer contributions towards the expansion of permanent primary school capacity serving this area, by a total of 47 pupil places. This is based on Department for Education (DfE) advice weighted for Oxfordshire, including an allowance for ICT and sprinklers at £11,582 per pupil place. This is index linked from 1st Quarter 2012 using PUBSEC Tender Price Index. £668,870 Section 106 developer contributions towards the expansion of permanent secondary school capacity serving the area by a total of 38 pupil places (including 5 6th form places). This is based on Department for Education (DfE) advice for secondary school extension weighted for Oxfordshire and including an allowance for ICT and sprinklers at £17,455 per pupil place and £18,571 per Sixth Form pupil place. This is index linked to 1st Quarter 2012 using PUBSEC Tender Price Index. £30,656 Section 106 developer contributions towards the expansion of permanent Special Educational Needs school capacity by a total of 1.0 pupil places. This is index linked to 1st Quarter 2012 using PUBSEC Tender Price Index. We are advised to allow £30,656 per pupil place to expand capacity in special educational needs schools.

of 18

Conditions: Planning permission to be dependent on a satisfactory agreement to secure the resources required for the necessary expansion of education provision. This is in order for Oxfordshire County Council to meet its statutory duty to ensure sufficient pupil places for all children of statutory school age.

Informatives: The contribution calculations are based on the notified number and mix of dwellings

Detailed Comments: Abingdon primary schools have been under increasing pressure in recent years, and there is very limited spare capacity, especially in younger year groups. Many schools are full in younger year groups. Children moving in may not be able to secure a place at their nearest/chosen school. Expansion of one or more schools will be required for new housing growth, and the county council is working with local schools to plan appropriate changes to capacity. Contributions are sought towards expansion of primary school capacity. This area feeds to the Abingdon secondary schools. Rising pupil numbers already in Abingdon primary schools will in due course remove their currently spare places and require expansion of capacity across the Abingdon secondary schools. The potential of each school to expand is being assessed. Developer contributions towards the capital costs of such expansion are therefore sought. Officer’s Name: Peter Gilkes Officer’s Title: School Organisation Officer Date: 09 February 2015

of 18


Property

Key issues:

• The County Council considers that the impacts of the development proposal (if permitted) will place additional strain on its existing community infrastructure.

• The following housing development mix has been used:

12 x One Bed Dwellings

57 x Two Bed Dwellings

26 x Three Bed Dwellings

63 x Four Bed Dwellings

• It is calculated that this development would generate a net increase of:

418 additional residents including:

28 resident/s aged 65+

284 residents aged 20+

39 resident/s ages 13-19

32 resident/s ages 0-4

Legal Agreement required to secure:

• Library £35,530.00

• Central Library £7,168.70

• Waste Management £26,752.00

• Museum Resource Centre £2,090.00

• Adult Day Care £30,800.00

Total* £102,340.70

*Total to be Index-linked from 1st Quarter 2012 Using PUBSEC Tender Price Index

• Administration & Monitoring £6,731.10

The County Councils legal fees in drawing up and/or completing a legal agreement will

need to be secured.

of 18

Conditions:

• The County Council as Fire Authority has a duty to ensure that an adequate

supply of water is available for fire-fighting purposes. There will probably be a

requirement to affix fire hydrants within the development site. Exact numbers

and locations cannot be given until detailed consultation plans are provided

showing highway, water main layout and size. We would therefore ask you to

add the requirement for provision of hydrants in accordance with the

requirements of the Fire & Rescue Service as a condition to the grant of any

planning permission.

Informatives:

• Fire & Rescue Service recommends that new dwellings should be constructed with sprinkler systems

Detailed Comments:

Local Library

This development is served by Abingdon Library The Charter.

This provision is significantly under-size in relation to its catchment population and this

development will therefore place additional pressures on the library service.

Costs for improvements are based upon the costs of extending a library.

The costs of extending a library is £2,370 per m2 at 1st Quarter 2012 price base; this equates to

£65 (£2,370 x 27.5 / 1,000) per resident.

This calculation is based on Oxfordshire County Council adopted standard for publicly

available library floor space of 23 m2 per 1,000 head of population, and a further 19.5%

space is required for support areas (staff workroom, etc.), totalling 27.5 m2 per 1,000 head

of population. The development proposal would also generate the need to increase the core book stock

held by 2 volumes per additional resident. The price per volume is £10.00 at 1st Quarter

2012 price base; this equates to £20 per resident.

• The contribution for the provision of library infrastructure and supplementary core book stock in respect of this application would therefore be based on the following formula:

£85 x 418 (the forecast number of new residents) = £35,530.00 Central Library

Central Library in Oxford serves the whole county and requires remodelling to support

service delivery that includes provision of library resources across the county.

Remodelling of the library at 3rd Quarter 2013 base prices leaves a funding requirement

still to be secured is £4,100,000. 60% of this funding is collected from development in the

Oxford area. The remainder 40% is spread across the four other Districts. 40% of 4.1M =

£1,604,000.

Population across Oxfordshire outside of Oxford City District is forecast to grow by 93,529 to year

of 18

2026. £1,604,000 ÷ 93,529 people = £17.15 per person

• The contribution for the provision of central library infrastructure in respect

of this application would therefore be based on the following formula:

£17.15 x 418 (the forecast number of new residents) = £7,168.70

Strategic Waste Management Under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, County Councils, as waste

disposal authorities, have a duty to arrange for places to be provided at which persons

resident in its area may deposit their household waste and for the disposal of that waste.

To meet the additional pressures on the various Household Waste and Recycling Centre

provision in Oxfordshire enhancements to these centres are either already taking place or

are planned, and, to this end, contributions are now required from developers towards

their redesign and redevelopment.

A new site serving 20,000 households costs in the region of £3,000,000 at 1st Quarter

2012 price base; this equates to £64 per resident.

• The contribution for the provision of strategic waste management

infrastructure in respect of this application would therefore be based on the

following formula:

£64 x 418 (the forecast number of new residents) = £26,752.00 County Museum Resource Centre

Oxfordshire County Council’s museum service provides a central Museum Resource Centre

(MRC). The MRC is the principal store for the Oxfordshire Museum, Cogges Manor Farm

Museum, Abingdon Museum, Banbury Museum, the Museum of Oxford and the Vale and

Downland Museum. It provides support to theses museums and schools throughout the

county for educational, research and leisure activities.

The MRC is operating at capacity and needs an extension to meet the demands arising

from further development throughout the county. An extended facility will provide additional

storage space and allow for increased public access to the facility.

An extension to the MRC to mitigate the impact of new development up to 2026 has been costed at

£460,000 at 1st Quarter 2012 price base; this equates to £5 per person

• The contribution for the extension of the Museum Resource Centre in

respect of this application would therefore be based on the following formula:

£5 x 418 (the forecast number of new residents) = £2,090.00 Social & Health Care - Day Care Facilities

This development is served by Abingdon Resource and Well Being Centre and this

development will place additional pressures on this adult day care facility. To meet the

additional pressures on day care provision the County Council is looking to expand and

improve the adult day care facility in Abingdon Resource and Well Being Centre Contributions are based upon a new Day Care centre offering 40 places per day

(optimum) and open 5 days per week; leading to an equivalent costing of £11,000 per

place at 1st Quarter 2012 price base (this in non-revenue). Based on current and

predicted usage figures we estimate that 10% of the over 65 population use day care facilities. Therefore the cost per person aged 65 years

of 18

or older is £1,100.

• The contribution for the provision of adult day care infrastructure in

respect of this application would therefore be based on the following

formula:

£1,100 x 28 (the forecast number of new residents aged 65+) = £30,800.00 Administration

Oxfordshire County Council requires an administrative payment of £6731.1035 for the

purposes of administration and monitoring of the proposed S106 agreement, including

elements relating to Education. The admin fee may increase depending on the value of

any Transport related contributions Indexation

Financial contributions have to be indexed-linked to maintain the real values of the

contributions (so that they can in future years deliver the same level of infrastructure

provision currently envisaged). The price bases of the various contributions are covered in

the relevant sections above. General

The contributions requested have been calculated where possible using details of the

development mix from the application submitted or if no details are available then the

County Council has used the best information available. Should the application be

amended or the development mixed changed at a later date, the Council reserves the right

to seek a higher contribution according to the nature of the amendment.

The contributions which are being sought are necessary to protect the existing levels

of infrastructure for local residents. They are relevant to planning the incorporation of

this major development within the local community, if it is implemented. They are

directly related to this proposed development and to the scale and kind of the

proposal.

Officer’s Name: Oliver Spratley Officer’s Title: Asset Strategy Support Officer Date: 05 February 2015

of 18


Ecology

Comments: The District Council should be seeking the advice of their in-house ecologist who can advise them on this application. In addition, the following guidance document on Biodiversity & Planning in Oxfordshire combines planning policy with information about wildlife sites, habitats and species to help identify where biodiversity should be protected. The guidance also gives advice on opportunities for enhancing biodiversity: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/planning-and-biodiversity

Officer’s Name: Tamsin Atley Officer’s Title: Ecologist Planner Date: 14 August 2014

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/planning-and-biodiversity

Virginia Way Drayton Road - Vale of White...

Documents

Transcript of Virginia Way Drayton Road - Vale of White...