51 Apollo Office Park, Ironstone Lane, Wroxton, OX15 6AY PDF 1 MB
Additional documents:
Decision:
Refused, in line with officer recommendation. Reasons to be set out in the minutes.
Minutes:
The Committee considered application 22/03245/F for the provision of 10 employment units (Office, Research and Development and Light Industry), associated car parking, landscaping/biodiversity enhancements/works and provision of foul water treatment plant - resubmission of 22/00928/F - at Apollo Office Park, Ironstone Lane, Wroxton, OX15 6AY for Apollo Business Parks LLP.
Robert Synge, on behalf of the applicant, Apollo Business Parks LLP, addressed the Committee in support of the application.
In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officers report and presentation and the addresses from the public speakers.
Resolved
(1) That, in line with the officer’s recommendation, application 22/03245/F be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal represents unsustainable development because it conflicts with the spatial strategy of Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 by proposing development on an unallocated site. Notwithstanding this objection in principle, the site is in a geographically unsustainable location and would result in a significant increase in vehicular journeys. The scale and nature of the use is considered inappropriate in a rural location and the application fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or adequate justification for why the development should be located on an unallocated rural site. In addition, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies PSD1, ESD1 and SLE1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. In the absence of adequate supporting information, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal can be achieved without resulting in harm to existing trees, and that a satisfactory planting scheme has been put forward for the site. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies PSD1 and ESD10 of the Local Plan and with the provisions of the NPPF.