Agenda item

Refused, reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 19/02550/F for the redevelopment of part of golf course to provide a new leisure resort (sui generis) incorporating a waterpark, family entertainment centre, hotel, conferencing facilities and restaurants with associated access, parking and landscaping at land to the east of the M40 and south of the A4095, Chesterton, Bicester, Oxon for Great Lakes UK Limited.

Philip Clarke Chairman, Chesterton Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Chris Goddard of DP9 Planning and Phil Bell of Motion Transport Consultants addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officer’s report and presentation, the addresses of the public speakers and the written update.

Resolved

(1)      That application be refused for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed development by reason of its location would result in the loss of an 18-hole golf course when the Local Planning Authority’s evidence indicates the course is not surplus to requirements and there is a need for more provision for golf courses in the Bicester sub-area over the plan period. The evidence and proposals for alternative sports and recreation provision included with the application is not considered sufficient to make the loss of the golf course acceptable. The development is contrary to Policy BSC10 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 which seeks to protect existing sport and recreation provision and enhance the existing provision. It is also contrary to Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.       The proposed development would result in the creation of a substantial leisure and hospitality destination in a geographically unsustainable location on a site largely devoid of built structures and beyond the built limits of the nearest settlement. It has no access via public transport and would not reduce the need to travel or offer a genuine choice of alternative travel modes over the private motor vehicle. Given the predominant guest dynamic (families with children) the majority of trips are likely to be made via private motor vehicle, utilising minor rural roads. Furthermore, the proposal is for retail and leisure development in an out-of-centre location and no impact assessment has been provided as required by Policy SLE2.  The Council do not consider that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the development in this location, and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies SLE1, SLE2, SLE3, SLE4 and ESD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Saved Policies T5, TR7 and C8 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.       The proposed development fails to demonstrate that traffic impacts of the development are, or can be made acceptable, particularly in relation to additional congestion at the Middleton Stoney signalised junction of the B4030 and B430.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SLE4 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Saved Policy TR7 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy 17 of the Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan 4 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.       The development proposed, by virtue of its considerable size, scale and massing and its location in the open countryside beyond the built limits of the village of Chesterton, along with its institutional appearance, incongruous design, and associated levels of activity including regular comings and goings,  will cause significant urbanisation and unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the rural setting of the village and the amenities enjoyed by users of the public right of way, and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1, Saved Policies C8 and C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.       The submitted drainage information is inadequate due to contradictions in the calculations and methodology, lack of robust justification for the use of tanking and buried attenuation in place of preferred SuDS and surface management, and therefore fails to provide sufficient and coherent information to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ESD6 and ESD7 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.       In the absence of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking or any other form of Section 106 legal agreement the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development provides for appropriate infrastructure (including highway infrastructure) directly required as a result of the development and necessary to make the impacts of the development acceptable in planning terms, to the detriment of both existing and proposed residents and contrary to Policies SLE4, INF1, and PSD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and Government Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.