Agenda item

Please note this report will follow as it is being reviewed and finalised.

Resolved

(1)      That notwithstanding the information submitted on behalf of the Appellant regarding potential alternative golf course re-provision at Bicester Hotel, Golf & Spa (paragraph 5.5 of the Appellant’s Rule 6 Statement) and the further submissions (made in paragraphs 5.9, 5.14 and 5.35 of the Appellant’s Rule 6 Statement), which suggested the District Council had failed to appropriately consider or interpret relevant evidence and planning guidance, the Council still wishes to maintain its first, second, third and fifth reasons for refusal at the forthcoming Inquiry on 9th-17th February 2021.

The Assistant Director Planning and Development submitted a report on the Great Wolf Public Inquiry.

In introducing the report, the Team Leader – Major Developments explained that the report was being presented to Members to address suggestions made by the Appellant (Great Lakes UK Limited) that the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission and its reasons for doing so were arrived at, in some respects, without regard to information which had been provided at the end of the application process, by the then Applicant.

The Team Leader – Major Developments explained that the application  (reference 19/02550/F) had been 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.

The Committee was advised that the appellant had submitted additional information in the week prior to the refusal decision being made and raised queries at paragraphs 5.5, 5.9, 5.14 and 5.35 of its appeal Rule 6 Statement with regards the decision and refusal reasons.  The Team Leader – Major Developments advised the Committee that the additional evidence provided did not satisfy the concerns raised and it was recommended that the Council maintain its first, second, third and fifth reasons for refusal of application 19/02550/F (whilst also still maintaining refusal reasons 4 and 6) and continue to argue at the forthcoming Inquiry on 9 -17 February 2021 that appeal APP/C3105/W/20/3259189 should be dismissed for all the reasons specified in its original decision notice, dated 12 March 2020.

Resolved

(1)      That notwithstanding the information submitted on behalf of the Appellant regarding potential alternative golf course re-provision at Bicester Hotel, Golf & Spa (*listed below), which suggested the District Council had failed to appropriately consider or interpret relevant evidence and planning guidance, the Council still wishes to maintain its first, second, third and fifth reasons for refusal at the forthcoming Inquiry on 9 -17 February 2021.

*(Paragraph 5.5 of the Appellant’s Rule 6 Statement) and the further submissions (made in paragraphs 5.9, 5.14 and 5.35 of the Appellant’s rule 6 Statement)

“5.5…the Appellant had in fact put forward the offer of a planning obligation prior to the determination of the application to secure the provision of an 18-hole course on the remaining golf course site, combined with investment in the practice range and a scholarship fund to support youth golfers. The evidence of that offer (which was not addressed by CDC in the determination of the application) is set out in the email and attachments from DP9 to CDC and England Gold, dated 11 March 2020 (included as part of the material submitted with this Appeal). A formal response was never received. This meant that CDC determined the planning application on an incorrect basis and on an assumption that clearly would have tainted their whole approach to the Proposed Development and its benefits.

5.9 The allegation of the absence of any impact assessment referred to in Policy SLE2 is also misconceived. This is dealt with in paragraphs 6.58 to 6.63 of the Planning Statement. The relevant policy requirements in the Development Plan and NPPF are identified. An assessment was provided. Neither CDC’s Planning Policy team, nor the Committee addressed it, and the resultant reason for refusal demonstrates a flawed approach by CDC. There appears to have been an assumption by CDC that a quantitative assessment was required, but that runs contrary to the guidance in the NPPG, as identified in the Planning Statement.

5.14 At the time of determination of the Planning Application, the only outstanding concern from OCC related to the B430/ B4030 junction in Middleton Stoney. The TA, however, demonstrates that the Proposed Development will not result in a material change in vehicle trips at the B430/ B4030 Middleton Stoney junction and therefore the Proposed Development will not result in a material impact on the operation of this junction. Notwithstanding this, the Appellant had in fact put forward a scheme of highway improvement works to provide additional traffic capacity at the Middleton Stoney junction. This will ensure that the Proposed Development will not have any impact at this junction. Motion, on behalf of the Appellant, has prepared an additional technical note (dated 4 September 2020), and summary note of discussions with OCC, which are included at Appendix 4. A formal note from OCC is expected but based on these ongoing discussions, it is still the Appellant’s intention to resolve this reason prior to the Inquiry.

[and]

5.35 CDC commissioned Tyréns to undertake a review of Curtins’ flood management and drainage work, as well as other material. Tyréns report was provided to the Appellant on 26 February 2020. The Appellant’s experts Curtins responded in detail on 9 March 2020. This response does not appear to have been considered by CDC as part of their determination of the application. It has never been considered and responded to as part of the correspondence prior to the submission of this appeal.”