Agenda item

The Committee confirmed that they would have refused the application.  Reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 22/01488/OUT, an outline application for the construction of up to 140,000 sqm of employment floorspace (use class B8 with ancillary offices and facilities) and servicing and infrastructure including new site accesses, internal roads and footpaths, landscaping including earthworks to create development platforms and bunds, drainage features and other associated works including demolition of the existing farmhouse at OS Parcel 5616 South West Of Huscote Farm and East Of Daventry Road, Banbury for Greystoke CB.

Lisa Phipps, local resident and also on behalf of CPRE and Banbury Civic Society, addressed the committee in objection to the application.

In reaching its decision the committee considered the officers report, presentation, written updates and address from the public speaker.

Resolved

(1)       That the Committee resolved to confirm that, had the power to determine application 22/01488/OUT continued to rest with them, application 22/01488/OUT would be refused for the following reasons:

1.          The proposal is located on an unallocated site and development would represent an urbanising form of development which by reason of its location and proposed land use would result in a cluster of large warehouse buildings poorly related to Banbury that would result in a harmful visual intrusion of development into the landscape and open countryside and would therefore result in harm to the rural character, appearance and quality of the area. This identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Development would therefore fail to accord with Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 policies ESD10, ESD13 and ESD15 and Cherwell Local Plan 1996 saved policies C7, C8 and EMP4, and with national policy guidance given in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021).

2.          The proposed development would be sited in a geographically unsustainable location with poor access to services and facilities and therefore future employees would be highly reliant on the private car to access their workplace, which would not reduce the need to travel and would result in increased car journeys and hence carbon emissions. The proposed development would therefore conflict with policies PSD1, SLE4 and ESD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. This identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the proposed development and therefore the development does not constitute sustainable development when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.

3.          The appeal site is located in an unsustainable location for cycling and walking. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1 and SLE4 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policy TR1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.          The proximity of the access roundabout to M40 Junction 11 is likely to lead to severe congestion and potential safety issues arising from queuing on the M40 off slip. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1 and SLE4 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policy TR1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.          Any further development around Junction 11 of the M40 will add to the severe congestion and air quality problems on the A422, particularly along Hennef Way. This development does not demonstrate how it would mitigate its impact on these issues through adequate sustainable travel connections or by highway improvements. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1 and SLE4 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policies TR1 and ENV7 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.          Safe and suitable operation of affected highway junctions has not been demonstrated by the use of a suitable analysis tool. It has been agreed with the Appellant’s transport consultant and National Highways that microsimulation modelling (such as VISSIM) is required to accurately represent the flow of vehicles at all primary local junctions and the interaction between them. Without such analysis and resultant appropriate mitigation, the proposal is contrary to policies SLE1, SLE4 and INF1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policy TR1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.          It has not been demonstrated that a signalised crossing of the A361 Daventry Road for pedestrians and cyclists may be incorporated at a safe and suitable location, and the associated access into the site has not been indicated. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1 and SLE4 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policy TR1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.          The site is located immediately west of an existing Air Quality Management Zone and the proposal fails to adequately assess or mitigate against air quality matters as a result of increased vehicle movements associated with the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1, SLE4 and ESD1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policies TR1 and ENV7 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.          The proposal fails to assess the potential economic impact upon Banbury, specifically the attractiveness of Banbury town centre and the edge of town retail and employment centres as a result of additional traffic and congestion on the strategic and local highway network rendering Banbury a less sustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SLE1 and SLE2 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1), saved policy TR1 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.      The proposal lacks detail and information relating to the drainage of the site and is therefore contrary to Oxfordshire County Council’s published guidance “Local Standards and Guidance for Surface Water Drainage on Major Development in Oxfordshire” and policies ESD6 and ESD7 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

11.      The application has failed to demonstrate through the lack of submission of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the proposals on this prominent site would not cause substantial landscape harm to the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the site when viewed from Public Rights of Way in the surrounding countryside. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies ESD10, ESD13 and ESD15 contained within the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

12.      The proposal has failed to adequately assess the site’s archaeology and consequently the development may cause harm to significant archaeological remains and in the absence of any evaluation it is not possible for the Council to reach an informed decision on this issue. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13.      The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that development would not harm existing flora and fauna and ecological mitigation would successfully deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity or protection, enhancement and connectivity with the local green infrastructure network. As such the proposal fails to accord with policies ESD10 and ESD17 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, saved policies C1 and C2 within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

14.      In the absence of an appropriate protected species survey, the welfare of protected species has not been adequately addressed in accordance with article 12(1) of the EC Habitats Directive. The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore be satisfied that protected species will not be harmed by the development and as such the proposal does not accord with policy ESD10 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, saved policies C1 and C2 within the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

15.      In the absence of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development provides for appropriate infrastructure contributions 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 workers and contrary to policy INF 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015, CDC’s Planning Obligations SPD 2018 and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.