Agenda item

Against officer recommendation, the Committee resolved that they would have refused the application.  Reasons to be set out in the minutes.

The Committee considered application 21/01630/OUT, an outline planning application for up to 530 residential dwellings (within Use Class C3), open space provision, access, drainage and all associated works and operations including but not limited to demolition, earthworks, and engineering operations, with the details of appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale reserved for later determination, at land at North West Bicester Home Farm, Lower Farm and SGR2 Caversfield for Firethorn Developments Ltd.

Rob Fellows, local resident and on behalf of on behalf of Elmsbrook Residents, Gagle Brook Primary School, the Perch Eco Business Centre, Bucknell Residents and Elmsbrook Traffic & Parking Group and Peter Turner, on behalf of Bicester Bike Users’ Group addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Rob Bolton, on behalf of the applicant, Firethorn Trust, Mark Kirby, highways consultant for the applicant and Hannah Leary, agent for the applicant,  addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members were asked for their observations regarding what their determination would have been, had an appeal against the non-determination of the application not been lodged.

It was proposed by Councillor Pratt and seconded by Councillor Sibley that the

application would have been refused the applications for the following reasons, which on being put to the vote, was agreed by the Committee:

·         The proposal would not achieve true zero carbon development taking into account the Council’s Climate Emergency declaration and the Policy requirements for NW Bicester in seeking to achieve Eco Town Development.

·         The proposed changes to Charlotte Avenue would negatively impact the integrity of the area, would be dangerous for the users of the highway and footways particularly close to Gagle Brook School, have not been proven to be feasible and would result in the loss of trees. It would contravene OCC, CDC and National Planning Policies.

·         The proposal fails to show that the impact upon the highway at the junction of the B4100 and Charlotte Avenue would not be severe with congestion predicted within the peak hour.

·         There are errors with the applicant’s financial viability appraisal and this results in the development not being able to achieve the True Zero Carbon requirements and deliver a minimum 10% affordable housing against the required Local Plan level of 30%.

·         The lack of an agreed S106 or other legal obligation to secure required infrastructure to mitigate its impacts.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered the officers’ report, presentation, the written update, and addresses from the public speakers.

Resolved

(1)      That against officer recommendation, had the power to determine application 21/01630/OUT continued to rest with the committee, the committee would have refused application 21/01630/OUT for the following reasons.

1.         The development, when set against the viability of the scheme, would not go far enough in trying to achieve the True Zero Carbon requirements for NW Bicester, as set out by Policy Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031. This would undermine the Council’s strategy for achieving an Exemplary Eco Town development at NW Bicester which sets this site apart from others and where the Council has declared a Climate Emergency. The development would therefore conflict with Policy Bicester 1 and Policies ESD1-5 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031 and the North West Bicester SPD 2016.

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed

2.         The access arrangements to the site would be unsatisfactory as there would be an inability to provide for suitable pedestrian and cycle facilities along Charlotte Avenue. Any localised proposals to the road have not been proven to be possible, and are likely to raise safety concerns relating to users of the highway within proximity to Gagle Brook School, and would result in the loss of street trees and would impact on the character of the existing Eco Town. The proposal would not meet the requirements of LTN1/20 and would conflict with Oxfordshire County Council’s ‘Local Transport and Connectivity Plan’ Policies 1, 2b, 8, 9, 11, 35, 45 and 46b, Oxfordshire County Council’s ‘Tree Policy for Oxfordshire’ Policies 11, 18, 19 and 20, Policies SLE4 and Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031 and the North West Bicester SPD 2016.

3.         The proposed development would result in congestion at the junction of Charlotte Avenue with the B4100, particularly during the peak period. This would result in a severe transport impact and the development would therefore conflict with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SLE4 and Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031.

4.         The proposed development, when set against the financial viability of the scheme, would fail to provide an adequate level of affordable housing provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BSC3 and Policy Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031, the North West Bicester SPD 2016, CDC’s Developer Contributions SPD 2018 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.

5.         In the absence of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking or other form of S106 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. This would be to the detriment of both existing and proposed residents and would be contrary to Policies INF1, BSC3, BSC7, BSC8, BSC10, BSC11, BSC12 and Policy Bicester 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031, the North West Bicester SPD 2016, CDC’s Developer Contributions SPD 2018 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Appellant: This reason for refusal is capable of being addressed.