Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee - 1st November 2006 - Agendas/Minutes

View Also:

These minutes are yet to be adopted by the next council meeting on 13th November 2006 and maybe subject to change

343. PRESENT

Councillors:

Officers:

344. APOLOGIES

Miss M Gordon (Personal), Mrs M Turner (Holiday) and Mrs D McNulty (Holiday).

345. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

There were no declarations of interests.

346. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 18th October 2006 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

UNANIMOUS

347. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED that the following decisions be notified to the appropriate authority in accordance with Standing Order 67, which gives delegated authority to consider and respond to planning applications:

APPLICATIONS

Application Number: P06/W1075 88 Abbott Road

Amendment:

Extension to form new dwelling with vehicular access (amendment to planning permission P05/W0925)

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1085 3 Stort Close

Amendment: No

Single storey front extension - porch/lobby

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1087 Harrier Park

Amendment: No

Pilot plant (relating to permitted bio-fuel power station ref P04/W202) for a period of 18 months(one year trial) including relocation of car park.

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1089 11 Somerville

Amendment: No

Erection of a lean to conservatory to the rear elevation

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1098 21 Wandle Beck

Amendment: No Conservatory to the rear (NW)

Approve

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1099 89 Park Road

Amendment: No To replace two small ground floor windows with one large one to the rear

Approve

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1100 65 Bowness Avenue

Amendment: No Single storey front and rear extensions

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1101 67 Bowness Avenue

Amendment: No Single storey front and rear extensions

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1103 The Old Orchard, 25 Hagbourne Road

Amendment: No

Proposed extension and alterations to south and east elevations. Extension to ground floor bathroom to west elevation

No Strong Views

UNANIMOUS

Application Number: P06/W1106 29 Green Road

Amendment: No

Loft conversion with front and rear Dormers

Refuse, contrary to design guide EX2 (Building form of house extensions); detrimental impact on the street scene.

UNANIMOUS

348. APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED

NOTED

349. APPLICATIONS REFUSED

P06/W0952 35 The Oval

NOTED

350. South Oxfordshire District Council Site Allocations Development Plan Document - Issues and Options Consultation

RESOLVED that the draft response as attached at Appendix A be approved for recommendation to Council.

UNANIMOUS

351. Requests for Temporary Road Closures

(a) Standing Order 40-Civic Remembrance Parade and Service – 12th November 2006

It was noted that consultation relating to a request for a temporary road closure order for the Civic Remembrance Parade was dealt with under Standing Order 40. A letter supporting the road closure has been sent to South Oxfordshire District Council.

NOTED

(b) Street Olympics – 28th April 2007 – Request for a Temporary Road Closure Order Hitchcock Way/Lower Broadway

Further to discussion, the Clerk was asked to obtain additional details including a plan, arrangements for bus re-routing and information on the type of activities being held.

In light of this additional information being requested and the consultation deadline of 24th November 2006, it was agreed that the Committee seek delegated authority from Council to respond direct.

RESOLVED that, due to the consultation deadline being before the monthly meeting of the Council in December, delegated authority be sought from Council enabling this Committee to respond direct.

UNANIMOUS

352. Didcot Area Housing - Meeting the Regional Requirement Consultation

Further to discussion, it was agreed that the Chair, Councillor Dr N Hards, draft a letter in response to the consultation.

In light of the consultation deadline being before the monthly meeting of the Council in December delegated authority is sought from Council to respond direct.

RESOLVED that, due to the consultation deadline being before the monthly meeting of the Council in December, delegated authority be sought from Council enabling this Committee to respond direct.

UNANIMOUS

353. Standing Order 40 - Statement of Case South East Plan

It was noted that due to exacting deadlines the response to the statement of case, as attached at Appendix B, was dealt with under Standing Order 40.

NOTED

354. Notification of Recommendation

Notification of the officer recommendation to approve planning application P06/W0973, 32-34 Wantage Road, had been received from South Oxfordshire District Council along with an invitation for Didcot Town Council to speak at the respective planning meeting.

RESOLVED that in light of this Council having no strong views relating to P06/W0973, it is not necessary for a representative of the Council to speak at the respective planning meeting.

UNANIMOUS

355. CORRESPONDENCE

(a) South Oxfordshire District Council, Public Amenities

Numbering of new property in Abbott Road

NOTED

(b) South Oxfordshire District Council, Public Amenities

Naming of development off Britwell Road

NOTED

The Meeting commenced at 7.30pm and closed at 8.35pm

Chair

Appendix B - Statement of Case

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Didcot Town Council submitted representations on the Submission Draft South East Plan (SEP) relating to Policy CO2 (Scale and Distribution of Housing) and Policy CO3 (Green Belt) in Section E7 (Central Oxfordshire Sub-Region).

1.2 This Statement relates to Matter 2A (Spatial Distribution). In contributing to the debate, the Town Council will refer to the specific situation in the Central Oxfordshire Sub-Region, and in particular Didcot, to illustrate generic points that are applicable to many other towns in the South East Region, and therefore the wider spatial strategy.

2.0 CASE

2A.1 Is the spatial strategy clear and soundly based? Have a sufficiently wide range of spatial options for accommodating new development (settlement form and location) been tested?

Approach

2.1 Didcot Town Council does not consider that the spatial distribution of housing proposed in Policy H1 of the draft SEP is soundly based. In particular, the proposed scale and distribution of housing in the Central Oxfordshire Sub-Region is not supported by any meaningful commitment to the delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure.

2.2 In this respect, the SEP spatial strategy and related policies are considered unsustainable, and are unlikely to result in "sustainable, liveable" communities.

2.3 The Town Council believes that in determining the scale and distribution of new housing development in the South East Region, too much weight has been given to land use-planning and environmental constraints, and insufficient weight attached to the delivery of sustainable development, which requires balanced consideration of economic, social and environmental issues.

Range of Options

2.3 Didcot Town Council does not consider that a sufficient range of options has been considered for the spatial distribution of housing in the SEP and that insufficient evidence has been presented.

2.4 The SEP consultation in Autumn 2005 focussed on the distribution of housing development in each Sub-Region. Oxfordshire County Council put forward two alternative (but very similar) options for accommodating future development in Central Oxfordshire, as follows:

2.5 Oxfordshire County Council also invited respondents to propose alternative options to those outlined above. The results were: 4,049 responses, 1,714 on the standard form, 227 written responses, 2,108 on other forms. The majority of the total responses favoured 8,000 homes primarily in the Oxford area. The outcome was not taken into account by the County Council. (OCC Cabinet 6 December 2005)

2.6 The Town Council considers that Oxford is the most sustainable location for development in Central Oxfordshire, being more sustainable than Didcot, and indeed Wantage and Grove This option has not been fully tested and was discounted by the County Council.

2.7 In the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Report of the EIP Panel 2016 para 2.28 and 2.29 considering growth beyond 2016 "We conclude, however, that a more detailed and comprehensive review of options, including those that involve making changes to the Green Belt, is needed to provide a sound rational basis for development choices in the longer term. Such a review will provide an important opportunity to get to grips with the county’s future development needs …" This review has not been carried out.

2.8 Allocating additional development to Oxford and less in the south of the County would be more consistent with national planning policy e.g. the objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005), as well as other policies in the SEP.

2.9 During previous consultation on the SEP in November 2005 and in their response to the draft SEP in June 2006 Oxford City Council stated that there was a significant imbalance between employment and housing in Oxford with a current deficit of housing.

2.10 This shortage of housing means that affordability is an important issue in Central Oxfordshire, particularly in Oxford, and there is a significant disparity in prices within the Sub-region. The average house price in Oxford stands at £281,496, whereas in Didcot it is lower at £210,121 (Land Registry, April-June 2006).

2.11 The effect of this shortage on house prices in Oxford is raised in the Barker Review of Land Use Planning Interim Report – Analysis (July 2006) as follows:

"Oxford also developed a strategy of displacement, in the context of a tight city boundary which limits available employment land and raises house prices" (Para.1.27).

2.12 The Report also highlights the effect this shortage has on economic growth:

"…the boundary issues and extensive green belt have precluded any significant relaxation in containment in the county, despite the worsening of congestion in the city centre and the difficulty in securing land for housing in an area with some of the highest house prices in the South East. This has resulted in a tightening of local labour markets to the detriment of the local economy." (Para.6.56) also

"Where planning constrains city growth it may constrain these benefits (labour market pooling and supplier specialisation) – recent research has suggested doubling the size of a city can result in productivity gains of three to eight per cent. (Para 1.25)

2.13 Addressing the issue of housing supply in Oxford would help to tackle the affordability issue and the disparity of house prices within the Sub-Region. It would also help support the continued role of the City as the hub of the Central Oxfordshire Sub-Region.

2.14 Housing shortages and affordability issues have forced many to live outside the City. For example, 59% of workers in Didcot commute outside of the town (Oxford City Council, 2005), a large proportion of which travel to Oxford. Congestion in Oxford at peak hours would be considerably reduced if there was a better balance between working and living in the City.

2.15 In the Town Council’s opinion locating development in Oxford, nearer to employment opportunities and other community facilities and infrastructure, with access to better public transport, is more sustainable. The same is not true of Didcot, which would require major investment to cope with a further increase in population.2.16 The Town Council considers it likely that other towns in the Region will find themselves in the same situation as Didcot i.e. towns lacking in the infrastructure to support development and a large increase in population.

2.16 None of the alternative Options proposed by consultees in Central Oxfordshire were subject to a Sustainability Appraisal before being discounted. The brief Sustainability Appraisal prepared by Oxfordshire County Council does not meet with the requirements of the ODPM Guidance (November 2005) or the SEA Directive.

2.17 The Council notes that a number of respondents (including SEEDA, GOSE and English Partnerships) consider that an insufficient range of options has been tested on the level of housing provision and that a higher level of housing provision to meet ‘demand’ has been discounted without proper testing. Although the Council would not necessarily support an overall increase in housing provision in the Region, which may lead to an increase in provision at Didcot, it considers that all options should be properly tested to ensure that policy in the SEP is based on a robust evidence base.

2A.2 Is draft RSS’s focus of concentrating development in urban areas appropriate? Is draft RSS’s target of 60% of all new development on previously developed land sufficiently challenging (Policy CC8a)?

2.20 Didcot Town Council does not oppose the approach of focusing development in urban areas and particularly on Previously Developed Land (PDL). However, the Council does not consider that the target of 60% is achievable in Central Oxfordshire under the current proposed housing distribution.

2.21 Didcot Town Council welcomes the new top-down approach proposed for joint working between Roger Tym Partners and Michael Ling with SEERA and GOSE to develop urban potential figures. It will be necessary to disaggregate regionwide PDL figures for each sub-region.

2.22 The majority of the sites currently allocated in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 in Didcot are on Greenfield land including Didcot West (3,200 dwellings) and Ladygrove East (600 dwellings). It is therefore likely that the majority of future development will also be Greenfield. Roger Tym’s Figure 4.16 depicts Greenfield land requirements and constraints, including grades 1 and 2 agricultural land. The quality of agricultural land to be used for Greenfield sites requires further debate.

2A.3 How do the spatial strategy elements, particularly the regional Hubs, relate to the Diamonds in draft RES, and to the potential growth points? Is there a need for a hierarchy within the Hubs?

2.23 Didcot Town Council does not consider that the spatial distribution of development in the SEP reflects proposals in the draft Regional Economic Strategy (RES) 2006-2016. The Council notes that SEEDA and the ‘Diamond’ Local Authorities support this view. Both Oxford and Didcot have now been identified as Growth Points. There needs to be a better fit between the RSS. Economic and Transport policies.

2.28 Oxford is identified as one of eight ‘Diamond’ towns and cities in the Region that should act as a catalyst to stimulate economic development. The appropriate infrastructure and other requirements, such as housing and transport, are important to ensure that economic growth continues.

2.24 The RES acknowledges the differences between the SEP housing distribution and the designation of Diamond cities as follows:

"Given the sustainability argument that housing growth should be closely allied to employment growth, it makes sense that it is in the natural centres of economic activity where the greatest concentrations of sustainable housing can and should be accommodated..." (Page 9).

2.25 In their response to the SEP consultation in October 2005, the Oxfordshire Economic Partnership (OEP) stated that employers are being hampered by the shortage of housing for the workforce in Oxford. The OEP considered that there would be social, economic and environmental advantages to development close to Oxford (Statement of Consultation, Oxfordshire County Council).

2.26 In response to the Submission Draft SEP, the OEP stated that no option should be ruled out for providing new housing, including development in the Green Belt.

2.27 Didcot and Bicester, where the majority of new housing in the Sub-Region is to be located, are not mentioned once in the RES, implying that there will be insufficient economic growth and investment in infrastructure in these towns to support the levels of housing proposed in the SEP. This highlights the contradictions between the SEP and the RES.

2.28 One of the key priorities in the RES is investment in infrastructure to support strategic economic corridors, such as the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. This should produce more employment in the immediate Oxford area over the period of the SEP, mainly to the north and east of the City. Didcot is not within this arc and will not benefit from such investment.

2A.4 Are the sub-regions identified appropriate and necessary? Does the draft RSS pay sufficient attention to the inter-relationships between sub-regions and the functional relationships between the sub-regions and other parts of the region and beyond? Is there sufficient recognition of the roles of the areas outside the sub-regions?

2.29 Didcot Town Council has chosen not to comment on this issue.

2A.5 Hypothetically, if a case were made for higher regional housing levels, what would be the most appropriate approach to distribute the additional dwellings arising from these, taking account of economic, environmental and social implications?

2.30 The distribution of housing should be re-assessed and alternative patterns of development appraised rather than just increasing housing based on the current pattern of distribution.

2A.6 Hypothetically, what would be the implications of higher regional housing levels on: water supply and waste water treatment; transport infrastructure; landscape, heritage and biodiversity assets; and to what extent could these be addressed?

2.31 Didcot Town Council considers that the appropriate level of community facilities and infrastructure should accompany any future development across the Region.

2.32 The Town Council is particularly concerned that S106 Agreement negotiations for large planning applications may result in provision that does not meet the needs of existing and future residents. An overall strategy of investment is required that does not rely solely on developer contributions.

2.33 The Council considers that investment is required in health care, education facilities, social and community provision, leisure and recreational facilities, cultural facilities (Didcot Town Council representations to the SEP consultation, June 2006) and particularly transport. Provision of such facilities in a small town will take longer and affect delivery of housing. This is likely to be applicable to other smaller towns in the Region.

2.34 Providing adequate, accessible community facilities within a settlement would ensure the creation of a more sustainable community and would reduce the need for people to travel out of the town and thus reduce traffic movements. The Council considers that Oxford already provides many of these facilities, creating a more sustainable basis for development.

2.35 The Town Council considers that the inevitable large-scale development on Greenfield land at Didcot that would result from the current proposed housing distribution would lead to a significant detrimental impact on landscape, biodiversity and cultural heritage assets