Godswell Park, Bloxham



APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY The application site comprises a petrol filling station and building used for a Little Chef and Burger King (albeit the Little Chef has now closed). The site is accessed from the roundabout with the Oxford Road and A41 and car parking is located around the siteA new strategic development site and consisting of housing and commercial development exists to the north and west of the site, which is currently under construction and known as Kingsmere. Bicester Village (a large retail village) exists to the east of the site. To the south east of the site is a new Tesco superstore and a new drive thru restaurant to the front of this store has recently opened (17/00889/F refers). Planning permission has also been granted for a new major retail and commercial development to the south of the site which has recently been implemented.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTThe current application is a resubmission of an earlier application (17/01967/F refers) which was for 3 buildings on the site and which was refused in 2018. The current application reduces the number of ‘drive thru’ restaurants on the site to 2 and introduces some additional space for planting to some of the boundaries of the site. The two drive thru buildings would be single storey, and would be situated on the eastern and western boundary of the site and ‘book-end’ the car parking. The drive thru lanes go to the rear of each of the buildings. The vehicle access to the site remains the same as the earlier scheme and it is has been confirmed that the concrete splitter which currently exists off the Oxford Road roundabout would be altered to include a pedestrian refuge. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYThe following planning history is considered relevant to the current proposal: ( Application Ref.ProposalDecision99/00892/ADApplication for Certificate of Alternative Development for either a petrol filling station or motorist restaurantApplication Permitted05/01339/FRedevelopment of site to include new sales building, forecourt, canopy, pumps, 2 No. new car washes and 2 No. new jet washes. Existing tanks to be re-sitedApplication Withdrawn16/01824/FRETROSPECTIVE - The retention of an ATM installed in a new purpose built steel secure room with steel floor plateApplication Permitted17/01967/FRedevelopment of the existing service station including the retention of the existing Petrol Filling Station (PFS) and kiosk; demolition of existing restaurant building and construction of a new restaurant building; construction of a further restaurant building on the former HGV parking area; construction of a new Drive Thru coffee shop; associated parking provision; retention of existing vehicular access from Oxford Road and reconfiguration of internal access routes to serve the completed development; all associated engineering and landscape works.Application RefusedThe above application was refused for the following reasons: 1.The proposed development would detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the locality and be poorly integrated into the surrounding context. It would detrimentally impact on the street scenes to the east and west of the site and would result in a cramped poor quality environment. The proposals would also fail to provide a sense of identity or relate positively relate to the surrounding context. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015), Saved C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework. 2.The proposed development would fail to provide suitable and safe access for pedestrians/cyclists or provide links to the surrounding pedestrian movement networks. This would not create a durable or safe development or integrate well with the surroundings and would not maximise the use of sustainable transport modes in the interests of a well-connected sustainable places. The submitted Transport Statement does not adequately assess the traffic impacts of the development and the applicant has also failed to demonstrate how the site would effectively, efficiently and safely operate without excessive queuing and congestion which may also impact on the wider highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SLE4, ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.There are also many applications in the locality which are of relevance these include:Land to north and west: 06/00967/OUT and 17/02072/REM – These allow for new residential development to the west of the site and the outline for the wider site which includes a health village to the north. However it is noted that a planning application to use part of the health village for residential accommodation has been submitted and is under consideration (18/01721/OUT refers). Planning application 17/01461/F has allowed for a new access road to serve the housing development immediately to the west of the site. Land to south of site16/02502/OUT, 18/00488/OUT and 17/02320/REM allowed for four Class A1 (retail) units, one Class A3 (cafe/restaurants) unit, a Class D2 (gym) unit and surface level car parking. This has not yet been implemented 17/00889/F – Two storey drive-thru restaurant – Permitted and constructed. PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONSNo pre-application discussions have taken place with regard to this proposal.RESPONSE TO PUBLICITYThis application has been publicised by way of a site notice displayed near the site, by advertisement in the local newspaper, and by letters sent to all properties immediately adjoining the application site that the Council has been able to identify from its records. The final date for comments was 22.11.2018, although comments received after this date and before finalising this report have also been taken into account. The comments raised by the developer of the adjacent site are summarised as follows:Object – there has been no discussion regarding access into their site despite potential connections being shown. Boundary treatments have not been provided.Impacts on the primary haul road which serves the adjacent housing site.No reference to the approved retail development which includes access to service yard and compound from shared access. The comments received can be viewed in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONBelow is a summary of the consultation responses received at the time of writing this report. Responses are available to view in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL AND NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMSBICESTER TC: Supports; however, concerns regarding increased traffic movements and impact on the roundabout. STATUTORY CONSULTEESHIGHWAYS ENGLAND: No objections.OCC HIGHWAY: Objects. The connection to the shared footway cycleway to the north of the development is not shown and no footway connection is shown to the Bicester Gateway development to the south. A servicing and delivery plan is required and cycle parking should be provided. NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEESCDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: No objections. Request conditions for CEMP, full details of mechanical ventilation and extraction equipment and mitigation, contaminated land conditions, air quality impact assessment, and lighting assessment.CDC LANDSCAPING: Comment. The existing boundary vegetation must be shown on the plans and retained. Boundary treatments should be retained at minimum height of 3 metres. Trees requested in the parking area. CDC BICESTER DELIVERY TEAM: Comment. The proposal should be located in the town centre. Details of the pedestrian and cycle linkages is insufficient. A travel plan should be submitted. The site is located at an important gateway to the town and requires a high quality development. The application promotes unsightly and poorly designed development which proposes the rear of buildings facing the road and the public realm. There is insufficient space for landscaping. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCEPlanning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.The Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 - Part 1 was formally adopted by Cherwell District Council on 20th July 2015 and provides the strategic planning policy framework for the District to 2031.? The Local Plan 2011-2031 – Part 1 replaced a number of the ‘saved’ policies of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 though many of its policies are retained and remain part of the development plan. The relevant planning policies of Cherwell District’s statutory Development Plan are set out below:CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 2011 - 2031 PART 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1)PSD1 – Presumption in Favour of sustainable developmentSLE2 – Securing Dynamic Town CentresSLE4 – Improved Transport and ConnectionsESD1 – Mitigating and Adapting to Climate ChangeESD7 - Sustainable Drainage SystemsESD10 – Protection and Enhancement of BiodiversityESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic EnvironmentPolicy Bicester 5 – Strengthening Bicester Town CentreCHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 1996 SAVED POLICIES (CLP 1996)C28 – Layout, design and external appearance of new developmentC31 – Development in residential areasENV1 – Pollution Control Other Material Planning ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)APPRAISALThe key issues for consideration in this case are:Principle including main town centre usesDesign, and impact on the character of the areaHighwaysOther mattersPrinciple including town centre usesThe matter of principle remains as outlined in the earlier application. This is generally considered to be acceptable and is outlined in detail below.The application site is located within the built up limits of Bicester. Policy SLE2 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 states that development for main town centre uses, such as drive thru restaurants, should be directed towards Bicester and other town centres. It states the sequential approach will be applied to new main town centre uses in accordance with the NPPF to protect the vitality and viability of town centres. The sequential assessment requires that applications for main town centre uses, such as drive thru restaurants, which are not in accordance with an up to date Development Plan, should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre locations be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre locations, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. It advises applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale in considering the sequential assessment. The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) advises that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test.Policy SLE2 also states that the Council will consider whether developments are likely to have a significant adverse impact on centres or planned investment. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that in assessing main town centre uses in out of centre locations planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate locally set floor space threshold. In this case this is outlined in Policy SLE2 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 and for Bicester is set at 1500 sq m. Therefore as the proposed development is below this threshold the applicant is not required to provide an impact assessment.Paragraph 90 of the NPPF advises that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused.Considering first the sequential test, Policy Bicester 5 outlines the approach to Bicester Town Centre and states main town centre uses will be supported within Bicester Town Centre. It also identifies an Area of Search for the expansion of the Town Centre which extends to the east of the site. It goes on to state that the Council will review the town centre boundary through the Local Plan Part 2 and prior to this retail will only be supported in the Area of Search if they form part of new schemes which help to deliver the aims for central Bicester. The application site is located in an ‘out of centre’ location. It is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that they have considered sequentially preferable sites for the development. The NPPG advises that the sequential test should recognise that certain town centre uses may have particular locational requirements which mean they may only be accommodated in specific locations and that local planning authorities need to be realistic and flexible in terms of their expectations of the sequential assessment. It also advises that sequentially preferable sites must be ‘suitable’, and that applicants and local planning authorities need to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. The test should be applied in a manner proportionate and appropriate to the given proposal. In this case the proposal is for drive thru facilities and so it must be considered in that context. The other issue to consider in the sequential assessment is the ‘availability’ of more central sites. When undertaking the sequential approach and considering edge of centre and out of centre locations, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre and this needs to be fully considered and not disregarded as the applicant implies.The scope of the proposal is the provision of 2 drive-thru facilities and the proposal is assessed in this context. The sites that have been considered in the sequential approach are:A new development at the Bicester Sports Association site is actively being promoted for a new commercial development including a mix of retail and commercial uses. This land is within the ‘Area of Search’ identified under Policy Bicester 5 and is geographically preferable to the current site and has the potential for better accessibility to the town centre as it is not dissected by the main road. However, this development has considerable planning constraints which would need to be overcome including the loss of the sports provision, impact on heritage, and impact on the town centre. Furthermore it is a significantly larger site than the proposal. There is not planning application for this and it is very uncertain whether such a development would be supported by the Council. Therefore it is not considered that this site can reasonably be considered to be ‘available’ or ‘suitable’ for the proposed development at the current time on the evidence available. A new commercial development, known as Bicester Gateway, comprising four retail units, one restaurant/café and gym has a planning permission (16/02505/OUT). However, in terms of the sequential approach this is an out of centre site and is not considered to be sequentially preferable it therefore does not require further consideration. The former commercial site on Bessemer Close which is located in an out of centre location has now been redeveloped for residential purposes so is not available. A surface level car park existing to the rear of 8 Manchester Terrace. This was allocated in the non-statutory plan for a mixed use development. This is located in an edge of centre location. Given the constraints of the site it would be unlikely to be suitable or desirable for a drive thru use. Furthermore it is noted the recently submitted HELAA (draft 2017) notes the site is not currently available.Deans Court and Claremont Car Park – This site currently consists of a number of small retail units and also a short stay car park. The site is not currently allocated for redevelopment in the Local Plan and it is unclear whether it would be available or suitable for the proposed development. In the recent Kingsmere retail application the site was concluded to be unavailable and the site is not being actively marketed. The loss of car parking would be a significant consideration in any redevelopment of the site and it may be considered premature to develop the site at the current time without a wider understanding of the issues regarding the loss of car parking and other opportunities of the site. Furthermore the site may be considered under Part 2 of the Local Plan as it forms part of the Area of Search and may be better suited to a more comprehensive redevelopment. Therefore on balance the site is not considered to be sequentially preferable at the current time given the questionable availability and suitability of the site for the proposed development. Land at Crumps Butt – This is a small area of land which is located within the Conservation Area. It is also in multiple ownerships and has limited scope for a comprehensive re-development. There is no Local Plan Policy allocation of this site. It is also considered very unlikely that it could accommodate a development of the level proposed. This was also the conclusion when the sequential test was examined in the planning application for a new Aldi supermarket in 2010 and the recent larger retail development a Kingsmere. Overall it is concluded to be unavailable and unsuitable at the current time.St Edburgs School – This site is in an edge of centre location. It would involve the conversion of an existing building. However it is noted that a recent application for a restaurant was withdrawn after a recommendation for refusal was made to planning committee. Amongst the concerns were the loss of open space for parking, noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties from an A3 use and the unsuitability of the access. Furthermore it is noted this site does not have prominent location and has heritage constraints. Overall it is considered that it would not be suitable for a drive-thru restaurant as proposed.Whilst there are a number of empty units within the town centre none of these would be capable of accommodating a drive-thru restaurant given the constraints of providing a drive-thru with strong vehicle access required. Case law and appeal cases have made it clear that in assessing the suitability of site there is no requirement to consider the disaggregation of different components of proposals (i.e. separating the restaurant from the drive thru) and so this is not an option open to explore. Overall, therefore, the Council is satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable sites for a drive-thru at the current time in Bicester. Design, and impact on the character of the areaPolicy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 states new development will be expected to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting and layout and states all development will be required to meet high design standards. It goes onto state development should respect the form, scale and massing of buildings in the surroundings. Development should be designed to integrate with existing streets and buildings clearly configured to create defined active public frontages. Saved Policy C28 of the Local Plan also seeks to ensure high quality development. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states planning decisions should ensure development function well and add to the overall quality of the area, visually attractive and establish a strong sense of place to create distinctive places. It also states that it should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. Paragraph 130 states that permission should be refused for development of poor quality that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.The area of the application site is located commercial in nature and is undergoing a period of change with the significant development in Bicester. The development at Kingsmere to the north and west of the site are noted within the masterplan to be part of a health village and residential development. The residential element of this development immediately to the west of the application site now has Reserved Matters consent and on a recent site visit appears to be under construction. The land to the south of the site has permission for large retail units which also now appear to be being implemented. The area currently has a largely commercial area although the above context would change this and result in a more residential character surrounding parts of the site particularly to the west of the site and possibly to the north of the site which is likely to be either part of a health village or residential development. The existing building which occupies the site and would be demolished as part of this proposal is of little architectural merit and does not positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area or the street scene. Its blank rear elevation faces onto the B4030 although there is a hedgerow on this boundary which does screen some views of it along with the landscaping area to the south east of the site and reduces its prominence. The site is generally a bit untidy. However, this is a product of the current stewardship of the site rather the land use. The redeveloped site could be equality untidy if not managed appropriately. The current application has reduced the amount of built development on the site compared to the earlier scheme but is still considered to be rather cramped. Looking firstly at the layout of the site there would still be limited space for landscaping to the northern and western boundary of the site. These boundaries are particularly sensitive as new residential development is being implemented immediately to the west of the site. The layout of this is shown above.The proposed development would result in the proposed drive-thru building being much closer to the western and northern boundaries of the site and would result in a building of considerable mass and bulk adjacent to the boundary. The proposed Burger King building would be considerable in height (approx. 1 metre higher than the existing PTS canopy) and therefore it is considered vital that a strong and robust landscape treatment exist on this boundary to screen the proposed development from the residential development and the street scene of this development. The rear elevation (including the drive thru windows) would be located in this area.The current application does not demonstrate whether there would be sufficient space to retain and reinforce the existing planting which exists along part of the boundary or how adequate landscaping/screening would be provided along the rest of this boundary (to the north of the HGV parking where the currently planting is more scrubby). It is considered that the proposed Burger King building would be incongruous in this street scene as a result of it height, proximity and lack of adequate screening. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this new residential area. In regard to the impact on the development to the north of the site, this is currently more difficult to quantify. However, this site forms part of the wider Kingsmere development and is covered by the original outline consent for development. It is currently subject to a separate application, which shows the land to the North West to be proposed for residential development and the land to immediately to the north for a health facility. Whilst the exact detail of this development is unknown there is a clear indication it will be developed for a more intensive use than the open nature of the current site and that the height and design of the proposed units has the potential to adversely impact on the character and appearance of this area. Currently this boundary is relatively open in many places with a post a rail fence. It is therefore considered vital that new commercial development on the application site includes adequate screening to reduce the impact on this development. Currently, given the level of development proposed on this site there is considered to be insufficient space to provide adequately landscaping and screening to this northern boundary. In terms of the impact of the development on the main routes to the east of the site the proposal now includes show further space for landscaping. However, the building situated on this boundary still has the rear elevation of the building and drive thru element turning its back on the street, which does not offer any form of significant enhancement to, and may be considered to detract from, the character and appearance of the area. The design of the units also remains a concern as in the earlier application. This again appears to be based on corporate identities rather than any contextual analysis or responding to the sites constraints and opportunities. Whilst it is appreciated that the brands will want some corporate identity this does not nullify the requirement to be locally distinctive. As outlined above the proposed Starbucks drive thru would turn its back on the main road and result in a poorly articulated elevation with no active frontage to address the street. The materials of the building are based on corporate identify and the height of the ‘fin’ on the Starbucks buildings and the materials of the proposed roof (single ply membrane) proposed for the roof would be prominent in approaching the site and not result in a high quality development. The proposed Burger King building appears excessively tall for a single storey building, which also gives an awkward balance to the building. The lower parts of the building appear to the same height as the canopy of the existing Petrol Filling Station with the taller elements of the building extending approximately 1 metre higher than that. The design and appearance of the building is also at odds with the other building proposed on the site and does not result in any sense of unity of place. It would result in better design if the main active windows faced onto the car park. The signage on the northern and western elevation would appear prominent from the adjoining development site and appear unnecessary. Overall it is considered that the proposal would not lead to a high quality and responsive design which takes the opportunities for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with local and national planning policy in this respect.Highways impactsPolicy SLE4 states that all development should facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. It goes onto state that development which is not suitable for the road that serve the development and which have a severe traffic impact will not be supported. Policy ESD15 states that development should be designed to deliver high quality, safe, durable and healthy places to live and improve the way areas function. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires planning decisions to ensure new development creates places that are safe and accessible. Paragraph 108 states that in assessing application for development local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate opportunities to promoted sustainable transport modes can be taken up and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. The current proposal seeks permission to use the existing access from the roundabout to serve the development. This development currently has a concrete restrictor which prevents vehicles turning right when entering the site. This has proposed to be modified as part of the current proposal to allow vehicles to turn right without going through the PFS and include a gap to allow pedestrians to cross the access. This means customers of the restaurants may need to go through the PFS forecourt to access the new development. Further information has been submitted during the course of the application regarding the highway impacts of the development and the internal circulation of the site including the possibility of congestion resulting for the use of the drive thru elements and the adequacy of the parking provision. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) is now satisfied with the proposed development on the basis of the information in this respect and whilst there are still concerns regarding the tight nature of the site and the potential for congestion within the site, given there is no objection for the highway authority on this basis it is not considered a reason for refusal could be sustained. Furthermore it is considered that a road marking and signage plan needs to be submitted to should how the circulation of the wider site would operate. This could be controlled through a condition. The LHA has requested details of the cycle parking provision and a robust servicing and delivery plan. However, it is considered that these matters could be dealt with by a planning condition. The main issue that remains is the connectivity of the site with the surrounding pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. Currently the site has no links to the surrounding network. The LHA has requested that links be provided to the north of the site (to the existing cycle/pedestrian path) and also to the south to tie in this the footpath that is being provided to the south of the site access by the new retail lead development which is taking place. Until recently the plans submitted only showed an indicative footpath provided to the north of the site. However, this is very vague (no details on extent or width of path or details of how the footway would tie into the existing network to the north), is outside the red line of the application site and there are no details provided of the extent or design of this.Recently submitted plans (although still a corrupted file) now show a link to the south of the site to link with the new retail development and development further to the south. However, this has not been subject to consultation with the LHA (as a openable copy of the file was only received on the agreed day of determination). The applicant has been requested to show greater detail of the feasibility of these links on the submitted plans and demonstrate that there full extent can be provided on land within the application site or adopted highway. However, to date no firm plans have been submitted and there appears to be a lack of a firm commitment from the applicant to provide these. The plans also show a pedestrian access to west of the site to the new residential development. However, this only extends to the boundary of the site and does not include the land required in order to secure this link with the footpath which is partially constructed to the west of the site to serve the residential development. The landowner of this site has stated that no discussion have taken place with them to secure this link and it would rely on land outside of the red line site area, which would require planning consent in its own right. Therefore there are considerable doubts that this link could be provided. The applicant had previously argued that these links are not required. However, it is considered that the proposal would result in an increase in usage of the site by providing larger and more commercially attractive drive-thru restaurants on the site. The site is surrounded by a synergy of uses where people are likely to move between the sites and movement for pedestrians needs to be made convenient and safe to ensure that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes is secured and safe and suitable access is provided for all users in accordance with the NPPF. On balance it is considered that the latest plans still provide insufficient information to demonstrate and provide assurances that all the footpath connections can be provided. Without these links it is considered that these objectives would not be met and the proposal would contrary to Policy SLE4 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan which requires new development to facilitate the use of sustainable forms of transport including walking and cycling and provide safe, and durable places that improves the quality of the way places function. The concerns raised in relation to impact on the construction access could be controlled by planning condition to ensure it remains operational. Other mattersThe main issue in relation to residential amenity relates to impact of the development on the proposed properties to the west of site. The burger king drive thru would be prominent from these properties which would not make for the most salubrious of outlook and this adds to the design concerns outlined above. In the earlier application it was considered that ‘The hours of operation of the drive thrus and the odour/extraction system would need to be controlled through condition. However it is considered there are not sufficient grounds to justify the application on residential amenity grounds alone.’However, since the earlier application the new application has been submitted for the development to the north and North West of the site (18/01721/OUT refers) for residential development and a healthcare village.This includes a Noise Assessment which identifies that mitigation measures are likely to be required to ensure that the new residential development is not unduly impacted upon by the existing operations at the site. This includes the likely provision of a 2.5 metre high timber fence on part of the western and northern boundary. This application has not been determined yet so there is no certainty on the mitigation will be provided.It also appears that the housing immediately to the west of the site has been approved without such mitigation in place under (17/02072/REM) and are some of the properties most significantly impacted upon by the proposal.The current application would result in operations on the site closer to the already approved and proposed residential development to the west of the site and as such there is potentially likely to be physical mitigation required to help mitigate this impact in relation to odour and noise. This issue is far from ideal and ideally the issue would be fully considered and explored prior to the determination of the application. However, the EHO has not objected to the proposal on these grounds and is suggesting conditions on a number of matters including opening.On very fine balance it is considered that this would not justify a refusal in its own right. Whilst if this was the only outstanding matter an extension of time would have been sought from the applicant to allow consultation on this matter with the highway authority (21 days), given the design concerns would still exist, as outlined above, this has not be pursued. The lead local flood authority has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection subject to condition. The site is likely to be subject to contamination and full ground investigation would be required to fully mitigate this. This could be secured through a planning condition. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONThe NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 8 requires that the three dimensions to sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) are not undertaken in isolation, but are sought jointly and simultaneously.The proposed development is considered to result in cramped form of development which would not positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area and would provide insufficient space for screen and planting. The detailed design and height of the proposals would not enhance the quality of the area. The proposal also makes insufficient provision for pedestrian intergration with the surrounding network to maximise sustainable forms of transport. When considered as a whole the proposal is therefore considered to conflict with the development plan and be unacceptable. RECOMMENDATIONThat permission is refused, for the following reason(s): The proposed development would detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the locality and be poorly integrated into the surrounding context and would result in a cramped poor quality environment. The proposals would also fail to provide a sense of identity or relate positively relate to the surrounding context. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015), Saved C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. The application fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development would provide suitable and safe access for pedestrians/cyclists or provide links to the surrounding pedestrian movement networks. This would not create a durable or safe development or integrate well with the surroundings and would not maximise the use of sustainable transport modes in the interests of a well-connected sustainable places. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SLE4, ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. Case Officer: James KirkhamDATE: 8th March 2019Checked By: Nathanael StockDATE: 08.03.2019 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download