1.	Application Site and Locality 

1.1	The application site relates to part of a wider development site that was granted outline consent in 2009 for an urban extension to the south of Banbury comprising up to 1070 dwellings, a new primary school, playing fields, new community park, local centre, community facility, commercial office buildings, public house and a marina. Following the approval of a phasing plan and masterplan pursuant to conditions on the outline consent, the site was divided into a number of parcels over which reserved matters applications would be submitted. This included six different residential parcels – A to F. Parcels A-C have full reserved matters approval. Parcels D and E were submitted differently to that shown in the masterplan with D and E each separated out into two separate parcels to the north and south of the spine road which traverses the wider site. The northern and larger parts of Parcels D and E have full reserved matters approval and so this current application site relates to the smaller remaining parts of Parcels D and E to the south of the spine road. Parcel F has a live reserved matters application that is pending a decision. 
1.2	The application site therefore has different site boundaries to that approved in the masterplan and as part of the outline consent. This is complicated by the fact that  some land on which the planning permission was granted has not come forward as part of this or any other reserved matters and it is understood that this is not within the control of the developer. As a consequence, this reserved matters application site has not been the subject of approval as a suitable parcel of land by the Council on which to consider reserved matters. 

1.3	The application site itself relates to a parcel of land to the south of the approved spine road that links Bankside to Oxford Road through the wider approved development. The alignment and specification for the spine road has been approved as part of an earlier reserved matters application. This road is currently in the process of being constructed and its parameters and main access/egress points are now fixed. Development has nearly been completed on Parcel A and is progressing on Parcels B and C with new homes in the process of being marketed for occupation early in 2016. In total about 250 homes have been occupied on the wider development site. 

1.4	This application site is narrow and narrows further near to its centre where it meets the spine road giving it an awkward shape. To the southwest lies the rear gardens of existing suburban bungalows on Oxford Road and to the southeast lies a small field that separates the site from Canal Lane, a private road and public bridleway with a handful of dwellings served from it. To the west lies land approved for sports facilities and playing fields as part of the wider development which has not yet begun construction. To the north on the opposite side of the approved spine road lies the larger parts of Parcels D and E on which reserved matters approvals have been granted. 

2.	Description of Proposed Development
2.1	The application seeks the approval of all reserved matters in connection with this parcel of land except for access from the spine road which has been approved previously as part of the outline consent and later spine road application. 125 dwellings are proposed as well as associated car parking, estate roads and green space. Other typical residential amenities and facilities are proposed to be provided elsewhere as part of the wider development including public open space, sports facilities, play areas as well as the new primary school, local centre and community facilities. Two sets of amended plans have been submitted during the course of the application with the latest submitted in December 2015 in an attempt to response to concerns raised by officers. 
2.2	Following submission of this reserved matters application, a second duplicate application was submitted in September 2015 with reference 15/01777/REM. The plans and documents submitted are identical. 

3.	Relevant Planning History

App Ref	Description	Status	

05/01337/OUT

12/01056/REM

13/00150/REM

13/00822/REM

14/00702/REM

14/00843/REM

14/00917/REM

14/01830/REM

14/01833/REM

14/01835/REM

14/01841/REM

14/02148/REM

15/00005/SO

15/00047/REM

15/00344/REM

15/00018/SO

15/00839/REM

15/00045/SO

15/01168/REM

15/01777/REM	OUTLINE. Residential development with associated facilities including primary school, playing fields, local shops and community facilities. 2200sq.m of employment provision (Use class B1 Business) (as amended by further information document received 10.11.05).
Reserved Matters - (Outline Application 05/01337/OUT) - Provision for proposed highways infrastructure spine road and associated drainage
Reserved Matters Application - (Outline Application 05/01337/OUT) - Provision of access from Oxford Road with haul type

Reserved Matters Application (05/01337/OUT) - 215 Units (Parcel A)

Reserved matters to outline permission 05/01337/OUT for proposed spine road.
Reserved Matters to Outline application 05/01337/OUT – Parcel C. Erection of 90 dwellings

Reserved Matters to Outline application 05/01337/OUT – Parcel B. Erection of 193 Dwellings - access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale, drainage and informal open space

05/01337/OUT) - Details of the proposed sports changing pavilion adjacent to the sports pitches, including 29 associated car parking spaces and 2 coach bays

Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT - Details of the proposed community park adjacent to Bankside, including play, recreation, education and biodiversity features, a footpath and cycle network and other public amenities.
Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT - Details of the proposed village square including 44 public parking spaces and landscaped public open space

Reserved Matters to Outline Application 05/01337/OUT -  Proposed commercial units for B1 use adjacent to the Oxford Road, including associated parking spaces.

Reserved Matters (Outline:- 05/01337/OUT) – Parcel D. Erection of 125 residential dwellings and their associated roads, drainage, landscaping, scale, appearance, garaging and parking

Screening Opinion to 15/00047/REM - Proposed Public House and 45 associated parking spaces

Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT - Proposed Public House and 45 associated parking spaces

Reserved matters to 05/01337/OUT – Part of Parcel E. 107 dwellings, associated parking and access arrangements, drainage, landscaping and materials.

Screening Opinion to 15/00344/REM - 108 dwellings, associated parking and access arrangements, drainage, landscaping and materials.

Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT - 125 residential units on Parcels D and E

Screening Opinion - Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT - 125 residential units on Parcels D and E

Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT – Parcel F. Proposal for the erection of 214 dwellings, garages, associated parking, landscaping, access roads and associated works

Reserved Matters to 05/01337/OUT – Parcels D and E. Erection of 125 dwellings. 	Permitted 30.09.09

Withdrawn04.04.13

Permitted 27.03.13

Permitted 20.09.13

Permitted 01.05.14

Permitted 02.12.14

Permitted 19.12.14

Pending Decision

Pending Decision

Pending Decision

Pending Decision

Permitted 15.06.15

No EIA Required 10.03.15

Pending Decision

Permitted 18.11.15

No EIA Required 26.03.15

Pending Decision

No EIA Required 17.06.15

Pending Decision

Pending Decision	

4.	Publicity

4.1	The application was publicised by way of neighbour notification letters and a notice displayed near to the site. Nine third party representations were received in response to the original proposals and are summarised as follows:
•	The building works could cause dust to be emitted from the site which could affect the swimming pool in the rear garden of a neighbouring dwelling along Oxford Road. The new houses would also allow overlooking of rear gardens and loss of privacy which is particularly important where children use the gardens;
•	It is unclear what boundary treatment is proposed along the southern boundary of the site where it abuts the rear garden of Oxford Road dwellings;
•	Owners/occupiers of the Oxford Road properties have enjoyed direct access out onto the field for many years. The proposals would not safeguard the ability for these neighbouring residents to continue to be able to have direct access this land or the public right of way or amenities within Longford Park;
•	It is essential that users of the spine road within the site do not use the private road of Canal Lane as a ‘rat run’. Measures should be taken to ensure this;
•	The existing row of properties along Oxford Road are single story bungalows with many occupied by elderly residents. The proposed development shows multiple two storey houses in high density, very close behind them, which will overshadow and have a significant overbearing impact on the bungalows. It is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. The development should be further away and be more in scale and keeping with the neighbourhood and hence have single storey buildings behind the existing single storey bungalows.
•	Many of elderly residents of Oxford Road are vulnerable and not in a position to comment and so an advocate should be appointed to protect their interests, so that their vulnerability is not exploited. 
•	The screening suggested is just a few deciduous trees and is not acceptable: an evergreen hedge and wall would provide better cover and sound protection and we would like this to be substituted. A wall would properly separate the existing bungalows and the extensive new development to give the elderly residents better security and protection of their privacy.
•	Compensation - The bungalows were purchased when they had a spacious open green outlook which will be lost. This will have a severe adverse effect on the elderly residents.  The value and saleability of the properties reflected this outlook and some compensation and compromise on the development planned should be offered, as the developers do stand to make a considerable profit from this and this profit should not be at the expense of long standing vulnerable existing residents.
•	The proximity of the planned 2 storey houses and car parking spaces will cause increased noise and disturbance to the residents, as well as affecting the visual impact. As they are all old and frail this will adversely affect their wellbeing. 
•	Enclosed car parks shown within the development always bring vandalism and suffer from a lack of maintenance.
•	A boundary fence or wall separating the site from the rear gardens of existing properties on Oxford Road would be likely to cause damage to a Beech tree within the garden of 21 Oxford Road. 

Three third party representations have been received in response to the amended proposals and are summarised as follows:
•	The proposals still do not include means by which occupants of existing dwellings on Oxford Road can continue to have direct rear access to Longford Park as they have enjoyed for many years;
•	A number of existing large trees within rear gardens of Oxford Road properties are no longer shown on the plans. This is not within the applicant’s control. Would the proposals now harm these trees?
•	The proposals have reverted back to a boundary fence rather than a more permanent wall that would be a better screen for occupants of Oxford Road properties. 

5.	Response to Consultation

5.1	Parish/ Town Council:
Bodicote Parish Council – No objection subject to the following being addressed: 
-	Measures in place to prevent access to Canal Lane from the spine road;
-	A greater level of car parking provision as otherwise overspill parking will occur on surrounding roads.
Banbury Town Council – No objection.
5.2	Oxfordshire County Council:
Local Highway Authority – No objection subject to amendments and the imposition of conditions. 

1. Prior to the first occupation of any dwellings hereby approved, all of the estate roads, footways/footpaths shall be laid out, constructed, lit and drained in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council’s specifications. 

2. No development shall commence on site for the development until a ‘Construction Traffic Management Plan’ providing full details of the phasing of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the Local Highway Authority) prior to the commencement of development. This plan is to include wheel washing facilities, a restriction on construction & delivery traffic during construction. The approved Plan shall be implemented in full during the entire construction phase and shall reflect the measures included in the Construction Method Statement received. 

Informatives: 
For roads/footways etc. within the proposed development to be offered for adoption to the County Council (Local Highway Authority) a Section 38 Agreement will be required. For any private roads a Private Road Agreement will be required between the developer and Oxfordshire County Council. For guidance and information on road adoptions please contact the County’s Road Agreements Team on 01865 815700 or email Road.Agreements@oxfordshire.gov.uk. 

Detailed comments: 
Due to problems experienced on other schemes in the past, we would strongly advise that adoptable shared surfaces should generally be 5.5m wide, widening to 6m opposite garages and parking areas. The County Council will also require maintenance margins either side of the carriageway. We advise that these margins should be 800mm wide to enable the design and installation of the street lighting system, as well as to maintain the kerb line in the future. These margins should be verge/grass or hard standing areas. 
At the junctions to the Side Streets with the Primary Street there should be a continuous footway (minimum width 1.8m) either side of the Side Streets for at least 10m from the line of the junction with the Primary Street. At the transition to the shared surface there should be a rumble strip that denotes a change in character to the surface treatment. 
The alignment of the edge of the carriageway adjacent to plot numbers 1017 to 1019 must be a smooth transition (compound curve) and not angular as shown on the submitted drawing. The width of the carriageway must not be any narrower than 5.5m at this point. 
There are a number of areas where the proposed car parking provision as shown on the layout drawing is insufficient as follows; 
1. There are no spaces allocated to plot 1010, in this location there is only 1 space for plot 1007. Each plot should have two spaces. 
2. The apartment block i.e. units 965 to 976 should have 50% more parking of unallocated spaces which equates to 6 more spaces. 
3. Plot numbers 903 to 906 requires four more allocated spaces. 
4. Plot numbers 928 to 933 have one space for each plot when two spaces per plot is required. 
5. Plot numbers 949 & 950 have one space for each plot when two spaces per plot is required. This also applies to plot numbers 987 to 991. 
Plot number 922 should be set back from the edge of the proposed carriageway to allow for a buffer/grass verge or hard standing area. 
There should be no high landscaping either side of the access adjacent to car parking areas numbered 1019 and 1022. 
There will be a commuted sum (within the highway agreement with the County) for trees that are located within the proposed highway at rate of £1285 each tree. 

5.3	Other External Consultees:
Natural England – No objection
	Environment Agency – No objection to the amended proposals
Thames Water – The existing public sewerage system does not have capacity to accommodate the development proposed. A Grampian condition should be used to restrict the development pending sewerage capacity studies and upgrade work. 
5.4	Cherwell District Council (Internal Consultees):
Landscape Services - The trees identified on site are all category C trees apart from one horse chestnut classified as category U.  As many of the C category trees should be retained as possible to ensure some continuity of tree cover.  The tree protection plan produced is not very clear.  It is difficult to read.  I am happy with the tree species to be planted.  There should a mix of tree sizes planted with some 14-16 sized standard trees.  It looks as though some of the trees may be planted in hard landscaped areas.  If this is the case then we will need to see the tree pit design for these areas.  All tree pits within 3 metres of a hard surface should be lined with root barrier to stop the tree roots from disturbing the adjacent hard surface.  These should be marked on a map.  I am happy with the tree pit design for soft landscaped areas.  

Environmental Protection – No objection. 

Strategic Housing - This reserved matters application for this parcel of Longford park provides for 40 affordable homes making up 32% of the total units on the parcel. 

Generally speaking the clustering of the affordable housing seems to be acceptable. However the density of the flatted blocks which face onto the other developer parcels in the rest of D and E represents a significant cluster when taking into account the flatted blocks proposed by the other developers. This has been raised by the planning officer and therefore I anticipate this situation to be resolved prior to permission being awarded on this Bovis parcel and parcel E

I do have concerns about the residual affordable housing which is required to be delivered as part of the unit types detailed within the S106. i.e. the significant under-provision of bungalows so far across the whole development is one of my main concerns as is the number of 4 bed properties. 

Although there is Parcel F to come I have concerns that unless these earlier phases take on some of the bungalow provision there will be a concern about the possible space to provide the required residual ones in Parcel F. 

The position, orientation and parking arrangements of some of the affordable units in this parcel also cause some concern, namely plots 1002-1004, 992-995 and 1021. 

The first cluster appears to be located rather awkwardly off a parking court, almost representing an ‘infill’ design in nature. Plots 1008-1010 have parking arrangements which need addressing. 

The developer will need to discuss with the Council which RP they are in discussions with to take on the affordable housing units at the earliest possible opportunity. 

6.	Relevant National and Local Planning Policy and Guidance

Development Plan Policies

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 (LPP1)

BSC1 - District Wide Housing distribution

BSC2 - The Effective and Efficient Use of Land

BSC3 - Affordable Housing

BSC4 - Housing Mix

BSC10 - Open Space, Outdoor Sport & Recreation Provision

BSC11 - Local Standards of Provision - Outdoor Recreation

ESD1 - Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change

ESD3 - Sustainable Construction

ESD6 - Sustainable Flood Risk Management

ESD7 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

ESD10 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural Environment

ESD13 - Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement

ESD15 - The Character of the Built Environment

Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) (LP 1996)

C28 - Layout, design and external appearance of new development 

C30 - Design of new residential development

Other Material Planning Considerations

Policy H10 – Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – December 2004
National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework)
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

7.	Appraisal

7.1	The key issues for consideration in this case are:
•	Principle of Development;
•	Design. Layout and Appearance;
•	Landscaping;
•	Affordable Housing;
•	Standard of Proposed Housing;
•	Impact on Existing Dwellings;
•	Parking.

Principle of Development
7.2	Planning permission was granted in outline for an urban extension to the south of Banbury in 2009. This was in accordance a strategic allocation in the then emerging Cherwell Local Plan 2011 on which work was abandoned following the introduction of the LDF system in the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The total number of dwellings approved as part of this outline consent was 1070 in addition to a primary school, local centre, community facilities, marina, public house, ecumenical centre and sports facilities. 

7.3	The outline consent was subject to a significant number of conditions including a requirement for a design code, masterplan and phasing plan to be submitted prior to submission of any reserved matters. As part of these documents, the wider development site was divided into two distinct areas separated by a new community park. Parcels A-E were in the larger southerly section with Parcel F further to the north and separated by the community park. A new spine road is proposed to link Bankside and Oxford Road and therefore run through the site. Its construction has now begun and there is a requirement in the associated s106 agreement for this to be completed prior to the opening of the new primary school in September 2016. 

7.4	Parcels A-C have been the subject of successful reserved matter applications with development now underway with Parcel A nearing completion and occupations beginning on Parcel B. Parcels  D and E are a little different in that the reserved matters applications have not come forward in the manner approved in the masterplan. Parcels D and E are traversed by the approved spine road (itself the subject of an approved reserved matters application) with the developers having further subdivided the parcels on this basis with Parcels D and E north of the spine road having been submitted under two different reserved matters application with their southerly parts now the subject of this single combined application. The larger parts of Parcels D and E have had reserved matters approval leaving only the application site and Parcel F without full consent to begin residential development. Other non-residential parts of the development are in varying stages of progress on their reserved matters with only the public house having been granted full consent at this stage. 

7.5	The outline consent was granted on an application site with different site boundaries to that over which the reserved matters applications have come forward as certain parts of the site are apparently not within the control of the developer which includes land on which residential development was proposed in the masterplan. As a result the 1070 dwellings approved as part of the outline consent would come forward on less land which does have the potential to create urban design problems that were not envisaged at the design code stage.

7.6	Reflecting the differences to the red line area of the outline consent, this application on part of Parcels D and E is on different site boundaries to that approved in the masterplan with some of the land to the south along Canal Lane seemingly unavailable for development. Whilst this could have implications for achieving the level of development envisaged within the design code of the outline consent, officers are nevertheless satisfied that on balance the proposed approach does not materially derogate from that granted outline planning permission and so, in principle, the reserved matters application is a valid submission and proposed residential development on land approved for residential development in the masterplan of the outline consent. 

7.7	In compliance with the outline consent, a reserved matters application for the spine road linking Bankside and Oxford Road was the first to be submitted. Following its approval this has fixed the alignment, specification and junctions of this road including therefore the means of access to this application site of Parcels D/E. 

7.8	Up to 1070 dwellings were approved on the site as specified in a condition on the outline planning permission of which at least 30% must be affordable tenure to accord with the associated s106 agreement. Based on approved reserved matters applications and those currently submitted, 1077 are proposed to be delivered on the site over a smaller site area that originally considered given the omission of some of the land either side of Canal Lane. Whilst the principle of residential development on this land has been accepted, the figure of 125 has at no stage been accepted or intimated to be appropriate given that already the wider site is over-delivering based on that assessed and approved at outline stage. 

	Design, Layout and Appearance
7.9	Layout was one of the four matters reserved for later approval as part of the outline consent and is an essential component in creating good quality built environments. The starting point for the assessment of the proposals is the development plan as set out in s38(6) of the P&CPA 2004. Policy ESD15 is of particular relevance in that it requires new development to be designed to deliver high quality, safe, attractive, durable and health places to live and work – an essential attribute of achieving sustainable development. Policy ESD15 further adds that all new development will be required to meet high design standards with development expected to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting, layout and design. This policy generally reflects the significant weight afforded to good quality design in the NPPF as set out in paragraph 56. Paragraph 58 goes on to state that planning decision should take account of the aim to ensure that developments:
•	Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;
•	Establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;
•	Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks;
•	Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;
•	Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and
•	Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

7.10	Furthermore, paragraph 64 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The PPG also provides guidance on interpreting of what amounts to the successful urban design required by the NPPF. Paragraph 024 of the Design guidance states inter alia that “designs should ensure that new and existing buildings relate well to each other, that streets are connected, and spaces complement one another. This could involve following existing building lines, creating new links between existing streets or providing new public spaces. In general urban block layouts provide an efficient template with building fronts and entrances to public spaces and their more private backs to private spaces. Such layouts minimise the creation of unsupervised and unsafe public spaces and unsafe access routes. However building frontages do not have to be continuous or flat. Breaks and features particularly where they emphasise entrances, can be successfully incorporated. There should be a clear definition between public and private space. A buffer zone, such as a front garden, can successfully be used between public outdoor space and private internal space to support privacy and security.”

7.11	The PPG also sets out in paragraph 040 of its Design guidance that “well-designed housing should be functional, attractive and sustainable. It should also be adaptable to the changing needs of its occupants. In well-designed places affordable housing is not distinguishable from private housing by its design, nor is it banished to the least attractive part of the site. Consideration should be given to the servicing of dwellings such as the storage of bins and bikes, access to meter boxes, space for drying clothes or places for deliveries. Such items should be carefully considered and well designed to ensure they are discreet and can be easily used in a safe way. Unsightly bins can damage the visual amenity of an area. Carefully planned bin storage is, therefore, particularly important. Local authorities should ensure that each dwelling is carefully planned to ensure there is enough discretely designed and accessible storage space for all the different types of bin used in the local authority area (for example landfill, recycling, food waste). In terms of parking, there are many different approaches that can support successful outcomes, such as on-street parking, in-curtilage parking and basement parking. Natural surveillance of parked cars is an important consideration. Car parking and service areas should be considered in context to ensure the most successful outcome can be delivered in each case”.

7.12	It is also necessary to have regard to the approved design code for the site in order to ensure that these reserved matters details are in accordance with the terms of the outline consent. This document was submitted in requirement of condition 13 of the outline planning permission and set out: 
-	the character, mix of uses and density of each parcel identified on the Master Plan to include the layout of blocks and the structure of public spaces;
-	the character and treatment of the perimeter planting to the development areas;
-	the building height, scale, form, design features and means of enclosure that will form the basis of the character of each parcel;
-	the street form and hierarchy and the features that will be used to restrict traffic speeds and create legibility and requirements for street furniture;
-	the approach to car parking and cycle parking within the parcels and the level of car and cycle parking to be provided to serve the proposed uses;
-	the materials to be used within each character area; 
-	the treatment of the hedge corridors and retained trees and local areas of play within each parcel; 
-	measures to ensure energy efficiency and compliance with BRE Eco Homes good/very good ratings;
-	measures to ensure the retention of Canal Lane as a rural footpath/bridleway through the built development and its enhancement for walkers and equestrians;
-	the measures to be incorporated to protect the amenities of the occupiers of existing properties adjacent to the site; 
-	measures to be incorporated into the development to ensure all properties have convenient locations for individual waste and recycling bins.

7.13	The approved design code is now of reduced significance to this application given the deviation from the approved parcels and the different site boundaries as the constraints presented by the alignment of the spine road. Nevertheless it is material and does set out the general design approach for residential development in this southerly section of Parcels D and E. Overall the development is envisaged to be at least 35dph based on the requirements of condition 5 of the outline planning permission with higher densities anticipated over Parcels A, B and C and slightly lower on Parcels D and E. It also sets out two storey (11.2m) maximum building heights along the south of the site (page 39, Fig 63) to ensure that there is a suitable relationship between the existing detached bungalows along Oxford Road. Elsewhere heights are generally limited to 2.5 storey. 

7.14	The design code does not specify a particular character of building or street form within this part of Parcels D and E themselves though does set out requirements for development along the spine road including that it should be of variable width of street enclosure formed by building frontage and clusters of tree planting with soft edges. It also adds that the buildings along it should be predominantly linked houses and semi-detached with eaves lines predominantly facing the street and corner houses on every junction. It also sets out materials for a predominant red brick external wall construction with buff brick detailing with key buildings in either natural Hornton rubble stone or a stone-coloured render. A combination of terracotta tile and concrete tile has been approved along the spine road as well as natural Stonesfield slate on the key stone buildings. Modest dormer windows located centrally within the roofslope are also supported as are well proportioned casement windows. 

7.15	The design code also sets out the expected approach to development either side of Canal Land including a requirement to retain its informal hedgerow land character by setting back development either side of it to ensure a 20m wide landscaped verge.

7.16	It is a key principle of successful urban design that new development creates an active, secure and well maintained environment in perpetuity in order to make a sustainable contribution to the built environment. It is well established that undefined semi-public or public areas that lack usability, presence or interest particularly in backland locations lead to unsociable environments that are poorly maintained. Where these places exist they have a damaging impact on the objectives of creating a strong sense of place as required by Policy ESD15 of LPP1 which promotes permeable, accessible and understandable places that accord with Secure by Design principles. 

7.17	Unfortunately the proposed development features significant pockets of backland car parking. To make matters worse, some of this car parking forms an end destination within streetscenes leaving underused and inactive areas of the development that will not be of any visual interest or attractiveness and which would inevitably have an anti-social feel. Experience tells us that such arrangements are undesirable and do not lead to successful residential environments. In the case of these proposals, of greatest concern are the garage block areas serving Plots 907 – 922. These garages are clustered into a single location forming a notable destination at the end of the proposed estate roads and so would have a significant and detrimental impact on the quality of the residential environment within the site. Not only would they present a rather unpleasant and antisocial outlook from the rear of Plots 907, 908, 920, 921 and particularly 922 they would create a poorly defined space of some size and prominence in the development. Their creation also leads to extensive and convoluted areas of alleyways in order to enable residents of new dwellings from Plots 907-917 to access their homes from their dedicated car parking. Future occupants of Plots 912 and 913 for example would have to walk some distance from their garages and along a narrow alleyway simply to get to their own homes. The creation of such semi-public alleyways is well established as undesirable given that anti-social feel that inevitably accompanies them and the opportunities they present to potential criminals for loitering and gaining discreet access to homes which is not consistent with the principles behind Secure by Design. 

7.18	A similar situation exists to the rear of Plots 977, 978, 1005 and 1006. Views along the proposed side street from a position on the corner of Plot 1003 will present views of large areas of poorly defined car parking that dominates the streetscene and creates little of the visual interest of activity associated with a successful residential environment. It also leaves the rear gardens of Plots 977, 978, 1005 and 1006 surrounded by car parking with not only a consequent poor quality outlook but also an increased risk of ant-social behaviour and risk of crime which is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ESD15 for development to deliver high quality, safe, attractive places to live. 

7.19	Similarly poor arrangements for treating car parking existing at the entry to the site from the spine road at the south. Here residents/visitors would be greeted by a block of garages on one side and a relatively bland set of semi-detached houses on the other with little to provide interest to the street to create a strong sense of character. On the transition around the corner there is a further expanse of car parking that is provided in a rather convoluted manner which does not facilitate the creation of an interesting and defined corner in this prominent location. The northern side of the corner has car parking serving four homes in a haphazard manner with small areas of green space that would not make a meaningful contribution to softening this corner. 

7.20	Matters do not much improve as one travels northwards further along this proposed side street. The street has a bland geometry with the development along the south side having a monotonous street pattern with the buildings having regular minimal grass frontages and regular gaps of hardstanding between houses for car parking. There is no interest created in this streetscene as a result of the form or alignment of the street itself or the spacing of development. Only Plot 1003 introduces an variation to this streetscene due to its alternative layout and spacing with respect to the street. At this junction of the side street however there is still an overdominance of car parking with, as mentioned previously, views down to the garage block cul-de-sac to the north with just a small pair of semi-detached houses standing awkwardly proud within the street in a contrived position. 

7.21	Other parking courtyards are noted to the rear of houses proposed along the main street (spine road). Whilst these often have their issues given the maintenance and usability problems previously outlined, the principle of the provision of some of these courtyards as part of the wider development has been accepted in the design code and on previous development parcels. The larger the courtyard the less sense of individual ownership it creates amongst the occupants of the dwellings that use them and hence the greater the likelihood of maintenance issues arising and a sense of a lack of interest in it. Whilst the courtyards to the rear of Plots 986-992 and 939-945 are a little larger than ideal, they are still relatively discreetly provided between streets and so have less impact on the wider public realm. They also feature a greater degree of natural overlooking and presence from surrounding houses as well as less need for an extensive network of alleyways to facilitate access to the homes they serve. As such, whilst not necessarily indicative of high quality urban design, in the circumstances it is not considered to be objectionable. 

7.22	Whilst broadly speaking the house types proposed within the site are relatively generic and consistent in style and form with that approved on other preceding parcels, the spine road streetscene features a number of awkward building relationships and section of monotony that would detract from the ability to create a successful distinctive street form. The design code specified building scales across the whole site which for this part of Parcels D/E restricted buildings to two storey along the southern boundary and up to 2.5 storey along the main street. The proposals broadly comply with this restriction with the exception of the apartment building proposed within the centre of the site frontage. However, in this prominent location opposite a junction, a building of greater three storey scale and presence is considered to be visually appropriate particularly given that it will be in keeping with the larger apartment buildings approved on the opposite side of the road as part of reserved matters approvals on the northern sections of Parcels D and E. In any event, in the latest amended plans this building has been reduced in height so that it has a smoother transition down to the two storey houses proposed either side to ensure that it sits more harmoniously within the streetscene. 

7.23	Plot 911 in particular (erroneously referred to as Plot 909 in the formal streetscene drawing) appears awkwardly proud within the street with a top-heavy roof form and overhanging verges that does not appear as an organic feature within the street and jars with the uniformity of other plots in the immediate section of street. Plot 941 is presumably of the same house type (albeit constructed with different external materials) and whilst the transition up to its height is better in this section of the street it does still feature the same rather cumbersome verge overhangs that are out of keeping with the style of other proposed houses. Such a feature has no traditional local precedent and is something that the LPA would always seek to resist. Plot 986 has the same overhanging verges and excessive roof bulk together with an awkward transition between it and the proposed adjacent houses. 

7.24	Notwithstanding the awkward relationships described in the preceding paragraph, the use of some variation in building scales as well as different house styles and types is welcome in order to create an interesting and organic streetscene. However, this is not the case in areas of the street where little interest or variety is proposed. View 3 in the ‘Streetscene Formal’ drawing demonstrates a regularity in building forms, scales and styles between Plots 987-993 that is rather too dull with little of visual interest. The same situation occurs between Plots 903-917 (Views 5 and 6 of the ‘Streetscene Formal’ drawings) with the exception of the aforementioned strikingly awkward Plot 911. As a result the proposed streetscene of the spine road would not create the character and varied distinction envisaged within the design code or necessary to result in a high quality development that makes a lasting and sustainable contribution to the built environment.

7.25	Overall therefore, officers are mindful of Government guidance within the NPPF which emphasises the importance of high quality design as part of achieving sustainable development. Whilst it is recognised that the shape of the application presents some constraints to development, this is partly of the applicant’s own making and in any event there are solutions available that would overcome a number of the deficiencies identified including either a reduction in the overall number of dwellings proposed or a change of approach with respect to house types and parking treatment. As it stands however the proposals do not deliver a high quality safe, attractive, durable residential environment as required by Policy ESD15 of LPP1 and fail to take the opportunities available to improve the character and quality of the area contrary to national policy set out in the NPPF. Such a failing weighs heavily against approval of this reserved matters application.

	Landscaping
7.26	Policy ESD15 of LPP1 requires, inter alia, that new development should integrated and incorporate green infrastructure and that well designed landscape schemes should be an integral part of development proposals so as to provide attractive places to live. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Design section of the PPG also stress the importance of gardens, trees and plants in creating attractive and distinctive environments and streetscapes.

7.27	The landscaping plans originally submitted with the application as not consistent with the latest amended site layout plans. Full details would be required for both hard and soft landscaping within the site by condition and new plans required. Notwithstanding that, the concerns regarding the poor quality layout of the development is intrinsically linked with the suitability of the landscaping.  

7.28	There has been very little consideration given to the design of the secondary streets.  These appear to have been designed as shared surface streets and while a shared surface approach is promoted by the Council, there are clear principles that need to be incorporated. Streets should be redesigned to include car parking, public spaces and landscape planting, with a varied geometry rather than a consistent profile.  This should integrate with the form and massing of the dwellings to establish a high quality streetscape. Where the use of shared surface streets are employed, the focus of the space is on its role as public realm, which accommodates vehicular movement.  In shared surface areas a material uplift is expected to form part of a traffic calming strategy and to promote a pedestrian friendly environment. Variation in road materials and profile to highlight key areas and edge conditions, as well as variation in street profile and the introduction of small public spaces, accommodating parking at key nodal points are required in order to be successful. 
7.29	As discussed earlier, the parking arrangements are poor and would be undesirable for use by future visitors and residents. This is likely to result in significant on-street parking to avoid use of these inconvenient, insecure and unattractive areas of the site. Therefore the landscape at the edges of the streets is likely to be used for large areas of displaced car parking and it is important that the design of the streets is redesigned so that consideration is given to integration of on-street parking.

7.30	The current landscape proposals appear to be focused on left over spaces rather than being positively considered early in the masterplanning process. There has been little thought to how landscaping can improve the character and structure of the area with only occasional small areas of verge and planting filling space around built development such that it does not make a meaningful contribution to the public realm. Examples include the soft landscaping shown between the parking spaces serving Plots 997-1000 and around Plot 995. There are also numerous areas where close board fences will be highly visible from the public realm including the semi-public areas of the car parking courts. This will not assist in creating a sense of permanence or importance for these areas and is likely to suffer from lack of long term maintenance to the detriment of their attractiveness. 

	Affordable Housing
7.31	The s106 agreement associated with the outline planning permission requires 30% of the dwellings on the site to be affordable tenure with at least 70% of these affordable or social rented. This reflects the development plan requirements at the time that the outline consent was granted which is further reflected in Policy BSC3 of the newly adopted LPP1. The s106 agreement further includes clauses restricting undue clustering of affordable dwellings in addition to requirements that they be indistinguishable from the market houses. 

7.32	The proposals on this parcel of land accord with the 30% minimum across the site and include the requisite balance between affordable and intermediate housing. Broadly speaking the affordable units are sufficiently well distributed through the site to ensure that the proposals adequately provide for a cohesive, mixed and balanced community. Whilst clustering does take place within the apartment building along the centre of the spine road frontage, this ensures that affordable units of an appropriate size to meet identified need can be provided and in a manner that is sufficiently attractive to a registered provider. Whilst the overall mix approved so far on the site does not make sufficient provision of bungalows or indeed 4 bedroom dwellings to accord with the relevant s106 clauses, there is the opportunity within the remaining Parcel F to rectify this imbalance. 

7.33	Notwithstanding that stated within the s106 agreement or that in paragraph 040 of the Design guidance of the PPG, it is inevitable in the realities of the market that affordable housing will be distinguishable from market housing due, in part, to the requirements of RPs as well as the needs of those on the housing register. As a result, no garages are proposed for the affordable units, they are generally terraced or semi-detached dwellings and all mid-terrace dwellings have alleyway access to rear gardens. Nevertheless, in the context of the type, design and mix of other houses proposed, the affordable dwellings will be sited and designed so that they sit relatively comfortably within the development.

7.34	Consequently, with respect to the affordable housing, officers are satisfied that they are adequately provided for within the development in accordance with the terms of the outline consent, associated s106 agreement and the requirements of Policy BSC3 of LPP1.

	Standard of Proposed Housing
7.35	Policy ESD15 of LPP1 requires, inter alia, that consideration be given to the amenity enjoyed by occupants of future development including matters of privacy, outlook, lighting, ventilation and the quality of indoor/outdoor space. Policy C30 of the LP 1996 requires new housing development to provide an acceptable standard of amenity and privacy for new and existing occupants. Together these policies are consistent with the core planning principles set out in the NPPF which state, inter alia, that the planning system should “seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. The need to ensure that new homes are of a good quality to meet existing and future needs is therefore a key element necessary to ensure that development is sustainable. 

7.36	Officers’ have significant concerns about the quality and the amenity that would be experienced by occupants of a number of the dwellings proposed that fall below the standards expected for new housing. 

7.37	To begin with, and as a result of the poor quality layout proposed, there are numerous dwellings proposed that have exceptionally poor car parking arrangements. In particular, Plots 907-913 have very inconvenient off-street car parking serving them which in some cases is separated from the houses by quite some distance. Access is in some cases then via a network of alleyways that lead to their rear gardens. The quality and accessibility of this car parking provision falls far below that expected to serve family homes and is not indicative of a good standard of residential amenity. Furthermore, as discussed it will only lead to indiscriminate parking along verges and footways in more convenient locations within the development to the overall detriment of the quality of the residential environment. Similar arrangements exist at Plots 979, 980 and 1004 where car parking is far removed from the dwellings themselves due to the poor quality site layout proposed. Other poor quality parking arrangements exist for future occupants of Plots 984 and 985 where access is only available through garages located outside the plots and which would mean occupants manoeuvring around parked cars within the garages. This would mean either an awkward and convoluted route to the dwellings of again result in car parking taking place indiscriminately elsewhere within the development. Numerous other houses within the development have a shortfall in dedicated car parking spaces in comparison to that reasonably expected for their size though this matter will be discussed later on in this report. 

7.38	Moving on to discuss the quality of individual dwellings, officers have significant concerns about the residential amenity provided at Plot 938. Its ‘private’ rear garden is shown to be completely overlooked by Plot 939 which has its front elevation facing directly towards it and separated by a distance of only about 10m. As a result future occupants of Plot 938 would have no feeling of privacy anywhere within their rear garden or even in rear facing habitable rooms of the house itself. This relationship is unacceptable and differs from that normally encountered between terraced houses which would have a private area immediately outside the rear wall of the house where oblique angles between houses prevent perceived or actual overlooking. 

7.39	Plots 998 and 1000 are shown to be affordable dwellings and officers are concerned that the rear gardens serving them are particularly small and, to exacerbate matters, north facing. As a result they are unlikely to prove of adequate quality to serve a family. Plot 998 is made worse still by the awkward shape of its rear garden and the car parking that surrounds it. A number of other Plots are also shown to be served by disproportionately small rear gardens that fall short of the quality the Council would expect. Plot 936 for example has a small rear garden as does Plot 922, 979 and 988 which all have outdoor amenity spaces smaller than the footprint of the houses which is a typical indicator of a minimum standard. A number of these amenity spaces are also likely to fall short of the standards expected to meet Secure by Design accreditation given the alleyways that serve them and the surrounding backland car parking.  

7.40	Plot 1007 is also of concern given that this bungalow has a two storey neighbouring house directly adjacent to its main rear garden which is likely to overbear this dwelling’s garden and result in a poor quality outlook for future occupants. 

7.41	Overall however it is clear that as a direct result of the poor quality layout proposed there are a significant number of dwellings that would provide relatively poor quality living conditions for future occupants. In this respect the proposals would be contrary to the requirements of Policy ESD15 of LPP1 and Policy C30 of the LP 1996 as well as national policy set out in the NPPF.  

	Impact on Existing Dwellings
7.42	As referenced previously, both local and national planning policies require new development to safeguard acceptable standards of amenity for occupants of existing properties. 

7.43	As required within the approved Design Code and in accordance with the Council’s Residential Design Guidance document, no new houses are proposed at or close to the rear garden boundary of existing dwellings on Oxford Road. As a result, no significant increase in actual or perceived overlooking of these existing properties would occur and neither would new buildings overbear or overshadow their rear gardens. Where buildings are proposed close to the south-western boundary they are single storey garages and these structures should not project any significant mass above the existing boundary fence. 

7.44	Some concern has been expressed by local residents about the potential for construction nuisance but this matter was addressed at outline stage through the use of an appropriately worded condition that required approval of a construction management plan. There is no need to repeat such a condition here and in any event it would be beyond the scope of this reserved matters application. 

7.45	Residents of Canal Lane, a neighbouring private road, have expressed concern about traffic accidentally using the lane to access the development. These concerns have however already been addressed through the use of planning conditions on the outline consent which restricted access to the lane as well as gates at the end of it where it met the new spine road. Separately the Council has also funded new signage at the entrance to Canal Lane from Oxford Road to ensure that it is clear to drivers that Canal Lane does not enable access to Longford Park. 

7.46	A number of third party representations have raised concern about the loss of their rear access route into the field which they have enjoyed for many years. This however has always been with the consent of the landowner and does not constitute either their own private amenity space, public land or a public right of way. Indeed at any time that landowner of the site could restrict access. As a consequence there is no reason to conclude that the loss of this ability would have a significant adverse effect on their amenity. Whilst there is the possibility that the developer would be amenable to the provision of an alleyway that runs along the rear of these existing house and links out to one of the new estate roads, this has not been suggested by officers as it is well-established urban design practice that such features are prejudicial to the interests of creating safe and secure environment and conflict with Secure by Design principles. 

7.47	Occupants of some of the existing homes on Oxford Road have sought the erection of a wall between their rear gardens and the new development rather than a close boarded fence. Whilst not considered to be essential to preserve acceptable living conditions for residents of Oxford Road, this would not be objectionable to officers and could be secured by a boundary treatments condition if approved. Care would have to be taken however to ensure existing trees along this boundary are not adversely affected by the construction of the wall and so an arboricultural method statement would be necessary via condition. 

7.48	In conclusion on this matter, officers are satisfied for the reasons above that, subject to appropriate conditions, the proposals would adequately safeguard the living conditions experienced at existing neighbouring properties in accordance with the requirements of Policy ESD15 of LPP1 and Policy C30 of LP 1996. 

	Parking
7.49	The PPG states in ID: 42-008-20140306 that local planning authorities should seek to ensure parking provision is appropriate to the needs of the development and not below a level that could be considered reasonable. A written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for CLG on 25/3/15 stated that restricting new off-street parking spaces does not reduce car use and just leads to parking misery which justified the abolition of national parking standards back in 2011. Cherwell District Council does not currently have an adopted parking standards development plan policy though this may follow as part of Local Plan Part 2. In the interim, it is still necessary for the Council to consider whether the level of parking proposed is sufficient to ensure that a suitable quality environment will be created within the development and that access to and within it is safe and convenient. 

7.50	Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) as local highway authority has however produced its own document entitled Parking Standards for Residential and Commercial Development that was produced and adopted for their own development control consultation purposes in 2010. Cherwell District Council also has a non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 on which work was abandoned in 2006 following the Council’s decision to progress instead towards documents as part of an LDF under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. OCC’s parking standard document sets out standards of Cherwell District’s urban areas which for 2/3 bedroom dwellings equates to either 1.5 unallocated spaces or 1.7 if one of those spaces is allocated. For 3/4 bedroom homes this increases to 1.9 unallocated spaces or 2 spaces if one is allocated. If 2 are allocated then a further 0.4 spaces should be provided for visitors. 

7.51 	Appendix B to Cherwell District’s Non-Statutory Local Plan 2011 is a simpler document and instead states that a 2/3 bedroom dwelling should have 2 parking spaces where outside the town centres of Banbury, Bicester or Kidlington or 2+ spaces where 4+ bedroom dwellings are proposed. 

7.52	Whilst neither are part of an adopted up-to-date development plan they nonetheless provide a useful guide as to the level of parking provision that is appropriate. In doing so officers recognise that the site is on the edge of Banbury to which a bus service will in due course provide a service along the spine road linking to the town centre. In the OCC consultation response the LHA raises a number of concerns about the level of parking provision within the site which have not been addressed and to which there is no possibility of overcoming without significant changes to the overall layout. Put simply, there are far too many instances of where parking is either underprovided for individual dwellings or is inconvenient and to which there is almost no unallocated parking capacity to compensate. 

7.53	Plots 995, 997 and 998 for example are affordable homes that have only one allocated car parking space each. There is no unallocated to cater for the likely additional need to accord with the realities of parking demand or indeed to accord with the LPA’s or LHA’s unadopted parking standards. Elsewhere the large market houses along Canal Lane have only one parking space each in tandem with a garage. Evidence underpinning OCC’s residential parking standards document concludes that the majority of garages are unused for the parking of cars and so it is unlikely that these garages would represent desirable and well-used parking spaces. As some of these houses are 4+ bedroom dwellings, even two parking spaces would fall below the standards the local highway authority would typically be looking for as part of its parking standards document to ensure the development functioned appropriately. In turn this lack of genuine car parking provision would generate further likelihood of indiscriminate street parking within the development to the detriment of the quality of the streetscenes and residential environment. Another example of such an arrangement is that shown for Plots 983, 985 and 1003 where a garage and allocated parking space to the front is proposed. This is very unlikely to be sufficient to serve the likely parking needs of future occupants of these large family homes and would in turn lead to consequent parking stress either within the parking courts or on surrounding residential streets. There are other countless examples of under-provision including the tandem parking/garage arrangement within the parking court serving Plots 909-913 and 920-922 which will inevitably lead to parking stress given the inconvenient distribution of these spaces with respect to the dwellings they serve and the general undesirability of garage parking to future residents. The same is likely to occur within the parking court serving Plots 939-947.

7.54	The LHA has also expressed concern about the level of parking provision shown to serve the 12 flats within the central apartment building. 12 spaces are proposed at a ratio of 1:1 though this makes no allowance at all for visitors such that during evenings and weekends parking is likely to spill out onto the new side streets or spine road. Such parking stress will again be prejudicial to the creation of a good residential environment for future occupants where on-street parking has not been designed into the development. 

7.55	Other parking provision within the site has been designed in an incoherent and inconvenient manner. As discussed previously, a significant number of houses are separated from their parking spaces by long and convoluted distances which makes them undesirable and so unlikely to be used leading to indiscriminate parking elsewhere. In certain cases where they are multiple allocated parking spaces serving a dwelling these are very awkwardly separated out such as that serving Plots 979 and 980 where one space is proposed in one location and the other is sited approximately 50m away in a separate parking court. Again this is very unlikely to encourage proper use of the allocated car parking spaces and in turn would increase the likelihood of localised parking stress and indiscriminate parking within side streets to the detriment of residential amenity and the quality of the urban environment. 

7.56	In conclusion, for the reasons given above officers have very significant concerns about both the level of quality of car parking provision within the scheme which is likely to cause parking stress within the development. In the absence of integration of any meaningful amount of on-street unallocated parking capacity within the scheme this indiscriminate parking would cause significant harm to the overall quality of the built environment and be detrimental to future residential amenity contrary to the requirements of Policy ESD15 of LPP1 as well as guidance set out in the PPG and the overall objectives of the NPPF to deliver high quality urban design that functions successfully and provides good standards of amenity for all.  

8.	Conclusion
8.1	The application proposes a design and layout of development on this parcel of land that would lead to poor quality streetscenes both within the site and along the spine road as well as a bland residential environment that fails to create any sense of place or distinction. To make matters worse, the scheme proposes locations and access to car parking that run contrary to well-established urban design good practice and Secure by Design principles which would create poorly used and unattractive areas of the site. This harm would be compounded by the overall significant under-provision of both allocated and unallocated car parking spaces within the site and further exacerbated by the fact that many of the spaces that are proposed are unlikely to be desirable for sustained use by future residents or visitors.  As a result parking stress is likely to occur within the development with consequent significant levels of indiscriminate parking occurring within the new streets which would further degrade the overall quality of the new residential environment. Consequently in this regard the proposals are considered to be in conflict with the requirements of Policy ESD15 of LPP1 which requires new development to take the opportunities available to improve the quality and appearance of an area to deliver a high quality, safe and attractive place to live in reflection of Government guidance contained within the NPPF. As an indirect consequence of the above-mentioned poor quality layout, a significant number of the new homes proposed would provide a substandard residential amenity for future occupants for reasons set out above in the report. As a result the proposals would fail to deliver a good standard of residential amenity for future occupants of the proposed dwellings contrary to the requirements of Policy ESD15 of LPP1 and Policy C30 of the LP 1996 in addition to the overarching core planning principles set out in the NPPF. 
8.2	The proposals are therefore contrary to the requirements of the development plan and hence the starting point is that the application should be refused in accordance with s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It is then necessary to consider other material planning considerations and whether they indicate that a different decision should be taken. In this respect the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development should be taken in to account which is a golden thread running through the planning system. The Council can robustly demonstrate in excess of a five year supply of housing sites to meet objectively assessed need as confirmed by in the Council’s 2015 AMR (as well as by the SoS himself in a recent recovered appeal decision as well as appointed Inspectors in other recent appeal decisions). Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is therefore not applicable in this case. Nevertheless it is necessary to consider whether other economic, social or environmental benefits may outweigh the harm identified above and the conflict with the development plan having regard to paragraph 7 of the NPPF. 
8.3	The principle of residential development on this site has been established as part of the outline planning permission and therefore the Council has no objection to the principle of the development. Indeed the Council is keen to see development come forward on the site in an appropriate manner to deliver new homes as part of a good quality urban extension to Banbury. Notwithstanding the concerns officers’ have set out in this report, the proposals would inevitably deliver economic benefits by virtue of associated employment in the construction trade as well as indirectly helping facilitate delivery of development approved elsewhere within the wider Longford Park development. It will also provide benefits in terms of contributing towards housing need including affordable housing. Environmental benefits are more limited as it is not clear that the proposals themselves would contribute to the protection or enhancement of the built, historic or natural environment. Weighing very significantly against the proposals however is the social and environmental harm that would result from the poor quality design and layout of the development which would lead to housing and an associated residential environment that is not of a sufficient standard to meet the needs of present or future generations and would certainly not create a high quality built environment. Adding weight to this harm is that fact that the proposals have not taken the opportunities available to create a high quality built environment appropriate to its context. Quite simply, given the house types proposed and the constraints posed by the shape of the site, the number of dwellings and the manner in which they are proposed is inappropriate and directly leads to the poor quality layout and streetscenes identified by officers as well as the substandard quality of a number of the dwellings. Instead by proposing a more realistic and sensible scheme on this site there is an opportunity to deliver a housing development that is in accordance with the outline consent and which creates a new residential environment that makes a positive and sustainable contribution to the area by providing housing in a new built environment that is suitable for both present and future needs of the local population and their aspirations. 
8.4	Officers have therefore concluded that the social and environmental harm associated with the proposals outweighs their benefits and as such the proposals are inherently unsustainable. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is therefore not in conflict with the development plan in this regard and supports the conclusion that the proposals should be resisted. Consequently officers have concluded that the proposals fail to accord with provisions of the development plan and should be refused accordingly with no material planning considerations indicating otherwise. 
9.	Recommendation

Refuse, for the following reasons:

1	Having regard to the inappropriate location and clustering of backland garages and parking areas; the monotonous and poorly articulated streetscenes; the awkward scale and design detailing of a number of houses along the Spine Road frontage;  the lack of properly defined active spaces within the internal streetscenes; the lack of provision or opportunity for any meaningful soft landscaping within internal streetscenes; as well as the use of a large network of convoluted and poorly surveilled alleyways, the proposed development would result in a poor quality and unattractive residential environment within the site as well as a scheme that fails to create a suitably high quality streetscene along the Spine Road. For this reason the proposals are considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 as well as Policy H10 of the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 and Government guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

2	Having regard to the inconvenient and undesirable location of parking areas, inadequate level of allocated and unallocated off-street car parking spaces to serve a significant number of the proposed dwellings and the lack of provision within the scheme for appropriate mitigatory on-street parking capacity, the proposed development is likely to suffer from unacceptable parking stress with consequent indiscriminate parking occurring throughout the site to the detriment of the quality and attractiveness of the development as well as the amenity enjoyed by its future occupants. Furthermore, consequent unplanned overspill parking occurring along the Spine Road rather than within the site could present an impediment to traffic movements and in turn a safety risk to users of this road. In this respect the proposals are considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1, Policy C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 as well as national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.

3	As a result of a variety of poor quality relationships between dwellings on the site and poor quality parking arrangements for those dwellings, the proposals would result in Plot Nos. 907-913, 922, 936, 938, 979, 998, 1000 and 1007 providing inadequate quality residential amenity for their future occupants contrary to the requirements of Policy C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 as well as the core principles of the planning system as set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Notes/ Informatives:

STATEMENT OF ENGAGEMENT
	
	In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), the Council has tried to work positively and proactively with the applicant/agent during consideration of this application to try to find timely solutions to concerns in an effort to deliver sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the application proposals are not in accordance with the development plan or amount to sustainable development and consent must accordingly be refused.

Case Officer: Matthew Parry		DATED: 15 January 2016