Title: Godswell Park, Bloxham
Author: Rebecca Horley
Last saved by: Bob Duxbury
Company: Cherwell District Council

Heyford Park
Camp Road
Upper Heyford
Bicester
OX25 5HD

18/00513/REM

Case Officer: | Andrew Lewis | Recommendation: Approve
Applicant: | Heyford Commercial Developments Limited
Proposal: | Reserved matters to 10/01642/OUT - Village Centre (North) comprising retail units, B1 Use, 30 residential units, involving the erection of two, three storey buildings, partial demolition and change of use of Building 100 to provide B1 Use and demolition of buildings 101 and 102, plus the formation of vehicle parking and associated landscaping works.
Expiry Date:	25 June 2018

1.	SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 

1.1.	The application site for this proposal is part of the former RAF/USAF Upper Heyford base. It is located on the north side fronting Camp Road in what is known as the Technical Area. In terms of the uses on site, the military use ceased in 1994. Since 1998 it has effectively been under the ownership first of the North Oxfordshire Consortium and for the last few years by the current applicants, the Dorchester Group. Over the last 15 years numerous applications have been made seeking permission to either develop the whole site or large parts of it and numerous of them have gone to appeal. The most significant was application ref 08/00716/OUT. Following a major public inquiry that commenced in September 2008 the Council received the appeal decision in January 2010 that allowed “A new settlement of 1075 dwellings, together with associated works and facilities including employment uses, community uses, school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure (as amended by plans and information received 26.06.08).” This permission included the flying field, and the uses and development permitted upon it at the appeal have been implemented under the appeal permission.
1.2.	However the development of the settlement and technical areas was delayed as the site was acquired by the new owners who decided to refine the approved scheme. As a result, a new masterplan was drawn up which, whilst similar to the one considered at appeal, has been modified. The main reason for a fresh application arose from the desire of the applicant to retain more buildings on site. Apart from that, the most significant changes are a new area of open space centred on the parade ground which becomes a village green, the retention of a large number of dwellings including 253 bungalows, and more of the heritage buildings, the demolition of which was previously consented. The retention of these buildings at their existing low density has meant the masterplan has expanded the development area west on to the sports field.
1.3.	The revised masterplan was submitted as part of the outline application for “Proposed new settlement for 1075 dwellings, together with associated works and facilities, including employment uses, a school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure” and was granted permission on 22nd December 2011 (ref 10/01642/OUT). The planning permission included a number of plans with which compliance was required including a masterplan, a retained buildings plans and other plans showing layouts all of which included the retention of Buildings 100 and 103, both being proposed for a commercial use, Class A1-A5, and D1 with C3 uses as well.
1.4.	The base was designated a conservation area in 2006, its primary architectural and social historic interest being its role during the Cold War. The nature of the site is defined by the historic landscape character of the distinct zones within the base. The designation also acknowledges the special architectural interest, and as a conservation area, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance and provides the context and framework to ensure the setting and appearance of sections of the Cold War landscape are preserved. This application is within the Technical Site, and in the conservation appraisal; the character of the Area is described as:
“…characterised by the ‘campus’ layout of deliberately sited, mix function buildings, in an open setting with organised tree planting. The variation in building type is both a function of their differing use and the fact that there has been continual construction within the site as part of the different phases of development within the airbase. The setting of the 1930s aircraft hangers in an arc on the northern edge of the site provides a visual and physical edge to the site. The access to the Technical Site is dominated by Guardroom (100) and Station Office (52). To the east of these is the impressive 1920s Officers’ Mess (74) set within its own lawns. The style of these 1920s, red brick, RAF buildings is British Military.”
1.5.	The Technical Site is the first area of the base accessed off Camp Road after passing through the main gate. This area is fronted on the west of the entrance, by the 1920s Guardroom (100) and to the east Heyford House (52) (originally the Station Operations Room and Headquarters), These buildings together with the Officers’ Mess (74) and the buildings immediately to the south on the southern side of Camp Road are part of the initial development phase of the airfield and constructed in ‘British Military’ style that was the dominant influence in architectural style at the time of construction. The style, in fact, is well suited to the organised ‘campus’ layout of the site with deliberately sited, low-density, buildings, grassland and organised tree planting.
1.6.	The Technical Site is accessed by a fan of three, partially tree-lined, straight avenues, fronted on either side by a mixture of functional building types. Red brick buildings from the original site layout predominate along the roads. The spaces in between have been filled with newer buildings, constructed in a range of building styles and materials though now largely demolished, this has tended to complicate the appearance of the area and make it less easy to appreciate its original form. Two important Cold War buildings lie in the west part of this area: the Battle Command Centre and the Hardened Telephone Exchange, both are scheduled ancient monuments.
1.7.	The Technical Site is bounded by an arc of four, large 1930s aeroplane sheds that form a backdrop to the area and close off the view into the flying field. These buildings sit well at the back of the site as their layout, on an arc between radial roads, compliments the organisation of the minor buildings within the site. The Technical Area, now devoid of aviation-based activity, still retains the attribute of being at the hub of the airbase. Despite the infill buildings something of the organised campus origin of the area remains, overlaid by the successive accretions such as the addition of the standard USA-style fire hydrants. Tall buildings whilst evident do not over dominate the site; an effect achieved by the spacing of buildings, the tree planting, and the distribution and variety of building heights.
1.8.	On the application site are 4 main buildings. Building 100 is listed as of local interest and was …”constructed in 1925 as a Guardhouse. The main building is brick with pitched, slated roof. Roof extends to form entrance canopy which rests on concrete pillars. Bare blockwork internally. Brick side extension with flat roof & metal entrance canopy. Rear extension rendered with leaded metal windows and metal pitched roof.”
1.9.	Buildings 101 and 102 have a number of constituent parts, all linked and date from 1939. “Single and 1.5 storey high brick building with external metal cladding. Large metal & glazed doors at front; Brick painted walls with steep pitched, tiled roof & metal windows; Metal clad building on brick plinth, with metal windows and metal pitched roof; Brick building with parapet to flat roof. Garage door to side & metal windows. Monopitch metal roof to brick single storey extension at rear.”
1.10.	Although Building 103 is technically excluded from the application site, it does sit within the outer red line of the site boundary. Again of local interest it is believed to date from 1925. 1.5 storeys, with “brick walls with pitched, tiled roof. Large, single glazed metal windows in partially bricked up openings. Single storey, brick extension adjacent with pitched tiled roof, timber windows & brick chimney”. It has recently been refurbished in line with a permission to use the building as a heritage centre.
1.11.	The buildings are all orientated to the internal service road. Between them and Camp Road, the main spine road that runs through the former base, is a grassed area on which there are a significant number of mature trees.
2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The application seeks approval of reserved matters subsequent to the grant of outline planning permission reference 10/01642/OUT. It proposes to demolish buildings 101 and 102 together with the extensions to 100 all of which has previously been consented. The Proposed Development would form the northern part of the Village Centre proposed at the centre of Heyford Park settlement, together with the Village Centre (South) scheme granted planning permission in 2016 (ref: 16/01000/F).
2.2.	It is proposed to erect two, three storey buildings, to the north of Camp Road, located to the east of Building 103 and west of Building 100 following the works to partially demolish this building. The buildings will be located immediately to the south of the present location of Buildings 101 and 102 which will be demolished to make way for the new structures. A number of existing trees would also be felled to facilitate their construction.
2.3.	At ground floor level, Block A North will provide a single convenience food store (A1 Use Class) of 278.7m with entrance doors located on the south elevation. The ground floor will also provide a refuse area for the residential units above together with entrance and circulation for residents. Block B North will provide five retail units (A1 Use Class) with total floor area of 596.4m² and the same ancillary residential facilities as provided in Block A North.
2.4.	The two upper floors of both buildings would contain a total of 30 residential units in the form of two and three bedroom flats (Block A North: 12 x two-bedroom flats; Block B North: 16 x two-bedroom flats and 2 x three-bedroom flats).
2.5.	Building 100 will return near to its original form. The remaining building following demolition works will be single storey with a pitched roof and canopy to the eastern elevation. The works will include the erection of walls to enclose openings formed following the demolition works and the installation of a new glazed door to the north elevation. 85.6m2 of floorspace in B1 Use would be provided within the building.
2.6.	The proposals include the provision of two car parking areas. The Western Car Park, located north of Camp Road and immediately to the south of Building 315, would provide a total of 49 parking spaces. This includes 12 x spaces suitable for use by persons with disabilities. Access to this parking area would be taken from an existing road to the north and west of the proposed Village Centre (North) area. The formation of this parking area will require the felling of a number of existing trees.
2.7.	A total of 76 spaces will be provided on land to the north of Building 100, Blocks A and B North and Building 103. This parking area will be accessed from two points on the highway immediately to the north, which links to Camp Road to both the east and west.
2.8.	This whole area will be subject to landscaping works set out in the Design and Access Statement.
2.9.	The application is accompanied by the following documents:
•	Application form, notices and certificates;
•	Planning Statement with Affordable Housing Statement;
•	Design & Access Statement;
•	Flood Risk Assessment (including appendices A-E);
•	And an Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Tree Condition Survey.

3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	The following planning history is considered relevant to the current proposal: 
Application Ref. | Proposal | Decision
10/01619/CAC | Demolition of existing structures (as per Conservation Area Consent Schedule and Drawing No. D.0291 38-1) | Application Permitted
10/01642/OUT | Outline - Proposed new settlement of 1075 dwellings including the retention and  change of use of 267 existing military dwellings to residential use Class C3 and the change of use  of other specified buildings, together with associated works and facilities, including employment uses, a school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure | Application Permitted
10/01778/F | Change of use of former Military Buildings to Business (Class B1), Industrial (Class B2), Storage and Distribution (Class B8), Retail (Class A1), Nursery/Training Centre (Class D1) (as specified in the submitted Schedule of Potential Planning Uses | Application Permitted
17/00895/F | Development of the Village Centre (north) comprising demolition of Buildings 101 and 102; partial demolition of Building 100 and change of use to offices (98sqm); erection of 2 No four storey buildings north of Camp Road, with bridge link at first and second floor and one four storey building south of Camp Road to provide an A1 Use Class Convenience Store (511.3sqm), 11 x A1 Use Class retail units (1,186sqm) and 66 residential units (28 x 1 bed and 38 x 2 bed); formation of vehicle parking areas; provision of associated infrastructure and landscaping works | Application Withdrawn
08/00716/OUT | OUTLINE application for new settlement of 1075 dwellings, together with associated works and facilities including employment uses, community uses, school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure (as amended by plans and information received 26.06.08). | Granted on appeal-January 2010
10/01642/OUT | Outline - Proposed new settlement of 1075 dwellings including the retention and  change of use of 267 existing military dwellings to residential use Class C3 and the change of use  of other specified buildings, together with associated works and facilities, including employment uses, a school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure | PER
16/00264/F | Construction of a road with associated infrastructure within the Heyford Park development | PER
16/01545/F | Change of use of Building 103 to A Heritage Centre (Use Class D1) and Building 315 for storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and associated works. | PER
16/01000/F | Development of the Village Centre (south) comprising a Hotel and associated facilities (involving the partial demolition and the refurbishment and extension of Building 455 and its change of use); Bar/Brasserie (involving the partial demolition and refurbishment and extension of Building 457) and a Covered Market (canopy link between Buildings 455 and 457) with associated landscaping and car parking. | PER

4.	PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

4.1.	Extensive discussions have taken place both pre-application 17/00895/F and during the processing of that proposal.. As a result that application was withdrawn and substituted by the proposals contained within this scheme. In summary the scale of the development has been modified and the buildings redesigned. 

5.	RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY

5.1.	This 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 15.05.2018, although comments received after this date and before finalising this report have also been taken into account. 
5.2.	One letter has been received and the comments raised are summarised as follows:
Ian Lough-Scott, The Rickyard, Upper Heyford:
•	I do not accept that it is an appropriate architectural scheme for the site. I consider that the scheme submitted will have a very detrimental impact on the heritage of the site in particular the harm that it will inflict on the view when approaching the main entrance to the airfield along Camp Road.
•	Camp Road has always been a wide thoroughfare with the buildings set back. The new housing has continued that tradition with wide open verges.
•	Building 103 (Heritage Centre) is a dignified little building, and building 100 is historically very valuable. Between these buildings there is now a proposal for 2 large blocks set forward in a way that will completely dominate the street scene, and remove the open vista which I consider to be important in heritage terms.
•	The Heritage Centre (103) is being sympathetically restored and I am pleased that most of the established trees in front of the building are to remain; however, I consider that there is no case to be made to remove all the trees from the application site. In my view any new buildings on this site should be set back to a building line that connects buildings 100 & 103 leaving the frontage as it is now, including most of the trees. Clearly there is a need for shops, but I do not accept that an arcade of shops on this sensitive site is suitable. The design of the new buildings is not in any way in keeping with the site in general, they have the appearance of a commonplace row of shops in any small town, rather than carefully designed buildings that will complement and enhance the site and suitably reflect its historical setting.
•	I refer to the Comprehensive Planning Brief 2007 Page 2 Conserving the Heritage Interest – new development should respond to the established distinct character areas where this would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area – the proposal now submitted clearly fails to address the main point that any new building should respond to established character of the site.
•	I respectfully suggest that the developer should be asked to look again at the scheme with a view to producing a more low-key group of buildings that will not dominate the road frontage and result in the unnecessary removal of all the established trees.

5.3.	The comments received can be viewed in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.

6.	RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

6.1.	Below 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 FORUMS
6.2.	The Upper Heyford Parish Council supports this application
6.3.	Middleton Stoney parish Council: No objection
STATUTORY AND INTERNAL CONSULTEES
6.4.	CDC-Environmental Protection:
•	Noise: Due to the mixture of commercial and residential properties at this site I would recommend a condition limiting deliveries to the commercial premises as follows:
•	With the exception of newspaper/periodicals deliveries and post, no deliveries, waste collections or other noisy external activities likely to cause nuisance to nearby residents shall take place before 0700 or after 2100  Monday to Friday, before 07.00 or after 18.00 on Saturdays or before 0900 hours or after 1500 hours on Sundays and bank holidays. When deliveries are taking place current best practice shall be observed to minimise the potential of noise disturbance.
•	This is to protect the residential amenity.
•	In addition a condition should apply that any plant or extrication equipment that will be required by the occupiers of the commercial units should be approved by the LPA before it is installed.
•	Contaminated Land: I believe that this issue has been cleared on the main planning application, however if I am wrong then the full contaminated land conditions J12 – J16 should apply.
•	Air Quality: Prior to the commencement of development, provision of ducting to allow for future installation of EV charging infrastructure will be required, in order to make resident parking places EV ready for future demand. The details and location of such provision should take into consideration the availability of electrical supply and should therefore be designed making reference to information held by the local distribution network operator. Subsequently, these details and designs should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
•	Such provision shall be formed, and laid out in accordance with these details before usage of the parking spaces commences and shall remain in place thereafter.”
•	Odour: No comments
•	Light: No comments

6.5.	CDC-Tree Officer: 
•	I note the large number of tree removals to facilitate the new village centre. I trust that these trees will be replaced as semi - mature standards of large canopied trees in the detailed landscape scheme, which has not been submitted. Sufficient space should be given for the trees to grow.

6.6.	CDC-Investment and Growth Team-Regeneration and Housing
•	There is a requirement for 30% affordable housing on this site, and I note that this application provides 40%. We have previously advised that the affordable housing mix on the whole of Heyford Park is too heavily weighted towards flats, and note that this is a flatted scheme. However we accept that the location of this 30 unit parcel lends itself towards flats and can therefore accept this mix provided that it does not alter the overall mix of units previously agreed for the wider scheme.
•	In consideration of the above we suggest the following mix:
o	Affordable Rent: 6 x 2 bed flats
o	Shared Ownership:6 x 2 bed flats
•	These should all be in the same block and I therefore suggest that they are all located in Block A with the rented and shared ownership units being located on separate floors.  However I am concerned about the proposed density of flats and the accompanying service charge which will need to be implemented, this is an additional cost to those first time buyers accessing the shared ownership. If the flats were made into 2 storey maisonettes with individual entrances then service charges would be minimised and ultimately would mean the RP is able to retain more of the rental income to invest in services for the affordable housing. 
•	The location of the affordable housing units is acceptable and the total number of affordable units is less than the 15 unit clustering arrangement normally required.
•	We expect that 50% of the affordable rented units meet the Building Regulations Requirement M4 (2) Category 2: Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings requirement. All of the units are to be built to the government’s Nationally Described Space Standards. 
•	The properties should have a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit.
•	The Registered Provider taking on the affordable units will need to be agreed with the Council.     

6.7.	CDC-Conservation:
•	The site lies within the RAF Heyford Conservation Area. The site is within the Technical Site character area, but immediately opposite the Residential Zone and therefore impacts on the setting of this area. 
•	The significance of the site lies in the contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The conservation area appraisal states that ‘The Technical Site is located south of the flying field sandwiched between Camp Road, which defines the southern boundary of the technical area and the southern taxiway of the flying field itself…… There is a spectrum of building styles, the result of infill building and the structures appear cramped on upon another’. This refers to the technical area as a whole and not just the Camp Road area.
•	The appraisal also identified that the access to the Technical Site is dominated by the Guardroom (building 100) which is retained in the scheme. The Design and Access Statement notes that this is of local significance for its architectural and historical interest. 
•	The site is also immediately opposite the Residential Zone which is described in the conservation area appraisal as ’…mostly located to the south of Camp Road….. The Residential Zone can be divided into different areas defined by use, ie domicile areas, recreational areas, service provisional areas. These areas vary significantly in character and in the distribution of structures within each area’ The conservation area appraisal (2006) identified that this had a degraded edge in the area immediately adjacent to the site, but this has now been largely re-developed.
•	Appraisal of issues: The application is a reserved matters application and therefore a number of principles have already been established including the development of a village centre in this location and the demolition of structures 101 and 102. Building 100 (the gate house) and 103 are to be retained. The latter has already been converted into a Heritage Centre. The reserved matters application deals with matters of detail only.
•	An earlier application for a village centre on the site (17/00895/F) was withdrawn. There were a number of concerns from the Design and Conservation Team including 
o	The proposed development fails to relate to the context of the conservation area
o	The design is pedestrian and without distinction
o	Proposed building heights not conforming to design codes and there would be an abrupt change in height between existing buildings
o	Reconfiguring of building 457 
o	Design of Block A
o	Inactive rear aspect to development
o	Parking
•	There are remaining concerns about the architectural design which does not pay sufficient respect to its military context and the layout of the site as a whole which does not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, but it is acknowledged that the height and massing has been reduced. 
•	There are particular concerns about the location of the development on the site with the buildings being located in close proximity to the roadside. Having the buildings set back behind some car parking and trees would help to retain the campus style character of the road. This issue was raised during pre-app meeting in January 2018.
•	There are also concerns about the setting of retained building 100. The building is a gatehouse and by its nature is single storey. It is understood that the original design codes required a stepped approach to the new build to allow for this transition. There are other ways of retaining the gateway role of the building and its prominence within the site. There are no objections to the demolitions of the later parts of the structure and the removal of the pergola from the previous scheme (17/00895/F) is welcome. The concern is that in the current and previous scheme the building is very much set back from the proposed development and therefore its visual role is subservient and no longer forms the gateway function. The information contained within the application is sparse about the use and design of the building. There are no objections in principle to B1 business use, but it would be preferable for the building to have public access and to be regarded as an essential component / gateway into the site. The interrelationship between building 100 and the public square will be crucial in determining the success of the integration of the building with the new development. Further details will be required of the proposed glazed opening.
•	Level of harm: There is considered to be harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, although this has been reduced in comparison to the previous application and is considered to be less than substantial. The harm could be minimised further, particularly in relation to the layout of the site. The harm caused will need to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. 
Recommendation: No objection in principle, but it is considered that the scheme could be designed to take better account of the character of the conservation area.

6.8.	CDC-Urban Design Consultant:
•	The proposed village centre for Heyford Park is a critical component of the overall development at Upper Heyford. It has a dual role in providing commercial facilities that serve the residents of the wider site and as a social and community hub that brings people from across the area together. To do this, it needs to be accessible so that people can get to easily and it must be designed in a way that fosters social interaction.
•	The location of the site on Camp Road is ideal in terms of maximising accessibility; wider site traffic and passing trade will be able to access the retail and heritage centre easily as it is on a main route that connects beyond the site. Pedestrian connectivity across the development parcel is well resolved, although connectivity in the area around the Trident Roundabout would help to better integrate the village centre into the development to the north.
•	The proposed layout could do more to make the most of the location of the site. Whilst the blocks present an active frontage to Camp Road, which is a positive, but the location of the parking works against the concept as it moves activity into the parts of the site that away from building entrances. A better approach would be to integrate the retail parking into the street edge along Camp Road and separate out the residential parking for the flats above. As it is, the flat entrances share the servicing yard and car park, which makes for an unpleasant and uninviting address. More outdoor amenity space to for residents integrated into a residential parking and garden area at the rear would help.
•	The town square element of the scheme could be widened so that when passing along this stretch of Camp Road you pass through the square and retail together, lined with the gardens outside building 103. This would help to slow traffic and would make crossing Camp Road easier, possibly negating the need for a zebra crossing. The pavement area outside of the proposed shops is overly narrow. Making this wider would make more room for browsing. 
•	The internal configuration of the buildings is concerning, with most of the apartments being served from a central corridor. These often lack natural light, and cause many of the apartments to be single aspect. This is especially true of Block B. A better approach is to use multiple service cores that allow for flats to run the full depth of the building. This also helps generate more activity at street level.
•	The approach to architecture is, in the main, well resolved and references the locality whilst breaking up the massing of the proposed blocks. The simple materials help in this regard, as does the detailing of the roofs.

6.9.	Oxfordshire CC- Transport Development Control: No objection:
Key points:
•	Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.7 of the design and Access Statement present proposed provisions for bus and cycles and delivery and refuse collection respectively. These are acceptable in principle. However, they do not appear on the Proposed Site Layout plan No.CRD-00-ZZ-Dr-A-00901 and the Proposed Western Car Park Layout plan No.CRD-00-ZZ-DR-A-0910. Details of these proposed provisions must be submitted in discharge of conditions.
•	Details of bus, cycle, delivery and refuse provisions are required in discharge of conditions.
Planning Conditions
•	In the event that permission is to be given, the following planning conditions should be attached.
o	D4 Access
o	D16 details of turning for service vehicles
o	D19 cycle parking provision

6.10.	CDC-Building Control: No adverse comments

6.11.	Historic England:
•	advised on a previous version (17/00895/F) of concerns about the northern part of a village centre because of its effects on the character of the Upper Heyford conservation area, and in particular the military feel of this part of the site, which we continue to think makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area. We described this instantly-recognisable military character as deriving from buildings of the same general style associated with the Trenchard-era airbase, mostly set well back from the road, widely spaced and surrounded by plenty of trees. The buildings proposed under the previous application were much larger, higher, more closely spaced and closer to the road that those currently occupying the site. We did not, though, object in principle to the replacement of Buildings 101 and 102 (or the later extension to Building 100), which are not identified as positive contributors to the conservation area in your council's conservation area appraisal for Upper Heyford.
•	The current scheme retains broadly the same footprint of new buildings, so previous proposed changes to the existing building line and impacts on existing trees remain the same. The buildings themselves are, though, lower and more restrained architecturally than was previously proposed, which we think reduces the harm formerly identified to the conservation area to a low level. However, because the harm is not eliminated entirely, it will still need to be considered in relation to NPPF para 134 and weighed against any public benefits associated with the scheme.
•	Prior to this balancing exercise, you are required by para 129 of the NPPF to seek means of avoiding conflict between the proposal and the significance of any heritage assets affected by it. We accepted in our previous letter that for a village centre to have its own sense of place and read as the centre of the community, some changes to the existing character are inevitable and that is likely to rule out major changes to the scheme. However, there are likely to be opportunities to further reduce harm to the conservation area through architectural design, which should be seen as a tool for enhancement, too.
•	Although the current design is an improvement on the previous proposal, we think the scheme could still benefit from really careful attention to detail to ensure that it appears to belong to this place and reflects its military character specifically. Such things as the specification of windows, doors and shopfronts, the plane on which they are set relative to surrounding brickwork, and the treatment of that brickwork where it surrounds those openings (sills, heads and jambs) and meets the roof (eaves and verges) will all be crucial to the success of this scheme. The selection of materials will be equally important. I suggest that some design cues might be sought from other brick buildings in the Trident and further details of these items should be sought by condition of any consent.
•	Recommendation: Historic England has no objection to the application on heritage grounds, but we consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 129, 132 and 134 of the NPPF. In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 

NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.12.	Daniel Scharf, Oxford Trust for Contemporary History:

•	This is a reserved matters application where, in the normal way, only limited if any account can be given to the comments matters of principle.  However, in this long process of re-developing the Cold War airbase (including the withdrawal of the previous application for this area and reconsideration being given again to the heritage centre that appears in the application site) the Council should be in close contact with the owners to ensure, together, that the overall development follows the principles paid down in Local Plan policy V5. 
•	The Council should put an end to the piecemeal treatment of the site, taking place in the absence of the promised conference, or the masterplan, and heritage impact assessment required by local plan policy V5. A thorough check should be made about the legality of the submission of reserved matters. 
•	Whatever the Council and developer might think about the appropriateness of World Heritage Site status, there are 3 international conventions and a Culture White Paper which should be applied to the development proposals being made on this site. 
•	There are any number of references and requirements within policy V5 which individually and/or together explain the reasons why a ‘comprehensive integrated approach’ is necessary and how proposals considered in the absence of a comprehensive plan could not reasonably comply with this development plan policy.
•	In short, most of the requirements set out in the development plan policy V5 rely on the preparation of a master plan and the basis of the comprehensive integrated approach. It is hard to imagine any circumstances in which the provisions of this development plan policy should or could be overridden.  The owners have had nearly 8 years to have produced and/or the Council to have required this necessary information/evidence.
•	The absence of a “comprehensive integrated approach”, makes it impossible to make sensible and constructive comments on these submissions.

6.13.	Heyford Park Residents & Community Development Association: fully support Dorchester’s new application for village centre north 18/00513/REM.
•	We are pleased to see sufficient commercial spaces and even though there is less residential now planned due to the height being dropped and southern block removed we welcome the softer design. We welcome a speedy approval and for the much needed amenities to start to be delivered at Heyford Park.

7.	RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

7.1.	Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.2.	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)

•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic Environment
•	VIL5 - Former RAF Upper Heyford
•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built Environment
•	ESD13 - Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement
•	ESD10 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural Environment
•	ESD1 - Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
•	ESD2 - Energy Hierarchy
•	ESD3 - Sustainable Construction
•	ESD4 - Decentralised Energy Systems
•	ESD5 - Renewable Energy
•	ESD6 - Sustainable Flood Risk Management
•	ESD7 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
•	ESD8 - Water Resources
•	SLE1 - Employment Development
•	SLE3-Supporting Tourism Growth 
•	SLE4 - Improved Transport and Connections
•	PSD 1-Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) (CLP96)

•	C28 - Layout, design and external appearance of new development 
•	C30 - Design of new residential development 
•	C23 - Retention of features contributing to character or appearance of a conservation area
•	T2- Support for Tourist accommodation in built up Settlement

Other Material Planning Considerations:
•	National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) - National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
•	Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) – This sets out regularly updated guidance from central Government to provide assistance in interpreting national planning policy and relevant legislation.
•	RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Appraisal 2006 (UHCA)
•	Application 08/0716/OUT- Appeal decision; both the Secretary of State’s decision letter and the Inspector’s report are of significance to this application

In addition a design code was approved in October 2013 in order to comply with Condition 8 of planning permission 10/010642/F. This was required to “to ensure that the subsequent reserved matters applications are considered and determined by the Local Planning Authority in the context of an overall approach for the site consistent with the requirement to achieve a high quality design as set out in the Environmental Statement, the Revised Comprehensive Planning Brief for the site, and Policies UH4 of the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan, H2 of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 and comply with Policies CC6, CC7 and H5 of the South East Plan 2009.” Although this application is a full one the contents of the code are still an important guide for the developer and Planning Authority.

8.	APPRAISAL

Relevant Background

8.1.	An outline application that proposed: “A new settlement of 1075 dwellings, together with associated works and facilities including employment uses, community uses, school, playing fields and other physical and social infrastructure (as amended by plans and information received 26.06.08).” was granted in 2010 following a major public inquiry (ref 08/00716/OUT).

8.2.	The permission with regard to the flying field was implemented but a subsequent second application was submitted for the settlement area. That permission for a new settlement was granted in December 2011 (ref 10/01642/OUT).The permission was in outline so details of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access (the reserved matters) have to be submitted within a period of six years and this application is for approval of reserved matters in accordance with that outline planning permission. Previously a full application (ref 17/00895/F) was submitted for a new village centre on the north side of Camp Road which included “change of use to offices (98sqm); erection of 2 No four storey buildings north of Camp Road, with bridge link at first and second floor and one four storey building south of Camp Road to provide an A1 Use Class Convenience Store (511.3sqm), 11 x A1 Use Class retail units (1,186sqm) and 66 residential units (28 x 1 bed and 38 x 2 bed); formation of vehicle parking areas; provision of associated infrastructure and landscaping works” but was withdrawn following objections by the Local Planning Authority to the scale of development.

8.3.	The appeal and subsequent planning decisions have already been taken into account by the Council as part of its Local Plan and the development of former RAF Upper Heyford is seen as the major single location for growth in the District away from Banbury and Bicester. This seems a feasible proposition as the outline permission is now in place. Furthermore, in the CLP, additional sites have been allocated for development in and around Heyford.

8.4.	Extensive pre application discussions have been had on this site both prior to and during the processing of application 17/00895/F. The Council were keen to retain Buildings 100 and 103 and for the new buildings to respect their character whilst also reflecting the scale and appearance of the buildings in the Trident area near-by. Although not statutorily listed 100 and 103 are of local interest and as the site is located within the RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area Officer’s considered it critical that the development reinforced and enhanced the character of this area.. Subsequently discussions have been had about design and layout, proposed commercial uses and, compliance with the existing masterplan, Design Code and proposed Local Plan policy (Villages 5).

8.5.	Turning to the detail of the application, Officers’ consider the following matters to be relevant to the determination of this application:
•	Planning Policy and Principle of Development;
•	Design, Layout and Appearance
•	Impact on Heritage
•	Landscape Impact;
•	Accessibility, Highway Safety and Parking;
•	Employment
•	Flooding Drainage

Planning Policy and Principle of the Development

8.6.	Paragraph 14 of the NPPF makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that permission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole. There remains a need to undertake a balancing exercise to examine any adverse impacts of a development that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of it and also the harm that would be caused by a particular scheme in order to see whether it can be justified. In carrying out the balancing exercise it is, therefore, necessary to take into account policies in the development plan as well as those in the Framework. It is also necessary to recognise that Section 38 of the Act continues to require decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan and the Framework highlights the importance of the plan led system as a whole.

8.7.	The Development Plan for Cherwell District comprises the saved policies in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that in dealing with applications for planning permission the local planning authority shall have regards to the provisions of the development plan in so far as is material to the application and to any material considerations. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is also reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 11 which makes it clear that the starting point for decision making is the development plan.

8.8.	Although this is a reserved matter application submitted to comply with the terms and conditions set down by the outline planning permission granted in 2011, it is still required to take into account Policy Villages 5 of the CLP which identifies the former military base as a strategic site in the rural area for a new settlement. The land subject of this application is identified within that policy as part of a potential development area. The policy seeks to achieve a settlement of approximately 1600 dwellings in addition to those already approved together with employment and other development. This includes community facilities and local centre/hotel. The policy also goes on to lay down infrastructure needs, specific design and place making principles including avoiding development on more sensitive and historically significant sites, retain features that are important for the character and appearance of the site, encourage biodiversity enhancement, environmentally improve areas, integrate the new and existing communities and remove structures that do not make a positive contribution to the site’s special character. The plans and supporting documentation demonstrate its conformity with the development plan in particular:
•	development of a brownfield site
•	retention of two building considered to be historic assets
•	the formation of a new settlement centre in a sustainable and highly accessible location.
•	the environmental improvement of the locality
•	a commitment to high quality design and finishes reflective of the approved Heyford design code and appropriate for a new commercial heart to the settlement
•	scale and massing of new buildings to reflect their context and
•	integration and connectivity to the surrounding development
The main issues will be discussed in more detail below but in principle the application is seen to broadly conform with Policy Villages 5.

Design, Layout and Appearance

8.9.	Extensive work and discussions have been had with the developer to establish a layout and architectural vocabulary for the site which will reinforce and enhance its heritage value. The starting point has been the retention of Buildings 100 and 103 but in addition the applicant has had to consider the creation of a new centre, ensure it integrates into the wider settlement and the approved scheme for the Centre on the south side of Camp Road, and becomes an accessible and community hub. It needs to take account of the linkage it has to its immediate surroundings and beyond. In particular, to Camp Road which it fronts, to the Village Centre South, and to the Trident area to the rear.

8.10.	An all embracing Design and Access statement was prepared for the earlier application and subsequently revised following resubmission of the application after the Council’s Officer’s recommended revisions in the architectural styles and to the scale of development proposed here. The architect’s use of the Design Code as a guiding tool can be seen by the principles set out in designing the village centre, namely identity, character and services provided. The two main buildings have been broken into a number of constituent bays that reflect the influence of the airfield hangers most significantly in the roof form that creates a rhythm to Camp Road and reduces the main bulk of the buildings. The new buildings use brick to reflect the functional military aesthetic, Building A has the red brick approved elsewhere while block B uses the buff, more contemporary brick as used on Village Centre South. Metal cladding is used to feature balconies and stair core locations as a reference back to the hangers.

8.11.	In assessing the scale and massing of the development, it has been resolved to separate the development in to two main buildings of 3 stories with a commercial ground floor and residential above. This is effectively a storey less than the previous scheme which strived to increase the density of development but was felt in the final judgement to be somewhat overbearing on the street scene and on Buildings 100 and 103. As revised, this provides an acceptable balance between density, a reflection of the character of this part of Heyford whilst at the same time establishing a new identity for the village centre, and forming an acceptable relationship to Buildings 100 and 103. It also provides an opportunity for enhanced connectivity and permeability between the settlements north and south of Camp Road by creation of informal north-south routes for pedestrians and cyclists..

8.12.	The two buildings are also pulled slightly forward to increase the sense of enclosure and create a stronger visual presence. Although this might not be entirely in line with the character of the base it follows good principle for urban design and will create an active frontage to Camp Road, the main street through the settlement. It will also form a stronger relationship to the commercial development on the south side of Camp Road and the alignment of Block A (and Building 100) will help create and frame the proposed village square. Part of the anticipated use will involve the closure of Camp Road for markets, and social and seasonal events. The square will be surfaced in contrasting materials to create strong routes through it linking destinations such as the school buildings. The finish of surface materials is important and a commitment has been given to use high quality throughout the scheme which will be reinforced by conditions. As well as the village square, the layout creates a public space with a heritage garden in front of Building 103.

8.13.	Building 100 is the former Guard House and though not listed is an important historical asset.. Its character has been diluted by unsympathetic extensions which will be demolished to reveal a pavilion like structure. To create a more active frontage and relate better to the new square the southern elevation will be glazed.

8.14.	Building 103 is not part of the proposal application having already been granted for use as a heritage centre. However its wider environment is part of this schemes landscaping and parking layout which are discussed below.

8.15.	Parking is provided to the north side of the buildings interspersed with planting and a new village car park to the west of the site set behind the established landscape belt of trees fronting Camp Road.

8.16.	It is considered the scale of the development is appropriate vertically and spatially. That the buildings and their setting are of a suitable form and appearance that follows the place making guidance set out in the CLP and follows the advice set down in the design code. The range of specified materials is of quality, although a condition is specifically required to ensure this. The result creates the village square. The Officers conclude that what is proposed conforms to CLP policies Villages 5 and ESD 15, and CLP96 policies C28 and C30.

Impact on Heritage 

8.17.	This application seeks approval for an important phase of development by Heyford Commercial Developments. On the application site are 4 main buildings. Building 100 is listed as of local interest and was …”constructed in 1925 as a Guardhouse. The main building is brick with pitched, slated roof. Roof extends to form entrance canopy which rests on concrete pillars. Bare blockwork internally. Brick side extension with flat roof & metal entrance canopy. Rear extension rendered with leaded metal windows and metal pitched roof.”

8.18.	Buildings 101 and 102 have a number of constituent parts, all linked and date from 1939. “Single and 1.5 storey high brick building with external metal cladding. Large metal & glazed doors at front; Brick painted walls with steep pitched, tiled roof & metal windows; Metal clad building on brick plinth, with metal windows and metal pitched roof; Brick building with parapet to flat roof. Garage door to side & metal windows. Monopitch metal roof to brick single storey extension at rear.”

8.19.	Although Building 103 is technically excluded from the application site, it does sit within the outer red line of the site boundary. Again of local interest it is believed to date from 1925. 1.5 storeys, with “brick walls with pitched, tiled roof. Large, single glazed metal windows in partially bricked up openings. Single storey, brick extension adjacent with pitched tiled roof, timber windows & brick chimney”. It has recently been refurbished in line with a permission to use the building as a heritage centre.

8.20.	The buildings are all orientated to the internal service road. Between them and Camp Road, the main spine road that runs through the former base, is a grassed area on which there are a significant number of mature trees.

8.21.	In this case it is proposed to retain Buildings 100 and 103; 101 and 102, and the extensions to 100 would be demolished. They formed a group located around and orientated towards the base entrance, Building 100 being the actual Guard House, and Camp Road. They relate strongly to the buildings retained as part of Village centre south, 455 and 457, and to the former Station HQ, Building 52, now the development company head office. Both Historic England and the Conservation Officer originally objected to the earlier proposal but on submission of this modified scheme they have been withdrawn although some reservations remain although it is believed the use of conditions can overcome their fears.

8.22.	Whilst no buildings on the site are either scheduled ancient monuments or statutorily listed buildings, to the west but outside the site are The Hardened Telephone Exchange (Building 129) and The Battle Command Centre (Building 126) which in the Conservation Plan Study (2005) considered them to be of national and international significance. 

8.23.	“The Hardened Telephone Exchange (129) was constructed in the late 1970s, and typifies contemporary NATO policy to harden its key operational facilities. This structure was central to the operation of Upper Heyford, and connected the airbase with NATO, its European counterparts and to the United States.” (para 9.6.1 of the Conservation Appraisal).”

8.24.	Built in the late 1970s, in accordance with the NATO policy of hardening structures, the Battle Command Centre (126) is of international significance. All activities on the airfield were overseen from this building and it was designed to be self-sufficient. It is a single-storey hardened structure enhanced by its contemporary fixtures and fittings. The architecture reflects NATO’s policy towards hardened facilities against pre-emptive conventional attack, chemical and biological attack, and to be able to operate in a hostile environment to launch a retaliatory attack. 

8.25.	Buildings 74 and 52 to the east are not statutorily listed but are defined in the Conservation Area Appraisal as structures making a positive contribution to the special character of the Conservation Area. Both are “Non Listed Buildings of Local Significance’. In the Conservation Area Appraisal, the importance of Building 74 was attributed to it being “possibily one of the most prestigious Officers’ Mess built on an operational RAF station during the 1920s.” The appraisal goes on: “Building 52 Heyford House (Building 52) formerly the Station Offices and Operations Block constructed in the 1920s. The Station Offices were designed to impress and dominate the entrance to the station. This is a fine example of the first design for a permanent Station Office (the design was changed after 1927). The Station Offices, the Operations Block and the Guardhouse make an interesting building group and although altered, are good examples of RAF station architecture of the mid 1920s.”

8.26.	One other building of local significance outside of the site but in proximity to it is the “Station Armoury (Building 125) originally constructed as a three squadron Station Armoury in 1925. Extended in 1937/38 to provide a lecture room and photographic section it forms part of setting of Hardened Telephone Exchange (Building 129). This is to the north west of the site.” Beyond that are the “Aircraft hangers (Shed Type ‘A’) (Buildings 172, 320, 345, 350, 151 & 315) date stones ‘1926’ on annexes facing the technical site. These were the first permanent end-opening aeroplane sheds for RAF stations in the interwar period. A total of 34 were built at 17 sites between 1925 and 1940. Upper Heyford is unique in having six, the largest collection of Type ‘A’ hangers in the country” (para 8.2.2.-Conservation Area appraisal).

8.27.	The merits and significance of these buildings have previously been considered at the inquiry into planning application 08/00716/OUT and at other instances when the Conservation Area was being appraised, environmental statements prepared for other applications and for a Heritage Assessment and Impact Study. The conclusion is that the significance of the area is low, and that the significance of the two retained buildings themselves was low, both are “Non Listed Buildings of Local Significance.” 

8.28.	Turning to the guidance to Planning authority’s contained in the Framework and the NPPG on the historic environment:

Para 131 of the Framework advises: “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
o	the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
o	the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
o	the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Para 132 goes on to advise: “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”

8.29.	In this case Buildings 100 and 103 have undergone much change inside and out reducing their integrity. Their setting is also somewhat different now that the outline planning permissions and the CLP policies are being implemented. The assets are also not listed other than of local interest.  However they do form an important link to the buildings on the other side of Camp Road. No other listed or scheduled buildings are directly impacted by this development. It is therefore the view of the Officers that what is proposed will preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and preserve important heritage assets.

Affordable Housing
8.30.	Heyford is seen as a strategic development site by the Local Plan and was envisioned as a point of growth when the policy was drawn up. 1600 dwellings and 1500 jobs are proposed there under Policy Villages 5. This site is part of the land allocated for development in the relevant policy although technically it is for approval of reserved matters. In the last year 166 dwellings were constructed at Heyford making it one of the three main delivery sites for Cherwell. The Council have signed a statement of common ground with the developer and applicant committing to the expeditious implementation of the policy.

8.31.	On this site it was always expected a significant element of social housing would be provided and in this case it is 12 of the 30 dwellings proposed, 40%. All will be 2 bed and shared ownership.

8.32.	Policy BSC 3 sets out the requirement for Affordable Housing. However, Heyford has its own requirement under Policy Villages 5, 30%, which is to be secured on a site wide basis. The Council have secured through an earlier s106 agreement a strategy for the provision of Affordable Housing. Furthermore, a further agreement is being negotiated under terms being drawn up for the provision of the 1600 dwellings required under Policy Villages 5.

Density and Housing Mix
8.33.	It may not be appropriate to apply Policy BSC2 here on a mixed use site but to go through the criteria it lays down, it requires re-use of previously developed land with which this proposal clearly complies. It expects development to be at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare unless there are justifiable reasons for a lower density. Taking the site area as a whole the density is about 34 dwellings per hectare. This could have been higher but the site includes the commercial uses on the ground floor and a large are of commercial car parking. Furthermore, the site is within a conservation area and special attention has to be paid to “the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” (NPPF-para 131) In this case the proposed development is reflecting the character in this location, at a higher density avoiding harm. It is therefore, in this case, compliant with the NPPF and the design and conservation policies of the Council

8.34.	30 units are proposed, 2 3-bed and 28 2-bed. Policy BSC4 sets out the suggested mix of homes based on requirements of the Strategic Market Housing Assessment for Oxfordshire (SHMA 2014). Again, this site is one more phase of development of a much bigger development site. The Council are securing a much greater proportion of larger units elsewhere on Heyford so overall there is an acceptable balance and mix in the wider but surrounding area.

Landscape Impact

8.35.	The landscape setting is an important part of the character of Heyford. Presently there are a number of mature trees on the site for which their amenity value comes from being in a group. None are category A trees and individually most are either poorly formed or have structural defects caused by density of planting and lack of management over the years. They have formed a co-dependency which if individual specimens were removed may have severe consequences for the stability and structural integrity of the exposed retained trees. 

8.36.	 In principle therefore, the officers have not objected to an almost wholesale restructuring of the landscaping on this part of the site and to the loss of 70 trees. The aboriculturalist’s report states “none of the trees to be removed are considered to be of such importance or sensitivity to be major constraints or justify its substantial modification.” Nevertheless, the council require a scheme of mitigation. A strategy has been prepared which combines a good mix of hard and soft landscaping combined with surface treatment which will act as mitigation but also add to the place making exercise. The applicant has requested the actual details are worked up through the use of conditions and this is acceptable to the Landscape Officer. A comprehensive landscape strategy has been prepared for the whole site

8.37.	 Maintenance of the landscaping at Heyford Park will be undertaken for the applicant who has set up a management company responsible for it. This keeps control of some of the hedging, planting and trees in the public domain. It is concluded that what is provided is therefore an environmental enhancement in compliance with Policy Villages 5.

Employment

8.38.	No figures are given in the application for the level of employment likely from this development and the issue is not covered in the supporting documentation. Strictly speaking, as a reserved matter to the outline permission for the new settlement, it is not considered to be part of the 1500 jobs required by CLP Policy Villages 5 but part of a mixed range of employment opportunities bearing in mind the nature of the commercial enterprises proposed which will contrast to the higher levels of employment provided on the Flying Field and in the Technical area from B1, B2 and B8 operations. According to the figures in the design statement, Block A will provide for a new commercial store of some 278.7sq m and Block B 596.4sqm of retail. Building 100 will be converted to an office (B1) but the floor figures do not appear to have been submitted although clearly they are very modest. 

8.39.	The economic case for development forms one of the three aims of the NPPF to create sustainable development along with social and environmental considerations therefore it is seen as another reason to support this development.

Traffic, Access and Parking

8.40.	Development at Heyford Park is required by the CLP to provide good transport links, to minimise traffic generation, to calm and manage traffic where it occurs and that the settlement should be designed to encourage walking and cycling. This site with its central location is possibly the most accessible and therefore the most sustainable for commercial development in Heyford Park. It forms the hub that the surrounding development revolves around both inside the new settlement and in the wider district surrounding. Buses go along Camp Road and the prime stop will be in the village centre. Footpath and cycle routes will radiate outwards from the new Square. Most of the community services will be provided here (in the next phase of the village centre) so this accessibility is important and needs to be maintained. 

8.41.	In terms of the physical proposals, Camp Road’s linearity is retained which is important to reflect its heritage importance. However, that provides issues in calming traffic as without measures in place there will be opportunity for high speeds to be attained. It is also important for the solutions to be designed rather than engineered. Camp Road is outside the red line application site so these details have been  secured through other applications but what is shown indicatively are physical alterations to the carriageway that will force traffic to slow down when it enters the centre in addition to which are surface treatments that have been used elsewhere and which will give pedestrian priority in the area and help create a sense of place.

8.42.	The parking areas to the north side will be accessed off the existing circulatory road and not direct from Camp Road.  The layout and level of parking has been revised to better reflect the Highway Authority’s normal standard. 65 standard and 11 disabled parking spaces are provided. In addition a separate car park to the west is provided for shoppers and visitors with 37 standard spaces and 12 disabled. A total of 150 cycle parking spaces are also envisaged including secure internal facilities for residents and Sheffield stands for the wider public. Conditions have been suggested to secure satisfactory provision.

8.43.	The Highway Authority has expressed some reservations about elements to the scheme but withdrawn their objection.to it and requested further details be secured by condition.

Flooding and Drainage

8.44.	The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low risk). A Flood risk assessment has nevertheless been undertaken by the applicants for this and the rest of Heyford Park.  As the site is in Zone 1 redevelopment of the site is not precluded. Surface water discharge from the site can be discharged to a new drainage system that can be suds compliant. OCC, the local flood risk authority, are happy with the scheme.

Engagement

8.45.	 With regard to the duty set out in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework, problems or issues that have arisen during the application have been largely resolved. It is considered that the duty to be positive and proactive has been discharged through the efficient and timely determination of the application and the pre-application engagement that preceded it. It does need to be recorded that the applicant has followed our normal procedures and protocols and engaged in pre-application discussions.

9.	PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
9.1.	The 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.
9.2.	What is proposed as part of this application is seen as sustainable development. It provides economic, social and environmental benefits in line with guidance in the NPPF. It conforms to the main thrust of the Development Plan, in particular Policy Villages 5. It is considered on balance that what is now proposed will form an area of a distinct character reflecting the design of the surrounding development but without slavishly following it or creating a pastiche. It will enhance the setting of the Village Square and Camp Road. Taken together the disparate elements of this development create an attractive and accessible Centre. It is recommended that planning permission is granted.

10.	RECOMMENDATION
That permission is granted, subject to the following conditions:

1	Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the application shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans and documents:
•	Application forms
•	Planning Statement with Affordable Housing Statement;
•	Design and Access Statement;
•	Flood Risk Assessment (including appendices A-E); and
•	Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Tree Condition Survey;

•	Site Location Plan EDC05-GA-100-J
•	Proposed Site Layout CD2316_CRD-01-00-DR-A-00901_S2-P3
•	Proposed Western Car Park Layout CD2316_CRD-00-ZZ-DR-A-00910_S2-P3
•	Demolitions Plan - Application Site CD2316_CRD-00-ZZ-DR-A-01000_S2-P4
•	Building 101 + 102 - Existing Ground Floor Plan CD2316_CRD-01-ZZ-DR-A-00930_S2-P4
•	Building 101 + 102 - Existing Roof Plan CD2316_CRD-01-R1-DR-A-00931_S2-P4
•	Building 101 + 102 - Existing Elevations CD2316_CRD-01-ZZ-DR-A-01210_S2-P5
•	Building 101 + 102 - Demolitions Plan - Ground Floor CD2316_CRD-01-00-DR-A-00950_S2-P4
•	Building 101 + 102 - Demolition Plan - Roof CD2316_CRD-01-R1-DR-A-00951_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Existing Ground Floor Plan CD2316_CRD-01-00-DR-A-00920_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Existing Roof Plan CD2316_CRD-01-R1-DR-A-00921_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Existing Elevations CD2316_CRD-01-ZZ-DR-A-01200_S2-P5
•	Building 100 - Demolitions Plan - Ground Floor CD2316_CRD-01-00-DR-A-00940_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Demolition Plans - Roof CD2316_CRD-01-R1-DR-A-00941_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan CD2316_CRD-01-00-DR-A-01025_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Proposed Roof Plan CD2316_CRD-01-R1-DR-A-01026_S2-P4
•	Building 100 - Proposed Elevations CD2316_CRD-01-ZZ-DR-A-01220_S2-P5
•	Block A + B (North) - Proposed Floor Plan CD2316_CRD-00-ZZ-DR-A-01030_S2-P9
•	Block A + B (North) - Proposed Elevations CD2316_CRD-00-ZZ-DR-A-01230_S2-P3
•	Typical Bin Store Specification (EDC39-SK-100-B- RDG).
•	Proposed Tracking Layout HEYF-5-225 B
•	Proposed Engineering Layout HEYF-5-225 C
•	Trident Road S38 Layout HEYF-5-1007 F
	
	Reason - For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and to comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 2	Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation hereby approved, a schedule of materials and finishes for the external walls and, roofs of the development hereby approved together with samples of the brick, slate, and cladding to be used in the construction of the walls/roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
		 
	Reason - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 3	Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation, full details of the doors and windows hereby approved, at a scale of 1:20 including a cross section, cill, lintel and recess detail and colour/finish, shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the doors and windows shall be installed within the building in accordance with the approved details.
	
	Reason - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 4	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), which shall include details of the measures to be taken to ensure construction works seek to minimise the effect on residential properties adjacent to or surrounding the site together with details of the consultation and communication to be carried out with local residents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with approved CEMP.
			
	Reason - To ensure the environment is protected during construction in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 5	All plant, machinery, mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting including air conditioning, other than that shown on the approved plans, shall be installed internally. No other plant, machinery, mechanical ventilation equipment, flues or ducting shall be placed on the outside of the building without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
			
	Reason - In the interest of visual and residential amenity, and in order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to minimise the risk of a nuisance arising from smells in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 6	If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, no further development shall be carried out until full details of a remediation strategy detailing how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the remediation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
				
	Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 7	With the exception of newspaper/periodicals deliveries and post, no deliveries, waste collections or other noisy external activities likely to cause nuisance to nearby residents shall take place before 0700 or after 2100 Monday to Friday, before 07.00 or after 18.00 on Saturdays or before 0900 hours or after 1500 hours on Sundays and bank holidays. When deliveries are taking place current best practice shall be observed to minimise the potential of noise disturbance.
	
	Reason - To ensure the creation of a satisfactory environment free from intrusive levels of noise and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 8	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme for landscaping the site shall include:-
				
(a) 	details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their species, number, sizes and positions, together with grass seeded/turfed areas,
				
(b)	details of the hard surface areas, including pavements, pedestrian areas, reduced-dig areas, crossing points and steps.
				
(c)	full design details of the railings, means of enclosures, seats, bollards, tree grills, cycle hoops and any other street furniture . 
			
(d)	a landscape management plan, to include the timing of the implementation of the plan, design objectives, management responsibilities, maintenance schedules and procedures for the replacement of failed planting for all landscape areas,
			
Thereafter the landscape scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

	Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 9	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with BS 4428:1989 Code of Practice for general landscape operations (excluding hard surfaces), or the most up to date and current British Standard, in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building(s) or on the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, herbaceous planting and shrubs which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the current/next planting season with others of similar size and species.
			
	Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

10	Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation hereby approved, full details of all service trenches, pipe runs or drains and any other excavation, earth movement or mounding required in connection with the development, including the identification and location of all existing and proposed trees, shrubs and hedgerows within influencing distance of such services, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
			
	Reason  To ensure the continued health of retained trees/hedges and to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the construction works, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the integration of the development into the existing landscape and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

11	All agreed service trenches, pipe runs, drains or any other excavation to be constructed within the agreed Root Protection Area (RPA) of the tree/trees on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with National Joint Utility Group 'Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility apparatus in Proximity to Trees - Volume 4 and all subsequent revisions and amendments thereof.
			
	Reason - To ensure the continued health of retained trees/hedges and to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the construction works, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the integration of the development into the existing landscape and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

12	Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation hereby approved, and notwithstanding the submitted details, full details, locations, specifications and construction methods for all purpose built tree pits and associated above ground features, to include specifications for the installation of below ground, load-bearing 'cell structured' root trenches, root barriers, irrigation systems and a stated volume of a suitable growing medium to facilitate and promote the healthy development of the proposed trees, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and specifications.
			
	Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

13	The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the recommendations and specifications set out in the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and the Tree Protection Plan prepared by Ruskins Tree Consultancy dated March 2018.
	
	Reason - To ensure the continued health of retained trees/hedges and to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the construction works, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the integration of the development into the existing landscape and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

14	Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition, site clearance and preparation hereby approved, full details of the means of access between the land and the highway, including, position, layout, construction, drainage and vision splays shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the means of access shall be constructed and retained in accordance with the approved details.
	
	Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

15	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a Car Park Management Plan, including measures to protect the proposed car parking from long stay residential parking, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
			
	Reason: In the interests of road safety and to prevent obstruction of the highway and public areas by inappropriate overspill parking.

16	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a full Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including:
•	Routing of construction traffic and delivery vehicles, and details of route signage
•	Details of any road closures and traffic management needed during construction.
•	Details of wheel wash facilities to be provided to prevent migration of mud onto highway
•	Details of appropriate signing for pedestrians during construction works, including any footpath diversions. 
•	Details of a regime to inspect and maintain all signing, barriers etc. 
•	The use of appropriately trained, qualified and certificated banksmen for guiding vehicles/unloading etc. 
•	Details of parking of site related vehicles (worker transport etc.) in the vicinity 
•	Layout plan of the site that shows structures, roads, site storage, parking, compound, pedestrian routes etc.
•	A before-work commencement highway condition survey and agreement with a representative of the Highway Authority
•	A communications plan for engagement with local residents
•	Any temporary access arrangements as agreed with Highway Authority
•	Details of times for construction traffic and delivery vehicles, which must be outside network peak and school peak hours.
		
	Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to safeguard the amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings during the construction period and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

17	Prior to the first use of any new public footpath, the new footpath shall be formed, constructed, surfaced, laid and marked out, drained and completed in accordance with specification details which shall be firstly submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 
			
	Reason- In the interests of highway safety and public amenity and to comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

18	Prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted and notwithstanding details submitted, covered cycle parking facilities shall be provided on the site in accordance with details which shall be firstly submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the covered cycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and maintained for the parking of cycles in connection with the development.
	
	Reason - In the interests of sustainability, to ensure a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

19	No goods, materials, plant or machinery shall be stored, repaired, operated or displayed in the open without the prior express planning consent of the Local Planning Authority.
			
	Reason - In order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

20	Prior to occupation of any of the development hereby approved, and with the exception of adopted highway street lighting, full details of any proposed external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the lighting shall be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.
			
	Reason  To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

					  PLANNING NOTES

 1	The Applicant is reminded that the premises should be made accessible to all disabled people, not just wheelchair users, in accordance with the provisions contained within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  This may be achieved by following recommendations set out in British Standard BS 8300: 2001 - "Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people - Code of Practice", or where other codes may supersede or improve access provision.  Where Building Regulations apply, provision of access for disabled people to the premises will be required in accordance with Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2004) - "Access to and use of Buildings", or codes which contain provisions which are equal to or exceed those provisions contained within Approved Document M.

 2	Closure of Public Highway
		
	If the permission hereby given requires work within the public highway, the applicant is advised that he/she should not commence such work before formal consent is secured from the Highway Authority by way of either (a)  a Section 184 Highways Act 1980 notice, or  (b)  the completion of a formal agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority.  Details of the form of both a) and b) above may be obtained direct from Oxford County Council, the Highway Authority on  Tel. (01865) 844300.

 3	No development shall take place across any public footpath/right of way unless and until it has been legally stopped up or diverted.

 4	A stopping up order will be required in connection to build on or remove from public highway any land that it is within the existing highway boundary. This probably refers only to land on the north side of the proposed realigned Camp Road, which is outside the red line area of this application.
		
	Please note the Advance Payments Code (APC), Sections 219 -225 of the Highways Act, is in force in the county to ensure financial security from the developer to off-set the frontage owners' liability for private street works, typically in the form of a cash deposit or bond. Should a developer wish for a street or estate to remain private then to secure exemption from the APC procedure a 'Private Road Agreement' must be entered into with the County Council to protect the interests of prospective frontage owners. For guidance and information on road adoptions etc. please contact the County's Road Agreements Team on 01865 815700 or email roadagreements@oxfordshire.gov.uk

 5	The County Archaeologist has indicated that the proposal does not appear to directly affect any presently known archaeological sites.  However, the County Council's records do show the presence of known archaeological finds nearby and this should be borne in mind by the applicant.  If archaeological finds do occur during development, the applicant is requested to notify the County Archaeologist in order that he may make a site visit or otherwise advise as necessary.  Please contact : County Archaeologist, Department of Leisure and Arts, Oxfordshire County Council, Central Library, Westgate, Oxford, OX1 1DJ (Telephone 01865 815749).

 6	Your attention is drawn to the need to have regard to the requirements of UK and European legislation relating to the protection of certain wild plants and animals.  Approval under that legislation will be required and a licence may be necessary if protected species or habitats are affected by the development.  If protected species are discovered you must be aware that to proceed with the development without seeking advice from Natural England could result in prosecution.  For further information or to obtain approval contact Natural England on 0300 060 2501.

 7	Attention is drawn to a Legal Agreement related to this development or land which has been made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Sections 111 and 139 of the Local Government Act 1972 and/or other enabling powers.

 8	Before the development hereby approved is occupied, the applicant shall submit in writing to the Local Planning Authority a landscape mitigation strategy to compensate for the loss of mature trees from the site and to act as guide for the future masterplan of Heyford Park.

Case Officer: | Andrew Lewis | DATE: 24.07.2018.
Checked By: | Bob Duxbury | DATE: 24.7.18