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

Heyford Park
Camp Road
Upper Heyford
Bicester
Oxfordshire
OX25 5HD

17/02006/REM

Case Officer: | Andrew Lewis | Recommendation: Permit
Applicant: | Bovis Homes
Proposal: | Reserved Matters application to 10/01642/OUT - 21 plots within the B3 parcel following on from approved reserved matters application 15/01209/REM

1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	The application site for this proposal is part of the former RAF/USAF Upper Heyford base. Located to the north side of Camp Road to the west of the former technical area, the site consists of an area formerly occupied by buildings of mixed “non-residential” uses which have now been demolished and the site cleared. There are no significant trees or shrubs on site.
1.2.	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. The base was divided into three main functional character areas: Flying Field, Technical and Settlement. This site is part of the southern edge of the flying field.
The flying field forms the substantive part of the site and can be divided up into a number of areas and sub-areas, the defining characters of these areas being determined by a combination of topology, the presence of buildings and/or hard standing and their function The general character of the Flying Field is one of open grassland bisected by runways, taxiways and hardstanding. Around the periphery of this open area are strategically located HASs and areas with specific function, some self-contained within their own security fencing; these areas are: 
•	The Quick Reaction Alert Area (Area1C)
•	Northern Bomb Stores and Special Weapons Area (Area 5A)
•	The Avionics Maintenance Facility Area (Area 8)
•	Southern Bomb Store (Area 4)
1.3.	In terms of the uses on site, the military use ceased in 1994. Since 1998 the site has accommodated a number of uses in existing buildings, first under temporary planning permissions latterly under a permanent permission granted on appeal and subsequent applications.
1.4.	The application site falls within Flying Field Zone 8A the southwest edge and in the Conservation appraisal, is described as: “… another indeterminate area, dominated in the west by very large buildings – the Nose Docking Sheds and the flight simulators – but without any distinct imprint of period of function.” The frontage to Camp Road is described as “degraded”.
1.5.	The site is south of and in close proximity to three listed buildings, the nose docking sheds (NDS), Buildings 325, 327 and 328. (There is a fourth unlisted NDS to the north (335)). These were built in the 1950s to allow for maintenance work on engines. They are considered to be of international significance, and are architecturally of an innovative design. As the name suggests the structures were built to allow shelter for the front section of the aircraft and to make it possible to work on its nose and engines under cover. The Nose Docking Sheds are constructed on ten aluminium girder wall frames supporting a cantilever roof framework, which supports the main hanger doors (which are in 14 divisions). The innovative design with the long cantilever form was to create the opening needed to accommodate the aircraft deployed by Strategic Air Command) (SAC) at this time. There is a close correspondence between the architectural form and the types of aircraft deployed at Upper Heyford during the 1950s, especially the B-50Ds, KB-29Ps, and later the B-47 Stratojet.
1.6.	They are listed grade II for the following reasons: “…three hangars built in 1951 to service the first American nuclear-armed bombers deployed here as part of the Cold War. They have historic interest for their rarity, their demonstration of the special relationship between Britain and the United States, and they have technical interest in their early use of aluminium as a building material. They form a group with other structures recommended for scheduling that together make Upper Heyford a unique surviving ensemble.” Their full listing can be read at:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1392505
1.7.	There is a further building approximately 350 metres to the west of the site that is a Scheduled Monument, Building 299, the Avionics Maintenance Facility. It is considered to be of international significance, and was used for the downloading and processing of reconnaissance data. It is one of the most visually impressive buildings within the airbase and one of only two in the United Kingdom. It was constructed in 1980, with a later extension in 1982/3 to provide an area for photographic and reconnaissance data analysis. The building is a hardened concrete semi-sunken structure. Entry is via a blast door protected by a sunken, open walkway. There are two such blast doors. The building was designed to withstand conventional, chemical and biological attack, to maintain the F111E electronics and download and process reconnaissance data. The bunker houses a number of vast rooms mostly rectangular but one ‘L’ shaped. The building once housed life-support systems, decontamination rooms, electronics workshops, photographic darkrooms and had equipment storage and handling areas. Although much of the contemporary fixtures and fittings have now been removed. An extension was added later and this was used by MEAS (Mission Essential Avionics Storage) for the storage of equipment.
1.8.	To the east is Building 320, a type A aircraft hangar, one of 6 at Heyford, all listed of local interest. 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.
1.9.	Over the last 20 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. Included within this decision were a number of applications for conservation consent including demolition of buildings on the application site.
1.10.	The development of the settlement area was delayed as the site was acquired by 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, was 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 were a new area of open space centred on the parade ground, 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 residential buildings at their existing low density has meant the masterplan has expanded the development area west on to the former sports field south of Camp Road and to the south and east of the application site.
1.11.	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, and parameter plans including a retained buildings plan and other plans showing development layouts and uses, all of which included the demolition of all buildings on this part of the site.
1.12.	A number of reserved matters have been submitted, approved and implemented for permission 10/01642/OUT. As a result of this the wider site is starting to take shape. To the south of the application site and on the south side of Camp Road, reserved matters application ref 14/01740/REM has been granted for Bovis Phase 5 for 90 dwellings and this is underway. Bovis phase 2 for 69 dwellings on the south of Camp Road and to the west of Phase 5 is largely complete, ref 13/01584/REM. 
1.13.	In conclusion, although the new settlement is taking shape the land subject of this application has been cleared of buildings and has the appearance of a development site. It has outline planning permission for residential development; and conservation area consent to demolish buildings has previously been granted and implemented.
2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The site is relatively flat and dominated by a long frontage to Camp Road but with a rear boundary to the flying field. The scheme that has been produced has to reflect the masterplan and a design code (see planning history). Although listed as B3, this will be the fifth phase of the Bovis Group’s development.
2.2.	The application represents the provision of a further 21 houses in a total phase of 87 residential units of mixed type and tenure (open market and affordable) with associated gardens, access roads, car parking, landscaping, a local area of play (LAP), utilities and infrastructure. The houses, all 2 storied though some have rooms in roof spaces. Of the 21 houses 9 will be affordable and 12 units market housing. There is a range of sizes from 2 to 5 bedroomed. Designs largely come from the palette of house types used by the applicant in the vicinity of the site with some individual designs for key locations. Parking is provided mainly on plot in line with the design code standards with additional on street visitor parking spaces dotted through the site.
2.3.	The phase will front Camp Road, the primary street that runs through the centre of the new settlement although these houses are sited to the rear of it adjacent the flying field boundary. The site layout is then configured to reflect that set out in the approved design code. A tertiary level street comes off Camp Road and a community level street off that links to the east to create a secondary access route and link an existing circulatory road through the Technical Area, also known as the Trident. The different streets are designed and engineered to reflect their appropriate level in the hierarchy. As a result the main streets have footpaths and street parking, the lesser streets are shared surfaced. The houses fronting Camp Road are larger in scale and set behind grass verges to be lined with trees, again reflective of the Design code. A pedestrian route is created at the western end of the site from Camp Road into the community street.
2.4.	Since submission the details have been revised as part of a positive engagement between applicant and Local Planning Authority. This follows significant pre application engagement. The original layouts have been modified to create a specific character area, comply with the design code and to create space for more trees and parking, and to create an opportunity for more street planting on the internal roads. The layout and design closely follows the Design Codes and advice has been given on the plans and house types following formal written pre application advice. On the back of these comments the design has evolved and a number of changes have been made
2.5.	Application 15/01209/REM saw a significant change to amend the red line site area of the application and therefore reduce the number of units proposed. This will be set out in more detail in the appraisal below but is the result of an objection made by Historic England to the impact on the setting of the listed nose dock sheds. As a consequence 68 units were proposed instead of the 87 for which approval was originally sought. This application now seeks approval for those 21 units previously omitted. The layout, designs, etc are now very much as negotiated between developer and the Local Planning Authority. 
3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	There is no planning history directly relevant to the proposal 
Application Ref. | Proposal | Decision
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). | PER at appeal
10/01619/CAC | Demolition of existing structures (as per Conservation Area Consent Schedule and Drawing No. D.0291 38-1) | PER
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
14/01740/REM | Reserved Matters to Outline application (10/01642/OUT) - Erection of 90 dwellings with associated car parking, infrastructure, landscaping and other works | PER
13/01584/REM | Erection of 69 dwellings with associated car parking, infrastructure and landscaping, provision of public open space, play areas and flood attenuation | PER
15/01209/REM | Reserved Matters to 10/01642/OUT - 68 residential dwellings, garages, highways works, boundary treatments, LAP and associated works | PER

4.	PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

4.1.	Extensive discussions have taken place both during the processing of the current application and also its predecessor, application reference 15/01209/REM. The main issue was in connection with the northern boundary treatment and relationship to the listed nose dock sheds. Landscape screening was proposed which has subsequently been revised at the behest of Historic England and with the agreement of the Landscape Officer for CDC. Some of the house designs were also modified to be more in keeping with the Heyford vernacular.

5.	RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY

5.1.	This application has been publicised by way of site notices displayed on and 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.
5.2.	No comments have been raised by third parties.
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.	Upper Heyford Parish Council: No objection
STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.3.	Historic England (following submission of revised landscaping screen): on the basis of the revised plans withdraw my previously expressed concerns about the suitability of the proposed tree screen.
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.4.	CDC Landscape Officer (to the revised landscape screen): The row of Scots Pine species planted in the locations show are acceptable
6.5.	Oxfordshire County Council (Transport): No objection subject to conditions.
•	Parking provision presented on drawing No.UPP2-02-281 meets the standards set out in the Heyford Park Design Code. However, the following discrepancies should be noted. 
o	The two private parking spaces outside plot 242 are not allocated, and this plot therefore has no allocated parking. 
o	The two private parking spaces allocated to plot 277 are outside the red line. 
o	The private parking space outside plot 241 is allocated to plot 243, and this plot therefore has no allocated parking. 

These items should be rectified on a revised Parking Strategy plan to be submitted in discharge of a condition of planning permission. 
•	OCC require a swept path analysis for an 11.6m in length refuse vehicle for all manoeuvres in forward gear. All internal bends and junctions will need to be tracked with two vehicles using the bend or junction at the same time. 
•	Highway boundary needs to be checked with OCC Highway Records (highway.records@oxfordshire.gov.uk) to determine whether or not it coincides with the site boundary at the proposed access junction. If there is a ditch present the highway boundary is usually the roadside edge of the ditch. 
•	Visibility Splays must be dedicated to OCC if they fall out of the existing highway boundary. 
•	No private drainage to discharge onto existing Highway. 
•	No private drainage to discharge onto any area of proposed adoptable highway. 
•	No Highway materials, construction methods, adoptable layouts and technical details have been approved at this stage. The detailed design will be subject to a full technical audit. 
•	Minimum width of access road to be 4.8m however, this is dependent on size of development. 
•	Footway width adjacent to carriageway should be a minimum of 2.0m. 
•	If there is not a footway adjacent to the carriageway an 800mm maintenance margin is required. 
•	Any vertical deflection along bus route to be agreed with Bus operators (table tops etc.) 
•	Trees within the highway will need to be approved by OCC and will carry a commuted sum. No private planting to overhang or encroach on the proposed adoptable areas. 
•	Trees that are within 5m of the carriageway or footway will require root protection. Trees must not conflict with street lights. 
•	Visitor parking bays parallel to the carriageway can be adopted but accrue a commuted sum. Any other bays, either echelon or perpendicular, or private bays will not be considered for adoption. 
•	Shared surfaces width is to be a minimum of 6.0m, although localised narrowing’s are permitted. A minimum of 800mm maintenance margin is required either side of the shared surface. 
•	Service corridors are to be 2.0m wide. 
•	Roads, apart from spine road, that are straight for over 70m will require some form of traffic calming. 
•	No property should be within 500mm of the proposed highway. No doors, gates, windows, garages or gas/electric cupboards should open onto the proposed highway. 
•	Foul and surface water manholes should not be placed within the middle of the carriageway, at junctions, tyre tracks and where informal crossing points are located. 
•	Minor residential roads that serve four or fewer properties will not be considered for adoption. Roads serving 5 or more houses can be considered for adoption but will need to meet adoptable criteria. 
•	OCC requires saturated CBR laboratory tests on the sub-soil likely to be used as the sub-formation layer. This would be best done alongside the main ground investigation for the site but the location of the samples must relate to the proposed location of the carriageway/footway. 

OCC Drainage raises no objection to this reserved matters application. However, there is concern as the use of permeable paving at the site, as shown on the applicant’s submitted drawings, appears limited in extent. Permeable Paving plays a role in the treatment train process of improving water quality, through a process of water filtration. There is opportunity for the greater use of permeable paving at the site, for example in the private parking bays/ parking areas.
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 2011)
•	VIL5 - Former RAF Upper Heyford
•	PSD1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
•	BSC1 - District Wide Housing distribution
•	BSC2 - The Effective and Efficient Use of Land
•	BSC3 - Affordable Housing
•	BSC4 - Housing Mix
•	BSC10 - Open Space, Outdoor Sport & Recreation Provision
•	BSC11 - Local Standards of Provision - Outdoor Recreation
•	BSC12 - Indoor Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities
•	ESD1 - Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
•	ESD2 - Energy Hierarchy
•	ESD3 - Sustainable Construction
•	ESD6 - Sustainable Flood Risk Management
•	ESD7 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
•	ESD10 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural Environment
•	ESD13 - Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement
•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic Environment

Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) (CLP1996)    
•	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 

7.3.	Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework)
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Appraisal 2006 (UHCA)

In addition a design code was approved in October 2013 in order to comply with Condition 8 of planning permission 10/010642/OUT. 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.”

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. 

8.3.	This application seeks approval of the reserved matters for a parcel of land fronting Camp Road bounded to the rear by the flying field; to the west by flying field but land that has subsequently been identified for residential development in the CLP 2011, and to the east by land also approved for residential development by the lead appeal and application 10/01642/OUT.

8.4.	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 2015, additional sites have been allocated for development in and around Heyford including west of the application site. 

8.5.	Extensive pre application discussions have been had on this site and have carried on through the application process including the current application and its predecessor. Essentially they focused on layout and compliance with the Design Code but extended to design, affordable housing and matters of detail including revising the LAP. As the site is located within the RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area and in close proximity to a group of listed buildings, it is critical that the development reinforces and enhances the character of this area and preserves the setting of those listed buildings. This application seeks to achieve that by creating a robust planting belt on the boundary to the flying field.

8.6.	As many of the residential buildings across the site were built in the early 20th century and have a character that can be best described as a simple / pared back Arts and Crafts style, it has formed the inspiration for the new housing development.  Greater detail on this can be found in the Design Code which has been used on this site as a guide to the form and layout of the proposed housing namely to secure a mix of formal and informal streets with dwellings creating a strong frontage presence to them.

8.7.	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;
•	Five Year Land Supply
•	Impact on Heritage Assets
•	Affordable Housing
•	Density and Housing Mix
•	Landscape Impact;
•	Accessibility, Highway Safety and Parking;
•	Ecology
•	Flood Risk and Drainage;
•	Heads of Terms

Planning Policy and Principle of the Development

8.8.	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.

8.9.	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.

8.10.	Policy Villages 5 of the CLP identifies the former military base as a strategic site in the rural area for a new settlement although the land subject of this application is not specifically identified within that policy as part of the potential development area. The policy seeks to achieve a settlement of approximately 1600 dwellings in addition to those already approved. The policy also goes on to lay down 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.

8.11.	Notwithstanding this is a reserved matters application, the plans and supporting documentation demonstrate its conformity with the development plan. The significant elements are:
•	Provision of further housing in order to meet the housing target and trajectory 
•	Provision of 43% affordable housing 
•	Contributions towards the meeting the cost of infrastructure provision
•	Development of a brownfield site
•	The environmental improvement of the locality
•	A commitment to high quality design and finishes reflective of the approved Heyford design code
•	Scale and massing of new buildings to reflect their context
•	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 conform with Policy Villages 5.

Impact on Heritage Assets
8.12.	This application seeks approval for another phase of development by Bovis Homes. In this case on a site cleared of existing buildings as permitted by the lead appeal and subsequent conservation area consents. The situation is slightly complicated by Historic England (HE) who have objected to the impact on the setting of the NDS by the proposed housing

8.13.	The merits and significance of these structures had previously been touched upon at the public inquiry into planning application 08/00716/OUT. Of relevance to the present application is the view of the Inspector in her report to the Secretary of State:
“19.231 The small area of housing proposed north of Camp Road at the west of the site would give the NSA a more coherent appearance on approach from the west and is necessary in the interest of good urban design. The existing buildings on that part of the site are not identified as of any significance in the CAA. The setting of the Listed Nose Docking Sheds would be protected.”    (Officer’s emphasis)
8.14.	This scheme is a similar site but with a different layout between the appeal and subsequent permitted masterplan. As a result greater weight has been given to making the development more permeable and with a stronger boundary treatment in order to prevent access by cats and dogs onto the flying field. HE’s view was that the scheme as submitted would adversely affect the setting of the NDS. Compromise layout and boundary treatment have been agreed and the objection withdrawn.

8.15.	 Turning to the guidance to Planning authority’s contained in the Framework and the NPPG on the historic environment, the site’s heritage assets and their significance have previously been assessed and the views have already been tested once at appeal albeit under a slightly different scenario. Para 131 of the Framework advises: “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

8.16.	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.”

8.17.	In this case the NDS are of significance and whilst their setting is also somewhat different now that the outline planning permissions and the CLP policies are being implemented, the Officer’s conclude that despite the screening and the degree of separation from the built development, there is harm but on balance the harm is not so substantial whereby consent should be refused.

8.18.	Furthermore, under para 133 of the Framework, the Authority also has to consider if there is substantial harm or loss of an asset whether “substantial public benefits are achieved,  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.” In this case the development of housing at Heyford provides substantial public benefit both in terms of securing optimum viable use, of the site, meeting the five year housing land supply and the provision of affordable accommodation.

8.19.	The Framework goes on to say a balanced judgement will be required by the Planning Authority having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of heritage assets and in this case Officers have concluded that what is proposed provides an opportunity for an appropriate level of new development that overall makes a positive contribution to preserve and enhance the character of and within the Conservation Area.

Design, Layout and Appearance
8.20.	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. In terms of house design, the Council’s Design Consultant has secured substantial revisions in the architectural styles proposed here. The architect’s use of the Design Code as a guiding tool can be seen by the simple arts and crafts style of the housing with cues being taken from the Officer’s housing and Carswell Circle, the use of a more formal design layout to the main road and the more informal layout to the new internal street, and the use of landmark buildings at strategic points. The site is within Character Area CA7 of the design code which is the core housing area to the west of Heyford.

8.21.	Within this area dwellings have to provide a clear frontage to the street. Detached and semi-detached housing should predominate and be 2 or 2 ½ storeys. Building lines should be consistent along the main streets but may vary within the site on secondary streets. This scheme reflects those requirements.. The type of house proposed, reflects very closely the scale, form and appearance of the Officer’s housing. There is a wealth of detailing in terms of chimneys, balanced fenestration, bays, gables and canopies. In line with the code, materials are good quality bricks with some render as used elsewhere at Heyford. Roofs are slated. The result when taken together forms a harmonious blend. The Officers conclude that what is proposed conforms to CLP policies Villages 5 and ESD 15, and CLP96 policies C28 and C30.

Affordable Housing

8.22.	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. The applicant proposed 30% of the units to be affordable although this is above that threshold by a lesser proportion of social housing on the earlier phase. The developer remains committed to the site wide target of 30%. 9 affordable units are now proposed, 4 x 3 bed and 5 x 2 bed. They are suitably integrated into the site layout and designed to reflect the market housing.

Density and Housing Mix
8.23.	Policy BSC2 requires re-use of previously developed land with which this proposal clearly complies. But 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 it would be 30 dwellings per hectare. This reflects the density of the approved scheme designed before the CLP was adopted and the site includes a disproportionate amount of highway within the red line application site. 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). The proposed development is therefore reflecting that character and by not building, 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

8.24.	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 smaller units elsewhere on Heyford. Indeed, the adjacent housing sites supply a greater percentage of 1 and 2 bedroomed dwellings so overall there is an acceptable balance and mix in the wider but surrounding area.

Landscape Impact
8.25.	The landscape setting is an important part of the character of Heyford although this part of the site is largely devoid of existing vegetation. The main road is lined with verges and mature trees are shown supplemented by additional planting. This character is extended into the new streets by tree planting in strategic positions. Areas of open space are created both to enhance the visual environment and in addition for use as a LAP. The landscaping scheme has been revised to now be acceptable as has the LAP which provides a large piece of play equipment and otherwise complies with the Council’s design principles.

8.26.	Probably the most important landscape element is the introduction of the line of tree son the northern boundary of pinus sylvestris which will act as a screen to in effect hide the housing from the listed NDS. There was a concern the row of trees may be homogeneous but they are an attractive species and have been used elsewhere at Heyford as specimen trees.

8.27.	The applicant has set up a management company responsible for maintenance of the landscaping at Heyford Park. This keeps control of some of the hedging and trees in the public domain. It is concluded that what is provided is therefore an environmental enhancement in compliance with Policy Villages 5.

Traffic, Access and Parking
8.28.	The main access is to Camp Road and the internal road network follows the hierarchy set out in the Design Code. It will benefit from being adjacent to the primary route for the bus service. The distance from the proposed village centre school and other services is reasonably close and therefore this part of the development site is an accessible and sustainable one as required by Policy Villages 5. The layout and level of parking has been revised. Provision now reflects the standard set out in the Design Code. The larger houses have double garages and 2 parking spaces. Visitor parking is available on street. Those houses that front Camp Road have shared accesses to balance highway safety, to restrain traffic speed and to maintain longer runs of swale and hedging. This part of the phase has active frontages with parking on plot to the front or side

8.29.	The Highway Authority have no objection subject to conditions.

Ecology
8.30.	The NPPF – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, requires at paragraph 109, that, ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the overall decline in biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological works that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

8.31.	Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Communities Act 2006 (NERC 2006) states that every public authority must in exercising its functions, have regard to the purpose of conserving (including restoring/enhancing) biodiversity and: ‘local Planning Authorities must also have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive when determining an application where European Protected Species are affected, as prescribed in Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation Regulations 2010, which states that a ‘competent authority’ in exercising their functions, must have regard to the requirement of the Habitats Directive within the whole territory of the Member States to prohibit the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places’.

8.32.	Under Regulation 41 of the conservation Regulations 2010 it is a criminal offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place, but under Regulation 53 of the Conservation Regulations 2010, licenses from Natural England for certain purposes can be granted to allow otherwise unlawful activities to proceed when offences are likely to be committed, but only if 3 strict derogation tests are met:-
1.	is the development needed for public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature (development)
2.	there is a satisfactory alternative
3.	is there adequate mitigation being provided to maintain the favourable conservation status of the population of the species

8.33.	Therefore where planning permission is required and protected species are likely to be found present at the site, or surrounding area, Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 provides that Local Planning Authorities must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive as far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions and also the derogation requirements might be met.

8.34.	In this case although there is not believed to be any significant ecology on site, the wider flying field is an ecology rich environment. It is therefore a requirement for the developer to provide a dog/cat proof fence to prevent domestic animals accessing the wider environment and placing ground nesting birds and other animals at risk.

8.35.	Policy ESD 10 of the CLP 2011 requires a net gain in biodiversity and recommends they be secured by condition. It is therefore recommended that as on the earlier phase a condition be imposed requiring a scheme of bat and bird box provision through the scheme.

Flooding and Drainage
8.36.	The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) where residential development 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, will need to see the results of any site soil infiltration investigations and the method of surface water drainage being utilised as a result of further investigations which would need to be conditioned so conditions are recommended. A separate foul drainage system is proposed. Neither the Environment Agency nor TWU have any in principle objections. 

Engagement

8.37.	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.	Following the amendment to the landscaping and house designs, it is considered on balance that what is now proposed will form part of an area of a distinct character reflecting the design and density of the surrounding development, preserving the setting of the nose dock sheds and preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The houses have a variety of designs reflecting the arts and crafts and military style seen elsewhere and reflecting the character of Heyford. Taken together they form an appropriate form of development. They provide a decent standard of amenity inside and outside the property. It is recommended that planning permission is granted.

10.	RECOMMENDATION

Approval, subject to the following conditions: 

1	Except where otherwise stipulated by condition, the application shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following documents: Application forms, Design Statement, heritage assessment, FRA Compliance Note, SUDs Management Regime and drawings numbered:
		
		Site Location Plan UPP/02/211 1:1250 A2
		Planning Layout (Coloured) UPP/02/302  1:500 A2
		Fence Key Plan UPP/02/302 REV A 1:500 A1 
		Materials Layout UPP/02/231 REV A 1:500 A2
		Boundary Treatment UPP/02/260 REV A 1:50 A3
		Cat and dog proof fence D.0340 10B NTS A4
		Parking Strategy UPP/02/281 REV A 1:500 A1 
		Affordable Housing Plan UPP/02/304 REV A 1:500 A1
		3 Bed House HTPD-S351-
		3 Bed Cottage HTPD-P302 
		3 Bed Cottage HTPD-P303 
		S2_2 Bed House HTPD-S241- V1 
		S2_2 Bed House HTPD-S241- V2 
		4 Bed House HTPD-type 14 H234A
		4 Bed House HTPD-P401
		4 Bed House HTPD-Type-27
		5 Bed House HTPD-P508 1/2
		5 Bed House HTPD-P508 2/2 
		Single Garage HTPD-AGS2 2
		Tandem Garage Gable (Store) HTPD-AGT2-1X2
		Double Garage HTPD-AGS2-2x2
		Landscape Proposals HEYB3-03-100 1 OF 2 REV F 1:200 A0
		Landscape Proposals HEYB3-03-100 2 OF 2 REV F 1:200 A0
		Landscape Schedule HEYB3-03-101 E
		Proposed Engineering Layout Sheet 1 HEYF-5-653 F 1:200 A1
		Proposed Engineering Layout Sheet 1 HEYF-5-654 REV L 1:200 A1
		Proposed Engineering Layout Sheet 1 HEYF-5-655 REV E 1:200 A1

	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	No materials other than those as shown on plan No UPP/02/231 REV SA are to be used in the new development. There shall be no variation of these materials without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 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	 That all enclosures along all boundaries of the site shall be as shown on the approved plans and such means of enclosure including the cat and dog proof fence shall be erected prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
		
	Reason - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development, to safeguard the privacy of the occupants of the existing and proposed dwellings and to comply with Policies C28 and C30 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan.

 4	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.

 5	Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, all of the estate roads, footpaths (except for the final surfacing thereof) and parking shall be laid out, constructed, lit and drained in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council's 'Conditions and Specifications for the Construction of Roads' and its subsequent amendments.
				
	Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to ensure a satisfactory standard of construction and layout for the development and to comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

 6	 Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack.
		
	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.

 7	The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (Ref: C11234 ES 001. Waterman. October, 2010) and the Flood Risk Assessment Compliance Report (Ref: 16871/ Parcel B3 REV 1. Woods Hardwick. October, 2017) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA and associated FRA compliance report: 
o	Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.(Paragraph 3.2 of the FRA) 
o	Attenuation by use of balancing pond, tanks and permeable paving (parking areas will be constructed in permeable paving) - (Paragraph 3.11 and 4.6 of the FRA). 
o	Provision of a SuDS Management and Maintenance Plan to the proposed maintenance company for the development - (Paragraph 5.4 of the FRA Compliance Report) 
	
	The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. 
	
	Reason - To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in the interests of public health, to avoid flooding of adjacent land and property and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 8	 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
		
	Reason National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

 9	Prior to the commencement of [any phase of] the development hereby approved, full details of a scheme for the location of bat, bird, owl and invertebrate boxes [on that phase of development] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter and prior to the occupation of any building [on that phase of the development], the bat, bird, owl and invertebrate boxes shall be installed on the site in accordance with the approved details. 
		
	Reason -To protect habitats of importance to biodiversity conservation from any loss or damage in accordance with Policy C2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

					  PLANNING NOTES

 1	1	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. Alternatively the developer may wish to consider adoption of the estate road under Section 38 of the Highways Act.

 2	Prior to commencement of development, a separate consent must be obtained from OCC Road Agreements Team for any highway works under S278 of the Highway Act. Contact: 01865 815700; RoadAgreements@oxfordshire.gov.uk.

 3	Fire and Rescue Service recommends that new dwellings should be constructed with sprinkler systems

 4	Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes.  The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development

 5	This permission shall be read in conjunction with the Outline Permission reference 10/01642/OUT and if implemented the development shall be undertaken in conjunction with the terms and conditions of these permissions.

 6	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.

STATEMENT OF ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council has worked positively and proactively to determine this application within the agreed timescales, having worked with the applicant/agent where necessary and possible within the scope of the application (as set on in the case officer’s report) to resolve any concerns that have arisen, in the interests of achieving more appropriate and sustainable development proposals. Consent has been granted accordingly.

The case officer’s report and recommendation in respect of this application provides a detailed assessment of the merits of the application when considered against current planning policy and guidance, including consideration of the issues raised by the comments received from consultees and members of the public. This report is available to view online at: http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/viewplanningapp.

Case Officer: | Andrew Lewis | DATE: 24^th July 2018
Checked By: | rd | DATE: 1.8.18