Agenda item

To advise the Secretary of State how the Council would have determined the appeal proposals, had it remained the determining authority.

80.61         Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 95-122, which related to planning application 15/00749/OUT, Land North of Innsworth Lane, Innsworth.  The Committee was asked to determine that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be advised that the Council would be minded to refuse the application.

80.62         The Development Manager explained that, as Members would be aware, this application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and, as such, it was necessary to advise the Secretary of State how the Council would have determined the application had it remained the determining authority.  The site was part of a draft allocation in the emerging Joint Core Strategy and therefore the broad principle of development had been approved by the Council through that process.  Notwithstanding this, there had been a significant change recently with the inclusion of Twigworth as part of the strategic allocation and the new draft policy A1 in the proposed modifications to the plan which required the Innsworth and Twigworth sites, with an appeal in respect of Twigworth also to be heard at the same public inquiry in June, to be considered in a comprehensive way in the interests of the proper planning of the area.

80.63         There were 13 recommended refusal reasons listed in the Officer report and the Development Manager stressed that many of the reasons were technical and capable of resolution before the start of the inquiry. For example, reasons 1-3, set out at Page No. 120 of the report - which related to the conflict with HOU4, Green Belt and landscape - would effectively fall away if the other substantive reasons for refusal were properly addressed.  Similarly, reasons 11-13, set out at Page No. 121 of the report, were capable of being addressed by the Section 106 Agreement.  Other technical reasons, such as highways and ecology, needed more work.  Discussions were currently underway with Highways England and County Highways concerning the issues of timing in terms of the modifications to the Joint Core Strategy which would inevitably impact on what could be agreed and when.  He imagined that the Highways Agency would do everything possible to try to reach agreement with the appellant before the opening of the inquiry.  In respect of ecology, the appellant was in discussion with Natural England regarding the potential impact on the Innsworth Meadow Site of Special Scientific Interest and how to resolve those issues.  The key outstanding issues for Officers related to highways, which was inevitably affected by the fact that the transport modelling work to support the Joint Core Strategy was ongoing, and the issues in respect of cumulative impact and comprehensive development.  The Planning Inspectorate had very recently requested further information in respect of the Environmental Statement and, whilst this would be submitted before the opening of the inquiry, there was currently no timetable.  Refusal reason 4 dealt with comprehensive development and picked up on the detailed wording of the strategic allocation policy in the emerging Joint Core Strategy with a particular focus on flood risk and the issues raised by Michael Thomas Consulting discussed in the evidence supporting the Joint Core Strategy.  Whilst this site was already supported in principle through the Joint Core Strategy process, it was important to ensure that it was brought forward in the right way through the appeal process.

80.64         A Member indicated that there were a lot of traffic issues locally and the fact that there was no entrance off the A40 was one of the main problems.  She did not agree with the modelling work which had been carried out by County Highways and until this access could be provided she could not support the application.  She also had concerns regarding Frogfurlong Lane which flooded during times of heavy rain.  She pointed out that a lot of people were unaware of the flooding issues and the fact that there was no junction off the A40.  The Development Manager felt that there was an important point in terms of local conditions.  The report set out the modelling work which had been undertaken by County Highways and it had been commented that this did not seem to reflect local knowledge, for instance, it set out that the traffic on the A38 went straight through but this was not the experience of those using that road at peak hours.  The proposal did include access onto the A40 but there was little clarity in terms of what the junction would look like; viability would be an issue and that was something which would be looked at with Highways England and County Highways.  A Member understood that the money available to look at the access onto the A40, and the Longford roundabout and link road to the A38, was significantly less than would be needed to meet the demands.

80.65         Having considered the information provided, it was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED          That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be advised that the Council would be MINDED TO REFUSE the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.