Case Reference: 3229631

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 25 September 2019
by Stephen Wilkinson BA BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 23 December 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/C3105/W/19/3229631
OS Parcel 4300 North of Shortlands and South of High Rock, Hook Norton
Road, Sibford Ferris, Oxfordshire OX15 5QW
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Cherwell District
Council.
• The application Ref 18/1894/OUT, dated 29 October 2018, was refused by notice dated
30 April 2019.
• The development proposed is outline planning permission with all matters reserved for
up to 25 dwellings, associated open space, parking and sustainable drainage.
This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued
on 5 November 2019.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission with all matters reserved
for up to 25 dwellings, associated open space and sustainable drainage is
granted at OS Parcel 4300 north of Shortlands and south of High Rock, Hook
Norton Road, Sibford Ferris, Oxfordshire, OX15 5QW in accordance with the
terms of the application, Ref 18/1894/OUT, dated 29 October 2018, subject to
the conditions included in the schedule attached to this letter.
Procedural Matters
2. The application has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved and this
is the basis on which I considered this appeal. At the start of the Hearing I
sought clarification over the proposed ‘parameter plan’ as two different
revisions had been included for my consideration. I accepted the revised plan
no. 6426/ASP3/PP Rev D which included a typographical change to the legend
and my decision has been made on this basis.
3. A draft agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990, as amended, agreed by all parties was presented to me during the
Hearing. This has been completed and informs my conclusion on the third main
issue identified below.
4. In the week following the Hearing the Government issued a National Design
Guide. I wrote to the parties seeking their views on whether this Guidance had
any bearing on their cases and my findings have taken on board their views.
Main Issues
5. There are three main issues in this Appeal which I define as follows:
• Whether the proposals comply with the housing policies of the development
plan
• The effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the
settlement of Sibford Ferris and the surrounding area, and
• Whether the proposals include adequate provision for the necessary
infrastructure directly required by this development.
The appeal site
6. The appeal site forms part of an arable field, classified as Grade 2, with a site
area of about 3.7ha located on the southern edge of Sibford Ferris on the
western side of Hook Norton Road. The site slopes down by approximately 10m
to Woodway Road, a single track road which forms its western boundary. The
site affords good views to the west of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty which lies approximately 1.5km away. The appeal site has
hedges along each boundary apart from its southern side which is open to the
remainder of the arable field.
7. Sibford Ferris is separated from its nearest settlements of Sibford Gower and
Burdrop by approximately half a mile across the steep valley of the River Sib.
For this appeal I will refer to these settlements, collectively, as the ‘Sibfords’.
Together they have a population of approximately 1,000 residents. The valley
sides are characterised by small wooded copses and paddocks laced with
footpaths. The Sibfords have a range of services which include, doctors
surgery, primary school, public house, food shop and post office. Sibford
School, a private school lies opposite the site on Hook Norton Road. Limited
bus services connect the Sibfords to Banbury and Stratford.
Reasons
Policy background
8. The development plan comprises the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-31, Part 1
(2015) (CLPP1) and ‘saved’ policies Cherwell Local Plan (1996). The Policies
cascade from principles of sustainable development included in Policy ESD1 in
line with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and seek to distribute
growth to the most sustainable locations to ensure that amongst other matters,
dependence on private transport is reduced.
9. Accordingly, the CLPP1 requires that the district wide housing target of 22,840
is delivered in the main centres of Bicester and Banbury. Outside these two
centres the plan allocates 2,350 houses with 1,600 houses proposed for the
former RAF base at Upper Heyford. The plan recognises the importance of
sustaining rural villages and through Policy Villages 1 (PV1) defines categories
of village by criteria which include their population, services/facilities, and
accessibility. The focus of this policy is to ‘manage’ small scale development
proposals which come forward within the built up limits of each village through
minor development, infilling or conversions.
10. Policy Villages 2 (PV2) provides a rural allocation of sites of 10 or more
dwellings at the Category A villages. This policy identifies that 750 houses will
be delivered at Category A villages; this would be in addition to the ‘rural
allowance’ of small site windfalls and planning permissions that existed at 31st
March 2014. Underpinning this policy is a recognition of the need to deliver
housing growth evenly across the whole District at the larger villages. A range
of criteria to guide new development in Category A villages is identified in
policy PV2 covering matters such as the environmental qualities of sites,
agricultural value, access to services and landscape impacts.
11. At the time of adoption of the CLPP1 the Council anticipated that it would
prepare a CLP Part 2 which would have identified housing sites which would
have informed policy PV2. This part of the Plan has not progressed because of
the inception of the ‘growth deal’ for Oxfordshire.
Whether the proposal would be in accordance with the housing policies of the
development plan
12. There are two issues underpinning the application of adopted policy to this site
with the first concerning the total of 750 homes to be delivered at the Category
A villages and the second on whether the proposed scheme accords with other
housing policies.
13. The Council acknowledges that the 750 housing figure is not a target. A point
reinforced by my colleague Inspectors in recent appeal decisions. However, it
should be regarded as a benchmark to govern future decisions on applications
for housing development otherwise the integrity of the plan would be
undermined. The Council can identify 5.2 years housing land supply in excess
of the requirement for just 3 years required for the Oxfordshire Districts.
Furthermore, it can demonstrate that 168 houses have been delivered against
the PV2 target of 750 houses despite the Plan being only 4 years through its 16
years ‘life’. The Council’s statement identifies that across the District 7,455
houses were completed of which 2,765 are in the rest of the District and a
further 6,715 houses are committed of which 1,129 are in the rest of the
District.
14. The Council identifies that by 31st March 2019 planning permissions had been
granted for over 750 houses on 18 large sites and to date 271 units had been
built out on these sites in line with policy PV2. However, none of these have
been permitted within the Sibfords. Evidence provided through the Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR) acknowledges the accelerating rate of delivery since
2015 and the Council anticipate that the 750 homes will be built out by 2028.
15. During the Hearing both parties made references to a large number of appeal
decisions involving similar housing schemes throughout the District.
Underpinning many of these decisions is the issue of ‘material exceedance’, a
term used to describe the extent to which decisions to allow development
above the figure of 750 houses for the Category A villages would erode the
basis of the CLPP1. Whilst I do not have all the evidence before me regarding
each of these appeal decisions there was discussion during the Hearing of a
recent appeal decision1, which had been allowed for an additional 84 dwellings
at Ambrosden, another Category A village within the District albeit with a much
larger population and containing a broader range of services. Again the issue of
‘material exceedance’ had informed the decision to allow the Appeal.
1 APP/C3105/W/19/3228169
16. I do not consider ‘material exceedance’ to be an issue for this appeal given the
modest number of units proposed and the categorisation and size of the
Sibfords. The Category A status of the village in the plan warrants further
investment in housing. Although the plan period is only 4 years old I do not
consider that a decision to allow this appeal would undermine the essential
thrust of policy PV2 and by extension the local plan.
17. The second issue is the extent to which the proposals are acceptable against
other housing policies included in the CHPP1.
18. The principles of sustainable development, identified in the National Planning
Policy Framework (2019) (the Framework), underpin policy PSD1 at several
levels within the CLPP1. At a strategic level the policy seeks to ensure that
development will be concentrated in the main centres, then outside those there
is an allowance for development within the rural areas but concentrated within
the Category A villages which are defined by their range of services and being
located throughout the District would support a balanced pattern of growth.
Finally, at another level within each village specific sites have to be
‘sustainable’ in how they function in their local context with regard to a range
of criteria.
19. The Sibfords are identified as a Category A village because of several factors
including its population and range of services. These services are spread across
each of the 3 settlements. I acknowledge that local connectivity between them
via walking and cycling is restricted by the steep sided Sib valley but these
services do exist within reasonable proximity of the appeal site. Given the
spread of services across each settlement it is unlikely that the development of
any site around the Sibfords would readily enable access by sustainable
transport modes. This is an argument against the inclusion of the Sibfords as a
Category A village but is not a matter before me in this Appeal.
20. Policy PV2 identifies a broad range of criteria which would have informed the
CHLPP2 allocations, not all of which are relevant to the issues concerning this
appeal. However whilst the site does not comply with several of these I
consider that the principle of some form of development on at least part of this
site has been accepted. In addition, I accord moderate weight to the inclusion
of the part of the appeal site in the Council’s Housing and Economic Land
Availability (HELAA 2018) for up to 10 houses.
21. The scheme would provide for 35% affordable housing in line with policy. I
understand that one of the reasons for the Council’s decision resolving to grant
permission for a scheme in 2014 was the inclusion of 6 affordable homes to
meet local housing need following the Housing Needs Survey in 2010 and the
Register of Interest in 2013.
22. Part of the case presented by the Sibford Action Group (SAG) referred to the
poor level of service provision in the Sibfords substantiating why further
development should not occur. Whilst it is difficult to determine the exact
impact that 25 new households would have on local services such as the local
shop, it is a fair assumption that this is likely to be positive in supporting it.
23. For the above reasons on this main issue I conclude that the proposals would
be in line with adopted housing policies and in line with the Framework. The
proposals are in line with policies PSD1, PSV1 and PSV2 of the CHPP1. They are
not in conflict with ‘saved’ policy H18 given the status of the village defined by
PSV1 and PSV2. The scheme would not amount to a material exceedance in
breach of policy PV2 and would deliver housing in line with other policies of the
Plan.
Character and Appearance
24. Sibford Ferris is a linear village extending northwards along Hook Norton Road
before turning east above the Sib valley. The village’s linear character means
that its rural landscape prevails with the village being a subservient element.
For example, the well treed Sib valley restricts views between the Sibfords
reducing the impacts of the settlement pattern on landscape. Over the last 20
years new housing has been integrated into the existing settlement pattern in a
sensitive way.
25. The appeal site’s boundaries are formed by hedges on each side apart from the
southern edge which is open to the remainder of the arable field. The site sits
on top of a broad ridge above the Sib valley and further away, to the south the
Stour valley. When viewed from the south and west across both valleys the
appeal site appears as an extension to arable fields. The line of trees on the
western edge of the Sibford School is a critical boundary to the edge of the
settlement. The site has no statutory or non statutory landscape designations.
26. The adopted policies ESD 13 and ESD15 included in the CLPP1 seek to both
protect landscapes and to ensure that new development responds positively to
an area’s character through creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness. These
policies are underpinned by the ‘saved’ policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan
(1996) designed to ensure that new development is sympathetic to its rural
context and high value landscapes.
27. Where adherence to these policies is not possible proposals will not be
permitted if they cause undue visual intrusion into the countryside, impact on
its natural landscape and topography and be inconsistent with local character.
These policies are consistent with several of the criteria included in policy PV2
which seek amongst other matters, to avoid adverse landscape impacts of new
development and to avoid development on the best and most versatile
agricultural land.
28. Although the site lies outside the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) its landscape context is shaped by this. Furthermore, the site lies in
Character Area 13 of the Oxfordshire Wildlife and Landscape Study defined as
an area of ‘Rolling Village Pastures’ and close to another landscape type,
‘Wooded Pasture Valleys and Slopes’. The nature of this rolling landscape
interspersed with hedgerows and copses means that views into the site from its
immediate boundaries are limited compared to those from further away. For
example, the proposed area of housing would be difficult to see from Woodway
Road due to the slope the land and height of the hedge.
29. The appeal site would create a new pattern of development as an extension to
the southern edge of the village. The indicative drawings identify that
development would be set in the north east corner of the site with housing of
2.5 storeys which steps down towards the middle of the site to 1.5 storeys.
Within the appeal site the extent of development would be limited and when
set against existing development at Margaret Lane House (part of the Sibford
School), it would extend the village envelope by only a small area. The
suggested height parameters are important in reducing the visual impacts of
the scheme from surrounding receptor points.
30. Whilst there are differences in approach to their respective landscape studies
both the Appellants and the SAG identify a range of receptor points from which
to gauge the impact of the scheme on landscape and visual character. However
neither study include montages of the proposed development or images of
what the site could look like after 1 and 15 years – critical points in the ‘life’ of
a development.
31. Having visited several of the receptor points and considered the views included
in both reports in detail I conclude that potentially the two most sensitive
receptor points are from the west from the Cotswolds AONB and from the
south. From the former I consider that the integrity of the landscape would not
be compromised by this development. This is in part because within the appeal
site the dwellings would be set close to existing housing and only marginally
extend the pattern of development to just south of Margaret Lane House which
forms part of the Sibford School. Furthermore, the line of trees along the
boundary of the Sibford School along Hook Norton Road would still be the
dominant landscape feature when the site is viewed from the west. For these
reasons I consider that the proposals would not have an ‘urbanising effect’ on
the site and its surroundings as the Council have stated.
32. From my own observations I find that the appeal site is most prominent when
viewed at just over 1km away from the south along D’Arcy Dalton Way. This is
particularly important given that at this point the appeal site would not have a
natural edge to its southern boundary. However, the scheme does include
mitigation along this edge in the form of tree planting. The Appellants
Landscape and Visual Appraisal recognises that the proposed scheme would be
contained within the existing landscape. The concentration of development at
the north east corner of the site and its relative low density would reduce its
intrusiveness.
33. The National Design Guide 2019 builds on Chapter 12 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 which requires, amongst other matters, that
new development reflects its landscape context and setting. Having viewed the
site from a number of receptor points I consider that its low density combined
with the extent of proposed planting belts would ensure that the proposal could
be ‘accommodated’ within its context.
34. On this issue I conclude that the proposals would not cause unacceptable harm
to the landscape setting of the Cotswolds AONB and the setting of Sibford
Ferris. For these reasons I consider that the proposed scheme would not be in
conflict with saved policies C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) and ESD 13,
ESD 15 and PV1 and PV2 of the CHPP1.
Infrastructure provision
35. The completed section 106 agreement includes a range of provisions. These
cover the requirement that 35% of the dwellings are ‘affordable’, provision of
and commuted payments for local play area and public amenity space within
the scheme, maintenance arrangements for onsite trees and boundary
hedgerows, and a sustainable drainage system. Other provisions include a
contribution to the provision of waste management facilities and community
hall facilities and contributions to the local secondary school and the Sibford
School for indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities. The agreement includes
provisions made under section 278 for a new pedestrian footway, crossing and
access into the site, bus shelter, local play and provisions for a traffic
regulation order to ensure lower speed on Hook Norton Road as drivers
approach from the south.
36. Overall, the obligations included in the agreement are related to the
requirements of development plan policies and are necessary, directly related
and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed scheme, in
line with paragraphs 56-57 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
Other Matters
37. Interested parties raised issues regarding matters which I address in turn
below.
Unsustainability of the Sibfords to take more development
38. The Sibfords are a Category A settlement included in the local plan. Although
the Inspector at the local plan inquiry did consider that the hierarchy of
settlement types was not set in stone this is a matter for a review of the local
plan and not one for me to determine in this appeal. This categorisation of
village types was based on the range of factors including local service
provision. Whilst I acknowledge that journey times between the Sibfords would
be hindered by the quality of the local highway network and the Sib valley,
potentially leading to more private transport use than would be normally
expected, a range of services consistent with Category A settlements does still
operate in the Sibfords for the benefit of residents of the appeal scheme.
39. Many of the decisions of my inspector colleagues to dismiss appeals in other
villages within the District can be distinguished from this case for several
reasons. In some cases the scale of development was large compared to the
size of the original village. For example, in Finmere, the appeal2 was dismissed
for 47 houses but the range of services was limited as the village had no shop
or post office. The Sibfords do have a shop and other services. In other cases
the appeal proposals would add to further development given extant
permissions as in the cases3 of both Weston on the Green and Chesterton. The
Sibfords have not experienced new development since the adoption of the Local
Plan.
40. In other appeals other factors such as substantial harm to heritage assets
prevailed. For example, in Kirtlington and Cropredy the impact of proposals on
the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of a
conservation area was cited respectively as reasons for dismissal4. These are
not matters relevant to this appeal.
Traffic generation and congestion
41. The amount of traffic generation arising from the appeal scheme was not
identified in the Council’s reasons for refusal. Whilst representations from
interested parties focused on the extent of additional traffic generation arising
from the appeal proposal, I did not receive other evidence to dispute the
2 APP/C3105/WW/17/3169168
3 APP/C3105/W/16/3158925 and APP/C3105/W/15/3130576
4 APP/C3105/W/14/3001612 and APP3105/WW/17/3187461
Appellants traffic survey which indicated that during the critical morning and
evening peaks the amount of traffic generation would be between 10 and 12
vehicles generated an hour by the proposals.
42. I acknowledge the CRAILTUS survey completed in 2009 and its conclusions on
the use of private transport in the Sibfords but this matter was considered as
part of the local plan which designated the village as a Category A village.
Furthermore, although representations from SAG addressed concerns over the
levels of congestion in the village caused by the amount of traffic passing
through the narrow village roads, compounded by the ‘school run’ to the
Sibford school I saw only limited examples of this during this critical time when
I visited the village. Furthermore, during two visits to the village I observed
that the amount of traffic on local roads was low. Although I acknowledge that
bus services to the village have been reduced since the local plan’s adoption in
2015 I still consider that the inclusion of new housing could go some way to
sustaining the existing level of service provision.
43. Although the proposals would involve the loss of Grade 2 agricultural, land this
has to be balanced against the benefits which the proposals could make to the
provision of additional housing.
44. Finally, a further objection referred to concerns over flooding. The site lies in
the Flood Zone 1 and a Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the appeal
identified that the risk of flooding was low. Furthermore, the scheme does
include sustainable urban drainage.
Planning balance and conclusions
45. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning
Policy Framework (2019) places considerable emphasis on sustainable
development and highlights the delivery of new housing as a national priority.
46. The appeal proposals are consistent with the essential thrust of the housing
policies included in the adopted CHLPP1. In particular, they are consistent with
ESD1 and in line with policies PV1 and PV2. Set against this is the number of
dwellings included in extant permissions in the Category A villages across the
District which exceeds the 750 dwellings included in policy PV2. However, I do
not consider that the appeal proposals represent a material exceedance to this
figure given its modest size and they would not undermine policy PV2 and the
basis of the local plan. Furthermore, the scheme includes a quantum of
affordable units compliant with policy.
47. In addition, the scheme includes other features including a path across the site
improving permeability, allotments and local play facilities. These key into
some concerns identified in the non-statutory Sibford Action Plan (2012) and
are consistent with adopted policies in the CHPP1. I have already identified the
obligations included in the completed section 106 agreement which through
contributions would improve local highways, restrict speeds into the village
along Hook Norton Road and support active lifestyles through contributions to
the facilities of the local secondary school and the Sibford School. In addition,
25 new households would go some way to support local services.
48. Whilst the proposed schemes location on the edge of the village does form a
limited extension to its current settlement pattern this must be seen in the
context of this site set close to Margaret Lane House. The integrity of the
landscape character is not compromised by the scheme. The character of the
landscape means that the scheme’s visual impacts are reduced. Its most
sensitive southern boundary can be adequately mitigated through landscaping.
The details of this can be determined at reserved matters stage.
49. Taking into account all these matters I conclude that the appeal is allowed and
outline planning permission is granted subject to the conditions included in the
attached schedule.
Conditions
50. During the Hearing there was a discussion between the main parties on the
draft conditions. Having considered these further, I am making a series of
small amendments to ensure full compliance with Planning Practice Guidance. I
have imposed a condition specifying the timeframes for the commencement of
development and for the submission of outstanding reserved matters as
required by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as
amended. A condition is required to ensure that the development is carried out
in accordance with the plans and documents submitted with the application to
ensure adherence to the principle of the proposed development hereby
approved. Other conditions require a Construction Traffic Management Plan and
Construction Environmental Management Plan to ensure that the operational
works to complete the scheme do not adversely impact on the living conditions
of surrounding residential occupiers, avoid potential conflict with highway users
and protect the environment and biodiversity.
51. A condition requiring a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan is required to
identify the habitats to be created in the scheme including the requirement for
bat and bird boxes in line with both local and national policy. A condition
requiring an energy statement is required to ensure that the energy
consumption is minimised during construction and on completion to deliver a
low carbon development in line with both local and national policy. A condition
is required to ensure archaeological investigations are completed in advance of
works proceeding following advice received from the County Council.
52. Other conditions include a need for detailed drawings of the proposed access
from Hook Norton Road to ensure highway safety. A condition is required to
address contamination if this is found on site. Finally, a condition is required for
a starter pack for new homes advising on sustainable modes of travel to ensure
that the use of private transport is reduced.
Stephen Wilkinson
Inspector
Schedule of Conditions
1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale,
(hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority before any
development takes place and the development shall be carried out as
approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this
permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved and submitted plans and documents: Site
Location Plan 1;2500 scale (Promap), Concept Schematic 6426/ASP3/PP
– Rev D Parameter Plan and 6426/ASP4/LSP-Rev A-Landscape Strategy
Plan, Design and Access Statement; Flood Risk Assessment;
Arboricultural Impact Assessment; Ecological Impact Assessment;
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment and
Drainage Strategy report and drawings labelled 3361.101.
5) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, full details
of the means of access between the land and the highway shall be
submitted to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
The access shall be broadly in accordance with the positioning indicated
on the approved plan 3361.101-Concept Schematic,6426/ASP3/PP and
include detail of layout and vision splays. Thereafter and prior to the first
occupation of any of the development the means of access shall be
constructed and retained in accordance with the approved details.
6) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved a travel
information pack shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. Thereafter and upon occupation the first residents of
each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved information
pack.
7) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the
approved CTMP shall be implemented and operated in accordance with
the approved details.
8) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, full details
of a surface water drainage scheme for the site detailing all on and off
site drainage works required in relation to the development which shall
be broadly in accordance with the drainage proposals set out in the
submitted flood risk assessment produced by JNP Group Consulting
Engineers and which shall include a sewer modelling assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the
approved scheme, until such time no discharge of foul or surface water
from the site shall be accepted from the site into the public system. The
scheme shall also include:
• Discharge rates
• Discharge volumes
• SUDS (permeable paving, soakaways, infiltration devices,
attenuation pond, swales)
• Maintenance and management of SUDS features to include a
SUDS management and maintenance plan
• Sizing of features – attenuation volume
• Infiltration in accordance with BRE 365 (to include
comprehensive infiltration testing and annual monitoring
recording of ground water levels across the site).
• Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers
• Network drainage calculations
• Phasing
• Flood flow routing in exceedance conditions (to include
provision of a flood exceedance route plan).
9) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a
landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) showing how all
habitats will be created managed and funded and to include details of a
bat and birdbox scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be
carried out other than in strict accordance with the approved LEMP.
10) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved,
including any site clearance, a Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP), which shall include details of the measures taken to ensure
that construction works do not adversely affect biodiversity, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Thereafter, the development shall not be carried out other than in strict
accordance with the approved CEMP.
11) If during development, contamination not previously identified is found at
the site, no further development shall be carried out until full details of a
remediation strategy detailing how the contamination shall be dealt with
has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter, the remediation strategy shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
12) Prior to or as part of the first reserved matters submission, an Energy
Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The Energy Statement should:
• Be structured in accordance with the energy hierarchy in ESD2 of
the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-31 Part 1 with information provided
on each element of the hierarchy
• Inform and be reflected in the reserved matters
• Include a description of the development, number and type of
residential units,
• Demonstrate sustainable construction methods as per Policy ESD3
of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-31, and
• Consider the use of renewable energy to supply the development.
Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the recommendations and measures contained in the approved Energy
Statement.
13) Prior to or as part of the submission of the first reserved matter a Written
Scheme of Archaeological Investigation shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include an assessment of significance and research questions:
i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
ii) the programme for post investigation assessment;
iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and
recording;
iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the
analysis and records of the site investigation;
v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and
records of the site investigation;
vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of
Investigation.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Jonathan Harbottle Director, Land and Partners
Alex Dalton Project Planner, Land and Partners
Tom Hutchison Projects, Land and Partners
Dan Skinner Land and Partners
Ben Wright Director, Aspect Landscape Planning Ltd
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Nathanael Stock Team Leader, Cherwell District Council
Matthew Barratt Solicitor
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Duncan Chadwick Partner, David Lock Associates
David Newman Quartet Design
Ginny Bennett Parish Councillor, Sibford Ferris
Roger Mallows Parish Councillor, Sibford Gower
Robin Grimston Local Resident
John Perriss Sibford Action Group