Planning appeal decision
Land between A34 Milton Interchange, and B4015 north of Clifton Hampden, Oxfordshire
- Authority
- Oxfordshire County Council
- Appeal type
- other · Called In Planning Application
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- other · Other Major Developments
- Inspector
- Coffey L
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The need for and highway benefits of the Scheme
- Whether the transport modelling on which the proposal is based is robust and takes account of any significant traffic impacts in the wider area
- Whether the proposal would make acceptable provision for sustainable travel, including walking and cycling, and accord with the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan
- Consideration of alternatives
- Adequacy of the Environmental Statement
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, including any loss of trees and/or hedges
What decided it
The substantial and significant benefits of the Scheme, including facilitating housing and economic growth and improving highway network performance and resilience, were found to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and other identified harms, establishing Very Special Circumstances.
The substantial weight given to highway network benefits and significant weight to housing, economic and sustainable transport benefits were found to clearly outweigh the substantial Green Belt harm, significant landscape and visual harm, and great weight heritage harm, such that Very Special Circumstances existed and the paragraph 208 heritage balance and overall planning balance favoured the Scheme.
Framework references: 11, 15, 47, 48, 56, 74, 84, 85, 86, 112, 115, 116, 143, 153, 155, 157, 173, 180, 191, 205, 208
Plan policies cited: Policy TRANS 1b, Policy TRANS 2, Policy TRANS 3, Policy TRANS5, STRAT2, STRAT 3, STRAT6, STRAT 9, STRAT10i, ENV1, ENV3, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV12, DES 1, DES 2, DES 6, DES 8, EP1, Core Policy 4, Core Policy 6, Core Policy 15, Core Policy 17, Core Policy 18, Core Policy 33, Core Policy 35, Core Policy 38, Core Policy 4a, Core Policy 16b, Core Policy 18a, DP23, DP25, DP26, DP36, DP37, DP38, DP39, CP44, CP 46, Policy M10, Policy CUL8, Policy SC17, Policy IN3
Judgments cited: R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2022] PTSR 74; Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2842; Holohan and Others v An Bord Pleanála [2018] PTSR 1054 (Case C-461/17)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®