®Planning appeal decision
Land east of Junction 8a, M40, Waterstock, Oxford, OX33 1JP
the demolition and clearance of existing buildings and structures to allow for the construction of up to 120,000sqm of Use Class E employment floorspace comprising Research and Development units, Light Industrial units, ancillary offices, ancillary amenity buildings (up to 2,400sqm), Creche (up to 600sqm), Forest School (up to 150sqm), along with new site accesses, internal roads and footpaths, surface and multi storey car parking, open space, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements, drainage features including SUDs and other engineering operations, infrastructure and associated works. All matters of detail reserved
- Authority
- South Oxfordshire District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- employment-industrial · Major general industry/storage/warehousing
- Inspector
- Jones G
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including in respect to the effect on existing trees
- Its effect on the significance of designated heritage assets via their setting, including in respect to Waterstock Conservation Area and listed buildings within it
- Whether a sequential test is required and, if so, whether it has been passed and what any consequences might be
- The need for the appeal scheme and whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national planning policy
- The effect of the proposed development on the existing golf course, including in respect to health, well-being and recreation
- Its effect on the promotion of sustainable modes of transport
- Its effect on highway safety and the efficiency of the highway network
- Its effect on biodiversity, including in respect to trees and protected species
- Whether or not the proposals would be 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt, and if so whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances that would be necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The combined less than substantial heritage harm to five designated heritage assets, together with harm to character and appearance and to golfing facilities, was not clearly outweighed by the public benefits, so very special circumstances for the Green Belt did not exist and the scheme conflicted with the development plan as a whole.
The totality of public benefits (unmet employment/housing need, economic output, transport and biodiversity gains) was very weighty but was firmly outweighed by the combined less than substantial harm to five heritage assets and other identified harms, so the appeal was dismissed.
Framework references: 187, 215, 212, 175, 109, 110, 116, 154, 155, 11, 85, 86, 87
Plan policies cited: Policy ENV1, Policy DES1, Policy DES2, Policy ENV6, Policy ENV7, Policy ENV8, Policy STRAT1, Policy STRAT2, Policy STRAT4, Policy EMP1, Policy CF4, Policy CF1, Policy TRANS2, Policy TRANS4, Policy TRANS5, Policy ENV2, Policy ENV3, Policy ENV4, Policy STRAT6
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.