Agenda item

The construction of two new west-facing slip roads at the Shores Green junction of the A40; an off-slip to allow eastbound vehicles to exit the A40 onto the B4022 towards Witney and an on-slip to allow westbound vehicles to enter the A40 from the B4022 at this junction. Two existing lay-bys to the west of the A40 overbridge will be removed to accommodate the construction of the slip roads.

 

Report by Director for Planning, Environment and Climate Change.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application R3.0039/22 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning, Environment and Climate Change, to include those set out in Annex 1.

At the previous meeting held on 17^th April, the Committee had deferred the application.  Correspondence had been received from the South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council and the local Member, Councillor Levy, in which significant concerns were raised.  Following the publication of the report, further e-mails and an accompanying letter had been received from the Parish Council. The letter stated that they considered there to be significant legal implications arising from the report and that the decision should be adjourned for a meeting with the Council. They considered that the report contained errors and suggested that they may challenge any decision made if the application was granted on the 17^th April. The Parish Council considered that the focus of the report was on Witney, with inadequate considerations on the effects that the development proposed will have on South Leigh and High Cogges, indeed compounding the effect of the focus on Witney by inaccuracies about South Leigh.

 

As set out in the report, following the deferral of the application in April, meetings had been held between the applicant and the Parish Council and the report was updated accordingly.  Prior to the current meeting, correspondence had been received on behalf of South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council that ‘sufficient progress had been made and a willingness to work cooperatively with us been shown’.  They confirmed that they did not wish to address the Committee at the current meeting.

 

Anna Herriman, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and provided a presentation which included photographs and plans relating to the planning application for the construction of two new west-facing slip roads at the Shores Green junction of the A40; an off-slip to allow eastbound vehicles to exit the A40 onto the B4022 towards Witney and an on-slip to allow westbound vehicles to enter the A40 from the B4022 at this junction. Two existing lay-bys to the west of the A40 overbridge would be removed to accommodate the construction of the slip roads.  The site comprised of approximately 10.7 ha of land located along the A40 dual carriageway at the existing Shores Green junction onto the B4022 to the east of Witney and is located approximately 600m from the south-east edge of Witney.

 

Ms Herriman’s presentation included the significant features of the application site and that the application scheme sought to reduce traffic going through Witney Town with the subsequent likely improvement to the air quality as a result of the reduction in traffic management.  She also described the concerns that had been expressed regarding rat running towards South Leigh village and that additional information was provided in the report in relation to addressing these concerns.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Tiwana, on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that the principle for development had been firmly established, with significant economic and environmental benefits.  The proposed development was a direct response to alleviating the long standing issue of traffic congestion and air quality issues in Witney and formed part of the overall A40 corridor improvement plan being progressed.  The proposed development provided an alternative route between the A40 and destinations to the east and north east of Witney allowing the traffic to bypass the town centre.  In addition to improving air quality, it was designed to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Mr Tiwana referred to the meetings which had taken place between the applicant, the County Council and South Leigh and High Cogges Parish Council since the previous Committee meeting in April.  He stated that the applicant agreed that it would be beneficial to deliver a complementary scheme of traffic calming measures in South Leigh.  This would build upon a 20 mph speed limit which had been recently introduced by the County Council through the village.

 

He clarified in response to questions from the Committee that the County Council as applicant was happy to enter into a legal agreement to secure the traffic calming measures. 

 

Mr Mytton stated that the legal document was a unilateral undertaking because the County Council was not able to enter an agreement with itself; it was only able to record what had been agreed.

 

The traffic calming measures were as set out in Annex 8, p.85 of the report.  They were that ‘the traffic calming scheme funding will be for an amount up to the cost of the following proposed measures: (1) some additional 20mph repeater signs and road markings (2) a speed indicator device and posts (x4) (3) five village ‘gateway’ type features (4) four single build-out priority features (5) a single narrow priority feature with a pedestrian crossing - as shown on the traffic calming plan shared with the Parish Council on 23rd May 2023. Public consultation for these measures will be required to demonstrate local community support’.

 

Mr Periam explained that the undertaking was not included in the recommendation in the report.  Officers had not been advised by the Highways Authority that the measures were necessary to make the scheme acceptable.  If the recommendation was approved as currently worded the Committee would not be resolving that the unilateral undertaking would be provided. However, it was open to the Committee to request that the undertaking was necessary to provide the traffic calming measures in order to make the development acceptable.

 

The Committee heard from Councillor Levy, the local Member.  He referred to the Chair advising that there was an amendment to the report as it did not mention that the Junction was largely in the Eynsham division.  He thanked officers for the work which had taken place since the previous Committee meeting in April focusing on the impact of the development on South Leigh.  He expressed the view that in the event the Junction was approved, it would have a fairly dramatic impact on traffic on the south of the A40, particularly as it was regularly blocked which created the temptation for rat running.

 

Councillor Levy added that he was hopeful that air traffic and congestion in Witney, including in Bridge Street, would be improved if the scheme was approved and make travelling by bus or bicycle better.  He confirmed he no longer had any objections to the revised scheme.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, Councillor Levy stated that he would prefer for a unilateral undertaking to be provided by the applicant, the Council, that the traffic calming measures were also included.  Beyond this, it was important that large HGVs and large amounts of traffic did not travel through South Leigh as it was unsuitable via a single track through the village.

 

During the Committee Members’ debate of this item, Councillor Bennett requested that going forward the Council’s own policy and targets were set out in relation to climate change impacts and assessments.

 

Councillor Constance asked for further clarification on the approval process for the Carbon Management Plan.  It was confirmed by Mr Periam and Mr Mytton that the options were for the Committee to request officers to do so when it was submitted, for the Committee to approve it at a future meeting or for the Chair, when advised by officers that the Plan had been received, to consult Members for their approval prior to a future meeting.

 

Councillor Gawrysiak formally proposed that the recommendation that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions.  He also proposed that the Council as the applicant be required to enter into a unilateral undertaking to provide the traffic calming measures set out in Annex 8, p.85 of the report as they were necessary.  Finally, he proposed that the Chair consult Members for their approval on the Carbon Management Plan when the Plan was submitted.  The proposals were seconded by Councillor Constance.

 

The Chair called for a vote on the proposals.  They were AGREED unanimously by the Committee (all 10 Members on the Committee).

 

It was noted that in relation to the Chair consulting Members as part of the approval process for the Carbon Management Plan, this would be reflected in an amendment to Condition 12, set out in Annex 1 (p.39) of the report.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

a)      Planning permission for application R3.0039/22 be APPROVED subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning, Environment and Climate Change, to include those set out in Annex 1;

b)      The Council as the applicant be required to enter into a unilateral undertaking to provide the 5 traffic calming measures set out in Annex 8, p.85 of the report; and,

c)       The Chair consult Members of the Committee as part of the approval process for the Carbon Management Plan, when submitted by the Applicant, with Condition 12 being amended to reflect this.