Cabinet considered the head of planning’s report that recommended endorsement of supplementary planning guidance for Culham Science Centre.
David Turner made a statement in support of the supplementary planning document. In doing so, he reminded Cabinet that he was a member of the Culham Local Liaison Committee, his position being a representative as a layman: a non-pecuniary interest. He confirmed that he had not been asked by Culham Science Centre to address Cabinet on this matter and his statement was purely his own. He believed that more effort was needed to mitigate the traffic impact, such as cycle paths to link into the SUSTRANS network to reduce car use.
John Cotton made a statement and in doing so, he reminded Cabinet that he was a member of the Culham Local Liaison Committee, but this represented a non-pecuniary interest. He was content with most of the proposed supplementary planning document but raised concerns at the future of the gateway area near the site entrance. He believed that the document needed to safeguard this area. Replacing the large fusion building with new buildings at the gateway would be inappropriate development. He believed that the document should also tackle the impact of increased traffic that would be generated from the development of the site and that the Local Enterprise Partnership’s proposed river crossing should be referred to.
Accompanying Mr Cotton was Chris Neal of Clifton Hampden Parish Council. Mr Neal was supportive of the document with the exception of development at the gateway. The parish council had removed Culham Science Centre from its neighbourhood plan as it believed that there would be no development on the gateway site. He also wished to see more cycle routes to reduce car usage.
A motion to amend paragraph 4.24 of the supplementary planning document was moved and seconded, with additions in bold type and deletions crossed through as follows:
‘Any development at the
potential new gateway area (as shown in Figure MF7) would need to
comply with national guidance on the value and purpose of the Green
Belt, and the appropriate policies of the South Oxfordshire
District Council development plan.
Specifically, it would need to demonstrate the exceptional
circumstances for development in the Green Belt. Development proposals should demonstrate the
highest quality of design, and should enhance the setting of the
gateway. Important factors which must
be considered include the scale and layout of buildings, respect
for the built and natural character of the area, the openness of
the Green Belt in the setting of the gateway, and the need to avoid
overlooking neighbouring homes.
Particular importance will be placed on the quality of design
and the scale of proposed buildings in the setting of the gateway.
Examples of considerations for proposals will be the built and
natural character of the area, building scale, and the avoidance of
over looking.’
However, the motion was later withdrawn to allow consultation with Culham Science Centre on the amended wording proposed for paragraph 4.24. Cabinet considered that although the supplementary planning document was not policy in itself, it would form part of the overall development plan for the area and added detail to policies, especially about how policy would be delivered. Culham Science Centre’s support was important. If the Centre supported the wording change, Cabinet was content for the Cabinet member to approve the document; if not, the document should be reconsidered by Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
(a) To defer consideration of the Culham Science Centre Supplementary Planning Document pending consultation with Culham Science Centre on the proposed changes to paragraph 4.24; and
(b) That if Culham Science Centre is content with the proposed changes to the supplementary planning document these can be approved by the Cabinet member with responsibility for planning, otherwise the document shall be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration.