Purpose

All evidence for the Witney East Public
Inquiry must be submitted by 21 May 2024, yet the Council will only
re-establish itself following the local elections after that that.
However, given the changes made by the developer to the scheme in
preparing for the upcoming Public Inquiry, that WODC join OCC in
deciding to no longer defend the refusal reasons that were applied
when the application was determined by the sub-committee.

Decision

To agree, in light of the
changes made by the developer to the scheme in preparing for the
upcoming Public Inquiry, that the Council join Oxfordshire County
Council in deciding to no longer defend the refusal reasons that
were applied when the application was determined by the Lowlands
Area Planning Sub-Committee.
 
Decision
taken by the Chief Executive in consultation with:

Director of Governance

Director of Finance

Leader of the Council

Executive Member for Planning and Sustainable
Development

Chair of Development Control Committee

Chair of Lowlands Area Planning
Sub-Committee

Reasons for the decision

When
the application was determined it had followed a long period of pre
application and application negotiation where officers had been
seeking compliance with the policies of the approved plan and the
developer had not been prepared to deliver upon those requirements.
Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) had also refused consent on
highways/technical grounds. In preparing for the Inquiry the
developer had adjusted his position on a number of matters and had
amended the scheme to address the refusal reasons that the Council
would be tabling. Separately negotiations with OCC had progressed
such that they have indicated they will not be defending their
refusal reason. As such the position now is very different to that
which pertained at the time the application was determined such
that a review of the expediency of continuing with the appeal was
logical - particularly as the weakening of the Local Planning
Authority position alongside the recent loss of the 5-year housing
land supply had substantially increased the likelihood of an
adverse award of costs should the Council continue to seek to
defend a weakened case.
It is the opinion of the
Business Manager for Development and Sustainability that the clear
balance of advantage now that the developer has moved towards the
Council’s position is to jointly agree that the Inquiry
should be directed at resolving the conditions/Heads of Terms but
not the principle of development. This will save the Council costs,
negate the risk of an award of costs and slightly improve the
Council’s 5-year land supply position.

Alternative options considered

Continue with the appeal
– not preferred due to the reputational and financial
consequences of fighting a much-weakened case when the Council has
now largely secured the key elements it was looking for.