|
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee
held on Tuesday 17 May 2022 at 6.00 pm 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, OX14 4SB
|
|
Open to the public, including the press
|
Present in the meeting room: |
|
Councillors: Peter Dragonetti (Vice-Chair), Ken Arlett, Tim Bearder, Sam Casey-Rerhaye, Lorraine Hillier, Alexandrine Kantor, Axel Macdonald and Alan Thompson |
|
Officers: Paul Bateman and Paula Fox |
|
|
|
Remote attendance: |
|
Officers: Marc Pullen, Caitlin Phillpotts, Susie Royse and Davina Sarac |
|
|
126 Chair's announcements
The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.
127 Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bretherton, Victoria Haval, Jo Robb and Ian Snowdon. Councillor Alexandrine Kantor substituted for Councillor Haval and Councillor Sam Casey- Rerhaye substituted for Councillor Robb.
128 Minutes of the previous meeting
RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 16 March 2022 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.
129 Declarations of interest
Councillor Ken Arlett declared a disclosable non- pecuniary interest in the application for Hobbs Red Lion Moorings, Thameside, Henley-on-Thames (P21/S3252/FUL), as he considered that he had fettered his discretion on the application, having voted upon it at a Henley Town Council meeting. He would exercise his right to speak as a local councillor but during the committee’s consideration of the item he would remove himself from the meeting room.
130 Urgent business
There was no urgent business.
131 Proposals for site visits
A motion, moved and seconded, to defer planning permission in respect of application P20/S2504/FUL, 46 King James Way, Henley-on–Thames, to enable a site visit to take place, was declared carried on being put to the vote. The committee wished to have the opportunity to visualise the proposals in the proposed setting.
RESOLVED: to hold a site visit for application P20/S2504/FUL and defer the consideration of the application until the visit had been completed.
132 Public participation
The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak was tabled at the meeting.
133 P21/S5302/FUL - 3 Beckley Close, Woodcote
The committee considered application P21/S5302/FUL for a two storey dwelling and first floor extension to existing dwelling with associated parking and amenity areas (as amended by plans received 22 February 2022 to re-plan the garden area and to include a kitchen window) at 3 Beckley Close, Woodcote.
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning officer reported that the application complied with the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP) and the Woodcote Neighbourhood Plan. The application sought planning permission for the erection of a new two-storey dwelling and a first-floor extension to no. 3 Beckley Close. Woodcote Parish Council objected to the proposal on a number of grounds, including lack of off-street parking space, unneighbourly development, dominance over neighbours, design out of character, and no regard for renewable energy technologies. The planning officer reported that the car parking arrangements were in conflict with the Woodcote Neighbourhood Plan but did not have an impact on highways safety and had received the approval of the highways authority, Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). Tree protection measures, landscaping and carbon reduction arrangements had received the approval of technical officers. The application had recently had changes made to it in respect of the building façade and energy performance.
In response to a question from the committee regarding the layout of the proposal and whether a garage would be blocked as a result, the planning officer stated that there was no intention in the application to restrict any access or use. The committee asked the planning officer why a single off street parking space was not provided for each bedroom. The planning officer advised that Woodcote Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the new house would not provide enough parking, as it considered that the sitting room upstairs could be used as a second bedroom. Officers had reconsulted OCC on the basis that the development could be used as a two-bedroom dwelling, and OCC maintained its support of the proposed development. OCC had stated that any displaced vehicles would not result in any significant risk to highway safety and whilst the site would egress onto Grimmer Way, it was considered that vehicle speeds and traffic volumes were relatively low and thus were not considered to present any threat to the safety of the highway network.
The planning officer referred to one of Woodcote Parish Council’s objections that the proposal did not conform with the South Oxfordshire Design Guide’s standards regarding minimum distances between habitable rooms; the window to the rear of the property would be in respect of a staircase. Proposed condition 7 would control consents for windows, doors or other openings along rear of property.
Councillor Helen Booker, a representative of Woodcote Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.
A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission failed on being put to the vote.
The committee considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in principle and, subject to conditions, would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area or the amenity of neighbours and would ensure the protection and enhancement of landscape value within the site.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P21/S5302/FUL subject to the following conditions:
1. Development hereby approved to commence within three years of date of permission.
2. Development hereby approved in accordance with approved plans
3. Development to be implemented in accordance with materials shown on plan and outlined within application form.
4. The approved parking & manoeuvring areas should be retained for parking of car.
5. Landscaping Scheme (trees and shrubs only) to be submitted for approval.
6. Tree Protection (General) details to be submitted for approval.
7. No windows, doors or other openings along rear of property unless consent given.
8. Electric Vehicle Charging Points to be installed for new dwelling (details required).
9. All carbon reduction energy efficiency measures to be implemented in accordance with Energy Statement and a verification report submitted for approval.
134 P21/S3252/FUL - Hobbs Red Lion Moorings, Thameside, Henley on Thames
Ken Arlett declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in this application, as he considered that he had fettered his discretion on the application, having voted upon it at a Henley Town Council meeting.
The committee considered application P21/S3252/FUL for the installation of an accessible boat mooring (as amended by plans including a reduction in the size of the floating pontoon and the loss of one finger jetty to allow for the mooring of boats closer to the river bank and not out into the river navigation submitted 2 March 2022) at Hobbs Red Lion Moorings, Thameside, Henley on Thames.
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning officer reported that the site formed a small parcel of land lying along the banks of the River Thames between Thameside and an existing line of pontoon mornings, located within the built up limits of Henley-on-Thames. The site was located within Henley’s main conservation area and within the setting of the grade I listed Henley Bridge and a number of surrounding listed buildings. The conservation officer considered that the proposals were in keeping with the riverside character of the conservation area and that there would be a negligible visual impact at street level. The planning officer also reported that the proposed access ramp was within the theoretical root protection area of the mature London plane tree growing to the south. This tree was protected by the conservation area. Moreover, owing to the existing site conditions and the relatively lightweight structure of the ramp, it was not considered that the construction of the development as proposed would cause any significant harm to the tree. In respect of flood risk, the Environment Agency had reported that the development was considered compatible with its riverside location and would not result in any increased risk of flooding.
Councillor Ken Arlett, a representative of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.
Mr. Jim Sneddon, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Mr. Jonathan Hobbs, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Ken Arlett, a local ward councillor, spoke to the application. He had exercised his right to speak as a local councillor but during the committee’s consideration of the item he removed himself from the meeting room.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P21/S3252/FUL subject to the following conditions:
1. Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission.
2. Development in accordance with the approved plans.
3. Sample materials to be agreed.
4. Flood mitigation measure - implementation as approved.
135 P20/S2504/FUL - 46 King James Way, Henley-on-Thames
Consideration of this application was deferred to facilitate a site visit.
136 P22/S0023/HH - Pantiles, Elizabeth Road, Henley-on-Thames
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. The planning officer reported that since planning permission had been granted, the development had been completed and this application sought retrospective permission to vary the conditions that were not complied with prior to the commencement to development, namely parking provision and drainage conditions. The submitted parking plan which had been submitted as part of the discharge of condition application was not acceptable from an arboricultural perspective and therefore this condition could not be discharged at the time.
The planning officer also reported that having discussed the proposal with the council’s forestry officer, it had been concluded that no additional hard surfacing within the existing grassed area should be allowed as this contained the rooting system for a lime tree in front of the property and on the public highway. This had led to a conflict between protecting the existing tree and providing additional off-street parking. The highways authority, the Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) had assessed the proposal to reduce the number of off-street parking from 4 spaces to 2. It had concluded that the revised parking plan met parking guidance and was considered acceptable, despite the previous application seeking additional parking spaces. The committee noted that the location of the new drainage arrangements was under the existing driveway and away from the roots of the lime tree and was therefore considered to be acceptable.
A statement by the applicant, Ms. Catherine Notaras, had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
The committee was satisfied with the revised car parking and drainage arrangements and considered that planning permission should be granted.
Councillor Axel Macdonald encountered communication difficulties during consideration of this item with the result that he did not hear the whole debate. He did not vote on this application.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P22/S0023/HH subject to the following condition:
1. Development in accordance with the approved plans.
|
The meeting closed at 7.30 pm |