MinutesOF A MEETING OF THE
|
|
|
Planning Committee
HELD on Wednesday 13 October 2021 at 6.00 pm First Floor Meeting Space, 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, OX14 4SB |
|
Present in the meeting room:
Councillors: David Bretherton (Chair), Peter Dragonetti (Vice Chair), Ken Arlett, Tim Bearder, Elizabeth Gillespie, Lorraine Hillier, Axel Macdonald, Jo Robb, Ian Snowdon and Alan Thompson
Officers: Paul Bateman and Paula Fox
Remote attendance:
Officers: Emma Bowerman, Paul Bowers, Kim Gould, Cathie Scotting, Bertie Smith and Tom Wyatt
Guests: Anna Badcock, Sam Casey-Rerhaye and Maggie Filipova-Rivers
201 Chair's announcements
The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed at a hybrid committee meeting and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.
202 Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor George Levy.
203 Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest.
204 Urgent business
There was no urgent business.
205 Proposals for site visits
A proposal, moved and seconded, for a site visit in respect of application P21/S2637/FUL, land at 4 Ernest Road, Didcot, was agreed. The committee had concerns regarding the effect upon a neighbouring property. The committee considered that a site visit was necessary, in order to have a clear understanding of the concerns in the context of the site and its surroundings.
RESOLVED: to hold a site visit for application P21/S2637/FUL and defer the consideration of the application until the visit had been completed.
206 Public participation
The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak had been circulated to the committee prior to the meeting. Statements received had all been sent to the committee prior to the meeting by the democratic services officer.
207 P20/S3244/FUL - Land to the North West of Stoke Talmage
The committee considered application P20/S3244/FUL for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic farm and associated infrastructure, including inverters, substation compound, security cameras, fencing, access tracks and landscaping on land to the North West of Stoke Talmage.
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The planning officer reported that since the publication of the agenda the neighbour had withdrawn their objection. The planning officer referred to paragraph 1.4, of the report, stating that the proposed solar panels would not extend to Haseley Brook. The Spartum Fen site of special scientific interest site was 700m to the north west of the location and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was 5km distant. The application site did not fall within any areas of special designation. There were two grade II listed structures in the area, one at 500m and the other 1km away from the application site. The application complied with local plan policy DES9 regarding renewable and low carbon energy, as it had no landscape impact as specified under this guidance. A zoning plan showing the location of the proposed panels had been shared with the council and landscaping proposals had been amended to include a landscape buffer, a double hedge, including planting along the footpath, a wildflower meadow and tree planting. It was intended that were the committee to grant planning permission, a condition would specify the implementation of landscaping. Overall, the landscape impact of the proposed development would not be significant, and any adverse outcomes could be dealt with through mitigation measures if necessary. The proposal had not received any objections from statutory consultees and was recommended for approval.
Mr. James Hartley-Bond, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Anna Badcock, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.
In response to a question from the committee regarding the type of trees which were to be planted, the planning officer responded that the developer would be required to inform the council of the species which would be planted, to ensure that native varieties of tree were fully represented and that some would be mature.
In response to a question from the committee regarding the return of the land to agricultural use, and whether the designation would then be brownfield, the planning officer confirmed that a proposed condition specified a return to agricultural use after 40 years.
The committee concluded that the application fitted in well with the council’s work on climate change and global warming, was of negligible harm and not within any areas of special designation, and therefore should be supported.
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 P20/S3244/FUL subject to the following conditions:
Time limits and approved plans -
1. Commencement within three years.
2. Development in accordance with approved plans.
3. Temporary permission for a period of 40 years.
Pre-commencement conditions-
4. Submission of final details of layout, design and scale of equipment to be submitted for approval.
5. Details of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted for approval.
6. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to be submitted for approval.
7. Tree protection to be submitted for approval.
8. Construction Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity to be submitted for approval.
9. Biodiversity Enhancement Plan to be submitted for approval.
10. Scheme for provision and management of buffer zone to watercourse to be submitted for approval.
11. Full archaeological field evaluation to be submitted for approval.
12. Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation to be submitted for approval.
13. Programme of archaeological mitigation to be submitted for approval.
14. Construction Traffic Management Plan to be submitted for approval (including wheel washing facilities).
15. Sustainable drainage scheme to be submitted for approval.
Compliance conditions-
16. Development to be carried out in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment.
17. No lighting to be installed.
18. Removal of panels if not used continuously for the production of energy for a period of six months.
End of development condition-
19. Decommissioning Method Statement to be submitted for approval and decommissioning to be carried out within 6 months of the expiry of the 40-year planning permission and land returned to agricultural use.
Additional condition to implement landscaping.
208 P21/S1388/FUL - Culham Science Centre, Clifton Hampden
The committee considered application P21/S1388/FUL for the construction of two parking hubs (as amplified by drainage strategy received 1 July 2021, Written Scheme of Investigation and Archaeological Evaluation dated June 2021 and September 2021 and amended by additional drainage information received 9 August 2021 and amplified by Ecological Information submitted on the 13 September 2021) at Culham Science Centre (CSC), Clifton Hampden.
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 for the construction of two parking hubs, in the form of multi-storey structures, was set in two areas referred in the application as the eastern and western sites. The application supported a reserve matters application on this site. The proposal would not represent an increase in vehicle movements, as no new trips would be generated.
Mr. Steven Sensecall, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
Ms. Caroline Livingstone, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.
In response to a question regarding the number of electrical vehicle (EV) points to be installed, compared with the overall number of car parking spaces, Ms. Livingstone replied that the proposals included accommodation for cycles and electric bicycles and that every year the situation for these users was improving. The 45 EV points would be located at ground level and as the development was built out, more points would be added. The intention of Culham Science Centre was to be responsive as demand increased, though a modal shift in transportation would take some time to achieve. The installation of EV points across the site would be reviewed by the science centre.
In response to a question regarding links between the site and the railway station, the agent and applicant responded that the science centre was in discussion with the railway company regarding the number of stopping trains at the station servicing the site. Additionally, the science centre was considering autonomous bus movements to and from the site in the longer term.
The committee noted paragraph 6.15 of the report, which gave a breakdown of the 308 car parking spaces in their various locations. The planning officer advised the committee that the proposals had received no objection from the Oxfordshire County Council, as highways authority, and that CSC’s proposed movement strategy, alongside the site-wide travel plan for the science centre, was to promote and encourage employees to use alternative travel modes to the CSC. Such alternative travel modes included public transport, walking and cycling. In addition, the level of on-site car parking was to be consolidated and reduced where possible.
In response to a question from the committee in respect of the mitigation for the loss of trees, the planning officer responded that the council’s tree officer was working in the interests of retaining many trees and that proposed condition 4, (prior to the commencement of the development), concerned tree protection.
The committee considered that on balance the application should be supported.
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/S1388/FUL subject to the following conditions:
Standard conditions –
1 . Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission.
2 . Approved plans.
Prior to commencement conditions –
3 . Construction Traffic Management.
4 . Tree protection.
5 . Surface water drainage details to be approved.
6 . Biodiversity enhancement management plan to be approved.
7 . Certificate confirming the agreement of an offsetting provider.
Prior to occupation conditions –
8 . Electrical charging points as per plans.
9 . External lighting scheme.
Compliance conditions –
10. Materials as on plan.
11. Wildlife protection as approved.
209 P21/S1805/HH - Vincent House, High Street, Long Wittenham
The committee considered application P21/S1805/HH for the removal of existing garage and replacement with oak detailed garage as amended by plans 10A, 11A, 12AB and 13 A, which reduces the height of the proposed garage, at Vincent House, High Street, Long Wittenham.
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 this application concerned the removal of an existing garage and its replacement with an oak detailed garage. It was confirmed that the site was located within the Long Wittenham Conservation Area. The plans for the application had been amended during the determination period in response to the conservation officer’s comments and objections from neighbours and Long Wittenham Parish Council.
The planning officer advised the committee that the existing structure had an association with local artist Robert Gibbings, but had limited architectural or historic value. The Long Wittenham History Group objected to the loss of the garage, which was the location of the artist’s studio. The conservation officer had no objection to its removal. A hedge would be removed as part of the proposal, for which planning permission was not required. The planning officer read to the committee a statement which had been received from Long Wittenham Parish Council, which declared its support for the preservation of the studio and that it should be professionally recorded if planning permission was granted.
Mr. Hugh Lloyd-Jukes, the owner of Vincent House, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye, the local ward councillor, spoke in support of the application.
The committee considered that in view of the local artist’s legacy being preserved in the manner proposed by the parish council and there being no objection from the conservation officer that permission should be granted.
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/S1805/HH subject to the following conditions:
1 . Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission.
2 . Approved plans.
3 . Materials as on plan.
4 . No garage conversion.
5 .Tree protection.
6 . Surface water details.
210 P21/S2385/FUL - Land at Woodcote Road, South Stoke
The committee considered application P21/S2385/FUL for the variation of condition 2 of application P19/S2865/RM for the removal of the detached carport to Plots 2 & 3, removal of the carport to Plot 1, omission of the bike store to Plot 3, a new window to Plot 3 (east elevation) and relocation of 2 parking spaces to Plot 2 (as amplified by tree protection and landscape information received 6 August 2021). Application for approval of reserved matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following application P17/S3206/O for residential development (up to 5 dwellings), and associated works, including access on land at Woodcote Road, South Stoke.
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 this application included changes in site layout, the main visual impact being the relocation of two car parking spaces. Planning officers considered that the proposal would not represent significant harm to the wider landscape or to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Councillor Maggie Filipova-Rivers, the local ward councillor, spoke to the application. In response to a question regarding the consultation time afforded to the South Stoke Parish Council to comment on planning applications, the senior planning officer replied that contact had been made at an early stage with the parish council, who had initially objected, to discuss the plans. The parish council no longer objected.
In response to a question from the committee regarding the retention of a bike store, the planning officer undertook to discuss this with the applicant.
The committee concluded that changes to the approved development would not result in a materially harmful impact to the residential impact of nearby properties or to highway safety and that the special landscape character of this part of the AONB would be conserved and that therefore permission should be granted.
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/S2385/FUL subject to the following conditions:
1 . Time Limit - Variation of Condition.
2 . Approved plans.
3 . Schedule of Materials.
4 . Landscaping implementation.
5 . External Lighting – General.
6 . No additional windows, doors or other openings.
7 . Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights.
8 . Wildlife Protection (mitigation as approved).
9 . Tree protection (implementation as approved).
10 . Surface water drainage works (details required).
11 . New vehicular access.
12 . Vision splay protection.
13 . Parking & Manoeuvring Areas Retained.
14 . Construction Traffic Management (details required).
15 . No Garage conversion into accommodation.
211 P21/S2637/FUL - Land at 4 Ernest Road, Didcot
Consideration of this application was deferred to allow a site visit to take place.
The meeting closed at 7.45 pm
Chair Date
|
|
|
|
|
|