Agenda and minutes

Venue: Fountain Conference Centre, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BA

Contact: Nicola Meurer  email  nicola.meurer@southandvale.gov.uk

Note: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE VENUE FOR THIS MEETING HAS CHANGED. THE MEETING WILL BE HELD AT HOWBERY PARK, NOT DIDCOT CIVIC HALL 

Items
No. Item

72.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, and other declarations, in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Minutes:

David Nimmo-Smith declared that in relation to application P16/S0970/O at Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake, he had chaired Henley Town Council’s planning committee when it considered this application and, therefore, he would not take part in the discussion or voting on this item. 

73.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 136 KB

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meetings held on 13 July, 27 July and 10 August.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 13 and 27 July, and 10 August 2016 as correct records and agree that the Chairman signs these as such. 

 

74.

Urgent items pdf icon PDF 67 KB

Minutes:

None

75.

Applications deferred or withdrawn

Minutes:

The committee noted that application P16/S2114/RM (on land within Eyres Close, Eyres Lane, Ewelme) had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of one of the local ward members, Richard Pullen, to allow for the committee to visit the site. 

76.

Proposals for site visit reports

Minutes:

None

77.

P16/S0970/O - Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake pdf icon PDF 220 KB

Outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. Means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

David Nimmo-Smith declared an interest in this item, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the committee’s debate or voting on this application. 

 

The committee considered application P16/S0970/O for outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved, on land at Thames Farm, Reading Road, Shiplake.

 

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 this meeting. 

 

Officer update:

·         Since the publication of the agenda, a further 128 responses had been received objecting to the application, 28 of which were from new respondents

·         the council had received allegations that some of the letters of support were fraudulent and as a result two representations have been removed from the council’s website

·         the officer would contact the Department for Communities and Local Government on 8 September 2016, advising of the committee’s decision; the department would then consider whether to call-in the application for the Secretary of State’s determination

·         officers had sent the committee additional information in response to a submission by the local Member of Parliament, and further information on case law and recent appeal decisions

 

David Nimmo-Smith, a representative of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The town council’s concerns included:

·         the site was within the Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan area and the plan had not included this as a housing site

·         the policy objections to the proposed development of this site in 2013 were still relevant to this application, including the landscape objections 

·         the sight lines at the site’s access were inadequate, given the amount of traffic using the Reading Road

·         the Neighbourhood Plan could not be considered out of date

·         this part of the district was already making a significant contribution to the district’s five year housing land supply; why should this area suffer further housing? 

 

Tudor Taylor, a representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         the five year housing land supply was one consideration but should not override the Neighbourhood Plan, which itself had over-provided for housing within its area 

·         a number of matters remained but had been dealt with by the officer’s proposed planning conditions; these issues should be resolved before the committee considered the application 

·         the highways access to the site would be a safety risk

·         there would be an adverse impact on the character of the area

·         the proposed development was unsustainable

·         residents of the new homes would have to rely on their cars and children would have to be bussed to schools outside the village

·         there were neighbourhood planning, environmental, social and sustainability grounds to refuse the application

·         the proposal trampled on local democracy

 

Kester George, a representative of Harpsden Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         the proposal was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, which planned for 500 homes in the plan area up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

P15/S4227/FUL - Rear of 22 and 24 Blacklands Road, Benson pdf icon PDF 146 KB

Demolition of 22 and 24 Blacklands Road and the erection of 17 dwellings, including 6 affordable homes.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Felix Bloomfield and Richard Pullen, the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item.  Toby Newman took the chair for this item. 

 

The committee considered application P15/S4227/FUL for the demolition of 22 and 24 Blacklands Road and the erection of 17 dwellings, including 6 affordable homes, on land to the rear of 22 and 24 Blacklands Road, Benson.

 

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 this meeting.

 

Officer update: a further letter of objection had been received from a neighbour.  Also, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation had made an objection that insufficient noise mitigation information had been provided with the application, and on safety grounds in the event of an emergency at RAF Benson.  Also, Environmental Health had raised no objections subject to noise mitigation conditions. 

 

Jon Fowler, a representative of Benson Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         there were already 241 homes approved for Benson, 35 per cent over the indicative figure given in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment; it was unfair that Benson had to take more housing

·         the Benson Neighbourhood Plan was at an advanced state, hopefully going to referendum in January 2017; why should the neighbourhood plan be completed if this committee ignored it and continued to allocate housing on other sites? 

·         the site was not overgrown, it was a valuable home to wildlife, and protecting biodiversity was important

·         the development was not sustainable

 

Stewart Fryatt, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         road safety—the road was a rat run, with many parked cars, and would worsen if this development was allowed

·         this development was not part of the local plan

·         there would be a loss of privacy from overlooking for local residents, spoiling the enjoyment of their gardens

·         there was a variety of wildlife on the site and this should be protected

 

Rob Wood, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         the development was too dense, representing overdevelopment right up to the site boundaries

·         this would cause overlooking and noise disturbance

 

Simon Sharp, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         the unadopted Neighbourhood Plan carried little weight

·         there were no objections from the county highways officers

·         to reduce potential overlooking, the velux windows could be obscure glazed

·         there was sufficient distance to the adjacent properties

·         the council did not have a five-year housing land supply

·         the benefits of the proposed development outweighed the harm

·         there was no landscape harm as this was a derelict site

·         the development was sustainable and would support local services

·         there would be affordable homes

·         the density was comparable with housing nearby

 

Felix Bloomfield, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         the site was outside the built up area of the village

·         it conflicted with policy CSR1 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

P15/S4131/RM - Land adjoining Greenwood Avenue, Chinnor pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Application for reserved matters following outline permission P14/S0953/O for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. (Outline planning permission for residential development for up to 80 dwellings including means of access, open space and associated development).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item. 

 

The committee considered application P15/S4131/RM for reserved matters following outline permission P14/S0953/O for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development on land adjoining Greenwood Avenue, Chinnor.

 

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 this meeting.

 

Officer update: a further two responses had been received objecting to the application.  The materials submitted for this development were considered acceptable. 

 

Richard Searl, the representative of Chinnor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The proposed development was out of scale, overbearing, unneighbourly, and out of keeping with the local neighbourhood

·         There should be car ports, not garages

·         The neighbourhood planning steering group recognised that two other adjacent sites were also subject to planning applications; all three applications should be considered together to harmonise planning of the area

·         Policies D4, H4, and T1 were all still relevant

·         The neighbourhood planning group hoped that the plan could go to a referendum in early 2017

 

Roger Payne, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         The dormer windows facing existing property would invade residents’ privacy and cause overlooking

·         This was contrary to policy D4 of the local plan

 

Phil Byron, of the Chinnor and Princes Risborough Railway, reported that:

·         An acoustic barrier was required under the previous permission on the site

 

Lorna Juarez, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The local objections were to the principle of the development which had already been established

·         The distance from the three-storey building to neighbouring property was in excess of the design standard

·         The impact of the adjacent railway had been taken into account

·         There would be parking for existing and future residents

·         There were no statutory consultee objections to the application

·         The section 106 agreement would bring contributions to education and highways improvements

 

Lynn Lloyd, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application, her concerns included:

·         The Chinnor neighbourhood planning team had worked hard to prepare a plan and their work should not be ignored

·         There were local concerns over the orientation of the largest building on the site

·         There had not been much liaison between the developer and the parish council

·         There would be an increase in the volume of traffic from this and other developments in the village

 

Ian White, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         The three-storey building had been located at the highest point on the site; it should be relocated to a lower part 

·         There were concerns about the adequacy of the local sewage system

·         There was no mention of zero carbon growth in the report and this should be part of the development’s design

·         The application should be deferred to allow these issues to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

P16/S2114/RM - Land within Eyres Close, off Eyres Lane, Ewelme pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Application P16/S2114/RM has been deferred for consideration at committee on 7 September 2016 to allow for a site visit.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the agenda to allow the committee to undertake a site visit. 

 

81.

P16/S2145/FUL - Cariad Court, Cleeve Road, Goring on Thames pdf icon PDF 85 KB

Erection of two dwellings over re-built garages and existing basement car park (as amplified by tree report which was received on 21 July 2016).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee considered application P16/S2145/FUL for the erection of two dwellings over re-built garages and existing basement car park at Cariad Court, Cleeve Road, Goring-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 this meeting.

 

Catherine Hall, a representative of Goring-on-Thames Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The design of the proposed development was inappropriate for this location in terms of its scale, mass and form 

·         It would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the nearby Conservation Area

·         The window design was inappropriate and the roof design was poor

·         Existing privacy levels must be maintained, not worsened by the proposed development

 

Helen Abbott, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application, her concerns included:

·         The proposed development would cause overlooking

·         There was an increased likelihood of noise and light pollution

·         The Silver Birch trees and hedge were to be removed; this was unnecessary and would result in a loss of landscape screening

·         Was the lightweight structure necessary? 

·         How would the green roof be drained?

 

Errol Facey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The windows had been designed to avoid overlooking but they could be recessed to obscure the view

·         The original design had been withdrawn following objections

·         The scheme had been re-designed following talks with the planning and landscape officers, with the resulting reduced impact on neighbours

·         The town council had not objected to the principle of development on this site

 

Keith Halson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·        The proposed development would improve and enhance the garage block

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P16/S2145/FUL subject to the following conditions: 

1.         Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.         Approved plans.

3.         Landscaping scheme (replacement planting).

4.         Tree protection method.

5.         Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.

6.         Cycle parking facilities to be provided.

7.         Construction traffic management plan to be submitted.

82.

P16/S1013/FUL - Vale Cottage, Northfield Avenue, Lower Shiplake pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Erection of a 2.5 storey 5 bedroom detached dwelling with a detached double garage following demolition of the existing house and detached garage.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee considered application P16/S1013/FUL for the erection of a 2.5 storey five bedroom detached dwelling with a detached double garage following demolition of the existing house and detached garage at Vale Cottage, Northfield Avenue, Lower Shiplake. 

 

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 this meeting.

 

Tudor Taylor, a representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The design, scale and bulk of the proposal did not reflect the local context

·         The visual impact of the proposed development would stand out against the street scene

·         The development was unneighbourly

 

Michelle Brown, the applicant, spoke in support of the application:

·         Her family wished to extend their property and better insulate it but had been advised by the architect to demolish it and re-build

·         The height of the new house had been reduced

·         The house was not up against the boundary and overlooking of neighbouring property would be reduced by the new design

·         There would be new planting to provide screening to neighbouring property

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P16/S1013/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.      Commencement of development within three years.

2.      Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3.      Schedule of materials to be agreed prior to commencement of development.

4.      Obscure glazing for north-west facing first floor window.

5.      Rooflights to be at least 1.7m above cill level and no additional rooflights

6.      Withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions, roof extensions and outbuildings.

7.      Parking and manoeuvring areas to be retained as approved.

8.      No garage conversion into accommodation without planning permission.

9.      Details of hard and soft landscaping to be agreed prior to commencement of development.

10.    Details of tree protection measures to be agreed prior to commencement of development. 

83.

P16/S0972/FUL - 13 The Ridgeway, Nettlebed pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Erection of a two storey 2-bedroom dwelling.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

David Nimmo-Smith, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item. 

 

The committee considered application P16/S0972/FUL for the erection of a two storey two-bedroom dwelling at 13 The Ridgeway, Nettlebed. 

 

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 this meeting.

 

Neil Boddington, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The design of the proposed dwelling mirrored that of the neighbouring dwelling

·         The distance between the new dwelling and the neighbouring property was slightly below the design standards but the property had been angled to avoid issues

 

David Nimmo-Smith, one of the local ward members, spoke to the application:

·         The parish council’s objections to this application were noted but he had no objection as local ward member

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P16/S0972/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.         Commencement of development within three years.

2.         Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3.         Details of levels to be agreed prior to commencement of development.

4.         Schedule of materials to be agreed prior to commencement of development.

5.         Withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions, rooflights and outbuildings.

6.         New vehicular access to be constructed to highway specifications.

7.         Car parking to be retained.

8.         No surface water drainage to the highway.

9.         No vehicular access gates to be provided.

10.      Details of hard and soft landscaping to be agreed prior to commencement of development. 

 

84.

P16/S1237/FUL - 1 Holliers Close, Sydenham pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two detached dwellings with new access into site.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item. 

 

The committee considered application P16/S1237/FUL for the demoltion of an existing bungalow and the erection of two detached dwellings with new access into the site.

 

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 this meeting.

 

James Ward spoke objecting to the application on behalf of local residents, their concerns included:

·         The principle of development on this site

·         The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

·         There was a Conservation Area and Listed cottage opposite the site

·         There would be a loss of privacy for neighbouring residents

·         Soil would have to be removed from the site to create the development and this would present a risk

·         The proposed development needed to be re-designed

 

Ian White, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application:

·         He agreed with the arguments put forward by the objector, Mr Ward

·         The proposal would have a significant impact on the Conservation Area nearby

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer consideration of the application to allow the committee to visit the site was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of planning application P16/S1237/FUL to allow the committee to visit the site. 

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

South Oxfordshire District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE