Agenda and minutes

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meetings held on 30 November and 14 December 2016.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 30 November and 14 December 2016 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.

Further to a recent press report, the committee expressed its support for the planning officers and the professional manner in which they carried out their duties.

Application P16/S3001/O – Land to rear of Cleeve Cottages, Icknield Road, Goring, was deferred to enable a revised report to be submitted to the next meeting.

The committee agreed to defer consideration of applications P16/S2359/FUL and P16/S2360/LB pending a site visit in view of the sensitive nature of the site.

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling house and associated structures and the erection of three detached dwellings and detached garages with separate access arrangements.

The committee considered application P16/S1140/FUL, for the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling house and associated structures and the erection of three detached dwellings and detached garages with separate access arrangements at Longwood, Maidensgrove.

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.

Richard Anstiss, a representative of Pishill with Stonor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concern was that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the plot.

Richard Anstiss, representing a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The development would have a profound impact on a listed building;

·         Contrary to the officer’s report, the development site did not conform with policy CSR1 as it was outside the settlement;

·         Contrary to the officer’s report, the proposal did not represent infill development; and

·         Approval of the application would set a dangerous precedent.

The committee considered that the proposal was an acceptable infill site and did fall within the settlement but the scale of the development formed an overdevelopment of the site, contrary to character and harmful to the Chilterns AONB.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

The proposed development, due to its scale and layout, would result in an over intensive form of development which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and would fail to preserve the landscape qualities and natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB. Therefore the development is considered contrary to Policy CSEN1, CSQ3, CSR1 and CSH2 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, Policy D1, G2, H4 and C4 of the saved South Oxfordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED TO A FUTURE MEETING

New access road and erection of 10 new dwellings.

This item was deferred to enable a revised report to be submitted to the next meeting.

The creation of a new access track from Sires Hill and the formation of new car parking areas, erection of a new skills and learning building, erection of an amphitheatre, conversion of existing office to cafe (with small farm shop), conversion of existing learning barn to office space, erection of three new barns, erection of replica roundhouses, all associated structures, landscaping, drainage and earthworks.

The committee considered application P16/S31333/FUL for the the creation of a new access track from Sires Hill and the formation of new car parking areas, erection of a new skills and learning building, erection of an amphitheatre, conversion of existing office to cafe (with small farm shop), conversion of existing learning barn to office space, erection of three new barns, erection of replica roundhouses, all associated structures, landscaping, drainage and earthworks at the Earth Trust Centre, Little 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 this meeting.

Steve Capel-Davies, a representative of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The harm to the historic landscape; and

·         The adverse impact of the proposed access road.

Graham Warrington, Andrew Lea and Lynda Atkins, representatives of Little Wittenham Parish Council, spoke and stated that the parish council supported the application but had concerns about matters including:

·         The possibility that the proposed access track would not be implemented; and

·         That car park charges would result in the continued use and damage to Hollow Way.

Chris Hollebone, representing local residents, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         Increased traffic and noise close to dwellings on Sires Hill and Hollow Way;

·         The development would be visually intrusive;

·         The new access track would harm the sensitive landscape of the AONB; and

·         The access onto Sires Hill would be dangerous.

Jane Manley, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application:

·         The current access arrangements and car parking provision were inadequate;

·         The proposals would reduce the damage to Hollow Way;

·         The application was in accordance with planning policies; and.

·         The applicant had worked with the local community to develop the proposals.

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

Change of use of property from A3 to C3 and associated extension and alterations.

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/S923/FUL for a change of use of property from A3 to C3 and associated extensions and alteration at Daisy’s at the Dog, Peppard Common.

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.

Fiona Berry, a representative of Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The loss of the historically important brick and flint wall to the front would be detrimental to the character of the area; and

·         The proposed access and manoeuvring area would be hazardous to children and other motorists accessing and leaving the nearby school.

Ian Heriot, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The loss of the historically important brick and flint wall; and

·         The likelihood of vehicles reversing out of the proposed access endangering pedestrians and other road users.

Paul Brailsford, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The proposal had considerable merit and would bring the building back into a viable use;

·         The proposal had been amended to increase the parking area to allow for ease of manoeuvring within the site; and

·         The highways officer had no objections to the amended scheme.

David Nimmo-Smith, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The loss of the historically important brick and flint wall; and

·         The likelihood of vehicles reversing out of the proposed access, endangering pedestrians and other road users.

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

1.     Full planning permission – development to commence within three years of date of permission.

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

3.     A schedule of all materials to be used in the external construction and finishes of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

4.     Foul drainage works details required to be submitted to the LPA prior to occupation.

5.     Vision splay details measuring 2m by 2m shall be provided to each side of access prior to occupation of development.

6.     New vehicular access to be formed, laid out and constructed in accordance with local highway authority specifications.

7.     Parking and manoeuvring areas to be implemented in accordance with plans and retained for their use.

8.     All new windows and doors should be timber in construction.

9.     Landscaping scheme (including hardsurfacing and boundary treatments) to be submitted for approval by the LPA.

10.  Tree protection details to be submitted for protection of trees during construction.

Erection of two detached houses with new (shared) highway access.

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 acted as chairman for this item. 

The committee considered application P16/S2961/FUL for the erection of two detached houses with new (shared) highway access.at land fronting Wallingford Road, North 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 this meeting.

Officer update: a further condition was recommended to ensure that windows on the sides of the buildings at first floor height but which served the ground floor would remain at a height of 1.7 metres to avoid any future overlooking of neighbours.

Mr Lovegrove and Mr Milsop, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment of a small plot;

·         The height, design and scale of the buildings were out of keeping with the character of the area;

·         The development would overlook and overshadow neighbouring properties; and

·         The access, its proximity to a bus stop and parking arrangements were dangerous;

John Carroll, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The proposal was not overdevelopment as there was a typical dwelling/plot size ratio;

·         There was no established character to properties in the area and the proposal added to the existing mix of buildings;

·         The proposed dwelling would not overlook or significantly overshadow neighbouring properties; and

·         The proposed parking arrangements had been amended and the highways officer had withdrawn his objection subject to the attachment of conditions.

Richard Pullen, a local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment of a small plot; and

·         The parking arrangements were dangerous.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application, subject to the additional condition recommended by the officer, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

1.     Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.     Approved plans.

3.     Schedule of materials.

4.     New vehicular access.

5.     Vision splay details to be provided.

6.     Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.

7.     Construction traffic management.

8.     Archaeological watching brief to be approved.

9.     No development to take place until archeological investigation.

10.  Prevention of overlooking.

Refurbishment and extension of existing farm house and conversion of two farm out-buildings and yard to residential use, including amenity garden space and off-street parking.

Consideration of this item was deferred pending a site visit in view of the sensitive nature of the site.

One detached dwelling and access.

The committee considered application P16/S3492/FUL for one detached dwelling and access at 23 Woodlands Road, Sonning Common.

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.

RosVarnes, a representative of Sonning Common Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment;

·         The plans submitted were out of date and inaccurate;

·         The proposal was out of character with the surrounding area;

·         The proposal would have a negative impact on neighbouring amenity; and

·         The proposal was in conflict with the neighbourhood plan.

Richard Hobson and Christina Duckett, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment;

·         The proposal was out of character with the surrounding area; and

·         The development would overlook neighbouring properties. 

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

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 the commencement of development.

4.     New vehicular access to be formed prior to occupation.

5     Vision splays of 2 metres by 2 metres to be provided to each side of the access.

6.    Plan of car parking provision for two spaces to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development.

7.    Landscaping details to be agreed prior to the commencement of development.

8.    Refuse and recycling storage details to be agreed prior to the commencement  of development.

9.    Withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions.

Proposed removal of existing timber building and separate store and erection of a replacement purpose-built art studio and store for private use.

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/S2721/FUL, for the proposed removal of an existing timber building and separate store and the erection of a replacement purpose-built art studio and store for private use at Greys Meadow, Rotherfield Greys.

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.

Mr Hignell, representing a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The proposal would be inappropriate and incongruous within the rural setting; and

·         The possible commercial use of the building in the future.

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/S2721/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.     Existing buildings to be demolished prior to the commencement of the developmen.t

4.     Materials to be used as specified within the application form.

5.     Landscaping scheme to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development.

6.     Any external lighting details to be agreed prior to installation.

7.     Private use only and limited to the building as shown on the approved plans.

8.     Removal of any permitted development rights for access and hardstanding.

9.     No overnight accommodation.