Agenda and minutes

There were no urgent items.

None.

None.

Erection of a two-bedroom, self-contained dwelling house adjoining no. 18.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S2143/FUL for the erection of a two bedroom, self-contained dwellinghouse adjoining 18 Courtiers Green, 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 this meeting.

Christopher Neil, from parish council, objected to the application. His points included the following:

·           He believed that the application was not correct. The application was not a four bed house but a 3 bed.

·           The development would have an unfair affect on the neighbours, as it is unfair to them.

·           It is overdevelopment and affects the terracing of the housing.

Lyliane Doumeche, a neighbour, objected to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·           Failures on behalf of the developer to accurately describe his plans.

·           Negative impact on immediate neighbours.

Gareth Betram, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His points included the following:

·           The application was compliant with planning policies.

·           It was sustainable development.

·           It was consistent with other developments on the same street.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the agent.

Sue Lawson, the local member, spoke in objection.

·           She felt that the applicant had “run roughshod” over the planning process.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the officers.

It was proposed and seconded to support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The committee debated the proposal.

·           Concern was expressed about the issues raised by the objectors about the manner in which this application had come to planning committee.

·           It was out of keeping with the street scene as it would be the only terrace on the street.

·           There were no significant planning reasons to refuse.

Summation.

·           To support the officer’s recommendation, and to retain the conditions, and to add a further condition restricting permitted development rights to any change to a House in Multiple Occupation.

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

Demolition of buildings.  Erection of new dwelling with outbuilding and associated works and landscaping.

Councillor Stephen Harrod joined the meeting.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S2040/FUL for the demolition of buildings and the erection of a new dwelling with outbuilding and associated works and landscaping at Durham Leys Farm.

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.

Henry Venners, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Sue Lawson, the local ward member, spoke to the application. Her points included the following:

·                This is contrary to the emerging neighbourhood plan, which is 3 to 4 months prior to referendum and is therefore a premature application.

·                It is not what the village needs.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the officers.

It was proposed and seconded to support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The committee debated the proposal.

Summation.

·           Waived.

On being put to the vote this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

·           Commencement three years - full planning permission.

·           Approved plans.

·           Sample materials required (walls and roof).

·           Withdrawal of permitted development (Part 1 Class A) - no extensions etc.

·           Withdrawal of permitted development (Part 1 Class E) - no buildings etc.

·           Landscaping scheme (trees and shrubs only).

·           Tree protection (detailed).

·           Details of boundary treatment to be submitted.

Demolition of St Leonard's Church Hall, relocation of the existing car park and erection of two dwellings (one four bedroom rectory and one five bedroom market unit), and double garages, construction of access (car park and dwellings repositioned and formation of undeveloped buffer zone as shown on amended plans received 25th August 2015 and diverted footpath route shown on amended block plan received 2nd February 2016).

The committee considered the report on application P15/S0941/FUL for the demolition of St Leonard's Church Hall, Prospect Place, Watlington and for the relocation of the existing car park and erection of two dwellings (one four bedroom rectory and one five bedroom market unit), and double garages, construction of access (car park and dwellings repositioned and formation of undeveloped buffer zone as shown on amended plans received 25 August 2015 and diverted footpath route shown on amended block plan received 2 February 2016).

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.

It was clarified that the confidential document that had been circulated had been received and read by all members. Members were advised not to discuss the confidential aspects of the document, which were provided as background information.

Tom Bindoff, from Watlington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. His objections included the following:

·           Loss of major part of green space which had been open to the public for a considerable time.

·           Site is sensitive.

·           Reduction of available car parking at the church.

·           Parish Council have not seen the business case.

Tim Horton spoke in objection to the application.  His points included the following:

·          Inappropriate by scale and design.

·           Loss of public amenity.

·           Issue with car parking.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the speaker.

Rev’d Christopher Evans, Mr John Barton, the church warden, and Mr Jeremy Flawn, the agent, spoke in favour of the application. They included the following:

·           The application represented less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

·           Balance with public benefits.

·           Removal of unsightly church hall, more discreet parking.

·           Sale of private dwelling, funds will be restricted by covenant to maintain and repair church.

·           Increase usage and membership of the church.

·           £1687 per week running costs for church needs to increase income.

·           Improved location of the rectory.

·           Increased facilities in the church.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the panel of speakers.

·          The church hall has been condemned as structurally unsound.

·          Community groups were leaving the church hall as it was dilapidated.

·           Vision for the church to be a prestige venue as well as a community venue. Church has had to make a choice.

·           When the funds are released the church will be able to build the extension for which it has planning permission.

·           The church has only had a limited amount of funding support from parish council of £1000 for the church hall and insufficient grants offered by SODC with unsuitable conditions and therefore were not eligible to keep the monies.

·           The applicant has previously investigated grant funding opportunities from external bodies but these came with conditions which could not be fulfilled.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

·           To preserve or enhance character of the conservation area, and historic building.

The committee debated the proposal:

·           It is a matter of balance and compromise.

·           The green space which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Erection of two 5-bedroom dwellings and two-bay carports and formation of two individual accesses (reduction in width and eaves height of Plot 1, lowering of ridge height of both dwellings, reduction in size of both carports, carport to Plot 1 moved away from Harvest barn boundary and retention of front boundary hedging either side of accesses as shown on amended plans received 18th July 2016 and additional services plan received 8th September 2016).

Jeanette Matelot stepped down from the committee for this item as she was one of the ward members.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S1470/FUL for the erection of two 5-bedroom dwellings and two-bay carports and formation of two individual accesses (reduction in width and eaves height of Plot 1, lowering of ridge height of both dwellings, reduction in size of both carports, carport to Plot 1 moved away from Harvest barn boundary and retention of front boundary hedging either side of accesses as shown on amended plans received 18 July 2016 and additional services plan received 8 September 2016); on land at Elm Tree Farm, Moreton.

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.

Graham Hunt, the town clerk, spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application; his points included the following:

·           The town council believed that the proposed application was in contravention of some of the district council’s policies, either in practice or in principle.

·           It was in conflict with Thame’s adopted neighbourhood plan, which includes the parish of Moreton and that insufficient weight has been given to the National Planning Policy Framework’s statement on the weight which should be given to neighbourhood plans.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the speaker about the detail of the neighbourhood plan as it applies to Moreton

Steven Kerry, the applicant’s agent, spoke on behalf of the application.

·           He believed that it was in keeping with the local area and is policy compliant and compliant with the neighbourhood plan.

Jeanette Matelot, one of the ward councillors, spoke in objection to the application.

·           Large houses are not relevant to the needs for the housing stock in Moreton. They need smaller, affordable units.

It was proposed and seconded to support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The committee debated the proposal.

·           Concerns were raised about the possible contravention of the neighbourhood plan.

Summation.

·           The application was a good design, and not in contravention of the neighbourhood plan.

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.      Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.     Planning condition listing the approved drawings.

3.     Details of levels prior to commencement.

4.     Schedule of materials required prior to commencement.

5.     Withdrawal of permitted development rights (extensions and outbuildings).

6.     New vehicular access implementation in accordance with approved details.

7.     Vision splay details prior to commencement.

8.     No surface water drainage to highway.

9.     Parking and manoeuvring areas retained as on plan.

10.  Vehicular access gates to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from highway.

11.  Construction traffic management plan prior to commencement.

12.  Details of landscaping (including hardsurfacing and boundary treatment) prior to commencement.

13.  No garage conversion into accommodation.

14.  Details of tree protection (general) prior to commencement.

15.  Details of surface water drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of new 4 bedroom house.

Jeanette Matelot stepped down from the committee for this item as she was one of the ward members.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S0806/FUL for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of a new 4 bedroom house (as amended by plans received 29 April 2016 reducing ridge height of roof, changing north eastern elevation gable to hipped roof, removing canopy over back door, and revising red line of application site and block plan to correctly show relationship of the property to boundaries); at The Wychens, 70 Queen’s Road, Thame.

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.

Graham Hunt, the clerk of Thame Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His points included the following:

·           Development would be unneighbourly, too great in massing and bulk.

Alan Taynton, a local resident, objected to the application. His objections included the following:

·           Development is too close to his property.

·           It will affect light to the dining room, too close to the boundary.

·           Would like the proposed building flipped to reduce the impact on the property.

Gloria Pedley, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

·           The neighbour’s dining room is double aspect and so light will not be hugely affected.

·           It is not viable to flip the design as will then not be able to reuse the foundations.

Jenaette Matelot, one of the ward members, spoke in objection to the application:

·           The design should be flipped to be more neighbourly.

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application for a site visit.

On being put to the vote, this motion was defeated.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·           Significant loss of amenity to the immediate neighbour, created by the increase in height so close to the boundary.

·           The proposal was unneighbourly.

The committee debated the proposal.

Summation.

·           Waived

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

To refuse the application for planning permission for the following reasons:

·           Significant loss of amenity to the immediate neighbour, created by the increase in height so close to the boundary.

·           Unneighbourliness.

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of a pair off semi- detached dwellings with associated parking and private amenity space provision. Amendments to existing access and creation of new access.

Councillor Lorraine Hillier stepped down from the committee for this item as she was one of the ward members.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S2207/FUL  for the proposed demolition of existing dwellinghouse and the erection of a pair off semi- detached dwellings with associated parking and private amenity space provision. Amendments to existing access and creation of new access (as amended by revised plans received 11th August 2016, reducing the overall height and depth of the proposed dwellings) at 77 St Marks 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 this meeting.

Mark Gloyens, a neighbour, spoke objecting to the application, his points included the following:

·           The application is out of keeping with the character of the street and has a negative impact on the neighbours.

·           It will have a detrimental impact on the character of the street.

The committee asked questions of clarification to the objector

Councillor Lorraine Hillier, one of the local members, spoke in objection to the application, on the following points:

·           Over development.

·           Out of keeping with the immediate street scene.

·           Significant loss of light.

·           High degree of visibility.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse this application on the following grounds:

·           Oppressive and overbearing.

·           Over development.

·           Loss of amenities to neighbours.

·           Affecting character of the area.

The committee debated the proposal.

Summation

·           Waived

On being put to the vote, this proposal was defeated.

It was proposed and seconded to accept the officer’s recommendation and to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The committee debated this proposal.

Summation

·           Waived.

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement within three years of the date of this permission.

2.     The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

3.     A schedule of materials for all external finshes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority prior to commencement of development.

4.     Details of proposed floor and ground levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of development.

5.     Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed means of access onto St Marks Road, is to be formed and laid out and constructed strictly in accordance with the local highway authority’s specifications and all ancillary works specified shall be undertaken.

6.     The existing means of access onto St Marks Road shall be improved and laid out and constructed strictly in accordance with the local highway authority’s specifications and all ancillary works specified shall be undertaken.

7.     Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with the approved site plan. The car parking spaces shall be retained unobstructed except for the parking of motor vehicles at all times

8.     The surfacing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Change of use from A5 (hot food takeaway) to C3 (residential).

Councillor Lorraine Hillier stepped down from the committee for this item as she was one of the ward members.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S2237/FUL for a change of use from A5 (hot food takeaway) to C3 (residential).

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.

Councillor Hillier, one of the ward members, spoke objecting to the application:

·           There was a need for small units to be retained in the town for small businesses away from the town centre.

It was proposed and seconded to support the officers’ recommendation and delegate the approval of planning permission to the head of planning.

The committee debated the proposal.

Summation.

·           Waived.

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

Proposed internal alterations. Proposed new guttering and downpipes to front elevation. Proposed new chimney flashing.

The committee considered the report on application P16/S2084/LB for proposed internal alterations; [roposed new guttering and downpipes to front elevation, and proposed new chimney flashing at 11 High Street, Watlington].

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.

This application was before the committee because the applicant is a councillor of South Oxfordshire District Council.

Proposed and seconded to go with the officer’s recommendation for approval.

The committee debated the proposal.

Summation.

·           Waived.

On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED

To grant listed building consent, subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement of works within three years.

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

3.     Materials to be used as indicated within the application.

4.        Extent and details of works to the chimney stack to be agreed prior to the commencement of these works.