Agenda and minutes

Toby Newman was nominated, seconded and appointed Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of the 2016/17 municipal year.

Councillor David Nimmo Smith declared that, in relation to application P15/S3385/FUL, he chaired the Henley Town Council planning committee when it considered this application and would therefore step down from the meeting for this item.

Councillor Lorraine Hillier declared that, in relation to application, P16/S2543/FUL, she was the owner of a business referred to in the report and would therefore step down from the meeting for this item.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 7 September 2016 (attached).

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2016 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.

None.

None.

None.

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of an 80 bed care home (C2 use) with parking, landscaping, retention of existing access to Newtown Road and creation of a new access from Mill Lane.

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

Joan Bland and Lorraine Hillier, two 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/S3385/FUL for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of an 80 bed care home (C2 use) with parking, landscaping, retention of existing access to Newtown Road and creation of a new access from Mill Lane at The Workshop, Newtown 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.

Officer update: additional information was provided on the usage of the Mill Lane car park and the demand for casual swimming and swimming lessons at Henley Leisure Centre.

Julian Brookes and David Nimmo-Smith, representatives of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The town council’s concerns included:

·         The loss of leisure facilities will have a detrimental effect on Henley residents;

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value demonstrates its importance to the locality;

·         The site was not designated for residential development in the Neighbourhood Plan; and

·         Staff would need to travel to and from the development by car at all hours so generating additional traffic and impacting on air quality. 

Deidre Wells, Michelle Thomas and Mark Binning, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         There were already sufficient care homes in the area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan;

·         Concerns about additional traffic, inadequate parking provision, access and pedestrian safety had not been addressed; and

·         There was insufficient swimming pool provision elsewhere and some children’s swimming classes at Henley Leisure Centre were already full.

Douglas Bond, the applicant’s agent and Sheila Tunstall, a local resident, spoke in support of the application:

·         A number of new gyms had opened in the area and there was spare capacity;

·         The care home would attract significantly fewer car journeys than the former fitness centre and there had been no objections from the highways authority;

·         The care home would be built to a high standard and would free up accommodation as elderly local residents moved into the home; and

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value did not place any restrictions on what the owner of the property can do if it remained in their ownership.

Stefan Gawrysiak, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The site was not designated for residential development in the Neighbourhood Plan;

·         The site is in an area of business use so, if approved, more employment opportunities would need to be provided elsewhere;

·         Mill Lane had insufficient capacity for the additional traffic that would be generated;

·         There was already sufficient care home provision in the area; and

·         Approving the application would result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Residential development comprising 555 dwellings, a one form entry primary school, associated landscaping and open spaces, construction of a new access onto the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way/Bosley Way, construction of a public transport link/emergency access onto Wantage Road and other supporting infrastructure works and facilities.

The committee considered application P14/S2860/O for a residential development comprising 555 dwellings, a one form entry primary school, associated landscaping and open spaces, construction of a new access onto the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way/Bosley Way, construction of a public transport link/emergency access onto Wantage Road and other supporting infrastructure works and facilities at land to the west of Wallingford (Site B), Wallingford.

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 representation had been received from Oxfordshire County Council clarifying the requirements of the S106 agreement.

Three further letters had been received from neighbours raising the following issues and the need for mitigation:

·           Noise – need for acoustic fencing

·           Boundary treatments – security and landscaping

·           CCTV

·           Light pollution

·           Detail of highway construction not shown on plans

Two further conditions would be added to the recommendation:

·         Housing Mix to be as per Table 3 unless otherwise agreed in writing

·         Any CCTV to be agreed in writing

The officer also provided clarification on some of the conditions as follows:

·         Condition 4 – Time limit to include submission of first reserved matters within 6 months of outline permission, implementation to begin within 1 year of approval of first reserved matters

·         Condition 21- to include reference to sustainable design and secure by design

·         Condition 27 – to include reference to boundary treatments

·         Condition 34 – details of lighting to cover street lighting and residential

Adrian Lloyd, a representative of Wallingford Town Council, spoke about the application.  Whilst the town council had no objection in principle to the application, its concerns included:

·         The height of the properties should be restricted to two storey;

·         Further improvements to roundabouts were required;

·         Drainage and sewerage arrangements may not be sufficient. Who will pay for the maintenance?; and

·         The no access to Queens Avenue should be enforced by a condition and by a physical barrier.

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

·         The height of the three storey development at the entrance to the site;

·         The visual impact of the development;

·         The speed limit along the by-pass should be reduced for safety reasons; and

·         The increased light pollution.

John Gordon, representing Sustainable Wallingford, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The need for a sustainable drainage system management plan to reduce the risk of flooding;

·         Environmental sustainability was not being given sufficient priority; and

·         There should have been wider consultation on the proposals.

Angus Michie, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         There had been wide consultation with stakeholders prior to the application;

·         The access arrangements had been agreed with the highways authority; and

·         This was an outline application. Many of the objections related to matters of detail which could be addressed at the design stage.

Imran Lokhon, one of the local ward members, spoke about the application. He welcomed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Removal of Condition 5 (no customer access to patio) of planning permission P08/E0834 to allow limited use of the rear courtyard.

Lorraine Hillier declared an interest in this item, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item.

Joan Bland, 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/S2543/FUL for the removal of Condition 5 (no customer access to patio) of planning permission P08/E0834 to allow limited use of the rear courtyard at Cau Restaurant, 38 Hart Street, 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.

Stefan Gawrysiak, a representative of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The town council’s concerns included:

·         There will be further residential developments affected by this application following other recently approved planning applications within the locality;

·         The application was an attempt to overturn a previous committee decision to restrict the use of the courtyard. This condition had been imposed to protect neighbouring amenity; and

·         The previous temporary permission should be extended for a further twelve months, so that the impact on neighbouring properties could be monitored.

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

Erection of 4 dwellings and the provision of a new access to the paddock land to the west.

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/S2212/O for the erection of four dwellings and the provision of a new access to the paddock land to the west of land to the west of Chinnor Road, Towersey.

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

·         The proposal was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP);

·         Towersey had delivered, and continued to deliver, its quota of houses as required by the SOLP;

·         The proposal was unacceptable ribbon development; and

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent and undermine the emerging Towersey Neighbourhood Plan.

Adrian Gould, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         No weight should be given to the emerging Towersey Neighbourhood Plan in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing;

·         The site was in a sustainable location; and

·         There had been no objections from statutory consultees.

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

·         The erection of four dwellings would make no significant contribution to the five-year housing supply;

·         The council’s preferred options document 2016, cited in the report, was irrelevant as it had not been formally approved;

·         The proposal was ribbon development;

·         The site was not in a sustainable location; there were virtually no services nearby and the bus service was on the verge of collapse. 

The committee considered that the proposal was unsustainable and represented an undesirable extension to the village.

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 application site lies beyond the built up edge of Towersey and the proposed development would result in an undesirable extension to the settlement to the detriment of the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. This identifiable harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the modest benefits of the proposal. As such, the proposal would not comprise sustainable development as defined by local and national legislation and the proposal is contrary to policies CSS1, CSR1, CSQ3 and CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, policies C4, G2, G4 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and Government Guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proposed erection of a pair of semi-detached three bedroom dwellings and a detached garage building.

The committee considered application P16/S2223/FUL for the proposed erection of a pair of semi-detached three bedroom dwellings and a detached garage building at land to the west of Withywindle, Abingdon Road, Burcot.

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.

Alan Stewart and Till Gins, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment of the site;

·         There was insufficient parking provision;

·         Additional traffic would be generated on an unlit, single track access road; and

·         There was a danger of vehicles reversing onto the A415.

Adrian Gould, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The proposed development would not be out of keeping with the area;

·         The plans had been amended to reduce the width of the development; and

·         Each dwelling would have two off-street parking places.

Sue Lawson, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included:

·         She was not opposed to development on the site but two dwellings constituted overdevelopment;

·         The proposed 3 storey building was out of keeping with the area;

·         The garages were in the wrong location;

·         There were insufficient passing places on the access road; and

·         There was no provision for visitors’ parking.

She requested the committee to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application, subject to an additional condition to provide one parking space for visitors, was declared lost on being put to the vote.

Some Members considered the proposed development to be out of keeping with the established semi-rural character of the area. Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

That having regard to the prevailing character of the area which comprises predominantly large detached dwellings in extensive plots, the proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings would fail to respect the established pattern of development and would have a harmful effect on the established character and appearance of the area by way of its plot size, density, design and scale. As such it would be contrary to policies CSR1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and policies D1 and H4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan.

Conversion of the Old School building to dwelling and erection of a new detached dwelling within the grounds of The Old School, Great Haseley. The proposal includes for the demolition of the single storey flat roof extensions, lean-to conservatories and a prefabricated outbuilding.

The committee considered application P16/S2224/FUL for the conversion of the Old School building to dwelling and the erection of a new detached dwelling within the grounds of The Old School, Great Haseley. The proposal includes for the demolition of the single storey flat roof extensions, lean-to conservatories and a prefabricated outbuilding at The Nursery School, Rectory Road, Great Haseley.

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.

David Simcox, a representative of Great Haseley Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The proposed development was not in keeping with the area;

·         The design was poor;

·         The scale of the site and the proposed materials were inappropriate; and

·         The access to the site was dangerous.

John Alexander, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The design was poor;

·         The proposal would damage an attractive building; and

·         The proposal did not respect the value of the Old School building and the date stone would be removed.

Mike Orr, the applicant’s architect and Adrian Gould, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         They had worked with the officers to ensure that the proposed design was acceptable within a conservation area;

·         The building would be returned to its original character with inappropriate additions removed;

·         Traditional materials would be used; and

·         The date stone would be retained.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application, subject to an additional condition to retain the date stone, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    New vehicular access.

4.    Sample materials required (all).

5.    Details of boundary treatments.

6.    Existing vehicular access.

7.    Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.

8.    Hours of construction.

9.    Hours of construction and demolition to be restricted.

10.  Development to take place in accordance with bat mitigation plan submitted.

11.  Retention of date stone.

Three bedroom, 2 storey detached house within the rear garden of Chestnut House, Station Road, Shiplake.

Paul Harrison, 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/S2140/FUL for a three bedroom, 2 storey detached house within the rear garden of Chestnut House, Station Road, 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.

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

·         The proposed development would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties; and

·         There would be overlooking and a loss of privacy.

Mike Shelley and David Carlsson, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment;

·         Neighbouring properties would be overlooked; and

·         The development would compromise the living conditions of neighbouring residential properties. 

Dean Bradbury, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The proposed dwelling was of an appropriate design and was of a suitable scale for the plot;

·         The site was bounded by mature hedges; and

·         The distance from neighbouring properties and the proposed location of windows meant that there would not be significant overlooking.

Paul Harrison, one of the local ward members, spoke and requested the committee to defer consideration of the application, pending a site visit.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit was declared lost on being put to the vote.

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.    Details of existing and proposed levels to be agreed prior to the commencment of development.

5.    Existing vehicular access to be improved and laid out prior to occupation of the dwelling.

6.    Turning area and car parking to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

7.    Tree protection details to be agreed prior to occupation of the dwelling.

8.    Withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings.

9.    Refuse and recycling storage to be implemented as approved.

New three bed dwelling attached to existing and single storey extension to rear aspect.

The committee considered application P16/S2257/FUL for a new three bed dwelling attached to existing and a single storey extension to rear aspect at 46 Crescent Way, Cholsey.

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.

David Hurford, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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/S2257/FUL subject to the following conditions:

Proposed telecommunication installation and associated works.

The committee considered application P16/S2535/FUL for proposed telecommunication installation and associated works at land off Reading Road, Cholsey, Oxon.

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.

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/S2535/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.     Approved plans.

3.     Removal of telecommunications equipment when redundant to operations.

4.    Parking and manoeuvring areas retained