Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chairman and general housekeeping matters.

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2018.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2018 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.

To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.

The development manager reminded committee members that Item 11 – P17/S3715/FUL – Terence House, road passing Wheatley Park School, Holton had been deferred to allow members to visit the site.

Item 13 – P17/S3160/FUL – Saffrons, Station Road, Lower Shiplake was also deferred from consideration as it had come to light that the plans did not show access to the public highway and it is likely that notice should be served on a neighbouring landowner as a result.

There were no proposals for site visits.

To receive any statements from members of the public that have registered to speak on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting. 

The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak was tabled at the meeting.

Demolition of the former Railway Inn and the creation of 16 retirement dwellings for people aged 55 and over, repositioning of vehicular and pedestrian access into the site and associated open space and landscaping.

The committee considered application P17/S1865/FUL to demolish the former Railway Inn and create 16 retirement dwellings for people aged 55 and over, repositioning the vehicular and pedestrian access into the site and associated open space and landscaping at The Railway Hotel, 24 Station Road, Wheatley.

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 updates: The Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have submitted representation since the publication of the agenda, expressing concern that the development would put pressure on service provision and therefore requested S106 contributions. However, as the council has an adopted CIL covering heath care, S106 monies cannot be requested in addition to the Levy.

Following reassessment of the amenity space available as mentioned in the officer’s report at paragraph 6.8, the calculation of 243 sq.m. does not include the proposed balcony space or land to the west of the development. Including these in the calculation increases the overall amenity space to 450 sq.m., which although below minimum standards are still considered acceptable in the planning balance.

Roger Bell, a representative of Wheatley Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Anita James, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Giles Brockbank, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In response to questions raised by the committee, the officers reported that:

·         The development would be considered acceptable regardless of the age restriction of over 55 for future residents of the development;

·         Evidence of marketing of the former public house is not considered reasonable due to its non-essential status as a facility in Wheatley, when considering the number of public houses in the village;

·         It was not necessary to carry out a shadow graph due to the proposed development being to the North of the affected properties; and

·         An external consultant was instructed to assess the viability of affordable housing provision. It was concluded that £192,000 for off-site provision within the district was reasonable.

Committee members expressed their concern with the lack of CIL contributions due to the proposed development being for the over 55s. Officers advised that this would be likely to change in the future following a review of the adopted CIL schedule and although not relevant in connection with this particular application, should provide some reassurance for the future. Some committee members were not satisfied that the proposed development would not be overbearing, out of scale and have a harmful impact on the neighbouring properties. In light of these concerns, officers recommended that members visit the site.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was withdrawn.

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

RESOLVED: to defer application P17/S1865/FUL to allow for a site visit to take place.

Demolition of eight dwellings and erection of two 2-bedroom dwellings, three 3-bedroom dwellings, one 4-bedroom dwelling and two 5-bedroom dwellings and widening of the existing vehicular access.

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

The committee considered application P17/S2649/FUL to demolish eight dwellings and erect two two-bedroom dwellings, three three-bedroom dwellings, one four-bedroom dwelling and two five-bedroom dwellings and to widen the existing vehicular access at 8 Sydenham Grove, Sydenham.

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.

Michael May, a representative of Sydenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Paul Stancliffe, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Ken Dijksman and Steve Lynch spoke in support of the application.

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

The development manager reminded committee that SOHA have worked closely with the district council’s housing officer, who are content with the housing mix and with the principle of maximising the value of the site to provide more new homes for affordable rent than the number that would be lost, in more sustainable locations; there are no technical objections; the application meets local and national policy; and there is no requirement to provide affordable housing on site due to the threshold not being reached.

Some committee members were not satisfied with the loss of affordable housing to the village and the impact that this would have on the community mix and that the design, scale and layout of the scheme would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance on the area. Other members did not believe there were sufficient planning reasons to refuse this application.

Officers reminded committee members that the lack of affordable housing was not an adequate reason for refusal as in planning terms, the development does not reach the threshold for this requirement.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P17/S2649/FUL, for the following reasons:

The proposed dwellings would have a layout, scale and design that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and Policies G2, D1 and H4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, advice contained within the South Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 and the NPPF.

Development of a surplus secondary carpark area to the side of The Crown pub to provide a single detached four-bedroom dwelling.

The committee considered application P17/S3713/FUL to develop a surplus secondary car park area to the side of The Crown pub, Thame Road, Stadhampton, to provide a single detached four-bedroom dwelling.

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.

Sarah Madry, a representative of Stadhampton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Samantha Robinson, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Andy Scott, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Committee members were not satisfied with the impact that this proposal would have on the neighbours’ amenity by virtue of the perceived loss of light and overbearing appearance.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P17/S3713/FUL for the following reasons:

That having regard to its size, scale and siting in close proximity to the boundary and the location of a bedroom window in the side elevation of 1 Crown Terrace, the proposal would have an intrusive and overbearing impact on that adjoining property and result in a loss of light. As such it would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the amenities of that property contrary to Policies D4 and H4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

This application has been deferred to allow for a site visit. The item will not be considered at planning committee on 7 February 2018.

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission P14/S3212/FUL.

Amendments to approved pool/garage building under planning permission P14/S0338/FUL. (Erection of a four-bedroom dwelling with ancillary pool/ garage).

This application had been deferred to allow members to visit the site. It will be brought back to a committee meeting at a later date.

Proposed front and rear extensions to dwelling and subdivision of extended dwelling into two separate one-bedroom dwellings.

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 P17/S4117/FUL for front and rear extensions and the subdivision of the extended dwelling into two separate one-bedroom dwellings at 18 Holliers Close, Sydenham.

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.

Janet Mary Barr Potts, a representative of Sydenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Lloyd Gibson, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

Officers advised committee members to consider the difference between the fall-back position of the approved extension and this application, which are similar in appearance.

In response to questions raised by the committee, the officers reported that:

·         A condition can be included to restrict permitted development rights for loft conversions; and

·         The inspector at the previous appeal had not expressed a concern with the parking provision on the site and that Highways did not object to the current proposal with regard to parking.

Whilst some committee members were satisfied that this application meets planning policy requirements and that the fall-back position was not dissimilar in appearance, other members were not satisfied with the design.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application with an extra condition restricting permitted development rights, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P17/S4177/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.    Materials of external development to match existing.

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

5.    Obscure glazing to bathroom windows on side elevations.

6.    Restrict permitted development rights – roof alterations.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement 2-storey dwelling.

This application was deferred from consideration to allow officers to seek amended plans and clarify if notice should be served on a neighbouring landowner.

Removal of Condition 9 of P08/W0147 for the provision of a vehicular turntable.

David Turner stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S0514/FUL to remove condition 9 of planning permission P08/W08147 at 8 High Street, Chalgrove.

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.

Following the officer’s presentation, the committee voted to complete the item prior to the two-and-a-half-hour guillotine.

Ann Pritchard, a representative of Chalgrove Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

David Turner, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

Committee were not satisfied with the removal of a condition that was imposed for a reason at the original application stage and that with the objection from the County highways team, there were sufficient reasons for refusal.

Officers reminded committee that although the County highways team required a two-car turn table to be provided, there was not room on site and a one car turntable would not meet standards or solve the problem. As exemplified in a video shown to committee, it was possible for large cars to turn on site.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was withdrawn following advice from officers that they carry out further investigations as to the adequacy of having a single turntable and to allow members the opportunity to visit the site.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer the application for the above reasons, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of application P16/S0514/FUL to carry out further investigations into the suitability of a single turntable and to give members the opportunity to visit the site.