Agenda and minutes

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

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting 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 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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.

There was no urgent business.

The Development Management advised the committee that a site visit would be taking place prior to the committee meeting on 27 September 2017 for application P16/S1124/O - Land off Fieldside Track, Long Wittenham at 4:00pm on Tuesday 26 September 2017.

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.

Erection of three detached dwelling houses following demolition of the existing dwelling house.

The committee considered application P17/S1085/FUL to erect three detached dwelling houses following demolition of the existing dwelling Balmaha, 42 Rotherfield 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: there was a typographical error in the officer’s report in paragraph 7.1 where it should read ‘three detached dwellings” not two.

Stefan Gawrysiak, a representative of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Tim Lincoln and Robert Thompson, two local residents, spoke objecting to the application. 

Anthony Wrigley and Shaun Greaves, the applicant and agent, spoke in support of the application:

Joan Bland and Lorraine Hillier, two of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

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

·         There is no conflict with the Henley and Harpsden neighbourhood plan as maximising and re-using land is consistent with policies HO4 and H4 of the plan.

·         It would not be reasonable to reduce the implementation condition from three to two years, as this would be an approach more pertinent to large scale developments in response to the five year land supply issue.

·         The proposed extra conditions for a tree protection plan and construction traffic management plan whereby all construction vehicles are parked on site, were deemed acceptable.

The committee were mixed in their assessment of this application. Some committee members did not agree that the proposal is in keeping with the street scene; the design of the three dwellings is too homogenous; the tree to be felled to create a new access does not appear to be that diseased; and that it would constitute overdevelopment.

The rest of the committee felt that, with the extra proposed conditions as mentioned above, the proposal was acceptable on balance. Although they understood the concerns of neighbours regarding overlooking and impact on area, when looking at the wider street plan, similar densities to the site can be found in the vicinity and the development would be policy compliant.

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 P17/S1085/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2.    To be in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission.

3.    Prior to commencement, a schedule of all materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

4.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of any dwelling house as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order shall not be undertaken without obtaining planning permission from the LPA.

5.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Provision of a new attached dwelling.

Anthony Dearlove and Mocky Khan, two of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

Elaine Hornsby left the committee to attend another meeting.

The committee considered application P17/S0908/FUL for the provision of a new attached dwelling at 48 Abbott Road, Didcot.

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.

Nick Hards, a representative of Didcot Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Louise Anderson, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Anthony Dearlove, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

In response to a question raised by the committee, the officers reported that a planning application to extend number 46 Abbott Road to create a new dwelling was refused on the basis that the proposal would enclose the gap between buildings and that parking would be across the full frontage of both properties; neither reasons would be applicable to this application as it is a corner plot and parking would be at the rear.

A motion to approve the application was not seconded.

The committee were not satisfied that the parking and access arrangements would not cause harm to highway safety and would have a detrimental impact on general parking provision in the area, exacerbated by the narrowness of the road. Although members were minded to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, they were advised that there are similar developments in the area and therefore would it be difficult to support this reason for refusal should the application go to an appeal.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P17/S0908/FUL for the following reason:

That, having regard to the existing high levels of on street parking in the vicinity and the narrow width of the local road network, the increase in the extent of the dropped kerb to provide the enlarged access for the development would further reduce the amount of space available for parking in the area to the detriment of the safety and convenience of the users of the public highway contrary to Policy T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

Proposed detached house on plot adjacent to The White House.

Elaine Hornsby returned to the committee for this application.

The committee considered application P17/S1465/FUL to erect a detached house on the plot adjacent to The White House, Stoke Row Road, Kingwood.

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: Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council had withdrawn their objection to the application having read the officer’s report. No other objections to this application had been received.

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 P17/S1465/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement of development within three years – full planning permission.

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

3.    A schedule all external materials must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

4.    All parking and manoeuvring areas must be provided and retained in accordance with the approved site plan.

5.    Prior to the commencement of the works on site, the pedestrian awareness splays at the existing access shall be provided in accordance with the approved site plan. The splays shall not be obstructed by any object or planting above 0.6m from ground level.

Alteration of the roof shape to provide two two-bedroom flats.

The committee considered application P17/S2074/FUL to alter the roof shape to provide two two-bedroom flats at 174-186 Fane Drive, Berinsfield.

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.

Committee were not satisfied that although the application had been brought to committee due to an objection from Berinsfield Parish Council, they had not sent a representative to support their objection.

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 P17/S2074/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.

4.    Roof tiles to match existing.

Demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings and erection of a replacement detached dwelling and associated parking.

The committee considered application P17/S2437/FUL to demolish the existing bungalow and outbuildings and erect a replacement detached dwelling and associated parking at 64 Watling Lane, Dorchester-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.

Oliver Margison, a representative of Dorchester Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Yolandi Evans, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question from committee, officers confirmed that there would be a standard bat informative included in the recommendation.

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 P17/S2437/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Existing vehicular access to be improved.

4.    Parking and manoeuvring areas to be provided and retained.

5.    Landscaping scheme (trees and shrubs only).

6.    Archaeology – investigation.

7.    Archaeology – mitigation.

8.    Sample of materials.

9.    Removal of permitted development rights Class A.

10.Removal of permitted development rights Class E.

One bedroom annexe in rear garden.

Anthony Dearlove and Mocky Khan, two of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P17/S0401/FUL for a one-bedroom annexe in the rear garden of 14 Abbott Road, Didcot.

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.

Nick Hards, a representative of Didcot Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Richard Wyndham-Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Anthony Dearlove, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to 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 P17/S0401/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Ancillary occupation and use only.

4.    Vision splay dimensions.

5.    Car parking provision.

Revisions to permissions P16/S3080/HH and P16/S3081/LB, and to additionally erect a single storey first floor extension.

The committee considered application P17/S1823/HH & P17/S1824/LB to revise permissions P16/S3080/HH and P16/S3081/LB and to erect a single storey first floor extension at Clayhill House, Stoke Row.

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.

Marlène and Jeremy Brand-Meyer, the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The reason why the Conservation Officer has objected to the application is due to the issue that the proposed first floor addition would overwhelm the historic 17^th Century part of the listed house. It would therefore not meet the listed building test to preserve and enhance the listed building.

·         Due process was followed with regard to the 28 day call-in by a ward member (David Nimmo-Smith) having been missed and therefore the application not being referred to committee in May 2017, however this does not affect the decision to grant or refuse the application.

The committee debated the impact the first floor extension would have on the historic building; some committee members were minded to go against officers’ recommendation to refuse the application as they felt the proposal would create a better balance of the property and that the house had undergone various extensions over the years. However, the rest of the committee were satisfied with the Conservation Officer’s recommendations and that the proposal would constitute harm to the listed building.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve application P17/S1823/HH was declared lost on being put to the vote.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse application P17/S1823/HH was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P17/S1823/HH for the following reason:

Having regard to its scale and massing and when considered cumulatively

with other previous extensions, the proposed extension would overwhelm the

original building and would erode the significance of the historic building.

The proposed extension would therefore fail to comply with the provisions of

the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CSQ3 and CSEN3 of the

South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies D1, G2, H13, CON2 and

CON3 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse application P17/S1824/LB was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse listed building consent for application P17/S1824/LB for the following reason:

Having regard to its scale and massing and when considered cumulatively

with other previous extensions, the proposed extension would overwhelm the

original building and would erode the significance of the historic building.

The proposed extension would therefore fail to comply with the provisions of

the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CSEN3 of the South

Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved policies CON2 and CON3 of the South

Oxfordshire Local Plan.