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.

The chairman informed the committee that application P16/S0894/FUL, for Aston Rowant Cricket Club, would be the first application to be discussed due to the high levels of public present for this item.

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

Anthony Dearlove stated that, despite his role as Chairman of Didcot Town Council, he did not take part in any previous discussions relating to P17/S3925/FUL, 32-34 Wantage Road in Didcot, in that role and would go into the debate with an open mind.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2018. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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 officer confirmed that application P17/S3711/O, Land at Watlington Road in Lewknor, had been deferred for a site visit.

It was suggested that application P17/S2607/FUL should be deferred for a site visit.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer application P17/S2607/FUL to allow for a site visit, was lost on being put to the vote.

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.

New replacement pavilion building, new storage containers, new main car park and disabled car park, new and replacement outdoor cricket nets, re-surfacing of existing car park, relocation of existing two flag poles, score box, and installation of two new electronic scoreboards

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

The committee considered application P16/S0894/FUL for a new replacement pavilion building, new storage containers, new main car park and disabled car park, new and replacement outdoor cricket nets, re-surfacing of existing car park, relocation of existing two flag poles, score box, and installation of two new electronic scoreboards at Aston Rowant Cricket Club.

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.

Mathew Day and Peter Heatherington, representatives of Aston Rowant Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Debbie Brown, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application:

Rhian Woods, the applicant’s agent, and Paul Humphreys, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

·         The Chilterns Conservation Board was not consulted for its views on this application as the site does not fall within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the pavilion is an existing building so the protocol is not to consult, and the Board has limited resources, so the council must be selective in how it uses them.

·         It would be possible, if the committee agreed, to include a condition restricting the use of the pavilion for social events to members of the cricket club only and their friends and family, and not for commercial or third-party purposes. 

·         The screening on the windows of the pavilion reduces the amount of overlooking to the nearby footpath, but a certain degree of overlooking provides security in planning terms.  The building is not going to be used that often compared to users of the footpath.

Some members of the committee were concerned with the contrasting design of the pavilion compared to the local area and that the Chilterns Conservation Board should have been consulted during the consultation process.  They cited the level of community objection to the scheme as a reason to re-consider.  However, other members of the committee agreed that the design was innovative, that the existing pavilion needed renovation and that light pollution was not an issue due to the times the pavilion was going to be used in the summer months where unnatural light was not necessary.

To allay concerns regarding potential disruption, the committee agreed that a condition would be added to restrict the use of the pavilion to members of the cricket club (and their friends and family) only and to not open the club up for commercial or third-party use.

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/S0894/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement of development within three years.

2.    Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 240.

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.  This application had been considered at the planning committee held on 7 February 2018 but was deferred to allow for a site visit.

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.

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 completion of a Section 278 Agreement could secure a pedestrian crossing on Station Road to allay safety concerns.

·         Only allowing over 55-year-olds to occupy the site is an applicant request and is not something the council can determine.

·         It would be preferential to impose the 40% affordable housing rule for this development, but this cannot be enforced as a condition. The developers are offering an increased Section 106 payment of £200,000.  It is also not possible to ensure that this money is spent in Wheatley alone, and the final cost of the properties is not a relevant planning consideration.

• The balconies are an acceptable way to provide community space.

Some committee members were concerned about the lack of affordable housing the development was going to provide, the cost to future residents thus and the loss of the public house to the community.  Other concerns included the three-storey and bulky nature of the building and the potential for overlooking onto neighbouring properties, rendering it out of character and unneighbourly.

Other committee members argued that concerns had been met by the developer, impact on neighbouring properties was limited and, as the average of age of similar Beechcroft developments for residents is 76, parking was not a significant issue and the location is suitable. 

The committee agreed to include the provision of a Section 278 Agreement to secure a pedestrian crossing on Station Road.

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

A motion, moved and seconded, to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the Head of Planning, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to authorise the Head of Planning to grant planning permission for application P17/S1865/FUL, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and a Section 278 Agreement, and the following conditions:

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

The committee considered application P17/S3715/FUL to vary condition 2 of planning permission P14/S3212/FUL.

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.

Robert Barter, a representative of Holton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

Terry Gashe, of Ferax Planning, spoke objecting to the application. 

John Walsh, the ward member, spoke objecting to the application.

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

• The increase in the height of the building would be 4.25m which is a 25cm increase in height from the original scheme.

The development manager confirmed that, despite the complex nature of the site, the figures set out in the report were an accurate indication of what is being proposed.  The 25cm difference in height between the original and proposed plan would not lead to significant additional impact.  Further, any future extensions would be assessed on their own planning merits so speculation cannot be used as a reason to refuse this application.

The committee agreed that the amendments to the approved plans would result in the dwelling becoming unneighbourly, overbearing and oppressive and there was uncertainty over the exact dimensions of the changes.

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/S3715/FUL, for the following reason:

The proposed amendments would have a detrimental impact to neighbour amenity.  As such, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy H4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

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

This application was deferred to allow for a site visit.  It will be brought back to a committee meeting at a later date.

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two detached dwellings with access and parking.

Officers advised that the last item, application P17/S3925/FUL, would not be addressed tonight as item P17/S2607/FUL would not be completed before the two and a half hour cut off.

The committee considered application P17/S2607/FUL to demolish the existing dwelling and construct two detached dwellings with access and parking.

The committee voted to continue beyond the two and a half hour cut off to ensure the completion of this item.

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.

Jason Debney, a representative of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. 

K R Taylor, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. 

Vince Wood, the owner, spoke in support of the application. 

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

·         Despite concerns about the angle of the window of this property to the window in the property opposite being under 45 degrees, this rule concerns loss of light, not privacy.

·         Any further extensions proposed would require further planning permission and would be assessed on their own merits, so this is not something the committee can consider.

Some members of the committee noted that the design of the proposal is not perfect but that there are no material planning reasons to refuse this 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/S2607/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years – full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Schedule of materials.

4.    New vehicular access.

5.    Existing vehicular access.

6.    Vision splay protection.

7.    Parking and manoeuvring areas retained.

8.    No garage conversion into accommodation.

9.    Off-site highway works (implementation as approved).

10.Landscaping scheme (trees and shrubs only).

11.Tree protection (detailed).

12.Wildlife protection (mitigation as approved).

13.Wildlife boxes to be installed.

14.Community infrastructure levy standard informative.

15.Highways informative.

Retrospective application for the retention of extraction flue on the eastern side of the building and the retention of an external refrigeration unit covered in wood.

This item was not considered.  No further items can be commenced after the meeting has convened for more than two and a half hours, however, items being discussed at that time can be completed subject to a committee vote.  This item will be brought before the next planning committee.