Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 12 August 2020 6.00 pm

Venue: This is a virtual meeting

Contact: Paul Bateman  Email:  paul.bateman@southandvale.gov.uk

Note: to view meeting live and view the recording afterwards, copy and paste the following link into your web browser; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTj2pCic8vzucpzIaSWE3UQ 

Items
No. Item

219.

Chair's announcements

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

Minutes:

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the procedure to be followed in a virtual meeting.

 

220.

Declarations of interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

221.

Urgent business

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.

Minutes:

The democratic services officer reported the most recent information in respect of two speakers on application P19/S3206/FUL, Comus, Howberry Lane, near Nuffield, which would affect the meeting’s proceedings (see minute 228 below).

 

 

 

222.

Proposals for site visits

Minutes:

The committee received a proposal for a site visit in respect of application P20/S1588/FUL, 253 Greys Road, Henley-on-Thames. The reason was to assess the character and appearance of the proposed development on its surroundings.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of application P19/S1588/FUL to allow for a site visit.

223.

Public participation pdf icon PDF 66 KB

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. 

 

Statements on the applications which have been duly received are now published and thus available to the public. They will not be read out at the meeting. The Committee has received copies of the statements.

 

SPECIAL NOTE

Application P19/S2503/O, Haseley End, Rectory Road, Great Haseley

 

A statement submitted by the Great Haseley Parish Council immediately prior to the meeting, circulated to the Committee and read out to the meeting is appended for information.

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak had been sent to the committee.  All statements received were sent to the committee before the meeting and published on the council’s website.

224.

P20/S1588/FUL - 253 Greys Road, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1QS pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of three detached dwellings with associated vehicular accesses (as amended to reposition Plot 1 and provide additional tree protection and landscape information 01 and 10 July 2020).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to allow for a site visit to take place in order to assess the character and appearance of the proposed development on its surroundings (see minute 222 above).

225.

P19/S2914/FUL - 25 Windmill Road and Pearce Court, Thame, OX9 2DJ pdf icon PDF 104 KB

Conversion of 25 Windmill Road to form three flats, and erection of a two storey building comprising two flats and associated parking. Alteration to existing office entrance. 

 

At its meeting on 5 August 2020, the committee deferred consideration of this application and requested that it was added to the agenda for this committee meeting, 12 August 2020. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor David Bretherton, a local ward councillor, stepped down from the Committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

 

The committee considered application P19/S2914/FUL for the conversion of 25 Windmill Road to form three flats, and erection of a two-storey building comprising two flats and associated parking. Alteration to existing office entrance, at 25 Windmill Road and Pearce Court, 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.

 

The planning officer reported that there had been a question over the status of 25 Windmill Road (the former Jehovah’s Witness hall) and whether it should be considered a community facility and, if so, whether it constituted an essential community facility.  There was no specific definition of “essential community facility” in the local plan.  Whether or not the hall was considered “essential” was a matter of planning judgement, using the text provided in support of South Oxfordshire Local Plan Policy (SOLP) CF1 (paragraph 6.5 of the report provided the full text of the policy). Thame Town Council had objected to the ‘loss of community facility contrary to SOLP Policy CF1’.

 

The planning officer advised the committee that there was no strong evidence that this was a community facility fundamental to everyday life in Thame. There was only one neighbour objecting to the loss of the hall, arguing for the need for premises in Thame for child care purposes. The planning officer informed the committee that the conversion of the hall would meet the community need for housing on a small site.

 

Mr. Jake Collinge, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor David Bretherton, a local ward councillor, spoke in support of the application.

 

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P19/S2914/FUL subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Commence the development within three years of planning permission.

2.         The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

3.         A schedule and / or sample of materials (walls and roof) shall be submitted for approval.

4.         The existing access to 25 Windmill Road must be closed off (i.e., the kerb shall be re-instated).

5.         The parking & manoeuvring areas shall be provided and retained.

6.         A surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted for approval.

7.         A landscaping scheme (including hard surfacing and boundary treatment) shall be submitted for approval.

 

Informatives:

           The development is liable for Community Infrastructure Levy

           The developer should note that there is a low-pressure gas pipeline running from the rear of 21 to 24 Pearce Court to the south of the building to Windmill Road.  The applicant should contact Scotia Gas Networks prior to commencing development and to obtain safety advice.

 

226.

P19/S2503/O - Haseley End, Rectory Road, Great Haseley, OX44 7JL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Demolition of existing building and garages. Construction of a terrace of 3 new dwellings, car parking and new vehicle crossover with access, appearance, layout and scale to be determined at this stage. (As amended by plan 103 Rev A (landscaping) and plans received 24 October 2019 reducing the number of units from 4 to 3. Reduction in number of parking spaces, alteration to design and materials of dwellings, by Heritage Statement dated December 2019 and  by plans C781 100C, 102B and 101B which reduces the size of the development to 2 x 3 bed units and 1 x 1 bed units and removes the proposed new access. As amplified by tree protection details received on 3 April, 2020).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Lorraine Hillier left the meeting prior to the consideration of this item.

 

The committee considered application P19/S2503/O for the demolition of existing building and garages. Construction of a terrace of 3 new dwellings, car parking and new vehicle crossover with access, appearance, layout and scale to be determined at this stage. (As amended by plan 103 Rev A (landscaping) and plans received 24 October 2019 reducing the number of units from 4 to 3. Reduction in number of parking spaces, alteration to design and materials of dwellings, by Heritage Statement dated December 2019 and  by plans C781 100C, 102B and 101B which reduces the size of the development to 2 x 3 bed units and 1 x 1 bed units and removes the proposed new access. As amplified by tree protection details received on 3 April, 2020) at Haseley End, 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.

 

The planning officer reported that the site lay on the south western edge of Great Haseley outside, but immediately adjacent to, the Great Haseley conservation area. It was also reported that the application, in its amended form, sought outline planning permission to erect a terrace of 3 dwellings. Access, appearance, layout and scale of the development were to be considered at the outline stage with landscaping only to be considered at the reserved matters stage. The Oxfordshire County Council, the highways authority, originally had a holding objection to the application. However, at the present time, on the basis of amended plans, they had no objection, subject to requiring conditions relating to the existing vehicular access, parking and manoeuvring areas being retained and no surface water drainage to the highway.

 

The planning officer reported that there had been concerns regarding the remains of a pond which was originally on the site and whether this would affect building works. Building control officers had confirmed that there would not be an issue with implementation, providing that site investigations were made and that design documentation was shared with them.

 

The requirement for a construction management scheme had been considered. The highways authority had concluded that any such traffic was likely to be minor and infrequent, and that such a scheme for an application of this small scale would be unnecessary, unenforceable and unreasonable.

 

The planning officer reported that notwithstanding the original objection of the forestry officer to the application’s plans, that officer had viewed the amended plans and had confirmed that they had now addressed concerns relating to sufficient landscaping opportunities and was ‘satisfied the proposed layout is arboriculturally acceptable’.

 

In response to a question from the committee about the siting of the parking spaces, their possible small size and impractical siting, the planning officer reported that the forestry officer had carefully examined the layout and had recommended some tree preservation orders and the removal of some poorer quality trees.  The highways authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

227.

P20/S0245/FUL - Terence House, Land to rear of Holton Cottage, Holton, OX33 1PS pdf icon PDF 643 KB

Erection of detached 4-bedroom dwelling house with garage revised application to extant permission P14/S0338/FUL (As amended by plan ref 20-IH-001B PL rev B which reduces the eaves and pitch of the roof and includes and single roof configuration. 

 

Please note that version 2 of the officer’s report is attached, correctly referencing the plans. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Alexandrine Kantor left the meeting prior to the consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Sarah Gray, the local ward councillor, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

 

The committee considered application P20/S0245/FUL for the erection of a detached 4-bedroom dwelling house with garage revised application to extant permission P14/S0338/FUL (as amended by plan ref 20-IH-001B PL rev B which reduces the eaves and pitch of the roof and includes and single roof configuration) at Terence House, on land to the rear of Holton Cottage, Holton.

 

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.

 

The planning officer that the plan at paragraph 5.24 of the report, as originally communicated to the committee, was incorrect. The correct version was sent to the councillors before the meeting and published on the council’s website.

 

The planning officer also reported that with respect to this application, the committee would be requested to agree two additional conditions, one relating to surface water drainage and the other to the removal of permitted development rights.

 

With reference to paragraph 2.1 of the report, the planning officer reported that the council’s ecologist now had no objection, as information had been  received from the applicant in respect of great crested newts, a protected species, in a neighbouring garden to the site.

 

The planning officer reported that the application site was located within the Oxford Green Belt and advised the committee on the National Planning Policy Framework policy on the green belt. It referred to limited infilling in villages being appropriate development in the green belt. Planning officers’ opinion was that the site was located within the built-up limits of Holton and therefore was an infill site, and as such the principle of development in the green belt was acceptable. In addition, the principle of new buildings in the green belt on the site had been established by the extant planning permission. In the view of officers, the proposal would not have any further material impact on the open character of the green belt than the approved scheme. The site was located within the built limits of the settlement and would be surrounded by other buildings which were of a comparative height.

 

The planning officer reported on the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties, notably Holton Cottage. In the application’s amended form, all the first-floor windows in the elevation facing Holton Cottage would be obscure glazed and a condition was recommended that these remain so. As such, there would not be any direct overlooking into the private rear garden of Holton Cottage. It was the planning officers’ opinion that the property was designed in such a way that the more visually prominent, two storey part of the property was sufficiently distant from Holton Cottage to prevent the property from being unacceptably overbearing or oppressive. Only one neighbour had objected on the basis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

228.

P19/S3206/FUL - Comus, Howberry Lane, near Nuffield, RG9 5SU pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Erection of a replacement two-storey 4-bedroom detached dwelling with associated access and a detached double garage (design of dwelling and external areas revised as shown on amended documents received 4th February 2020 and revised design & access statement and arboricultural information provided 11th March 2020 and 17th March 2020).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee considered application P19/S3206/FUL for the erection of a replacement two-storey 4-bedroom detached dwelling with associated access and a detached double garage (design of dwelling and external areas revised as shown on amended documents received 4th February 2020 and revised design & access statement and arboricultural information provided 11th March 2020 and 17th March 2020) at Comus, Howberry Lane, near Nuffield.

 

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.

 

The democratic services officer advised the committee that the applicant, Mr Trotman, had registered to speak, but was unable to join the meeting owing to technical communication difficulties. He had submitted a statement several days before the meeting, which had been circulated to the committee and published on the council website. Mr. Trotman would attempt to watch the broadcast of the committee’s proceedings as a member of the public.  The democratic services officer also advised the committee that Nuffield Parish Council had just informed officers that Cllr. David Passmore would speak on behalf that council on this application.

 

The planning officer reported that although the existing dwelling had already been demolished, it was a material planning consideration that the planning permission (P17/S2900/FUL) for a replacement dwelling was live, and therefore provided a fallback position.  It was also reported that Criterion (iii) of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP) 2011 Policy H12 specified a 10% volume increase limit for replacement dwellings. A volume of 979 cubic metres was proposed.  This equated to an increase in volume of 22.5%, which would exceed the 10% increase limit. Planning officers had concluded that the proposed dwelling would be materially greater in volume. However, the applicant had demonstrated on the amended plans that the additional volume would be offset, as the proposed dwelling would be both lower in height (0.85 metres lower) and positioned further away from the public footpath, than the approved dwelling (ranging from 3.2 to 5.4 metres further back). In the officers’ opinion, in spite of the proximity of the public right of way, the dwelling would not be significantly more prominent in wider public views than the approved dwelling, and would be seen in the context of the group of buildings. The planning officer also advised the committee that the development would have no impact on trees which were the subject of tree preservation orders.

 

Cllr. David Passmore, a representative of Nuffield Parish Council, spoke, objecting to the application.

 

The planning officer concluded that whilst the proposed development could conflict with the volume criterion of Policy H12, the proposed dwelling would not have an overall greater impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than the dwelling that had the benefit of an extant permission. It would safeguard the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers and would not be prejudicial to highway safety and important trees.  Subject to the conditions recommended, it would be in accordance with development plan policies, supplementary planning guidance and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.