Agenda and minutes

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

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

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 23 September 2020. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 23 September 2020 as a correct record and agree that the Chair sign these as such.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

A proposal, moved and seconded, for a site visit in respect of application P20/S0510/FUL, land to rear of 16 Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames, to ascertain the layout of the site, and highways issues was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of application P20/S0510/FUL, to allow members to visit the site.

A proposal, moved and seconded, for a site visit for applications P19/S0821/FUL and P19/S0822/LB, Goulds Grove, Old London Road, Ewelme, to ascertain the layout of the site, and highways and listed building issues, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of applications P19/S0821/FUL and P19/S0822/LB, to allow members to visit the site.

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 shared with members of the committee. Any statements from the public received prior to the meeting were circulated to the committee and would be published on the council’s website.

Erection of a single storey detached 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscaping (width and height of dwelling reduced and changes to external layout as shown on amended plans received 11th September 2019 and additional fire engine tracking plan received 24th October 2019 and reduction in width of rear patio and pedestrian footpath and details of boundary treatment and levels as shown on amended and additional plans received 5th February 2020 and corrections to existing tree heights, retention of existing close-boarded fence and replacement front hedging as shown on amended plans received 17th June 2020).

Councillor Lorraine Hillier and Councillor Jo Robb, the local ward councillors, stood down from the committee for consideration of this application.

The committee considered application P19/S2061/FUL for the erection of a single storey detached 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated works to facilitate a new access, together with external landscaping (width and height of dwelling reduced and changes to external layout as shown on amended plans received 11th September 2019 and additional fire engine tracking plan received 24th October 2019 and reduction in width of rear patio and pedestrian footpath and details of boundary treatment and levels as shown on amended and additional plans received 5th February 2020 and corrections to existing tree heights, retention of existing close-boarded fence and replacement front hedging as shown on amended plans received 17th June 2020) at Highfield,17 Stoke Row Road, Peppard Common.

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 application site had a restrictive covenant that applied to the former traditional orchard land to be “used only as an orchard or garden ground” in connection with the dwelling house known as Highfield. There was presently no obligation on the landowner to maintain the current ecological value of the land. The development would be sited on the vegetable patch and amenity grassland, avoiding impacts on the traditional orchard to the south-west.

The planning officer also reported that the roof of the proposed dwelling would be positioned below the eaves’ height of No.17 and thus would only be viewed from the west, against the backdrop of the established line of two storey housing. In relation to light pollution, planning officers considered that the proposed dwelling would not add to this to any large degree, given its location within the built-up area of the village and the number of dwellings in the surrounding area. A planning condition was recommended to require details of any desired external lighting to be agreed with the council prior to its installation. The garden areas for the proposed dwelling, and retained for No.17, would exceed the recommended minimum standards of 50 square metres for two-bedroom dwellings and 100 square metres for larger dwellings.

The proposed vehicular access onto Stoke Row Road would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the highway network in the vicinity and, in conjunction with the anticipated low vehicle speeds along the driveway, would not increase the risk to highway and pedestrian safety to an unacceptable degree. The highway liaison officer had no objection to these arrangements.

The democratic services officer reported that the statement of objection from the Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council had been sent to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Martin Pratt, a local resident of 15 Stoke Row Road, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Lorraine Hillier, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Jo Robb, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The erection of an extra care development (Use Class C2) of 66 units; 3 guest rooms; a communal resident's centre with staff facilities; provision of car, cycle and mobility scooter parking; the creation of new public open space; the provision of new pedestrian/cycle links from Upper High Street to Elms Road and Elms Park; and associated infrastructure works and landscaping.

Councillor David Bretherton and Councillor Kate Gregory, local ward councillors, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

The committee considered application P20/S0928/FUL for the erection of an extra care development (Use Class C2) of 66 units; 3 guest rooms; a communal resident's centre with staff facilities; provision of car, cycle and mobility scooter parking; the creation of new public open space; the provision of new pedestrian/cycle links from Upper High Street to Elms Road and Elms Park; and associated infrastructure works and landscaping on land at the Elms, Upper High Street, 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 site was located within the centre of Thame in the vicinity of several listed buildings. The site was within the Thame Conservation Area and currently there was no public access through the site.

The application site had an extant planning permission and listed building consent for 37 dwellings and associated works.  The permission was extant as all pre-commencement conditions had been discharged and the access to the site had been implemented in accordance with the approved plans.  The extant planning permission was a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. An application in 2018 was refused under delegated powers and was the subject of an appeal.

As part of the appeal process, the council and the appellant were required to agree common ground and this was set out in a statement of common ground (SoCG). This enabled the Inspector to identify the main issues. A copy of the SoCG was attached as Appendix 2 of the report.  The Inspector set out the main issues in the determination of the appeal in paragraph 12 of the Decision Letter, which were set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. The Inspector’s conclusions on the main issues, which resulted in his dismissal of the appeal, were of significant importance in the determination of this current application (the inspector’s reasons and details of the applicants’ high court challenge were set out in paragraphs 2.7 to 2.37 of the report). The committee noted that the appeal decision had included a reference to less than substantial harm. 

The planning officer reported that the proposed scheme opened up routes for public access and improved connectivity in Thame.  Key visualisations of these routes were shown to the committee as part of the presentation of the report. The scheme had a 21% footprint reduction in comparison to the extant scheme. The report provided information on the significant need for older persons’ accommodation in the district and gave details on the assessment of that need through the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2014), updated through the Authority Monitoring Report (2019). These details were provided in paragraphs 8.26 to 8.31 of the committee’s report.

The committee noted that the proposal was contrary to Thame Neighbourhood Plan policies, which allowed for only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Erection of a three-storey building to provide three 1-bedroom flats (Daylight and Sunlight report received 29th May 2020; amended elevation received 23rd June 2020, clarifying external materials to be used for the stair core).

Consideration of this application had been deferred, pending a site visit.

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of five residential dwellings and the conversion of an existing building to provide four B1(a) office units, together with parking and landscaping. (As clarified by swept path analysis received 4 April 2019 and contaminated land preliminary assessment received on 18 April 2019. As clarified by drawing no 3358. 114, Heritage response and Highway Planning Limited letter accompanying Agent's letter dated 23 May 2019. As amended by drawing nos 3358- 101 rev B, 108 rev A, 109 rev A and 110 rev A accompanying Agent's email dated 5 July 2019 which re-orientate the dwellings on plots 3, 4 and 5 and retain more of the fabric of existing buildings in the car port for plot 5. As further amended by drawing nos 3358. 104 rev C and 105 rev B to change plots 3 and 4 to two bed units and plot 5 to a three-bed unit).

Consideration of this application had been deferred, pending a site visit.

Two Drive Thru (A1, A3, A5) Pods with associated landscaping, hardstanding and other associated works.

(Bat survey submitted 21 August 2019, letter received 16 September 2019 in response to Thame Town Council's comments and Flood Risk Assessment Addendum received 26 September 2019.) (Updated Flood Risk Addendum and Annexe submitted 25 November 2019).

Part way through the consideration of this application, members took a vote just before the meeting guillotine of 8:30pm to continue the item they were on.

Councillor David Bretherton and Councillor Kate Gregory, local ward councillors, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

The committee considered application P19/S0480/FUL for two Drive Thru (A1, A3, A5) Pods with associated landscaping, hardstanding and other associated works (Bat survey submitted 21 August 2019, letter received 16 September 2019 in response to Thame Town Council's comments and Flood Risk Assessment Addendum received 26 September 2019.) (Updated Flood Risk Addendum and Annexe submitted 25 November 2019) at Thame Service Station, Long Crendon Road, 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 an error in paragraph 2.2 of the report, where the descriptions of the units’ size were reversed; the larger proposed unit was Burger King and the smaller one was the coffee shop. Also, paragraph 6.2 referred incorrectly to a proposed use comprising a mixed Class E (café), whereas it was in fact Class A.

The planning officer also reported that recommended condition 7, ‘Development to be carried out in accordance with tree protection details’ required further explanation to the committee; the forestry officer was satisfied with the details without the need for a formal agreement prior to commencement.

The committee was advised that Thame Town Council objected to the removal of 7 bays of heavy goods vehicle and coach parking. The local highway authority did not wish to object to the granting of planning permission.  A condition requiring parking and manoeuvring areas to be retained was recommended, which had been included in the recommended conditions in the report. The committee noted that where Thame town council had alleged an illegal use of some hardstanding for storage and jet wash facilities, these uses had now been discontinued. The committee was provided with a slide presentation of the existing parking areas. In response to a question from the committee regarding a possible different mix of uses for parking spaces in this scheme, the planning officer advised that the National Planning Policy Framework (at paragraph 107) placed councils under an obligation to expand lorry parking and that in the case of this application the owner had a discretion as to the use of the spaces.

Councillor Graeme Markland, a representative of Thame Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr Bruce Risk, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor David Bretherton, a local ward councillor, spoke to the application.

The planning officer concluded by reporting that although a small number of objections related to the loss of some lorry parking, the proposal would provide sustainable economic development that made effective use of previously developed land and would not be harmful to existing businesses within the Thame town centre.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.