Agenda and minutes

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

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ken Arlett, who was substituted for Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak, Councillor Victoria Havel, who was substituted for Councillor Alexandrine Kantor, and Councillors Tim Bearder, David Bretherton, Sam Casey-Rerhaye, Elizabeth Gillespie, Ian Snowdon, and Lorraine Hillier.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2022. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2022 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.  

Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak declared an interest in item 9 on the agenda, application P19/S2350/FUL, as he was a member of Henley-on-Thames Town Council who owned a ransom strip of land for the application. Councillor Gawrysiak confirmed that he would stand down from the committee and leave the meeting room during that item

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

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 existing bungalow and outbuildings and erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with associated car parking, bin and cycle storage and external amenity space (as amended to omit side facing windows and further amended to remove visitor parking space).

The committee considered planning application P22/S1794/FUL for the demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings and erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with associated car parking, bin and cycle storage and external amenity space (as amended to omit side facing windows and further amended to remove visitor parking space), on land at 1 Lime Grove, Chinnor.  

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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of the parish council. The site itself comprised a generous plot occupied by a bungalow, surrounded by two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings along Lime Grove.

The planning officer informed the committee that the proposal sought permission to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with a pair of semi-detached dwellings with the same frontage line as the other buildings on Lime Grove and in style with the surrounding buildings. The planning officer also confirmed that both semi-detached dwellings would have two parking spaces each and was therefore compliant with the Local Highway Authorities requirements. In addition, the planning officer also confirmed that the application would not be in conflict with the protected trees on site.

As the planning officer believed that the application was acceptable, and there were no objections from technical consultees, he recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

The committee asked about the reasons for the parish council’s objection, that there was a lack of visitor parking, and the planning officer confirmed to members that there was no requirement under the Oxfordshire County Council highways policy for the provision of visitor parking in a scheme of this size.

As the committee was satisfied with the officer report and that the parking situation was in line with highways policies, they agreed the application should approved subjection to conditions.

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S1794/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development within 3 years

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans

3. Schedule of materials to be submitted and approved

4. Details of hardsurfacing, new planting and fencing to be submitted and approved

5. Tree and hedge protection measures as submitted

6. Drainage details to be submitted and approved

7. Archaeological watching brief to be submitted and approved

8. Findings of the watching brief to be submitted

9. Energy statement verification

10.Electric vehicle charging point to be provided

11.Permitted development removed for extensions and hardsurfacing (to the front of the dwellings)

12.Provision and retention of parking and turning areas.

Demolition of existing buildings and development of 71 residential units comprising 51 houses and 20 flats with associated access, servicing, parking, amenity space and landscaping.

The committee considered planning application P19/S2350/FUL for the demolition of existing buildings and development of 71 residential units comprising 51 houses and 20 flats with associated access, servicing, parking, amenity space and landscaping, on land west of Fairmile, 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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee as the site incorporated land owned by the council. In addition, the planning officer also made a number of corrections to the officers’ report including that two new plans had been submitted replacing appendix 9, there were now 179 parking spaces provided including 22 unallocated visitor spaces, there is no studio for plot 29, that paragraph two of the report should read 46 to 49 (not 46 and 49), and that no roof heigh now exceeded 9.4 metres measured from the finished ground floor level.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was for full planning permission for 71 houses, of which 40 per cent were affordable homes, and associated works. It was also noted that the site was not in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but a portion of the south side of the site was in the Henley Conservation Area.

The planning officer also informed the committee that the site was allocated for 72 residential units in the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan and therefore that the principle of development for this many units on the site was considered acceptable.

The objections from residents were also noted but the planning officer believed that, as the development was designed to appear low density, the landscape buffer and distance between buildings meet council policy, that there were no objections from the conservation officer, the 105 replacement trees for those that would be removed were satisfactory, the protected species could be protected through conditions and in the legal agreement, the pedestrian access to the south would be secured through the Section 106 agreement, and that the local highway authority was satisfied with the scheme subject to conditions, the application was satisfactory and recommended it be approved.  

Overall, as the site was allocated for several years in Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan and that there were no objections to the application from technical consultees, the planning officer recommended it be approved, subject to conditions.

Councillors Ken Arlett spoke on behalf of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, in support of the application. 

Jaime Alto and Will Spriggs spoke objecting to the application. 

Simon Fruchter, the applicant, supported by Charles Merry, Tanya Jordan, David Parker, Jen Parker, Simon Hawkins, Luke Greysmith, and Matthew Tickner spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked about the quality of the transport assessment but were satisfied with the planning officers’ clarification that this was assessed by the Local Highway Authority, and they had no objections.

On the cycle path linkage from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.