Agenda and draft minutes

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

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

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members.

Apologies were received from Councillors Tim Bearder, Peter Dragonetti and Jo Robb.

Councillor James Norman was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Peter Dragonetti.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

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.

Proposed change of use and alterations to 4 x existing barns within farmyard area to facilitate new use as equestrian centre including the provision of stabling, storage, office/administrative, recreational and staff accommodation. Provision of a horse walker following removal of part of an existing barn. Provision of car parking, horse box parking and secure cycle storage within and adjacent to farmyard area.

Siting of 6 x shepherd’s huts and associated change of use of existing woodland to provide overnight visitor accommodation.

Change of use of surrounding agricultural land for equestrian purposes including the creation of 4 x horse paddocks, creation of an external manège with associated earthworks and an infiltration pond in existing fields, together with extensive new woodland, hedgerow and other planting across the site. (As amended and amplified by information received 10 September 2023 and 11 January and 26 July 2024).

The committee considered planning application P22/S3607/FUL for:

The proposed change of use and alterations to 4 x existing barns within farmyard area to facilitate new use as equestrian centre including the provision of stabling, storage, office/administrative, recreational and staff accommodation. Provision of a horse walker following removal of part of an existing barn. Provision of car parking, horse box parking and secure cycle storage within and adjacent to farmyard area.

Siting of 6 x shepherd’s huts and associated change of use of existing woodland to provide overnight visitor accommodation.

Change of use of surrounding agricultural land for equestrian purposes including the creation of 4 x horse paddocks, creation of an external manège with associated earthworks and an infiltration pond in existing fields, together with extensive new woodland, hedgerow and other planting across the site.

The planning officer introduced the report and informed the committee that the application site was located approximately 1 mile from Watlington and sat within the Chilterns National Landscape. The site was largely comprised of agricultural land, with an existing block of woodland and four redundant agricultural buildings.

The planning officer highlighted the key planning issues set out in the report, including the impact of the development on the landscape and tranquillity. The site was located in a prominent position in public view from Watlington Hill and the officer advised that the buildings and shepherd huts would be screened from view by the existing woodland and proposed additional planting. Following construction, it was explained that the manège would be visible, until the proposed planting grew to conceal it.

Another key issue related to the increase in traffic associated with the development. The planning officer explained that this would result in an increase in vehicles using the 500 metre section of the Ridgeway National Trail, however this should be considered in context to the existing traffic environment, particularly the commercial traffic associated with Lys Farm. In consultation with the highways authority, officers did not consider that the additional traffic would have any significant cumulative impact. The National Planning Policy Framework advised that developments such as the proposed, only be refused if the impact on the highways network was severe.

The committee were informed that amendments and further information had been submitted to address technical requirements relating to the forestry, drainage, landscape and ecology. Conditions regarding these requirements were set out in the officer’s report.

The planning officer concluded that the scale and nature of the development represented a significant change and would alter the view of the site. In the overall balance, officers did not consider this change to be detrimental, due to the positive aspects of the development, including extensive new planting, biodiversity enhancement, and the reuse of redundant buildings.

Officers recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Gill Bindoff spoke on behalf of Watlington Parish Council, in objection to the application.

Roderick Orr and William Perrin spoke in objection to the application.

Adrian Gould and Jo Turner spoke in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

The construction of side and rear extensions to existing dwellings and the erection of two detached houses, together with parking and landscaping. (as amended by plans received 30 May 2024 to redesign the front elevations of plots 1 and 4 and by plans received 08 August 2024 to remove car port on plot 1).

The committee considered planning application P24/S0673/FUL for the construction of side and rear extensions to existing dwellings and the erection of two detached houses, together with parking and landscaping (as amended by plans received 30 May 2024 to redesign the front elevations of plots 1 and 4 and by plans received 08 August 2024 to remove car port on plot 1).

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was referred to committee as the views of the officer’s to grant planning permission conflicted with the view of Eye and Dunsden Parish Council. The principle matters of concern raised by residents and the parish council was the character of the proposal resulting in a design which was not in keeping with the village. Other technical concerns had been raised regarding highways safety, parking, loss of privacy, landscaping and drainage. In the officer’s view, the proposed development was designed and altered to respond positively to the character and design of other nearby dwellings. The planning officer found that plot sizes were proportionate to the local area and the proposed dwellings maintained a spacious relationship with each other. Moreover, the officers were in the view that the dwellings were not overly domineering to its surroundings and would be finished in materials appropriate to the area.

Officers were satisfied that the development was acceptable and recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

John Plumer and John Goldsmith spoke in objection of the application.

Jonathan Jarman, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The committee inquired about discrepancies in the proposed street elevation drawing. The planning officer responded that the purpose of the street elevation drawing was to demonstrate the height difference between the proposed dwellings and the indicative street layout. It was confirmed that the 2 new proposed dwellings would not exceed the height of the existing cottages.

Members asked about the spacing between the dwellings and whether the dwellings were of an acceptable size. The planning officer was of the view that the plot spacing, gardens and parking was acceptable. It was observed that there was a variation in the size of neighbouring plots and buildings.

The committee asked about the plot boundary in the applications plans. The planning officer noted that there was a discrepancy with the location and site plan, as the alignment was not consistent.

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

RESOLVED: to defer the application in order to clarify the boundary discrepancy.

Note 2: A break was taken between 19:49 and 19:52pm.

Demolition of 1 dwellinghouse and erection of 9 new dwellinghouses (updated ecological information received 25th September 2024).

The committee considered planning application P24/S2626/FUL for the demolition of 1 dwellinghouse and erection of 9 new dwellinghouses with updated ecological information received 25th September 2024.

The planning officer introduced the report, outlining that application P24/S2626/FUL followed previous refusals for planning permission regarding the erection of 10 dwellings as well as a separate application for 9 dwellings. Appeals were submitted for both refusals. In the case of the 10 dwelling proposal, the planning inspector determined that the principle of development was acceptable, but dismissed the appeal due to concerns about the impact of plot 10 on neighbouring properties. The 9 dwelling proposal, which excluded plot 10, was only refused in principle. Application P24/S2626/FUL was identical to the previous 9 dwelling proposal.

The planning officers determined that the outcome of the subsequent appeal and the inspector’s findings represented significant material considerations, indicating a clear change in circumstances compared to the assessment of the earlier applications. They expressed that the principle of the proposed development, specifically concerning backland development with new residential buildings, was consistent with local plan policies H1, H16, and neighbourhood plan policy CHH7, as detailed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.10 of the report.

The officers considered that the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality would be acceptable. The relationships between the proposed dwellings and the closest neighbours was also considered to be acceptable in respect to light, outlook and privacy. Additionally, the proposed outdoor amenity spaces complied with the design guide standards for dwelling of this size. The officers noted the provision of the mix of 2,3 and 4 bed dwellings would address the district-wide housing need and aligned with local plan policy H11.

The planning officers considered that the application would comply with the relevant development plan policies and recommended that planning permission be granted.

Jackie Webb spoke on behalf of Chinnor Parish Council, in opposition to the application.

Neil Warner, representative for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Ali Gordon Creed spoke as ward councillor.

The committee asked the planning officer to comment on the parish council’s objections and whether the development complied with the provisions in the neighbourhood plan. The planning officer clarified that the affordable housing requirement did not apply to this application, as it necessitated a net gain of 10 units. Additionally, the retirement policy was also not applicable. The H3 policy cited by the parish council was discussed in paragraph 7.26 of the officer’s report, which stated that proposals for residential development should consider local housing needs. However, the parish council policy does not specify how housing proposals should address those needs. The inspector took these factors into account and found no conflict with policy H3.

The committee asked whether the entrance to the site would facilitate further development. The planning officer confirmed that was not proposed as part of application P24/S2626/FUL, but that any further development would require further planning permission.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the officer’s recommendation was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.