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 was received from Councillors Tim Bearder, Katharine Keats-Rohan, Ken Arlett, Sam Casey-Rerhaye, who was substituted for Councillor Jo Robb, and David Bretherton.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

Change of use of existing building, Children`s indoor playground E(d) to part retail unit E(a) and part Children`s Nursery E(f). Single storey extension. Recladding of building including new widows and roof.

The committee considered planning application P23/S2058/FUL for the change of use of existing building, Children`s indoor playground E(d) to part retail unit E(a) and part Children`s Nursery E(f). Single storey extension. Recladding of building including new widows and roof, on land at 2-6 Whizzkidz Ltd, Jefferson Way, 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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Thame Town Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was within an industrial area in the southern part of Thame and had been used as an indoor play area since 2004. The proposal itself sought to divide the site into two separate spaces with different uses: a shop and nursery. He also noted that the application sought a small extension to the rear of the nursery and that it proposed to reclad the building.

As the site had Use Class E rights, the planning officer highlighted to the committee that the entire site could be converted into a shop without the applicants needing to submit an application to the Council. 

The planning officer also commented on the size of the shop, noting its floor space and that it was designed to serve the local community and so would not be appropriate for a town centre location. He also mentioned that there was a proposed condition on the approval so that only convenience good could be sold. 

Overall, as there were no objections from technical consultees, and the planning officer believed that the application would bring benefit to the local community, he recommended that the application be approved.

Graeme Markland spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application. 

Nik Lyzba, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee inquired into the parish councils comment about the closure of a shop in the centre of Thame which they believed could be replaced by a supermarket, and so why had the applicant not chosen to use that space. In response, the planning officer mentioned that the foot space of the town centre location was much larger than the one proposed in the application and also that the proposed site was designed to support the local community who lived further away from the town centre. He went on to reiterated that the existing building had Use Class E rights providing them a strong fallback position as the applicant could turn the whole building into a shop. In that situation, the council would not be able to control conditions, such as on parking, like they could through the current application. 

Members asked about the parking provision proposed and the planning officer clarified that there was no defined amount required for customer parking for the nursery, only for staff, and that the Highways Authority standards for a Class E shop  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Proposed agricultural barn. (As amended by drawing re-siting the building and amplified by supporting information received 8 November 2023).

The committee considered planning application P23/S2689/FUL for the proposed agricultural barn (as amended by drawing re-siting the building and amplified by supporting information received 8 November 2023), on land at Ten Acre Farm, New Inn Road, Beckley.  

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 Beckley and Stowood Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that there had been some corrections made to the report since the publishing of the agenda. These corrections included that; hay was actually moved onto site and was not derived from the site, that reference in paragraph 6.14 to grain should be hay, and that references to the National Planning Policy Framework had been altered due to it being recently updated. 

The application itself sought permission for an agricultural building for the storage of hay and farming equipment for a farmer. Although the site was located in the Green Belt, the planning officer informed the committee that agricultural buildings are specifically excluded from prohibitions on building in those areas and so the principle of development was accepted. He also emphasised that a proposed condition on the approval of the application was to ensure that the building would only ever be used for the agricultural purposes described in the application.

On the building itself, as it was sited next to a larger agricultural building, the planning officer believed that it would have a minimal impact on the local landscape.

Overall, as the application was policy compliant and there were no objections from technical consultees, the planning officer recommended that the application be approved.

Gareth Jones, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Tim Bearder, a local ward councillor, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Ginette Camps-Walsh spoke on behalf of Beckley and Stowood Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

The committee asked about the need for the barn and the planning officer clarified there is no test about the need for a building. However, he clarified that the land was in agricultural use and that the building was supposed to assist a local farmer who worked on a number of farms in the area. On the issue that the parish council raised about there being no farming done on the site, the planning officer confirmed to the committee that there was agricultural equipment on the site and at one point he had seen livestock on the site. Therefore, he believed that the application was appropriate and that that it would not change the sites use.

On another point the parish council made, about the farmer using other barns in the area, the member agreed that, for the storage of hay and the security of farm machinery, the other barns in the area would not be effective for this. The planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

5 x flag poles, 1 x monolith, 2 x micro monolith, 4 x hanging signs; and various other signage.

The committee considered advertisement consent application P23/S3032/A for 5 x flag poles, 1 x monolith, 2 x micro monolith, 4 x hanging signs; and various other signage, on land at Yeats Lodge, Greyhound Lane, 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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Pieter-Paul Barker, and due to the objection of Thame Town Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site was in the Thame Conservation Area and the signage was on the site of several retirement dwellings who had been given planning permission on appeal in 2018.

There were 20 signs proposed for the site across a range of different types for a total display period of three years. The planning officer also noted that this number was a reduction from the total of 24 signs that had been on the site in September 2022.

The planning officer highlighted that the signage had been in place as of May 2022 and that they were prominent from the street scene and the Conservation Area, although she did not believe them to be unduly harmful. She also did not consider that they posed any safety risk to the users of the highway.

The Town Council did not believe that the signage conserved or enhanced the Thame Conservation Area and that they were contrary to the Local Plan and Thane Neighbourhood plan. Despite the signs being prominent in the conservation area, as she did not consider them unduly harmful, the planning officer recommended that consent be granted. 

Graeme Markland spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application. 

Councillor Pieter-Paul Barker, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked about if the applicant needed permission to display any signage on the site and the Head of Planning confirmed there were permitted development rights for signage of a certain size, but that the signage requested in the application needed consent.

Members then inquired into the signages potential impact on highways safety and if they could be a dangerous distraction to motorists. In response, the planning officer confirmed that she did not believe that they would be a distraction as they were not illuminated, did not project onto the highway, and that the speeds in the town centre area were low so would be unlikely to cause dangerous distractions.

Members asked about the amount of signage that the application was requesting and if there was scope to approve less, but the Head of Planning informed member that the application was for all the signage and refusal would mean they would not have permission for any of it. If the consent was refused, the planning officer noted that they could have directional signs and signs under permitted development rights.

On a question about the material issues to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Part garage conversion. Single story front extension. Single story rear extension. Formation of new roof to include habitable rooms. Accommodation divided to form an annex. (as amended by plans received 3 September omitting side door to garage and changing proposed rear garage window to a high level window).

The committee considered planning application P23/S2534/HH for the part garage conversion. Single story front extension. Single story rear extension. Formation of new roof to include habitable rooms. Accommodation divided to form an annex (as amended by plans received 3 September omitting side door to garage and changing proposed rear garage window to a high level window), on land at 4 Sycamore Drive, 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 the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by a local ward member, councillor Pieter-Paul Barker.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site was in a residential area, on a corner plot, and not within any area of special designation.

The proposal included a single storey front and rear extension, an increase of the roof height to accommodate habitable rooms, the removal of gables in the roof, the conversion of half the garage into living accommodation, the removal of the pitched roof with a flat roof over the garage, and new render and timber cladding.

The planning officer considered that the proposed roof was acceptable and that the materials used would be proportionate and in character with the surrounding area. In addition, she noted that the windows had been placed in order to avoid overlooking. Finally, she noted that there was sufficient amenity space provided. 

Overall, for these reasons, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, the planning officer recommended that the application be approved.

Graeme Markland spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application. 

Mr and Mrs Singleton, the applicants, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked about the flat roof on a garage and if this were normally permitted. In response, the planning officer informed members that, as it was small and set back, it would not be harmful to the amenity of the area and would in fact reduce the impact to the neighbour. Members also asked about the residential use of the garage and if it might impact the neighbour, but she clarified that the subdivision was not considered harmful as the garage was still the closest section to the neighbours.

On a further question about the garage and some concern about the high window, the planning officer noted that high level first floor windows were allowed under permitted development, and so from an overlooking perspective they would be considered acceptable. She also reiterated that the part closest to the neighbour would be retained for the garage and not residential use.

Members noted the design of the properties in the area, but they did not believe that the application would be out of character or detrimental.

Overall, the committee noted that the application would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not be unneighbourly. As they could see no material planning reasons for refusal, they agreed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.