Agenda and minutes

To adopt and sign as correct records the minutes of the committee meetings held on 1 and 13 March 2017.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 1 and 13 March 2017 as correct records and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.

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

Councillor Anthony Dearlove declared an interest in relation to application P16/S3609/O, land to the south of A4130, Didcot.  He stated that he was Chairman of Didcot Town Council (who disagreed with the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission), but that he had not attended either meeting of Didcot Town Council regarding this issue and has not expressed a view on this matter.

Councillor Elaine Hornsby declared an interest in relation to application P16/S3608/0, land to the east of Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, as she was a friend of the applicant.

To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matter urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chairman.

None.

Application P16/S3471/FUL, land at 67 Lower Icknield Way, Chinnor, had been withdrawn from the committee agenda to allow members to attend a site visit.

None.

To receive any statements from members of the public who have registered to speak on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting.

The list showing 16 members of the public who had registered to speak was tabled at the meeting.

Outline planning application for up to 150 dwellings together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas.

Felix Bloomfield and Richard Pullen, the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item. Toby Newman acted as chairman.

The committee considered outline planning application P16/S3608/O for 150 dwellings together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas on land to the East of Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford.

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.

Officer updates:

·         Further objections had been received from residents which reiterated issues within the officer’s report;

·         The South Oxfordshire Local Plan Part 2 is currently out for further consultation.  This site is one of the preferred options but at this stage this carries little weight; and

·         Referring to paragraph 6.22 of the officer’s report, there is an update on the two current Crowmarsh Gifford planning applications; 80 homes to the west of Reading Road has been refused; and the Newnham Manor application is currently being considered.

Nigel Hannigan and John Griffin, representatives of Crowmarsh Gifford Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The development is premature and opportunistic, as the wider site could take a lot more than 150 homes;

·         This site is not a preferred option for the parish council;

·         The large increase in housing is not proportionate to the area and will put pressure on local services, especially the primary school which is at capacity; and

·         The proposed closure of Wallingford Bridge will lead to traffic build-up and affect air quality.

Lee Upcraft, of Wallingford Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         This development will adversely affect air quality, with air pollution already a serious problem in the Wallingford area;

·         This application only considers its own effect on air quality, contradicting SODC guidance which requires that the cumulative effect of other planned developments is taken into consideration; and

·         There are no conditions or mitigations referring to air quality.

Stephen Beatty, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·         The development is not sustainable as per paragraph 14 of the NPPF due to the adverse impacts on schools, healthcare and air quality;

·          The local primary school cannot accommodate more children, who would need to travel to schools outside the area and Wallingford secondary school can only take children of already approved applications;

·         Wallingford medical practice has one of the highest patient ratios and there is no GP capacity in Henley or Didcot;

·         Crowmarsh Gifford is classified as a large village and should therefore only need to accept 10% more housing equating to 40 homes;

·         Crowmarsh Gifford residents are not anti-development; the alternative site of 100 houses at Newnham Manor are more appropriate;

·         The land is classified as grade 2 agricultural and should therefore be protected; and

·         The proposal does not meet local affordable housing needs as the majority are 3 or 4 bedroom homes.

Steven  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

Demolition of the existing building, erection of ten dwellings, new access, parking and landscaping.

The committee considered application P16/S3709/FUL to demolish the existing building and erect ten dwellings, new access, parking and landscaping at Shakespeare House, Clapcot Way, Wallingford.

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.

Lee Upcraft, a representative of Wallingford Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The town council fully supports the redevelopment of this site, but the current plans do not comply with the policy requirements of window to window distances;

·         Overlooking and an unacceptable loss of amenity to the residents of number 31 Clapcot Way;

·         There would be a risk to pedestrians in terms of as traffic flows would increase and parking would become more of an issue; and

·         Flipping the application would reduce the impact on everyone.

Ann and Lindon Shepherd, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Overlooking of their garden will cause a significant loss of amenity and privacy;

·         Substandard window to window separation will cause overlooking;

·         Road safety is a concern, especially for school children;

·         Parking is already a problem; and

·         The impact of dust during demolition and construction is a major health concern.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         This application is on previously developed land and is in a sustainable location;

·         There is extant permission for seven homes on the site, which expires in April 2018;

·         The applicants have chosen to make the development 100% affordable;

·         Parking and access is satisfactory.  There are two parking spaces per house and two visitor spaces;

·         In response to overlooking concerns from neighbours, all new houses have an element of overlooking and this is a common relationship replicated close to the site; and

·         This scheme is acceptable so there is no need to flip or mirror the site.

Elaine Hornsby, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application:

·         Communication between the applicant, SOHA, and Oxfordshire County Council has been negligent.  Better dialogue may have led to this not being at committee.

In response to points raised, the officer stated that the 25m window to window distances in the Design Guide refer to back to back distance, which is not applicable in this case.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

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

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P16/S3709/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Schedule of materials.

4.    Withdrawal of permitted development (Part 1 Class A) - no extensions etc.

5.    Withdrawal of permitted development (Part 1 Class E) - no buildings etc.

6.    New vehicular access.

7.    Close existing access.

8.    Vision splay dimensions.

9.    Roads and footpaths prior to occupation.

10.Plan of car parking provision (specified number of spaces).

11.Construction traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

Outline planning permission for up to 166 dwellings, associated open space and infrastructure.

The committee considered application P16/S3609/O for outline planning permission for up to 166 dwellings, new access, parking and landscaping on land to the south of the A4130, Didcot.

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.

Officer update: one further letter of objection had been received from a member of the public in relation to the proposed access.

Jackie Billington, a representative of Didcot Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         Turning right out of the site on to the A4130 would be very dangerous.  The A4130 is a fast and busy road and road safety would be compromised;

·         There should be a re-positioning of the main access point to and from the site; and

·         An extra air quality condition should be included if the committee are minded to approve the application.

Matthew Dawber, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         Pre-application discussions have taken place with Oxfordshire County Council and South Oxfordshire District Council;

·         Land has been safeguarded for the widening of the A4130 – County Highways have deemed the access safe with or without the road widening;

·         There are no technical objections from statutory consultees;

·         40% of the homes will be affordable; and

·         They cannot provide another access as they do not own the land it would need to go through.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. Although some members of the committee were satisfied with the design of the development and that there were no technical reasons to object, there were severe concerns for road safety with the current access; internal and external noise impacts for future residents; air quality concerns; and the application does not accord with development plans.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was withdrawn before being put to the vote.

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

RESOLVED: to defer application P16/S3609/O to allow the applicant time to negotiate with landowners to explore potential for a more suitable access.

Development of 4 residential units, all matters reserved except access.

The committee considered application P16/S3778/O for outline planning permission to erect four residential units with all matters reserved except for access on land to the west of Ridgeways, New Road, Lower Shiplake.

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.

Tudor Taylor, a representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         There have been 71 objections to the application;

·         A previous application for one dwelling on this site was refused at appeal as it would constitute urbanisation of the fringes of Shiplake and would be harmful to the character and appearance of an area of great landscape value – these reasons still stand; and

·         The application does not constitute infill development and is outside the village curtilage.

Professor Wild, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·         The development would result in substantial and demonstrable harm to the rural area;

·         New Road is rough and bumpy with substantial pedestrian traffic; and

·         It is not in keeping with the surrounding area with regard to density.

William Young, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         To meet concerns raised, the application has reduced in size from seven to four dwellings;

·         No protected trees will be damaged on site; and

·         The proposal accords with the development plan.

Will Hall, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.  His main concern was that the gap with Lower Shiplake would be degraded and in the detrimental change of character.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. They did not agree that the application met policy requirements and that the development would not have a harmful impact on the landscape setting of the village.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse outline planning permission for application P16/S3778/O for the following reasons:

The application site comprises an area of undeveloped land beyond the built up edge of Lower Shiplake.  Due to the location of the site, the proposed development does not represent appropriate infill housing having regard to Policy CSR1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, and the proposal would detract from the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, and would fail to conserve the landscape setting of Lower Shiplake.   The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefit, and as such, the proposal would not comprise sustainable development as defined by local and national legislation and the proposal is contrary to policies CSS1, CSR1 and CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, policies C4, G2, G4 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and Government Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Prior to the conclusion of this item, at 20:25, the committee agreed, in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

This application has been deferred from consideration at planning committee on 29 March 2017 to allow for a site visit.

Erection of two detached dwellings with access, parking and amenity space.

The consideration of application P16/S3471/FUL to erect two detached dwellings with access, parking and amenity space at 67 Lower Icknield Way, Chinnor was deferred to allow for members to attend a site visit.

Variation of condition 2 and 5 of planning permission P14/S4069/FUL to replace approved plans and for the insertion of a clear glazed first floor window in the north and south elevations.

David Nimmo-Smith stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S3555/FUL to vary conditions 2 and 5 of planning permission P14/S4069/FUL to replace approved plans and for the insertion of a clear glazed first floor window in the north and south elevations at Leys Stable Cottage, Old Bix Road.

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.

Annette Belcher and Jamie Findlay, two local residents, spoke objecting to the application.

David Nimmo-Smith, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application:

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.  They did not agree that the application was of good design and was out of keeping with the local area. The committee requested that enforcement action needed to be more robust.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P16/S3555/FUL for the following reasons:

The proposed dormer window on the south elevation of the dwelling, due to its size, and poor design would result in an incongruous addition to the dwelling that would fail to respect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and Policies G2, D1 and H13 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and guidance contained within the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.    Application for change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use.

2.    Application to replace the existing stables and storage building with two permanent buildings: i) American barn for stabling horses; ii) Secure storage barn for hay, bedding and agricultural machinery.

David Nimmo-Smith stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P17/S0201/FUL for a change of use from agricultural land to equestrian use and to replace the existing stables and storage building with two permanent buildings on land north of Clayhill Wood, Stoke Row.

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.

Alex Lawrence, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

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

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P17/S0201/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement of development within three years.

2.    Development to proceed in accordance with approved plans.

3.    Materials to be used as set out on the application forms.

4.    Vision splay protection retained free of obstructions above 0.9 metres in height.

5.    Parking and manoeuvring areas retained as shown on approved plans.

6.    Tree protection measures to be agreed prior to commencement of development.

7.    Private use of land, barn and storage building – no commercial use.