Agenda and minutes

Venue: Didcot Civic Hall, Britwell Road, Didcot, OX11 7JN

Contact: Nicola Meurer  email  nicola.meurer@southandvale.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of interest

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

Minutes:

None.

2.

Urgent business and chairman's announcements

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 announcements from the chairman. 

Minutes:

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

3.

Applications deferred or withdrawn

Minutes:

None.

4.

Proposals for site visits

Minutes:

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer consideration of applications P16/S3254/FUL and P16/S3255/LB – Former farm buildings and pharmacy, Cholsey Meadows, off Reading Road, Cholsey for a site visit, was declared carried when put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: To defer consideration of applications P16/S3254/FUL and P16/S3255/LB for a site visit to establish the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the listed building and parking arrangements.

5.

Public participation

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. 

Minutes:

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

6.

P16/S3441/O - Land South of Watlington Road, Benson pdf icon PDF 361 KB

Outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 120 dwellings (40% of which will be affordable) with associated access, public open space, landscaping and play space.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Richard Pullen, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

 

The committee considered outline application P16/S3441/O for the erection of up to 120 dwellings (40% of which will be affordable) with associated access, public open space, landscaping and play space with all matters reserved except access on land south of Watlington Road, Benson.

 

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: Two further letters of objection have been received reiterating concerns already expressed within the committee report.

Correction to the report – The last sentence in 6.43 is incorrect and the whole of it should be deleted. A noise assessment was submitted with the application and there is no extant planning permission on the site.

 

Jon Fowler, a representative of Benson Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application undermines the Benson neighbourhood plan, which has over-allocated 340 dwellings to the North;

·         On top of the 400 already approved dwellings, this represents well over the recommended 15% growth as per the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan; and

·         The application could jeopardise the proposed Edge Road relief road and other allocated sites;

·         Concern that the applicant has not considered the phase one habitat survey.

 

Stewart Fryatt, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         This application is contrary to the neighbourhood plan, which is in its final stages before completion and therefore the wishes of the community of Benson;

·         The application site has no vehicular access into the village, in which the facilities are already stretched;

·         Concern for the impact of extra traffic in the village regarding noise and pollution;

·         The application site is elevated and will dwarf Brook Street; and

·         Loss of green areas will not be of benefit to the village or wider landscape.

 

Phil Brady and John Ashton, the applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application:

·         The comprehensive transport assessment was based on a proposal of 180 dwellings, which has now been reduced to 120 dwellings;

·         Highways are satisfied with the traffic impact mitigation of a package of measures through contributions;

·         The range of market and affordable housing will help the district meet its housing shortage;

·         A condition can be included to ensure bungalows are put in next to adjacent properties;

·         A strategic landscaping condition can also be included to amend the green spacing proposals;

·         There are no technical objections regarding transport, flood risk and ecology;

·         The draft neighbourhood plan is yet to be submitted and can therefore only be afforded limited weight; and

·         Following a question from the committee, it was confirmed that reserved matters could be submitted within 18 months.

 

Felix Bloomfield, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application will have a harmful impact on the landscape setting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

P16/S4254/FUL - 4A Farm Close Road, Wheatley pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Side extension to existing flatted block to provide two No. two bed flats. (4 No. flats in total). Provision of 3 no. off street parking spaces with new highway access, secure cycle storage and bin enclosures.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Toby Newman, the local ward councillor, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item. Sue Lawson acted as chair.

 

The committee considered application P16/S4254/FUL for a side-extension to the existing flatted block to provide two two-bedroom flats, the provision of three off street parking spaces with new highway access, secure cycle storage and bin enclosures at 4A Farm Close Road, Wheatley.

 

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.

 

Mark Busby, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The detrimental impact of the proposal’s flank wall facing flats 8a and 8b’s habitable rooms;

·         Not satisfied with the distances considered to be acceptable in this case;

·         This is overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the area and would be unacceptably oppressive; and

·         There are severe parking issues in the area, which will be exacerbated by this development.

 

Marc Chenery and Mr Robinson, the applicant’s agent and applicant, spoke in support of the application:

·         The separation distances meet design guide requirements; and

·         Highways are in support of the application.

 

Toby Newman, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application on behalf of the parish council who were unable to send representation:

·         The site visit took place at 2:00pm which does not reflect the parking problems in the immediate area;

·         Concern for the separation distances between the proposal and flats 8a and 8b.

 

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. Although some members of the committee were satisfied with the statutory consultee responses and the application meeting policy requirements, other members did not agree that the impact on neighbour amenity was acceptable and would constitute overdevelopment.

 

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

 

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/S4254/FUL for the following reasons:

 

The Development Plan sets out that new residential development will not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties, and in the interest of safeguarding amenity, sets out separation distance distances to windows serving habitable rooms.

By reason of the distance between neighbouring habitable rooms and the flank walls of the development, and the imposing height of the addition, the development would result in an enclosed and oppressive relationship with numbers 6A, 6B, 8A and 8B and compromise the outlook of neighbouring occupants. Having regard to the neighbouring block’s orientation, the siting of the development would create a contrived and cramped relationship with adjacent properties.

The development is contrary to saved policies D1 and D4 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan, and the South Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016.

8.

P16/S3284/O - Land South of Greenwood Avenue, Chinnor pdf icon PDF 161 KB

Outline planning application for erection of up to 140 dwellings, new public open space, associated landscaping and site infrastructure.  All matters reserved.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ian White stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

 

The committee considered outline application P16/S3284/O for the erection of up to 140 dwellings, new public open space, associated landscaping and site infrastructure with all matters reserved on land south of Greenwood Avenue, 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 this meeting.

 

Officer update: the Chinnor neighbourhood plan is currently with the parish council for fact-checking and will be issued next week for examination, it therefore carries limited weight.

 

Martin Wright, a representative of Chinnor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The planning inspector for the adjacent sites stated that retaining the proposed site area as a field would mitigate the harm of the sites allowed at appeal;

·         The proposed density of the application does not fit in with the character of the area;

·         The proposed access onto Greenwood Avenue would cause issues due to the lack of off street parking and narrow road; and

·         Request there is a spine road through the three developments instead.

 

Maxine Pickard and Robert Dobbs, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Light pollution impact on local wildlife; and

·         The inspector’s comments concerning the retention of this field should not be disregarded.

 

Caroline Owen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The application site will be a landlocked field in an urban setting, bordered by residential areas on four sides;

·         The neighbourhood plan can only be afforded limited weight;

·         The application will contribute to housing numbers in the village and provide 40% affordable homes;

·         The forestry officer has no objections;

·         Taylor Wimpey have indicated agreement to provide through-access, although the applicant has yet to discuss this with Bellway Homes. Future access through the adjacent sites can be secured at reserved matters;

·         Agreed timescales can be reduced to 18 months; and

·         The applicant would be willing to include a ransom strip condition.

 

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         According to the planning inspector, by retaining this field, the harm of the adjoining sites will be mitigated;

·         The application will cause harm to the setting of the rural community;

·         Impact on local amenity regarding the substantial increase in traffic; and

·         Concerns for road safety due to the narrow one-way access road.

 

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. They did not agree that the impact on the landscape setting or character of the local area would be acceptable.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/S3284/O for the following reasons:

 

1.      The application site provides separation between two approved housing developments and mitigates against the harmful impacts that these developments will have on the character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

P16/S3285/FUL - 17 and 19 Greenwood Avenue, Chinnor pdf icon PDF 103 KB

Demolition of two dwellings and construction of new access road.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ian White stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

 

The committee considered application P16/S3285/FUL to demolish two dwellings and construct a new access road at 17 and 19 Greenwood Avenue, 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 this meeting.

 

Martin Wright, a representative of Chinnor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

 

Roger Pickard and Samantha Boyd-Leslie, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Air pollution concerns due to the increased vehicle movements;

·         Detrimental impact on residential amenity; and

·         Access via Greenwood Avenue would be unnecessary if a spine road goes through all three developments.

 

Caroline Owen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         There are no technical objections to this application; and

·         Proximity to existing homes is not under consideration.

 

Ian White, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         A construction traffic management plan would need to be included as a condition due to the problems getting in and out of the site;

·         Impact on local amenity; and

·         Concerns for road safety.

 

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. They did not agree that to demolish two dwellings would be acceptable due to South Oxfordshire’s lack of five year land supply and that the access road would detrimentally impact the character of Greenwood Avenue.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/S3285/FUL for the following reasons:

 

The proposed access was submitted in association with a housing development on adjoining land (P16/S3284/O). Planning permission for this associated housing development has been refused and as such, the proposed access would not be required to deliver a scheme that would boost housing numbers.  The proposed access would have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area and result in the loss of two existing homes. As such, these harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the development and the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS1, CSS1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and policies G2 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

10.

P17/S0875/RM - Land north of 12 Celsea Place, Cholsey pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Details of the layout, landscaping, layout and scale of the approved scheme for 60 dwelling.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee considered application P17/S0875/RM for the details of the layout, landscaping and scale of the approved scheme for 60 dwellings on land north of 12 Celsea Place, Cholsey (P15/0262/O).

 

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:

Oxfordshire County Council Highways are satisfied with the amended plans and have no further comments. The Council’s Forestry Officer is also satisfied with the amended information regarding landscaping, subject to a couple of species of trees being changed. Four additional written representations have been received, one of which was circulated to members. These did not raise any new issues that have not already been summarised in the report.

 

Corrections to a couple of errors in the report: paragraph 2.2 states that 23 Affordable units will be provided. It should say 24 units. The report also states that the appeal was allowed prior to CIL being adopted and enforced. This is incorrect and the development will be CIL liable.

 

Mark Gray, a representative of Cholsey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Disappointed that the developers have not worked with the parish at the neighbourhood plan stage;

·         The existing site access is constrained as the neighbours don’t have driveways – can this be considered by SOHA to install them?

·         The open space adjacent to a main road is not ideal;

·         Disproportionate number of three-bedroom dwellings; and

·         Request that garages can’t be converted.

 

Anthony Hines, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The landscaping buffer has been removed and replaced with tree planting, which could impact their amenity should species be inappropriate for urban gardens; and

·         Concern that root structures could potentially damage drainage and hedging plants.

 

Henry Venners, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The access has been approved by Highways;

·         The inspector allowed the outline application at appeal;

·         The open space allocation more than meets guidelines and will be accessible to all due to the protected archaeological finds on site;

·         40% of the homes will be affordable and indistinguishable from other dwellings;

·         Officers recommended removing the 5m landscaping buffer and planting mix can be secured by condition;

·         The non-conversion of garages can be secured by condition; and

·         Drainage is off-site and the responsibility of Thames Water.

 

The committee considered the application with advice from officers where appropriate. They requested removal of permitted development rights to convert garages into residential and were advised that the landscaping condition request refers to an outline application condition.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: to grant reserved matters approval for application P17/S0875/RM, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    Time limit.

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

3.    Removal of permitted development rights Class A (extensions).

4.    Removal of permitted development rights Class  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

P16/S3254/FUL & P16/S3255/LB - Former Farm Buildings and Pharmacy, Cholsey Meadows, Off Reading Road, Cholsey pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Conversion of existing buildings to provide 11 x 1 bedroom starter homes, 6 x 2 bedroom starter homes and 1 commercial unit (salon) and a farm shop, together with, parking, access and landscaping.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Applications P16/S3254/FUL and P16/S3255/LB to convert the existing buildings to provide 11 one-bedroom starter homes, six two-bedroom starter homes and one commercial unit (salon) and a farm shop, to include parking, access and landscaping a the former farm buildings and pharmacy, Cholsey Meadows, off Reading Road, Cholsey were deferred from consideration to allow for a site visit.

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

South Oxfordshire District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE