Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of five residential dwellings and the conversion of an existing building to provide four B1(a) office units, together with parking and landscaping. (As clarified by swept path analysis received 4 April 2019 and contaminated land preliminary assessment received on 18 April 2019. As clarified by drawing no 3358. 114, Heritage response and Highway Planning Limited letter accompanying Agent's letter dated 23 May 2019. As amended by drawing nos 3358- 101 rev B, 108 rev A, 109 rev A and 110 rev A accompanying Agent's email dated 5 July 2019 which re-orientate the dwellings on plots 3, 4 and 5 and retain more of the fabric of existing buildings in the car port for plot 5. As further amended by drawing numbers 3358. 104 rev C and 105 rev B to change plots 3 and 4 to two bed units and plot 5 to a three bed unit).

The committee considered applications P19/S0821/FUL and P19/S0822/LB for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of five residential dwellings and the conversion of an existing building to provide four B1(a) office units, together with parking and landscaping. (As clarified by swept path analysis received 4 April 2019 and contaminated land preliminary assessment received on 18 April 2019. As clarified by drawing no 3358. 114, Heritage response and Highway Planning Limited letter accompanying Agent's letter dated 23 May 2019. As amended by drawing nos 3358- 101 rev B, 108 rev A, 109 rev A and 110 rev A accompanying Agent's email dated 5 July 2019 which re-orientate the dwellings on plots 3, 4 and 5 and retain more of the fabric of existing buildings in the car port for plot 5. As further amended by drawing numbers 3358. 104 rev C and 105 rev B to change plots 3 and 4 to two bed units and plot 5 to a three bed unit) at Goulds Grove, Old London Road, Ewelme.

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. Consideration of this application had been deferred by the committee at its meeting on 21 October 2020, to allow a site visit to take place.

The planning officer reported that the plan attached to the report (page 39 of the agenda) was incorrect. The reason for this was that amended plans had been submitted to re-orientate the houses on Plots 3, 4 and 5, so that the front elevations faced onto Old London Road (vehicular access would be provided from the rear of the units). This had allowed for the retention of one of the existing buildings on the site to provide a car port structure for plot 5.

The planning officer also reported that the site was classified as ‘previously developed land’ and the principle of some development of this site was accepted. The buildings to be removed had a footprint/floor area of approximately 1,138sqm, with the proposed dwellings (and ancillary buildings) having a footprint of some 718sqm, and an overall floor area of 1,058sqm. Therefore, there would be a reduction in both the footprint and floor area of built development on the site.

The planning officer also reported that since the despatch of the agenda, a letter of support had been received from a neighbour, who had stated that they considered that the proposal was well-thought out and would provide positive benefits to the local area. That person had supported approval.  Also, in the opinion of planning officers, the neighbouring property named Troy would be unaffected, and harm to the area was considered to be less than substantial.

The development did not strictly accord with Policy T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan, owing to the lack of an adequate visibility splay to the north. The planning officer considered that in this instance there were material planning considerations that indicated that a departure from the development plan was justified.  The National Planning Policy Framework set a high standard for refusing planning permission due to highway safety reasons - “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe”.

In this case, there was no material change in traffic levels associated with the proposal, over and above the existing uses. There would be a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicle movements, which would be an improvement, and the ‘crashmap’ data demonstrated that there had been no road traffic accidents in the vicinity during the last five years. The planning officer considered that these factors outweighed the conflict with policy T1.

Councillor Phil Murray, a representative of Benson Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Lorenzo Pandolfi, a representative of the occupants of neighbouring property, Troy, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer confirmed that Mr. Pandolfi’s statement had been communicated to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. David Jacobs, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Sue Cooper, a local ward member, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Andrea Powell, a local ward member, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee was concerned that the application was in conflict with the Benson Neighbourhood Plan and also considered that this application represented unsustainable development, being in conflict with that plan and the Core Strategy. The committee remained concerned that the proposal had received a highways objection, owing to visibility splays not meeting standards.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P19/S0821/FUL for the following reasons;

1.    Contrary to the Benson Neighbourhood Plan and the Core Strategy.

2.    The residential element of the proposal did not represent sustainable development.

3.    The scheme would be detrimental to the safety of users of the public highway, notably the lack of adequate vision splay to the west, evidenced by the highway objection.

The committee also considered related application P19/S0822/LB for listed building consent for the demolition of buildings and works to convert the curtilage listed barn to office accommodation in the same report. The committee supported the officers’ views, expressed in paragraph 7.40, that the proposed works complied with the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It was also satisfied that the proposal accorded with the heritage policies of the development plan.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant listed building consent was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant listed building consent for application P19/S0822/LB, subject to the following conditions;

Standard conditions

1.     Commencement three years – Listed Building Consent

2.    Approved plans

Pre-commencement conditions

3.    Schedule of materials

4.    Schedule or repairs and alterations to the curtilage listed building

Informatives

5.     Benson Neighbourhood Plan policies