Agenda item

Construction of replacement entrance facility, including security hut and associated parking and landscaping.

(As amended by Archaeological Desk Based Assessment dated February 2022 and amplified by Phase 1 Desk Study dated November 2021 received 22 March 2022, Master Plan received 13 April 2022, Heritage Assessment received 27 April 2022 and Biodiversity Impact Assessment received 17 May 2022 and Section Plans and site plan accompanying Highways Note and email from agent received 29 June 2022 and revised planting plan received 3 August 2022)

The committee considered planning application P22/S0211/FUL for the construction of replacement entrance facility, including security hut and associated parking and landscaping (As amended by Archaeological Desk Based Assessment dated February 2022 and amplified by Phase 1 Desk Study dated November 2021 received 22 March 2022, Master Plan received 13 April 2022, Heritage Assessment received 27 April 2022 and Biodiversity Impact Assessment received 17 May 2022 and Section Plans and site plan accompanying Highways Note and email from agent received 29 June 2022 and revised planting plan received 3 August 2022), on land at Main Gate Culham Science Centre near Clifton Hampden.  

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 the parish council. This application is a standalone application from the other applications on the site and is for a new replacement entrance facility.

The planning officer informed the committee that the current facility is of no architectural merit, whereas the proposed facility would provide architectural interest, and is sufficiently set back from the road so as to not be intrusive. The planning officer also clarified that the development would replace all parking spaces lost through the demolition and building of the new facility and that it would not create addition vehicle movement. Overall, as the planning officer believes that the proposed application would enhance the entrance to the Culham Science Centre while not being intrusive, it is recommended for approval.

Jaqi Mason spoke objecting to the application. 

Steven Sensecall, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and Ian Wallace representing the applicant, who was present virtually, also spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye, a local ward councillor and representative of Culham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Some members of the committee expressed an interest in conducting a site visit for the application in order to examine the site and see how effective the tree screening would be when viewed from neighbouring properties. However, the committee felt like a site visit was not necessary to make a judgment about the application due to the evidence provided in the planning officer’s report and presentation.

It was also noted that this is a standalone application and not conditional or dependant on the granting of permission for any further applications, or the completion of Oxfordshire County Council’s HIF proposal. 

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer consideration of the application in order to conduct a site visit was lost when being put to the vote.

The committee then asked the planning officer about the potential loss of trees but were satisfied with the response that any trees lost by the demolition and construction of the replacement facility would be replaced on site, and that the tree officer is happy with the replacement trees and their locations. The committee also noted that a replacement nursery for the one being lost in the demolition is also being proposed and is currently in the outline application stage.

Overall, as this is a standalone application where no increased movement of vehicles is being predicted, and that the proposed facility itself is set further back from the road than the existing one and is not overly prominent but still of a good design, the committee generally agreed that the application should be approved.

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S0211/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

Standard conditions:

1. Commencement 3 years – Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

Prior to commencement conditions:

3. Archaeological Watching Brief

4. Implementation of Programme or Archaeological Work

5. Tree Protection (Detailed)

6. Surface water drainage works (details required)

7. Plan of Car Parking Provision (specified number of spaces)

8. Cycle Parking Facilities

9. Construction Traffic Management (details required)

10. External Lighting - scheme to be approved

11. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions

Prior to occupation conditions:

12. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions

13. Surface Water Drainage

14. Wildlife Protection (mitigation as approved)

15. Landscaping implementation

16. Sustainable Design Features - as approved *

17. Confirmation of BREEAM Excellent standard

Compliance condition:

18. Materials as on plan and design and access statement