Agenda item

Proposed reinstatement of residential entrance door to vestibule, retention of a retail unit on the ground floor, construction of a new extension to accommodate a stair and lift, six new residential flats on the ground, first and second floors, including associated rear terraces and conversion of existing attic space, and new in-line roof tile vents to the main roof, and new rooflights to the rear slope of the main roof.

The committee considered planning application P24/S0307/FUL for the proposed reinstatement of residential entrance door to vestibule, retention of a retail unit on the ground floor, construction of a new extension to accommodate a stair and lift, six new residential flats on the ground, first and second floors, including associated rear terraces and conversion of existing attic space, and new in-line roof tile vents to the main roof, and new rooflights to the rear slope of the main roof, on land at National Westminster Bank, 18 Market Place, Henley-on-Thames.  

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 access to proposed flat would be through an entrance at front and an additional staircase would be provided to access the upper stories and would be housed in the proposed extension.

Concerns about the development were noted as relating to the impact on the neighbours, the lack of refuse bins, lack of parking, poor amenity space, and that it was uncharacteristic with the area. However, the planning officer indicated that the principle of development was acceptable and that there were no detrimental impacts on character and appearance of the area.

The planning officer informed the committee that the local highways authority had no objection to the application, including on the amount of parking provided, nor did the waste team regarding the refuse aspects of the development. For these reasons, he recommended that planning permission be granted.

Tom Buckley spoke on behalf of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, objecting to the application. 

Rhian Woods, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked about the design of the apartments and if there was additional ventilation required and the planning officer confirmed that there was a ventilation condition attached to the approval of the application. In addition, he noted that building regulations would cover the effectiveness of that condition.

In response to a question about if the building was of specific architectural merit, the planning officer confirmed that it was not listed but was considered a building of local note in the neighbourhood plan.

He also highlighted that the units conformed with national space standards, and that the local plan was not specific on the space needed for conversion of town centre units into residential accommodation.

In order to better understand the proposal and any implications it might have with overlooking the neighbouring properties, a site visit was proposed. However, members agreed that the officer’s report provided sufficient information in order to determine the application.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer the item for a site visit was not carried upon being put to the vote.

Members discussed the neighbourhood plan and noted that it referenced parking and the provision of cycle parking, something absent in the application. The committee also agreed that the plans for the collection and disposal of waste was a concern, despite the waste team having no objection. Some members also indicated that six flats in the building would be an overdevelopment of the site.

However, as the committee recognised the sustainable location of the development as it was in a town centre, that there was no objection from the waste team, and that the flats all met nationally prescribed space standards, they did not believe these to be sufficient grounds for refusal.

Although some members believed the development to be overlooking of the neighbouring property and potentially resulting in a loss of privacy, this was not agreed by the committee. Although the lack of cycle storage and concerns around waste remained, the committee agreed that overall, these factors were not sufficient grounds alone to refuse the application.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was not carried on being put to the vote. 

Overall, the committee could not see any material planning reasons to refuse the application as they did not believe the application to negatively impact neighbouring amenity by overlooking and due to the lack of objections from technical consultees.

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P24/S0307/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

3. Materials as on plan

4. Mechanical ventilation

5. Noise mitigation

6. Rooflights (flush fitting)