Agenda item

Demolition of existing house and associated outbuildings and structures and redevelopment to provide two dwellings with associated access, hard and soft landscaping and other infrastructure (DLL certificate received 1 February 2024 and Plot 2 repositioned and redesigned, waste storage point added, updated landscape assessment and additional heritage assessment as shown on amended documents received 19 July 2024 and amended site plan to show Plot 1 bin presentation received 20th August 2024 and revised biodiversity metric received 8th October 2024).

The committee considered planning application P23/S4036/FUL:

Demolition of existing house and associated outbuildings and structures and redevelopment to provide two dwellings with associated access, hard and soft landscaping and other infrastructure (DLL certificate received 1 February 2024 and Plot 2 repositioned and redesigned, waste storage point added, updated landscape assessment and additional heritage assessment as shown on amended documents received 19 July 2024 and amended site plan to show Plot 1 bin presentation received 20th August 2024 and revised biodiversity metric received 8th October 2024).

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 present the report to members. This application sought full planning permission for the demolition of one dwelling and the erection of two dwellings.

This application followed a previous refusal of planning permission for the demolition of one dwelling and the erection of three dwellings on the site in 2023. It was a material planning consideration that this previous application was not refused due to a conflict with the council’s housing distribution strategy.

Officers considered that the proposed residential development would constitute development within the built-up area of Henley and was therefore supported by Local Plan Policy H1 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy H4, as discussed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 of the report.

As outlined in paragraphs 7.8 to 7.14 of the report, the council’s landscape officer considered that the current proposal had addressed the first reason for refusal of the previous application, such that it would conserve and enhance the setting of the nearby Chilterns National Landscape (CNL). This was based on the use of appropriate materials and planning conditions to secure a revised landscaping scheme and its long-term maintenance and low reflectivity glazing. The introduction and maintenance of significant tree planting would further the conservation and enhancement of the setting of the CNL over time. The council’s tree officer had no objection to the proposed tree protection measures.

The council’s conservation officer had raised no heritage objections to the loss of the existing building and no harm to the setting of the nearby listed building, as set out in paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 of the report. Officers considered that the design of the dwellings and garages would be appropriate to the character of Rotherfield Road.

Officers considered that the inter-relationship between the proposed dwellings and their closest neighbours would be acceptable in respect of light, outlook, and privacy, due to the level of separation and the current and proposed vegetated boundary conditions, and subject to planning conditions to secure privacy screens for balconies and obscure glazing for upper floor side-facing windows, as covered in paragraphs 7.18 to 7.20 of the report. The proposed outdoor amenity space would accord with the design guide recommended standards for dwellings of this size.

In the opinion of the Local Highway Authority, the proposed access and parking arrangements would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety in compliance with Local Plan Policy TRANS5, as outlined in paragraph 7.22 of the report.

Officers considered that the requirements of Local Plan Policy ENV2 and ENV3 in relation to biodiversity and protected species would be met by the proposal, subject to the imposition of various planning conditions, thereby addressing the second and third reasons for refusal of the previous application, as set out in paragraphs 7.23 to 7.24 of the report.

Matters relating to external lighting, drainage, and carbon reduction could be dealt with through the recommended conditions, to the satisfaction of the relevant specialist officers.

Officers considered that the application would comply with the relevant development plan policies and on that basis, it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions in the report.

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

Adam Warby spoke objecting to the application

Henry Venners, the agent representing the application, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak, a local ward Councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The Chair noted that the Councillor for Harpsden had sent in a written objection to the application.

The discussion began with a focus on tree protection and landscaping. A member enquired if the trees on site would remain. The officer responded that some trees have Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and must be retained. If the application is agreed upon, the site would have a revised scheme for planting throughout, with the landscape officer recommending more planting at higher levels to provide better screening impact.

Questions were raised about the planning history of the neighbouring property. The officer confirmed that the Council initially refused the application, but it was granted permission on appeal. During a site visit, the committee discussed long-term landscape conditional planning, with the officer noting a minimum period of 20 years. Concerns were raised about whether the trees could be removed after this period, but the officer assured the committee that this timescale would allow the trees to fully develop and they would likely have TPOs by then.

The committee debated whether this was backland development and if it was now allowed. The officer explained that policy H1 of the local plan states that residential developments on this site should be within the built-up area. While backland development can be acceptable in certain situations, this development aligns with the council’s policies.

Biodiversity was another topic of concern. The officer mentioned that previous concerns, including the population of great crested newts, had been mitigated, and the general biodiversity now complies with policy. It was noted that planning applications cannot be rejected based on setting a precedent.

Members questioned the numerous conditions attached to the application, suggesting concerns about the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The officer explained that adding conditions ensures the development is acceptable.

It was noted that the landscape officer had concerns about the visual impact, but the officer assessed that this site has a lesser impact than the neighbouring site, with more scope for planting.

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

The committee expressed concerns about the impact on the views and setting of the Chilterns national landscape, the urbanising appearance, and the encroachment into the national landscape. The planning officer noted that the bulk, scale, and massing were contrary to policy ENV1.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P23/S4036/FUL for the following reasons:

Due to its bulk, scale, siting and massing, this development would have an urbanising effect on the landscape setting of the Chilterns National Landscape and would fail to conserve and enhance its landscape and scenic beauty.  As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies ENV1, DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035, Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan, and advice contained within paragraph 189 of the NPPF.