Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chair and general housekeeping matters.

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed for a virtual meeting.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 14 October and Wednesday 21 October 2020.

The minutes of the meetings held on 14 and 21 October 2020 were agreed as correct records, and will be signed by the chair as such.

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

Councillor Gregory declared interest in two Thame applications, as she voted on them at previous Thame Town Council planning meetings. Councillor Gregory would therefore not take part in the debate and voting for items nine and ten.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.

The senior planning officer notified the committee that the Local Plan inspector’s report has been issued and the plan has been declared sound. Officers would alert the committee if this had impact on the applications.

There were no proposals for site visits.

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. 

The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak was circulated before the meeting. Statements received had been communicated to the committee prior to the meeting.

Installation of equestrian training mirrors and retention of temporary hard standing (as amended by additional plans and information received 29 May 2019 and 11 October 2019 re-locating the entrance gate which will be installed using permitted development rights without planning permission and proposing landscaping).

Item eight: P19/S0332/FUL: Orchard Close Settlement Road, running west from T junction and the Old Post Office, Britwell Salome, OX49 5LH

The proposal was installation of equestrian training mirrors and retention of temporary hard standing (as amended by additional plans and information received 29 May 2019 and 11 October 2019 re-locating the entrance gate which will be installed using permitted development rights without planning permission and proposing landscaping).

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.

It was confirmed that a site visit had been attended by councillors and that the site was being used by the family only, and there is planning permission already in place for the riding arena which has a condition stating it shall be used only for the private leisure purposes of the owner of the land, and shall not be used for any commercial activity.

It was mentioned that the mirrors have tree planting behind them and that they weren’t noticeable or a problem to any surrounding developments.

There were no speakers on this matter.

A motion was moved and seconded, to grant planning permission for the application as per the officer recommendation. It was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P19/S0332/FUL, subject to the following conditions;

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission granted, subject to the following conditions:

1: Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans

2: Materials as specified on the application form

3: Landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval (to include planting to the west, north and south of riding arena, hurdle fencing to the west)

Informative

I: No surface water drainage to highway

New detached dwelling in the plot to the rear of No. 8 and No.10 Queens Road, Thame.

The proposal was for a detached dwelling in the plot to the rear of number eight and number ten Queens Road, Thame.

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.

This application was called to planning committee by Councillor Kate Gregory for the following reasons:

Overdevelopment;

Loss of amenity space;

Unneighbourly.

A statement objecting to the proposal was submitted in writing by Mr and Mrs Hazell.

Councillor Helena Fickling, a representative of Thame Town Council, spoke objecting to the proposal.

Christopher Helsby, the architect for the development, spoke to support the proposal.

The planning officer reported that the proposal complied with the relevant Development Plan policies and, subject to the attached conditions, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its relationship to the character of the existing building, its site and the wider area. It was also acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The committee considered that despite some objection to the proposal, described as typical infill, that there were no strong planning objections to the proposal.

The committee made a request to strengthen the protection of the mature hedge. They were satisfied that condition 7 would cover this issue.

A motion was moved and seconded, to grant planning permission for the application, as per officer recommendation. It was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/S2525/FUL, subject to the following conditions;

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions.

1: Commencement of development three years

2: Development in accordance with approved plans

3: Levels (details required)

4: Materials to be agreed

5: Surface water drainage works (details required)

6: Foul drainage works (details required)

7: Landscaping & protection of retained trees / hedgerows to be agreed

8: Parking & manoeuvring areas to be provided and retained

9: Gates to open inwards

10: Obscure glazing to upper windows in the north east elevation

11: Withdrawal of permitted development rights for outbuildings

12: Withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions

Erection of two-storey 1-bedroom end of terrace dwelling, and two storey rear extension and single storey front extension to the existing dwelling. (as amended plans received 28th September 2020, setting the proposed dwelling back from the pavement by 1m, amending the footprint and design of rear projection).

The committee considered application P20/S2545/FUL for the erection of a two-storey 1-bedroom end of terrace dwelling, and a two storey rear extension and single storey front extension to the existing dwelling (as amended plans received 28 September 2020, setting the proposed dwelling back from the pavement by one metre, amending the footprint and design of rear projection) at 6 Kings Close, Thame.

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.

This application was recommended for approval. It was referred to the committee at the request of the local ward member following the formal objection by Thame Town Council.

Councillor Helena Fickling, a representative of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor David Bretherton a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee had concerns about amenity space, but overall there were no material planning reasons to object to the proposal, despite some general dislike of the proposal.

The committee was minded to grant planning permission, with the addition of another condition on concurrent development – the extension should be built at the same time.

A motion was moved and seconded, to grant planning permission for the application as per officer recommendation. It was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/S2545/FUL, subject to the following conditions, with the addition of a new condition 8 regarding concurrent building;

1: Commencement within three years

2: The development is to be implemented in accordance with the approved

 plans unless varied by other conditions of consent

3: The materials to be used in the external construction of the walls and roof

 shall match the existing dwelling

4: Withdrawal of permitted development (P.D) (Part 1 Class A, B, and E) – no

 additional extensions, roof extensions or outbuildings shall be erected within

 the curtilage of the site without planning permission from the local planning

 authority

5: The vision splays shall not be obstructed by any object, structure, planting or other material with a height exceeding or growing above 0.6 metres as

 measured from carriageway level.

6: Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, the parking and turning areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be constructed, laid out, surfaced, drained and completed, and shall be retained unobstructed except for the parking of vehicles associated with the development at all times

7: Prior to the erection of any walls above ground level, details of surface and

 foul water drainage schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

 the Local Planning Authority.

8. The extension shall be built concurrently.

Reserved Matters application for the construction of 116 dwellings with associated infrastructure, landscaping, parking, open space and reptile habitat. Application considers details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following grant of outline planning permission P16/S3284/O for up to 140 dwellings.

The committee voted to extend the meeting in order to finish considering this item at 11.53am.

The planning officer ran through the proposal. This item was a reserved matters application for the construction of 116 dwellings with associated infrastructure, landscaping, parking, open space and reptile habitat. The application considers details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following grant of outline planning permission P16/S3284/O for up to 140 dwellings.

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 confirmed that recommended condition 4 was to be changed to “no more than 88 dwellings to be occupied until all estate roads are provided” – “driveways and footpaths” was to be removed from the report under that condition.

The application was referred to committee due to the officer recommendation conflicting with the views of Chinnor Parish Council.

Councillor Martin Wright, a representative of Chinnor Parish Council, submitted a statement to object against the proposal. Due to technical difficulties, the democratic services officer read out Martin Wright’s statement to the committee, as he was unable to address the committee.

Andrew Walker, of Chinnor and Princes Risborough Railway, spoke to object against the proposal.

Caroline Owen, of Persimmon Homes, spoke to support the proposal.

Councillor Ian White, a local ward councillor, spoke to the application.

The points below summarise the discussion of the committee:

·       Concern raised over a lack of private amenity space. Officers added that there was enough space locally for residents to use.

·       The 116 dwellings were of a good mix.

·       The proposal felt like an “anywhere” design.

·       A set-back distance had been implemented to create a barrier from the noise and air pollution of the railway.

·       Officers reminded the committee that this was a reserved matters application, and that major changes to the outline planning permission could not be made. This application was for layout, appearance, scale, landscaping and access.

·       Councillors were pleased to see there would be tree pits to help longevity of new trees and asked what tree species would be used.

·       Concern raised over block paving, which could create heat islands. It was confirmed that the tarmacked areas would be broken up with other material.

·       The landscape officer had worked with Persimmon to improve the landscaping.

·       Officers had improved the parking facilities proposed in the development.

·       Officers had worked hard to improve based on concerns raised.

·       New homes would have higher standard gas boilers and insulation.

·       The committee considered the information on protecting the slowworm population on-site and were happy with this.

·       The planning officer confirmed that the play area was secured in the outline planning permission. We can approve this reserved matters application without the play area, as this was holding up the developer’s start date. We still have control of the play area through other means, so it is not necessary to withhold consent until the legal agreement is varied.

Despite the planning officers advising against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.