Agenda and minutes

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

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tim Bearder, Jo Robb, and Ian Snowdon.

The democratic services officer at the request of Councillor Snowdon, explained to the committee that Councillor Snowdon, following consultations with the democratic services manager, had been advised not to take part in application P19/S0720/O due to living at the boundary of the application site.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2 February 2022.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2 February 2022 as a correct record and agree that the chair signs them as such.

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

Councillor David Bartholomew who was attending the meeting as a local ward member declared that he lived in the vicinity of application P21/S1389/O, although he stated there would be no direct impact on his property. Councillor Bartholomew had consulted with the democratic services manager prior to the meeting and received confirmation that he could attend the meeting in a non-committee member capacity and would therefore speak on the application as its local ward member.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.

There was no urgent business.

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 had been circulated to the committee prior to the meeting.

Outline planning application for a residential development comprising up to 750 dwellings (with up to 40% affordable housing provision), public open space comprising green infrastructure, community use, allotments and play areas, pedestrian and cycle links, landscaping and associated supporting infrastructure.  Means of access to be determined via Hadden Hill (A4130).  Access to NPR3 reserved for later consideration along with all other matters. (as revised by information received 22 January 2021 and updated Parameter Plan and Biodiversity Calculations received 5 May 2021).

The committee considered application P19/S0720/O for an outline planning application for a residential development comprising up to 750 dwellings (with up to 40% affordable housing provision), public open space comprising green infrastructure, community use, allotments and play areas, pedestrian and cycle links, landscaping and associated supporting infrastructure. Means of access to be determined via Hadden Hill (A4130). Access to NPR3 reserved for later consideration along with all other matters. (as revised by information received 22 January 2021 and updated Parameter Plan and Biodiversity Calculations received 5 May 2021).

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 explained that vehicle access was to be determined at the outline stage of the application. On the application site, it was explained that the area to the west was land owned by the council, with the area displayed in the middle of the application being the built development. Sites that were coloured green on the officer’s presentation indicated allotments, a community facility, and a play area. In addition, the planning officer confirmed that the masterplan was illustrative, and that drainage would now be on the other side of the road, adjacent to the golf course. It was noted that there had been a significant level of representation made from local residents, and a lot of work had been done regarding the drainage strategy in response to these concerns. At a high level strategy, the levels on the site sloped downwards from east to west, and there was also an existing carrier of water from the site.

The committee were informed that the developers had confirmed they would provide the parkland with the first two-hundred and fifty dwellings, and the terms of the transfers of land ownership would be agreed prior to any commencement of works. Additionally, the town council was interested in taking control of the allotments and community centre. The committee were also told that contributions would be received for offsite leisure facilities that were within Didcot. The planning officer also added that there had been a typo in the report at section 7.6. This was in relation to health and fitness where the figure was listed as ‘£14,6507’ but the correct figure was ‘£146,000’.

The committee were then reminded that as this was an illustrative masterplan being presented, a detailed layout would be presented to the committee at a later date. With specific reference to the southern area of the application, this was described as higher density, with some lower density housing on the edges of the border, and where existing properties were already located. The lower density would also be towards the area of natural beauty and beyond. The design code that would take forward the paraments would also be subject to a public consultation, to allow relevant parties to have an input on the process.

The planning officer concluded that the site was allocated, and with seven-hundred and fifty  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Outline application for refurbishment, extension and alteration of Kingsley House from 4 flats to up to 8 flats incorporating access matters with all other matters reserved (block, site and site access plans revised on arboricultural grounds received 21st May 2021 and corrected by plans received 7th June 2021 and footprint of Firs Lodge corrected and details of parking, bin storage and extension proposals removed as shown on amended plans received 24th June 2021).

Councillor Jane Murphy left the meeting before the start of the item.

The committee considered application P21/S1389/O for an outline application for refurbishment, extension and alteration of Kingsley House from 4 flats to up to 8 flats incorporating access matters with all other matters reserved (block, site and site access plans revised on arboricultural grounds received 21st May 2021 and corrected by plans received 7th June 2021 and footprint of Firs Lodge corrected and details of parking, bin storage and extension proposals removed as shown on amended plans received 24th June 2021).

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 informed the committee that the highway authority only saw a modest increase in vehicle numbers. In addition, the planning officer added that they considered the access alterations to be acceptable. The planning officer also confirmed that there would not be any additional noise nuisance, and this would comply with policy DES6. With regards to the historical nature of the building, the committee were informed that the council’s conservation officer had confirmed that due to conversion of the building into flats during the 1970’s, the building was classed as having lost integrity and was therefore not a listed building. However, the building could be considered a designated heritage asset in order to retain its existing characteristics. The planning officer concluded by confirming that for the application before them, it complied with the relevant criteria and was therefore recommended for approval.

Councillor Chris Penrose, representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Nick Meredith, local resident, spoke against the application.

John Stewart and Paul Southouse, the applicant, and the agent respectively, spoke in support of the application.

The committee asked the speaker why no detailed planning application had been presented at the meeting. The speakers responded that the application was to agree the principles of access and a further application, if the existing application was granted, would then follow. A follow-up question was then raised and asked how the applicant could seek the committee to consider up to eight residential units as flats without the information presented. The speakers replied stating that a full topographical and site survey had been carried out and they considered eight dwellings feasible if the existing building was re-worked, however they had not pursued this further until the principles of access were agreed.

The committee also asked the speaker a question on the driveway and its practicality for vehicle use. The response to this from the speaker was that there would be a widening to ensure two cars could pass each-other, and two sections would be constructed to enable passing places where the road was not wide enough for opposing traffic to move past one another at the same time.

Councillor David Bartholomew, the local ward member, spoke against the application.

The committee asked whether the road was strong enough for the proposed application,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Demolition of house. Construction of five apartments with detached car ports and bin/cycle store.

Councillor Alan Thompson left the meeting before the start of the item.

The committee considered application P21/S33371 for the demolition of house. Construction of five apartments with detached car ports and bin/cycle store.

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 application, and explained that it had been referred to the committee due to objections from Henley Town Council for reasons identified within section 2.1 of the report. The planning officer also confirmed that the application had been deferred at the previous committee meeting to enable a site visit to take place. The application’s background was then provided, with the context of the site’s history detailed. The planning committee were told that the existing dwelling had been damaged by fire in 2019, and an outline application for two new dwellings had been granted in 2020. The planning officer added that more recently, planning permission had been granted for a new single detached dwelling.

With respect to the application before the committee, the planning officer confirmed that their view was that the principle of the current application was acceptable and would adhere to existing policy. The site’s location on a brownfield site would provide a net gain of four residential units, and met the Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan’s aim of the intensification of brownfield site development. The committee were told that the site was deemed to have a neutral impact from a wider viewing, and no physical harm had been identified from the proposed application. Additionally, the design was considered similar to the existing dwelling and similar properties within Henley. In relation to the materials used for the application, officers were content that acceptable external materials could be secured by a planning condition.

With reference to trees on-site, confirmation was given to the committee that most trees were protected by a tree protection order, and that no objections had been received from the council’s forestry officer in relation to this. A planning condition however was proposed to require tree protection measures, and for new trees to be planted as a replacement for any existing trees removed.

The committee were then told that the proposed development would be accessed by existing vehicular access, but that the width of the road would be increased with additional required visibility splays. Additionally, there would be ten parking spaces, two visitor spaces, and bicycle storage facilities. This was confirmed to meet local highway authority standards, and no objections had been received from this authority regarding the application. Conditions were also recommended to ensure the provision and retention of any on-site parking.

The planning officer concluded with a recommendation for a condition that was not listed in the report, which would require any external lighting scheme to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval before instillation. Subject to the conditions laid out in the report, and newly proposed, the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Extensions to the side and front elevation along with alterations. Change of use to dry cleaners on ground floor. New garage to rear of side extension and first floor access. Proposed creation of 2-bedroom apartment on 1st floor. New traditional timber style shop front. New timber and slate tile lean-to canopy to the rear elevation to replace uPVC canopy (as amended by drawings received 26 October 2021 reducing footprint and amended energy information received 11 November 2021).

Application P21/S3035/FUL was deferred to the next meeting of the planning committee due to the meeting time expiring before this application could be considered.