Agenda and minutes

To elect a chair for this meeting in the absence of the chair and vice-chair.

As the chair was present, there was no election for a chair.

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

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Peter Dragonetti, who was substituted for Councillor Jo Robb, and Councillors Tim Bearder, Axel Macdonald, Sam James-Lawrie, and Ben Manning.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2023, 17 May 2022, 21 September 2022, and 1 September 2021. 

The committee agreed to defer approval of the minutes to the next meeting due to a lack of members present at the minuted meetings.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair 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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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 was tabled at the meeting.

Full planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and open space (as amended by drawings and information received 1 March 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S4155/FUL for the full planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and open space (as amended by drawings and information received 1 March 2023), on land at H & C Pearce & Sons Ltd, Aylesbury 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. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Thame Town Council. The planning officer then informed the committee that the site was considered brownfield due to its past commercial use.

It was also noted that a previous application for a care home on the site was refused in 2022 for its unacceptable impact on the Thame Conservation Area and on the nearby listed buildings. In contrast, the planning officer informed members that the current application comprised a mixture of terraced, semi-detached, and detached dwellings which contained a policy compliant mix of affordable housing, and which would have a neutral impac on the conservation area and the listed buildings. The planning officer also highlighted that the access to the site would be from Aylesbury Road and was acceptable to the highway authority.

The planning officer then emphasised that, as the site was brownfield and in a sustainable location, the principle of development was supported by the Local Plan. Although the Local Plan protects employment land unless it is proven not to be viable, the planning officer was satisfied that the applicants had provided enough evidence to show the non-viability of the site to remain in employment use.

Although the proposal included a small open space onsite, and a small informal play area, it did not include all the open space required in the Local Plan and so the applicant had agreed to contribute funds for open spaces in other locations in Thame. This arrangement was considered acceptable by the planning officer.

The planning officer then covered the reason behind the Town Council’s objection, primarily their concern about amenity space for the affordable housing – plots 20 and 21. However, the planning officer believed that, as the plots were hard up against the site boundary and close to the shared amenity space, it was an acceptable comprise for the retention of the buildings and the importance this would have on the conservation area. It was also noted that all the plots met or exceeded the garden size requirements in the council’s design guide. The planning officer also noted some concerns about the potential for overlooking from plots 1 and 2 on neighbouring properties. Due to the reduction in the elevation to plot 1 and the proposed condition on plot 2 for obscure glazing, the planning officer was satisfied that the impact on the neighbouring amenity was acceptable.

Overall, as the application was supported by planning policy, would make a good contribution to the housing supply, would cause no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Erection of six detached dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure and works (as amplified by additional energy information received 31 August 2022 and drainage information received 1 November 2022 and amended by revised site plan showing right of way received 6 January 2023 and amplified by ecological information submitted on the 23 January 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S2788/FUL for the erection of six detached dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure and works (as amplified by additional energy information received 31 August 2022 and drainage information received 1 November 2022 and amended by revised site plan showing right of way received 6 January 2023 and amplified by ecological information submitted on the 23 January 2023), on land at Brimpton Grange, access to Hotel from A40 Milton Common.  

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 Tiddington with Albury Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application sought permission for six dwellings in land adjacent to the Belfry Hotel and that there was extensive planning history on the site. In summation, permission was previously granted for four dwellings on the site and the works had lawfully commenced. Although this was granted at a time where the council did not have a five-year housing supply, the planning officer emphasised that this permission was a material planning consideration for the current application. Another application for the site then came forward, for six houses, but this was refused and dismissed at appeal for its intensification of the site and on its transport impacts.

The planning officer then informed members that, more recently, a neighbourhood plan had come into force, and it did not allocate the site for development as it was beyond the village area. However, as the planning officer believed that the application made better use of the land than the previously approved scheme and that the development was of acceptable design, he stated that, on balance, he considered the application acceptable.

Councillors Chris Hill and Russ Chaplin spoke on behalf of Tiddington with Albury Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

The committee asked the planning officer about the sites position in relation to the M40 and if he believed there would be traffic issues as a result of the application. In response, the planning officer clarified that the junction was relatively far away from the site and that highways had not objected on highways safety grounds. Members also noted that the current application, as opposed to the already approved one, had its own access directly onto the A40 which also raised concerns, but the planning officer clarified that highways also had no objection to that aspect of the scheme.

Members then asked the planning officer about how much weight was given to the neighbourhood plan which did not consider the site appropriate for development as it lay beyond the village, and he confirmed that the plan carried full weight in planning terms.

The committee also spoke about the reasons for refusal for the previous six dwelling application, noting the planning inspectorates reasoning that the increase from four to six  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Demolition of existing dwelling. Redevelopment of existing site to provide 4 dwellings with associated development including access works to Gold Street access (as amplified by;

- Preliminary Ecological Appraisal received 29 March 2022

- Energy information received 25 July 2022 

- Services Plan received 27 July 2022, 

- Drainage Information received 6 October 2022,

- Ecological and landscape information received 21 November 2022, images received 29 November 2022 and information received 25 January 2025 and Nature Space information received 8 March 2023 

- Email from agent dated 8 March 2023

and as amended by;

- Drawings received 13 July 2022 reduction in height of houses, alteration in garage, materials and layout).

The committee considered planning application P22/S1241/FUL for the demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of existing site to provide four dwellings with associated development including access works to Gold Street access (as amplified by; - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal received 29 March 2022 - Energy information received 25 July 2022  - Services Plan received 27 July 2022, - Drainage Information received 6 October 2022, - Ecological and landscape information received 21 November 2022, images received 29 November 2022 and information received 25 January 2025 and Nature Space information received 8 March 2023 - Email from agent dated 8 March 2023 and as amended by; - Drawings received 13 July 2022 reduction in height of houses, alteration in garage, materials and layout), on land at The Site Of Milton House, Gold Street, Little Milton.  

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 called into the committee by the former local ward member, Councillor Caroline Newton. The planning officer also made a number of clarifications to the report; firstly, to paragraph 1.6 which should read ‘1 x 3 bedroom’ rather than ‘1 x 4 bedroom’, and secondly, to paragraph 6.61 where the distance should be 25 metres rather than 10 metres.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application site was within the Little Milton Conservation Area, where height levels move up the further in the site you go. He also informed the committee that he believed the principle of a housing development was acceptable as it constituted infill development. The planning officer also noted that there was no heritage objection to the demolition of the existing building.

The planning officer did note that the development would have less than substantial harm on the conservation area, but that the National Planning Policy Framework stated that where this occurs it needs to be outweighed by the public benefit. As the application would provide south facing public seating, community infrastructure levies, and an increased village population to support the local communities and their facilities, the planning officer believed that these benefits would outweigh the less than substantial harm identified by the conservation officer.

In addition, the planning officer believed that the dwellings would not be significantly harmful to neighbouring amenity due to their height, distance between dwellings, and location and suggested that the removal of permitted development rights through a condition could help secure this.

Overall, as the proposal was in accordance with the development plan and the planning officer believed that the public benefit outweighed the less than substantial harm to the conservation area, he recommended that the application be approved.

Councillor David Wakeling spoke on behalf of Little Milton Parish Council objecting to the application. 

Lucy Ireland and Barry Coward spoke objecting to the application. 

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

Councillor Georgina Heritage,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Single storey rear extension.

The committee considered planning application P23/S1389/HH for the single storey rear extension, on land at Covert Cottage, Hill Bottom, Whitchurch Hill.  

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 as the applicant is a district councillor.

The planning officer informed the committee that the extension was to create a garden room to the rear of property, which was a detached dwelling on spacious plot with no immediate neighbours. As the planning officer believed that this was a modest extension in keeping with dwelling, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, they recommended that the application be approved.

Overall, the committee were satisfied with the officer’s report and could see no material planning reasons for refusal and so agreed that it should be approved, subject to conditions. 

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/S1389/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development within 3 years

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans

3. Materials to be used as shown on the approved plans