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 and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Dragonetti, Tim Bearder, Sam James-Lawrie, Sam Casey-Rerhaye, and Ben Manning.

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.

Councillor Ken Arlett declared an interest in item 8, P23/S0897/FUL at 25 Leaver Road, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1UW, as he was a trustee of the Henley and District Housing Trust. Therefore he would not participate in the debate or vote and would leave the meeting room when the item was discussed.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

Retention of extensions to existing annexe building and additional replacement barn for domestic uses ancillary to The White House.

The committee considered planning application P22/S4211/HH for the retention of extensions to existing annexe building and additional replacement barn for domestic uses ancillary to The White House, on land at The Annexe, The White House, Bolney Road, Lower Shiplake.  

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 at the discretion of the development manager.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site encompassed land that was in the previous front garden of Poplar Eyot Court which was purchased by the owner of The White House to extend their garden. This area was separated from the remaining plot of Poplar Eyot Court by boundary walling and had pedestrian access.

The application itself sought retrospective permission for the timber barn building and a single storey extension to the annex building, both for ancillary use from the main dwelling. The planning officer emphasised that the application did not seek to vary the use of the barn. The planning officer then noted that the barn largely sat on the footprint of the former manage and stable building. In addition, limited car parking provision was provided that would be used by visitors to the property.

As the planning officer considered that the development would not harm the character of the surrounding area or neighbouring amenity, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, he recommended the application be approved.

Councillor Chris Penrose spoke on behalf of Shiplake Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Deirdre Wells, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Leigh Rawlins, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application.

Members asked about how much Community Infrastructure Levy would be generated if the application were to be approved and the planning officer confirmed that the total amount would by £70,200, 25 per cent of which would go to the parish council.

On a question about potential overdevelopment, and if the development’s impact on the character of the area had been assessed, the planning officer confirmed this was assessed when looking at impact, both on how it would be perceived and how it related to its surroundings. As he believed that it was hidden from view from the river, set back from the road to the west by around 50 metres and covered by trees, and that it conformed with the properties in the surrounding area, he did not believe it was out of character or disproportionate.

The committee then discussed the potential condition four, ensuring the building would be for ancillary use to the residential dwelling, and if this could be expected to be the case given the large square footage of the barn. In response the planning officer clarified that the current proposal was not for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Extension and division of a semi detached two storey house to provide a ground storey and a first storey flat and the addition of solar panels to the front roof slope. Each flat will comprise of 1 bedroom, a bathroom and an open plan kitchen/living area. (additional information received 28th April 2023 regarding drainage).

The committee considered planning application P23/S0897/FUL for the extension and division of a semi detached two storey house to provide a ground storey and a first storey flat and the addition of solar panels to the front roof slope. Each flat would comprise of one bedroom, a bathroom and an open plan kitchen/living area (additional information received 28th April 2023 regarding drainage), on land at 25 Leaver Road, 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 the application was called into the committee by the local ward member, Councillor Ken Arlett, and that it received an objection by Henley-on-Thames Town Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was a resubmission of previously approved scheme from May 2020 only due to the three-year commencement period expiring. The planning officer also confirmed that there were no material changes to the scheme or its surroundings since the submission of the previous application, so she considered it acceptable in regard to neighbouring amenity and its impact on the surrounding area. In addition, the planning officer highlighted to the committee that highways had no objection and that it complied with the required parking standards.

Overall, as there was no material change in circumstance between the previously approved scheme and the current application, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, the planning officer recommended the application be approved.

Karen Wheeler, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

As the committee agreed that the current application was essentially a resubmission of a previously approved application, and as they believed there was a need for more dwellings of the proposed size in the district, the committee agreed that the application 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/S0897/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development within 3 years

2. Development to be in accordance with the approved plans

3. Materials & details to be as shown on plans & supporting documents

4. Existing vehicular access to be improved and laid out

5. Parking and Manoeuvring Areas retained in accordance with the approved plans

6. Cycle Parking Facilities to be agreed

7. Landscaping to be in accordance with approved plan

8. Drainage to be in accordance with approved details

Change of use of land for car parking for a temporary period of two years until 2 September 2025.

The committee considered planning application P23/S1775/FUL for the change of use of land for car parking for a temporary period of two years until 2 September 2025, on land at Car Park, Station Road, Didcot.  

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 was South Oxfordshire District Council and due to the objection of Didcot Town Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that that town council’s concerns were primarily about the car park being made redundant by the new multistorey carpark and that the application site should be used for alternative purposes.

The site itself sat opposite Didcot Parkway station, was about 0.53 hectares, and contained 253 parking spaces and 8 disability spaces. The car park was in use since 2006 and permission was renewed on several occasions since that commencement date, most recently in 2021 which would then expire on 2 September 2023. The planning officer confirmed that planning permission was sought for the retention of use of the land as a car park until the 2 September 2025, by which time work on the council’s new offices was hoped to have commenced.

In addition, the planning officer noted that the car park had an average daily use of 61 per cent, around 154 spaces, and that no approach had been made to South Oxfordshire District Council for alternative uses of the site. The planning officer also clarified to the committee that he believed that the most likely alternative to the sites use as a car park would be that it would become a vacant site.

Overall, as the planning officer considered that the use of the site as a temporary car park would be a benefit to the council and residents, that the site’s appearance as a car park would be an improvement over its use as a vacant site, and as there were no objections from technical consultees, he recommended the application be approved.

Councillor Stephen Cole spoke on behalf of Didcot Town Council objecting to the application. 

John Salmons spoke objecting to the application. 

Karen Lister, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked the planning officer about if the material harm to the environment caused by the amount of car usage by the application was assessed. In response, the planning officer confirmed that the council had considered it in the planning balance, but that as the car park was in place since 2006, they did not see the site’s continued use as a car park as being a further improvement or detriment to the site. Members also asked for clarity about the officer’s acknowledgement in the report that the car park did not positively contribute to the street scene, but they were ultimately satisfied with the confirmation that the application was temporary as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two semi-detached 3-bedroom dwellings and a detached 3-bedroom dwelling and two-bay car barn with retained access from Harpsden Road (dwellings redesigned to more closely reflect previous planning permission P19/S4261/FUL, as shown on amended plans received 17th February 2023 and revised energy statement received 22nd February 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S4374/FUL for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two semi-detached 3-bedroom dwellings and a detached 3-bedroom dwelling and two-bay car barn with retained access from Harpsden Road (dwellings redesigned to more closely reflect previous planning permission P19/S4261/FUL, as shown on amended plans received 17th February 2023 and revised energy statement received 22nd February 2023), on land at Bournes Farmhouse, Harpsden Road, Binfield Heath.  

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 Binfield Heath Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the principle of development in relation to infilling with newbuild dwellings was supported in the settlement and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) by Local Plan policies. In addition, the conservation officer assessed the dwelling and did not find that it was of sufficient merit for listing or for it to be classified as a non-designated heritage asset, and so they believed it would not be reasonable to resist its demolition. 

In addition, the planning officer informed members that he believed the proposed scale, form, and detailing of the dwellings would conform to their surroundings while conserving the character of the area in the AONB. Further to this, the planning officer noted that the application was acceptable in terms of light, access, and neighbouring amenity, and would accord with the council’s policy on market housing mix.

For all the reasons stated, and that the proposed conditions could deal with tree protection, protected species, drainage, energy, and external lighting, the planning officer recommended that the application be approved.

Councillor Sarah Fulton-Urry spoke on behalf of Binfield Heath Parish Council objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. The members noted that, when they were on the site visit, the houses would be in proportion to the land and that as the existing building had a number of more modern extensions it had lost heritage value. The committee also agreed that they believed the proposed dwellings would be of a similar design to the other dwellings in the area.

Overall, as the committee believed the application was policy compliant, proportionate to the land, sympathetic to the area, and in character with the surrounding dwellings, they could see no material planning reasons for refusal and so agreed the application 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 P22/S4374/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development within three years

2. Development in accordance with the approved plans

3. No change in levels unless otherwise agreed

4. Schedule of Materials to be agreed

5. Flintwork - traditional construction

6. Obscure glazing to upper  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Erection of a 4 bedroomed detached family dwelling with integral garage, and associated access and landscaping (revised plans received 22 March with revised SAP calculations, energy statement, change to proposed external finish, movement of dwelling to rear by 1.4 metres, inclusion of air source heat pump, amended site access and biodiversity net gain calculations).

The committee considered planning application P22/S4565/FUL for the erection of a 4 bedroomed detached family dwelling with integral garage, and associated access and landscaping (revised plans received 22 March with revised SAP calculations, energy statement, change to proposed external finish, movement of dwelling to rear by 1.4 metres, inclusion of air source heat pump, amended site access and biodiversity net gain calculations), on land off Rectory Road, Great Haseley.  

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 Great Haseley Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the main concerns for the parish council was that the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling was too large, that it would be unsympathetic to surrounding area, and also cause drainage issues.

Outline consent was previously approved in March 2022 for a one and a half storey dwelling on the site. The planning officer informed members that the current proposal would reduce the height by 200mm from the previously approved scheme, but that the main difference between the two was that the current proposal included front and rear gables which would increase the footprint of the dwelling.

In addition, the planning officer highlighted to members that amended plans had proposed that the dwelling be set back by an additional 1.4 metres from highway, and he was satisfied that there was sufficiently distance between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties to conserve neighbouring amenity.

The planning officer did note that concerns had been raised about the ground source heat pump potentially causing a disturbance but confirmed that this was unlikely to occur as it was placed 1.8 metres from the boundary. On another potential concern about flooding, the planning officer also noted the drainage officer’s representation and that they had no objection subject to foul and surface water conditions.

Overall, as the planning officer believed the design of the dwelling reflected the newly constructed dwellings in the area, there was no loss of neighbouring amenity, there were no objections from technical consultees, and the overall benefits of the application were outweighed by any harm, he recommended the application be approved.

Charlotte and Tom Mitchel, the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

The committee inquired into the distance between the proposed dwelling and the boundary of the site. In response, the planning officer confirmed that the building did have a larger footprint than what was approved at the outline stage but that the distance between it and the boundary was policy complaint. In addition, he noted that the dwelling did fit with the overall appearance of the surrounding properties. 

On members question’s about flooding and drainage, the planning officer responded that there was concern raised by the parish council about increasing the flood risk, but that the drainage officer had no objection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.