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 Ali Gordon-Creed, Axel Macdonald, and Tim Bearder.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2023. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2023 as a correct record and agree that the Chair sign these as such.

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 Ben Manning declared an interest in item 10 on the agenda. As he lived near the application site, and had fettered his discretion on application P22/S4391/FUL, he would speak as a ward member but would not sit on the committee to discuss or vote on the item.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

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.

Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (as amended & amplified by information received 8 July 2022 and 21 December 2022).

The committee considered planning application P21/S3915/FUL for the installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (as amended and amplified by information received 8 July 2022 and 21 December 2022), on land at Dodwells Solar Farm, Land north of the A40 near 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 Great Haseley Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the solar farm site location was to the north of the A40 London Road and about one kilometre from the Milton Common settlement. He also emphasised that it was outside of the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that there were no public rights of way through the site.

The site itself was 112 hectares with the solar panels comprising 61 hectares. In addition, there were heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, but it was noted as having no impact on their significance. The placement of the panels was also noted as avoiding most of the fluvial risk zones 2 and 3, with the minor flood risk proposed to be dealt with in the conditions, and that they would also not be put on any Grade 3a land (Best and Most Versatile land). The application also proposed a 37 per cent biodiversity net gain and that the solar panels would avoid being placed on the gas lines through the site and the water courses through a 10m buffer.

The planning officer informed the committee that over the course of the application, the applicant had removed some solar panels to try to mitigate potential landscape harm.

On visual impact, 22 viewpoints were considered, including a key view from the A40 overpass. However, as the distance to the site was 1.5km away from the A40 overpass and the solar panels were barely visible, and the panels could only be glanced at from the other viewpoints, the visual impact was considered acceptable. The objection from the resident at Heath House to the west of the site about the visual impact was also noted. However, the planning officer clarified that, as the house was set back from property boundary and elevated on a hill meaning that the ground floor would not be able to see the extent of the panels, and that further planting would mitigate any other visual effects of the application, the visual impact was not considered to be grounds for refusal.

On cumulative impact, the planning officer confirmed that, in his opinion, there would be limited cumulative visual effects between the site and other permitted solar farms but that it would be policy compliant.

Overall, the planning officer recommend that, as the application was policy compliant, there were no significant adverse impacts on the landscape, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Underground cable route to connect Dodwells solar farm to Cowley substation.(as amplified by additional information received 21 December 2022).

The committee considered planning application P22/S2220/FUL for the underground cable route to connect Dodwells solar farm to Cowley substation (as amplified by additional information received 21 December 2022), on land at Dodwells Solar Farm, Land north of the A40 near 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 for engineering work to install the cabling needed to take the energy from the solar farm permitted in application P21/S3915/FUL at Dodwells Solar Farm to near the Cowley substation. This route would pass through various villages, single track carriageways, and three bridges.

The planning officer informed the committee that the cable would be installed via a trench in the road, described in the officer report and that when crossing bridges, the intention was to drill under the water course to avoid impacting the river.

It was also noted that SSE, the local electricity provider, controlled the place where the cable site connection would be and that this was outside of the control of the applicant. In addition, he also confirmed that, if application were not approved, SSE would likely have permitted development rights to conduct the work themselves. Therefore, the planning officer emphasised to the committee that the application was an opportunity for the council to put further conditions on a scheme that may make the scheme more acceptable.

Overall, as the proposal would not cause permanent visual changes, and only cause temporary impacts via road closures, and that the application was policy compliant, the planning officer recommended the application be approved.

Simon Hale spoke objecting to the application. 

Nick Nixey, the landowner, and Alexander Miejimolle, the agent, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee discussed the permitted development rights for SSE and if they could do the work themselves if the application was refused. In response, the planning officer clarified that it was his view that it would be likely that SSE would meet the requirements to do the work under permitted development.

Members asked about the Local Plan and if there were policies about this type of work for cable engineering. In response, the planning officer informed members there was no specific policy on cable engineering but that he used other policies to inform it and that it had met those policies. 

Although members noted the potential disruption that would be caused by the application, overall, the committee noted that SSE would likely have permitted development rights for the works and that if it was done through a planning application, they could control certain elements of the scheme. In addition, they noted that once completed, the cables would be invisible.

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S2220/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development only if main arrays permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Extension and conversion of a dwellinghouse (class C3) to a 7-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).

The committee considered planning application P23/S1522/FUL for the extension and conversion of a dwellinghouse (class C3) to a 7-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis), on land at 60 Haydon 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 due to the objection of Didcot Town Council.

The Planning Officer informed the committee that work on the previously approved extension had commenced since the report and was published and that point 6.5 in the report should also include reference to the General Permitted Development Order. Under this Order, planning permission is not required for the change of use of a dwelling to an HMO for up to 6 people. 

The town council objection about overdevelopment and the lack of parking was discussed by the planning officer. On parking, she noted that there were two off street parking spaces provided, whereas similar applications would expect three spaces. However, the planning officer noted that there were mitigating factors for the application was the site was opposite Didcot Parkway Train Station and within walking distance of Didcot town centre, and that there were several car parks nearby. For these reasons, highways had no objection to the application. 

On overdevelopment, the planning officer assessed the amount of parking provision and amenity space provided. As there were no objections from highways and as the amenity space exceeded the recommendations in the Design Gide, and as the level of accommodation proposed was not unusual in that location, she did not consider the application to be overdevelopment.

The planning officer also informed members of the two recent appeal decisions that were allowed for HMOs, including one on Haydon Road.

Overall, for these reasons, and due to the lack of objections from technical consultees, the planning officer recommended that application be approved.

Jonathan McDermott, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

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

The committee asked if the application would be able to provide the proposed parking spaces, bin storage, and cycle parking at the front of the dwelling. In response, the planning officer confirmed the plans detailed these points and that she had discussed it with highways who also agreed that cycle parking, bins, and two required parking spaces could be provided.

On a question about the provision of two shower rooms for two bedrooms, the planning officer confirmed that applicant would need to apply for a license for the HMO and at that time the licensing team would assess the facilities and decide if more facilities would be needed.

Some members expressed concerns about the number of parking spaces provided for the future occupants, and that residents might try to park on the street. However, it was agreed that the location of the application being so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

New 3 bedroom house with associated parking (amended plan to reduce the height of the dwelling, alter car parking and drainage layout and show surrounding street scene elevations received 25 May 2023 and 27 June 2023).

Councillor Ben Manning declared an interest in item and left the meeting room during consideration of this application. 

The committee considered planning application P22/S4391/FUL for a new three bedroom house with associated parking (amended plan to reduce the height of the dwelling, alter car parking and drainage layout and show surrounding street scene elevations received 25 May 2023 and 27 June 2023), on land at 36 Greenmere, Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.  

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 Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council. The parish council’s objection was principally about the precedent it would set for building in back gardens as well as over the concerns around access.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site was in the built-up area of the village of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell for a three-bed dwelling which, in his opinion, would represent infill as it was closely surrounded by other dwellings and would fit in with the local character.

The proposed dwelling would front onto the road to the north and be 1.8 metres below the neighbouring dwellings to the north-west due to the site levels. The planning officer added that the proposal met the required distance between the windows of the dwelling and neighbouring properties as required in the Design Guide.

The planning officer also noted the concern of neighbours about harm to their amenity during the construction phase and clarified that a condition on times of works could be included on an approval of the application.

In addition, as the car parking proposed was policy compliant, highways had no objection subject to car parking compliance condition. A vehicle traffic plan was also provided, which highways considered and found to be acceptable as they believe the application would result in a modest increase in vehicle numbers that would be unlikely to adversely impact the highway.

Overall, as there was no objection from technical consultees, and on balance the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm, the planning officer recommend that the application be approved.

Councillor James Davys spoke on behalf of Brightwell-Cum-Sotwell Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Kelsey Proctor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Ben Manning, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked about the access to the proposed dwelling and about the concerns raised by neighbours. In response, the planning officer clarified that highways assessed the access in the redline application area, and the visibility and car manoeuvring out of the site, and they found it to be acceptable. He also informed the committee that highways noted that it was an existing access that would be used but that the speed cars would be going would be low and the addition of an addition dwelling would have limited impacts.

Overall, as members agreed that the site was an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

A temporary fixed period retention of the existing eight staff accommodation caravans in the same location within the hotel grounds. (As amplified by information received 18 May 2023).

During this agenda item, the meeting length had reached almost two and a half hours. In accordance with the council’s Constitution, the committee voted to extend the meeting in order to finish this item.

The committee considered planning application P23/S1067/FUL for a temporary fixed period retention of the existing eight staff accommodation caravans in the same location within the hotel grounds (as amplified by information received 18 May 2023), on land at Delta Tree by Hilton Oxford Belfry, 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 informed the committee that the report should be updated as the location of the site was the ‘Double Tree’ not ‘Delta Tree’.

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Tiddington Parish Council.

The site itself was located to the northwest of the hotel and currently had permission for four dwellings for staff of the hotel. This permission period for the dwellings was granted in 2015 and extended a further two times in which the last permission ended on 16 October 2022. The application sought retention of the caravans for another two years while a permanent solution could be brought forward.   

The planning officer also highlighted that since the last permission was granted, the Tiddington with Albury Neighbourhood Plan had been adopted which made specific reference to the hotel in the policy to retain and improve commercial business and services.

A pre-application submission was submitted for a permanent housing solution but the planning officer informed members that a full application was not yet submitted to the council. Therefore, for this reason, and as the economic benefit outweighed any potential harm from the caravans continuing to remain on site, the planning officer recommended that the application for a two year extension should be approved.

John Starkey, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Tim Bearder and Georgina Heritage, local ward councillors, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked about where the proposed permanent accommodation for staff would be in the site plan when the application was submitted and the planning officer confirmed it would be where the caravans were currently located, and so the caravans would need to be removed if the permanent accommodation was approved.

Members asked about the reasons the caravans were needed, and if the status of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union was a factor. In response, the planning officer noted that it was a factor as to why the hotel had struggled to attract staff and why housing was needed to encourage workers, but the planning team leader clarified that the reasons behind the hotel’s difficulty in recruiting staff was not materially relevant to the application.

Overall, as the committee believed that the two year permission would be sufficient time for the applicant to submit and build a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Change of use of paddock land to form hardstanding (retrospective) including siting of an additional 1 x mobile home for residential purposes and general alterations to the previously approved scheme P16/S2987/FUL and subsequent amendments P21/S3017/FUL.

As the meeting time had expired, the application was deferred to another meeting.