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 at an in-person meeting which was being simultaneously broadcast and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.

Apologies for absence were received from the chair, Councillor David Bretherton.

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

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2 March 2022 as a correct record and agree that the Chair sign these as such.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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 sent to the committee. Statements which had been submitted were sent to the committee prior to the meeting.

Erection of an employment building and associated multi-storey car park.

As amended and amplified by:

•         Written Scheme of Investigation and Archaeological Evaluation dated        June 2021

•         Archaeological Evaluation dated September 2021 and additional     ecological information submitted 7 September 2021

•         Amended by drawings and tree information received 5 November 2021

•         Additional Addendum Transport Assessment dated 24 November 2021

•         Revised parking provision and tree, drainage and ecological information received 28 February 2022

•         Addendum transport statement dated 31 March 2022 and Master Plan       January 2022 and construction traffic management plan received 4         April 2022

•         Amended Arboricultural Method Statement received 11 April 2022)

The committee considered application P21/S1257/FUL for the erection of an employment building and associated multi-storey car park. As amended and amplified by:

•         Written Scheme of Investigation and Archaeological Evaluation dated     June 2021.

•         Archaeological Evaluation dated September 2021 and additional      ecological information submitted 7 September 2021.

•         Amended by drawings and tree information received 5 November     2021.

•         Additional Addendum Transport Assessment dated 24 November     2021.

•         Revised parking provision and tree, drainage and ecological     information received 28 February 2022.

•         Addendum transport statement dated 31 March 2022 and Master Plan      January 2022 and construction traffic management plan received 4       April 2022.

•         Amended Arboricultural Method Statement received 11 April 2022) at          land west of Main Avenue, Culham Science Centre, Clifton Hampden.

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. A site visit, involving members of the committee, had taken place on Tuesday 26 April 2022.

The planning officer reported an error in the report at paragraph 6.6; the height of the multi storey garage was stated as being 17m. in height, whereas the sentence should correctly have read; “its subservient associated multi storey garage at 13 metres high”.

The planning officer reported that officers of Oxfordshire County Council’s (OCC) highways department were present virtually at the meeting, to answer any highways or transportation issues.  These officers were Mr. Michael Deadman, Ms. Judith Goodwin and Mr. James Sherwood.

The planning officer introduced the report by stating that the Culham Science Centre (CSC) was the home of the UK’s national fusion research programme which was a world renowned centre for fusion energy research and that this application would help to facilitate its ongoing work. The planning officer reported that after extensive discussions between the applicant, the agent, council officers and OCC, 61 car parking spaces had been removed from the proposed total of 292, giving a reduced final figure of 231 spaces, which accorded with current standards. The applicant had also supported the application with a copy of the Culham Science Centre masterplan, indicating the proposed growth and longer-term vision for the site in line with the requirements of Policy STRAT8 of the South Oxfordshire Local Pan (SOLP).

The planning officer also reported that in combination with the adjacent strategic allocation (set out in Policy STRAT9), the site would deliver at least a net increase in employment land of 7.3 hectares.  The policy intended to ensure that site would deliver a net increase in employment land, a net gain in biodiversity and it was confirmed that the site was now removed from the Oxford Green Belt. Council officers had concluded that the application also represented a net increase in biodiversity. The planning officer drew the committee’s attention to the detail contained in paragraphs 6.9 to 6.35, which gave a full assessment of the highways impact of the development.  Paragraph 6.34 provided information on the content and funding of a proposed S.106 agreement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

Reserved matters following outline permission (P18/S1553/O) for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The erection of eight dwellings (amended plans submitted 18th October 2021, with reductions in scale and multiple changes to the design of the dwellings, as clarified within the agent’s covering letter. Additional arboricultural report, ecological report and SuDS drainage scheme also received)

The committee considered planning application P21/S2684/RM, a reserved matters application, following outline permission (P18/S1553/O) for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The erection of eight dwellings (amended plans submitted 18th October 2021, with reductions in scale and multiple changes to the design of the dwellings, as clarified within the agent’s covering letter. Additional arboricultural report, ecological report and SuDS drainage scheme also received) at Manor Farm, Henton.

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 reported that the application did fall within a conservation area or the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). However, there was a strong rural character to the surrounding landscape. The application sought approval of reserved matters, namely appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The committee was provided with a slide presentation of the site’s existing buildings, with an indicative layout, as depicted at outline stage.

The planning officer reported that full discussions with the applicant had taken place to ensure that the proposals would be in line with the local built form and landscape. The amendments to the scheme had made a number of important changes which had addressed the key issues raised by officers. The development would be significantly closer to the type of traditional farm type layout which this scheme sought to incorporate having an agricultural aesthetic, taking cues from a range of vernacular barn buildings. The overall forms of the buildings had been simplified, a greater proportion of the development would be 1-1.5 storeys and there would be a more legible hierarchy of buildings within the site. The materials had also been changed, glazing had been reduced and the proposal would now largely use timber boarding, red multi bricks and flintwork.

The planning officer reported that the site’s access arrangements were acceptable to the Oxfordshire County Council, the highways authority. There was some visibility of the site form existing footpaths and there would be orchard planting near to the pond. There would be a mixture of native hedging and tree planting and the forestry team had requested the planting of larger tree species close to the boundary. Council officers had accepted that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that flood risk and surface water drainage matters had, or could be feasibly addressed without exacerbating flood risk to the site or within the locality.

In response to a query from the committee regarding the legitimacy of the dates of submission of the applications, the planning officer responded that, as a principle, once outline planning permission had been granted for an application, a reserved matters application must be made within three years of the consent. The senior planning officer confirmed that this was a valid submission.

Mr. Jack Spence, the agent, spoke in support of the application. A statement by Mr. Spence had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

In response to a question from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide five dwellings with associated works (amended plans to reduce height of dwellings, layout and design received 14 February 2022).

The committee considered planning application P21/S4995/FUL for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide five dwellings with associated works (amended plans to reduce height of dwellings, layout and design received 14 February 2022) at Upthorpe Farm, Moreton Road, Aston Tirrold.

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 reported that the application had been referred to the committee as a result of an objection received from Aston Tirrold Parish Council, which had raised concerns with respect to sustainability and a purported lack of infrastructure to support the development. The planning officer reported that the site was located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Aston Tirrold conservation area and neighbouring listed buildings were situated to the south-west. Amended plans had been received to meet officer concerns regarding the impact on the surrounding character of the rural area. The amended plans had reduced the height of the dwellings and altered the layout and the design of the development. The planning officer also reported that the proposal would follow the layout of the development to the east, with a traditional farmyard layout. The tallest dwelling would be 8.75m in height; although tall, the height of the dwellings would be less than the existing barn structures, which had a maximum height of 8.95m. The overall mass and scale of the buildings were in fact smaller than the existing structures on the site.

The planning officer explained that as the current application was within the AONB, the council should therefore be seeking 2 affordable units. The council’s affordable housing development team had been consulted and confirmed that an off-site financial contribution would be required for development of less than 10 homes within the AONB. For a site of 5 units, this would equate to 2 affordable homes. The commuted sum amount was calculated at £244,530. The committee queried the apparent modest size of the contribution. The planning officer responded that a consultancy had undertaken a viability study on behalf of the council, employing an approved and tested methodology, to reach the calculation. As a general rule, smaller villages, such as this, brought forward smaller sites, and a commuted sum was provided to give off site affordable housing provision. In this case, the applicant was not required to provide the actual value of the housing and the housing provider would obtain their own funding as well.

Councillor Jane Imbush, chair of Aston Tirrold and Aston Upthorpe Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  A statement by Aston Tirrold and Aston Upthorpe Parish Council had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting. In response to a question from the committee regarding the extent of services and facilities in the village, Councillor Imbush replied that there was no bus service except school buses, there was no post office, except for a limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Two-storey annexe extension (Amended plans received 12 January 2022 showing a reduction to the width and depth of the annexe and lowering the height of the roof ridge).

Councillor Ian Snowdon left the meeting prior to the consideration of this planning application and therefore did not participate in the debate or voting upon it.

The committee considered planning application P21/S3998/HH for a two-storey annexe extension (amended plans received 12 January 2022 showing a reduction to the width and depth of the annexe and lowering the height of the roof ridge) at 11 Coombe Hill Crescent, 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 committee discussed the subservient nature of the proposed annexe extension and noted that amended plans had been received which indicated a reduction to the width and depth of the annexe. This was a result of council officers’ concerns that the original proposal was not subservient to the main dwelling and its scale would have been harmful to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

Councillor Linda Emery, a representative of Thame Town Council, spoke, objecting to the application.  A statement by Councillor Emery had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Mr. Gerald Reilly, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The committee concluded that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the site, the surrounding area, or the amenity of neighbours and considered therefore that planning permission should be granted.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P21/S3998/HH subject to the following conditions:

1.   Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission

2.   Approved plans

3.   Materials as on plan

4.   Annex conversion to separate dwelling (informative)

5.   Neighbourhood Plan Policies (informative)

Subdivide existing 7-bed dwelling to form 1x 5-bed dwelling and 1x 2-bed dwelling utilising existing parking and vehicular access to Chazey Close; single-storey front extension and addition of new porch and access; associated works (as amended by plan received 04 March 2022 to alter access and parking arrangement).

Part way through the consideration of this application, members took a vote just before the meeting guillotine of 8:30pm to continue.

Councillor Tim Bearder left the meeting prior to the consideration of this planning application and therefore did not participate in the debate or voting upon it.

Councillor Alan Thompson left the meeting prior to the consideration of this planning application and therefore did not participate in the debate or voting upon it.

The committee considered planning application P21/S5334/FUL to subdivide an existing 7-bed dwelling to form 1x 5-bed dwelling and 1x 2-bed dwelling, utilising existing parking and vehicular access to Chazey Close; single-storey front extension and addition of new porch and access; associated works. (as amended by plan received 04 March 2022 to alter access and parking arrangement) at 3 Chazey Close, Chazey 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 reported that the application intended to sub-divide the existing dwelling into two dwellings.  The two-storey side aspect of the dwelling would be divided from the original dwelling to form a two-bedroom house and the original would become a five-bedroom property. The application also included a single storey front extension to the two-bed unit and a front porch on the five-bed unit

Councillor Jane Bowen, a representative of Mapledurham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. A statement from Councillor Bowen had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

Ms. Julianna Beecroft, a local resident (who was also speaking on behalf of local resident Mr. Frank O’Neill), spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Stephen Young, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Peter Dragonetti, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee noted paragraph 6.5 of the report and recalled that the housing and development policies within the council’s development plan sought to ensure that all new developments were of a design and size that were in keeping with the surroundings and did not harm the character of the area. Referring to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the committee considered that the application did not comply with the requirement to ensure that development was sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and the landscape setting. The committee was also of the view that the sub-division of the property was unneighbourly and out of keeping with the existing character of the street scene. It also considered that the proposed development would be cramped and represent overdevelopment.  The committee was not minded to grant planning permission.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P21/S5334/FUL for the following reasons;

1.    Adverse impact on established character and appearance of the neighbourhood.

2.    Sub division of the site is out of keeping with the plot width.

3.    Adverse impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.