Agenda and draft 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 were received from Councillors Ken Arlett and Tim Bearder.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2024.

The minutes for the meeting on 11 November 2024 were not yet available.

RESOLVED: that the minutes from the previous meeting on 11 November 2024 be taken to the next meeting on 29 January 2025.

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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn.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

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.

Demolition of existing house and associated outbuildings and structures and redevelopment to provide two dwellings with associated access, hard and soft landscaping and other infrastructure (DLL certificate received 1 February 2024 and Plot 2 repositioned and redesigned, waste storage point added, updated landscape assessment and additional heritage assessment as shown on amended documents received 19 July 2024 and amended site plan to show Plot 1 bin presentation received 20th August 2024 and revised biodiversity metric received 8th October 2024).

The committee considered planning application P23/S4036/FUL:

Demolition of existing house and associated outbuildings and structures and redevelopment to provide two dwellings with associated access, hard and soft landscaping and other infrastructure (DLL certificate received 1 February 2024 and Plot 2 repositioned and redesigned, waste storage point added, updated landscape assessment and additional heritage assessment as shown on amended documents received 19 July 2024 and amended site plan to show Plot 1 bin presentation received 20th August 2024 and revised biodiversity metric received 8th October 2024).

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 present the report to members. This application sought full planning permission for the demolition of one dwelling and the erection of two dwellings.

This application followed a previous refusal of planning permission for the demolition of one dwelling and the erection of three dwellings on the site in 2023. It was a material planning consideration that this previous application was not refused due to a conflict with the council’s housing distribution strategy.

Officers considered that the proposed residential development would constitute development within the built-up area of Henley and was therefore supported by Local Plan Policy H1 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy H4, as discussed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 of the report.

As outlined in paragraphs 7.8 to 7.14 of the report, the council’s landscape officer considered that the current proposal had addressed the first reason for refusal of the previous application, such that it would conserve and enhance the setting of the nearby Chilterns National Landscape (CNL). This was based on the use of appropriate materials and planning conditions to secure a revised landscaping scheme and its long-term maintenance and low reflectivity glazing. The introduction and maintenance of significant tree planting would further the conservation and enhancement of the setting of the CNL over time. The council’s tree officer had no objection to the proposed tree protection measures.

The council’s conservation officer had raised no heritage objections to the loss of the existing building and no harm to the setting of the nearby listed building, as set out in paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 of the report. Officers considered that the design of the dwellings and garages would be appropriate to the character of Rotherfield Road.

Officers considered that the inter-relationship between the proposed dwellings and their closest neighbours would be acceptable in respect of light, outlook, and privacy, due to the level of separation and the current and proposed vegetated boundary conditions, and subject to planning conditions to secure privacy screens for balconies and obscure glazing for upper floor side-facing windows, as covered in paragraphs 7.18 to 7.20 of the report. The proposed outdoor amenity space would accord with the design guide recommended standards for dwellings of this size.

In the opinion of the Local Highway Authority, the proposed access and parking arrangements would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Demolition of existing residential property and construction of single self build dwelling.

The committee considered planning application P24/S3030/FUL:

Demolition of existing residential property and construction of single self-build dwelling.

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 presented the report. The site was located in a built-up residential area of Henley and fronted onto Walton Avenue, a private road lined by trees protected by a tree preservation order.

The site did not fall within any special areas of designation, but the rear boundary adjoined St Mark’s Road Conservation Area and a grade II listed church lay opposite the site.

The application proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and their replacement with a three-storey dwelling with a basement.

The proposed dwelling would be large, but its design, with distinct elements such as the smaller front and rear gable features, broke up the appearance of the mass, and officers considered it would not appear bulky.

The main part of the dwelling was sited so that it more closely reflected the building lines of adjacent neighbouring properties compared to the existing dwelling, which extended at great depth into the site.

The proposed dwelling would sit comfortably within the street. Its height would respect the stagger in property heights along the road, and gaps would be retained to the side boundaries and to neighbouring built form.

Officers considered the design and scale of the proposed dwelling would be proportionate to the plot. It would be in keeping with the character of the street, where there was great variety in the scale, design, and materials of properties, and it would not harm the setting of the conservation area or the listed church.

The proposed dwelling would have the greatest impact on the neighbour to the north-east, but officers did not consider this impact would be harmful. The proposal would result in built form closer to the boundary with an increased eaves height. The neighbouring bedroom window facing the proposed dwelling would be most affected, but the bedroom was served by a secondary window on the rear of the neighbouring property. The proposal would not, therefore, result in a harmful loss of light to the room, and the side wall of the proposed dwelling would be sited sufficiently far from the window so that it would not be overbearing or result in a loss of outlook.

Proposed windows had been carefully placed and positioned to avoid overlooking.

In summary, the proposal complied with the relevant development plan policies, and officers therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Councillor Tom Buckley spoke on behalf of Henley on Thames Town Council in objection to the application.

Alice Bromley, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Simon Mack, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members praised the thoughtful and sensible approach of the proposal, noting that the build form had been reduced in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Erection of 2 new build 1.5 height eaves detached dwellings with associated parking and access (layout and design revised and daylight/sunlight assessment as shown on amended and additional documents received 4th September 2024 and width of access reduced as shown on amended plan received 20th September 2024).

The committee considered planning application- P24/S1879/FUL:

Erection of 2 new build 1.5 height eaves detached dwellings with associated parking and access (layout and design revised and daylight/sunlight assessment as shown on amended and additional documents received 4th September 2024 and width of access reduced as shown on amended plan received 20th September 2024).

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.

This application sought full planning permission for the erection of two dwellings.

The planning officer highlight that the application followed a previous refusal of outline planning permission for the erection of three houses on the site in 2022. It was a material planning consideration that this previous application was not refused due to a conflict with the council’s housing distribution strategy.

Officers considered that the proposed residential development would constitute development within the built-up area of Chinnor by Local Plan Policy H1 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy CH H7, as discussed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 of the report.

As outlined in paragraphs 7.6 to 7.9 of the report, officers considered that the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the adjacent recreation area and existing residential area would be acceptable.

Officers noted that the proposed dwellings would achieve the recommended horizontal separation distances and a 25-degree line of sight from the centre of the closest ground floor rear windows, as set out in the Joint Design Guide. On this basis, officers considered that the inter-relationship between the proposed dwellings and their closest neighbours would be acceptable in respect of light, outlook, and privacy, as covered in paragraphs 7.10 to 7.12 of the report. The proposed outdoor amenity space would accord with the design guide recommended standards for dwellings of this size.

The Local Highway Authority was consulted on the current site plan and was also asked to comment on third-party concerns relating to fire engine access. Their response dated 26th September 2024 was omitted from the council’s website in error but has now been uploaded.

In the opinion of the Local Highway Authority, the retained fence line would not obstruct the required 2 metre x 2 metre pedestrian vision splay and the width of the entrance is 4.4 metres. The dotted gates shown on the plans are the existing ones to be removed. The access point would be suitable for fire appliance access and the current proposed access and parking arrangements would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety in compliance with Local Plan Policy TRANS5, as outlined in paragraphs 7.14 and 7.16 of the report.

Officers considered that the requirements of mandatory BNG and Local Plan Policy ENV2 would be met by the proposal, subject to the standard BNG condition, on-site biodiversity enhancements, and control over external lighting, as set out in paragraph 7.18 of the report.

Officers considered the provision of two, three-bedroom dwellings would contribute towards the identified district-wide need,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Demolition of existing stonewall and addition of new 5 bar gate to provide agricultural access to neighbouring fields. Realignment of the stone wall either side of the gate to provide the necessary vision splays for the new access. The wall to be rebuilt from material derived from the demolished existing stone wall (amended by drawing numbers 877- P01 G and 877-P03 A received on 22 October 2024).

The committee considered planning application P24/S2426/FUL:

Demolition of existing stonewall and addition of new 5 bar gate to provide agricultural access to neighbouring fields. Realignment of the stone wall either side of the gate to provide the necessary vision splays for the new access. The wall to be rebuilt from material derived from the demolished existing stone wall (amended by drawing numbers 877- P01 G and 877-P03 A received on 22 October 2024).

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 the application was before members because the Officer recommendation for approval conflicted with the views of Stanton St John Parish Council.

The application site comprised a section of stone wall located adjacent to Middle Road, in the village of Stanton St John. It fell within the Stanton St John Conservation Area and the Oxford Green Belt, with listed buildings, The Star Inn and Bassett House, in the vicinity.

Planning permission was sought for the demolition of a section of the stone wall to create a vehicular access to the field beyond, which would be served by a 5-bar gate. It would involve the rebuilding of the stone wall on either side of the gate to provide vision splays.

This was a resubmission of a lapsed permission that was granted in June 2020 for the same development. The access was required due to an existing access to the fields through the car park of the Star Inn, which would be lost due to planning permission being granted for the redevelopment of the public house site.

The highway liaison officer, after having undertaken a site visit, confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds, subject to conditions. They highlighted that the carriageway fronting the site was subject to a 20mph speed limit, was part of a one-way system, and there would be a level of setback and visibility appropriate given the levels of vehicular traffic and speeds along Middle Road.

The objection from the Parish Council was based on the request to add a condition restricting the tonnage and number of axles for vehicles that could use the new access. The Highway Authority stated that they had concerns that such a condition would not be enforceable. Officers agreed with their concerns about enforceability, and in conjunction with such a condition not appearing on the previously granted permission, it was not recommended.

In terms of the appearance of the works, whilst it would result in the loss of a section of historic, although not listed, wall, it was considered that it would not be inconsistent with the character of the area. The proposed five-bar gate would be in keeping with other agricultural accesses and preserve the rural character of the area. In addition, the rebuilt sections of wall would utilise the stone rubble resulting from the demolition.

There was a change required to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.