Venue: Meeting Room 1, Abbey House, Abbey Close, Abingdon, OX14 3JE
Contact: Luci Ashbourne, Democratic Services Officer
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's announcements To receive any announcements from the chair and general housekeeping matters. Minutes: The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.
|
|
Apologies for absence To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Tim Bearder, Ali Gordon-Creed and Axel MacDonald |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2024 and 11 December 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2024 and 11 December 2024 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign these as such.
|
|
Declarations of interest 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. Minutes: Councillor David Bretherton declared that he would speak as ward member for item 10 on the agenda, P24/S3587/FUL. Councillor Bretherton confirmed that he would stand down from the committee and not participate in the debate or vote for this item.
|
|
Urgent business 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circumstances which have made the matters urgent and to receive any notification of any applications deferred or withdrawn. Minutes: There was no urgent business. |
|
Public participation 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. Minutes: The list showing members of the public who had registered to speak was tabled at the meeting. |
|
P24/S0673/FUL - Ivy Cottages, Dunsden Green, Dunsden, RG4 9QJ The construction of side and rear extensions to existing dwellings and the erection of two detached houses, together with parking and landscaping. (as amended by plans received 30 May 2024 to redesign the front elevations of plots 1 and 4 and by plans received 08 August 2024 to remove car port on plot 1 and as amplified by additional information received 06 September, 10 October 2024 and 6 December 2024 and amended by plans 18 November 2024 to revise red line) (As revised by plans/documents submitted 13 December to demonstrate bike stores and sample materials) Additional documents: Minutes: The committee considered planning application P24/S0673/FUL:
The construction of side and rear extensions to existing dwellings and the erection of two detached houses, together with parking and landscaping. (as amended by plans received 30 May 2024 to redesign the front elevations of plots 1 and 4 and by plans received 08 August 2024 to remove car port on plot 1 and as amplified by additional information received 06 September, 10 October 2024 and 6 December 2024 and amended by plans 18 November 2024 to revise red line) (As revised by plans/documents submitted 13 December to demonstrate bike stores and sample materials)
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 to members. The application was before the committee as the recommendation to grant planning permission conflicted with the views of Eye and Dunsden Parish Council. A site visit was conducted in October of the previous year and attended by councillors. However, the application was deferred to address land ownership matters, as the boundary line did not quite correlate with the land ownership of the neighbour.
The application sought planning permission to extend the two semi-detached properties on either side and to erect two new dwellings on either side of the existing properties. The principal matters of concern raised by the parish council and residents were the design and character of the proposed development, which they felt would be out of keeping with the village. Other technical concerns included highway safety, parking, loss of privacy, landscaping, drainage, and flooding.
It was the officers' view that the proposed development had been designed and altered to respond positively to the character and design of the nearby dwellings. The finishes and detailing of the principal facades had drawn from the local area while introducing a variation in styles. It was important to note that the site was not within a conservation area or the national landscape. The officers had taken account of the relevant policies within the development plan and were mindful of government guidance, which encourages appropriate means of innovation or change when it can be demonstrated that a development is sympathetic to the local character and environment. The plot sizes were proportionate to the local area, and the dwellings maintained a spacious relationship, were not disproportionately tall, and were finished with materials appropriate to the area. The development followed a linear pattern along Dunsden Way and would read comfortably within the village hall from the village green, not appearing as a cramped or overly domineering development.
In respect of all technical matters, these had been discussed in the report and no objections had been raised by the Council's specialist officers. The officers were satisfied that the development would be acceptable and, subject to the planning conditions, would adhere to the development plan.
It was recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions stated in the report.
John Goldsmith ... view the full minutes text for item 83. |
|
P24/S2236/FUL - Land at 60-68 Broadway, Didcot, OX11 8RJ Change of use from a vacant site to a hand-operated carwash lot with erection of a temporary timber frame office and car wash canopies. Additional documents: Minutes: The committee considered planning application P24/S2236/FUL:
Change of use from a vacant site to a hand-operated carwash lot with erection of a temporary timber frame office and car wash canopies.
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 to members. The application was referred to the committee following an objection from Didcot Town Council, which raised concerns about the proposed vehicle access, the loss of car parking spaces, and the poor design and quality of the development.
The site was situated to the north of Broadway, with the Orchard Centre to the northwest and an industrial area to the east. The Didcot conservation area and residential properties were located to the south. On-road parking bays were situated on either side of the vehicle access. Planning permission was sought for the change of use from a vacant site to a hand-operated car wash, with the erection of a temporary timber-framed office and car wash canopies to the north.
The development was intended to reflect the applicant's other car wash business located further up Broadway. The application followed a previous one that was refused under delegated powers due to highway safety concerns associated with the car sales area to the west of the site. Permission for car sales on the site was no longer sought. Highways officers had removed their initial objection, subject to a condition requiring the new access to be constructed prior to the development works taking place.
To improve access, nine on-road car parking spaces would be removed to assist visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Highways confirmed that there was sufficient car parking capacity in the area to accommodate the loss of these spaces, which would be replaced by double yellow lines. To prevent car sales from operating in the western area of the site in the future, an additional condition was recommended to control this.
It was confirmed that no objections had been received from specialist officers and was recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions stated in the report and the additional condition restricting car sales.
David Smith, transport planner on behalf of KMC transport spoke in support of the application.
Members raised questions regarding the temporary building. Officers explained that the condition and referral to the term "temporary" were highlighted in the report due to objections from neighbours and the Town Council about the impact of what they felt were poorly designed structures. The proposed structures, a shed and marquee, were generally seen as temporary buildings. To ensure they remained temporary, officers attached a condition for their removal after three years of business operation, which had been agreed with the developer.
A member asked if the change of use of the site had to stop after three years. Officers clarified that the change of use would be permanent, but the temporary structures would be removed after three years.
Members ... view the full minutes text for item 84. |
|
Erection of two 15m high floodlighting columns and installation of eight floodlight luminaires. Two fitted to the new columns, and two fitted to each of the existing two lighting columns. (As amplified by additional plan received 04 November 2024.) Additional documents: Minutes: The committee considered planning application P24/S3040/FUL:
Erection of two 15m high floodlighting columns and installation of eight floodlight luminaires. Two fitted to the new columns, and two fitted to each of the existing two lighting columns. (As amplified by additional plan received 04 November 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 presented the report to members. The application was referred to committee as the proposal involved the Council as the landowner and objections had been received on planning grounds.
The proposal included the erection of two 15-metre-high floodlighting columns and the installation of eight floodlight luminaires. The new columns and luminaires would be added to each of the existing lighting columns.
In summary, the two new lighting columns would be 15 metres tall, made of galvanised metal, wide at the base, narrow at the top, and identical to the ones already on site. The luminaires would include be offset at 35 degrees, directing light downwards onto the rugby pitch. The floodlights on each of the new and existing columns would operate between 18:00 and 21:00 on weekday evenings from mid-October through to March.
The site was not in a designated area of special interest. The pitch was bounded by mature trees, planting, and hedges, and included existing lighting facilities.
The officer provided illustrations showing the existing and proposed lighting columns, the layout of the pitches, and the surrounding areas. The lighting contours indicated that the light intensity decreased significantly towards the edges of the site. Representations were received from Wallingford Town Council, which recommended timing restrictions on the lighting. Additionally, 65 letters and emails of support were received from users of the sports centre and local residents.
It was recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions stated in the report.
Matt Bevis, a representative from Wallingford Rugby Club (the applicant) spoke in support of the application.
Richard Payne, a representative from Wallingford Rugby Club (the applicant) spoke in support of the application.
Andy Collins, a representative from Wallingford Rugby Club (the applicant) spoke in support of the application.
During the debate, members noted the significant support for the proposal, with 65 letters and emails in favour. They acknowledged that the concerns about light spill into neighbouring roads had been addressed, and the operating hours condition was deemed reasonable.
Members noted an objection related to dark skies but noted that this location was not designated as a dark sky area. Despite this, members highlighted the importance of the design in mitigating light spill and the conditions limiting the hours of operation to protect dark skies. The detailed report from the applicants showed where the lights would be placed, and there were no objections from the ecology officer or environmental health.
Members agreed that the proposal would benefit the rugby club, which had over 350 members who would be able to train during the winter months. They ... view the full minutes text for item 85. |
|
P24/S3587/FUL - 22 Cedar Crescent, Thame, OX9 2AU Demolition of an existing bungalow and replacement with a new self-build dwelling. Amplified by additional plan to show sections. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor David Bretherton declared a non-registerable interest in this item as he was the local ward member. Councillor Bretherton stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.
Vice-Chair Cllr Peter Dragonetti chaired this part of the meeting.
The committee considered planning application P24/S3587/FUL:
Demolition of an existing bungalow and replacement with a new self-build dwelling. Amplified by additional plan to show sections.
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 to members. The application was before the committee at the request of Councillor Bretherton, who had called in the application. The application sought planning permission to replace the existing property with a new, larger property. The principal matters of concern raised by locals related to the character and appearance of the proposal and its impact on neighbours. Other technical concerns included highway safety, parking, landscape, drainage, and flooding.
Officers viewed that the proposed development had been designed to retain the appearance of a modest property. The property lay adjacent to two-storey properties, and the proposed development would provide a natural transition between the bungalows along Cedar Crescent and the nearby two-storey properties, while retaining a bungalow appearance. There were nearby examples of other bungalows that had been altered and extended, demonstrating the Council's acceptance of variations in design and form within the same estate.
Concerns about the impact on the amenity of neighbours had been addressed in the report. It was noted that an additional planning condition could be imposed to require the roof window closest to the neighbouring property to be obscure glazed. Officers had considered the relevant policies within the development plan and were mindful of government guidance, which encourages innovation and change when the design is sympathetic to the overall character of the area and the environment.
In respect of all technical matters, these had been addressed in the report and had not met with any objections from the Council's specialist officers. Officers were satisfied that the development was acceptable and, subject to the planning conditions and the potential additional condition to obscure glaze the roof window, the proposal would adhere to the development plan.
It was recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions stated in the report.
David Wright spoke objecting to the application.
Lynn Palmer, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Ward Councillor David Bretherton spoke on the application.
Members inquired about parking, and it was confirmed that highways had approved the parking arrangements.
The condition to obscure the window was discussed, and it was agreed upon by the applicant, the neighbour, and the planning officer.
Members agreed that the plans were for an improved building that remained essentially a bungalow and was accessible for mobility. The near passive house design was celebrated.
Members expressed gratitude to the neighbour and ... view the full minutes text for item 86. |
|
To receive the appeals information report from the head of planning.
Recommendation: to consider and note the appeals information report Additional documents: Minutes: The committee received the appeals information report from the head of planning.
The committee agreed to note the report.
|