Agenda item

Extension and remodelling with associated landscaping.

The committee considered application P20/S4809/HH for an extension and remodelling with associated landscaping, at Mulberry Barn, Church Lane, Rotherfield Peppard.

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 sought planning permission for an extension and remodelling of the existing building.  The building had been previously ancillary to Slaters Farm but had since been granted planning permission to be converted into a separate, self-contained, dwelling house. No technical objections to the proposal had been received. In the view of the planning officers, the proposed development was not considered to represent any adverse impact upon the site or the surrounding area. It would conserve the appearance of his part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Conservation Area.  Additionally, the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours, would preserve landscape features and would not harm any protected species.  Subject to the recommended conditions, officers considered that planning permission should be granted.

Councillor Sue Rowland, a representative of Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

In response to a question regarding bats (which had been mentioned in the parish council’s representation and referenced in the planning officer’s report), Councillor Rowland responded that her council’s principal concern was that the increase in light caused by the development would be harmful to these animals.  In response to a question regarding the parish council’s concerns regarding traffic generation, Councillor Rowland clarified that in that council’s view, the proposal would create safety issues in Church Lane, opposite a primary school.

Ms. Sarah Flindall, a local resident of Church Lane, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent to the committee, prior to the meeting, Ms. Flindall’s statement.

Mr. Paul Davies, a local resident of Church Lane, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. David Colin, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The democratic services officer had sent to the committee, prior to the meeting, Mr. Colin’s statement

The democratic services officer had sent to the committee, prior to the meeting, a statement by Ms. Hilary Roberts, a local resident of Cowslip House (also known as Talbotts), a neighbouring property.

The democratic services officer had sent to the committee prior to the meeting a statement by Miriam Armstrong, a local resident of Little Acres, a neighbouring property.

The committee noted that the Oxfordshire County Council, the highway authority, had made an assessment regarding car parking needs in respect of the proposal, but had not submitted a highways safety report. It considered that a fully informed decision on the application could not be possible without this information. The committee was also concerned about the unclear information regarding the ridge height of the proposed development, owing to an apparent miscalculation by the developer.  Additionally, the committee noted concerns regarding overdevelopment in the conservation area and the area of outstanding natural beauty, potential overlooking and effect upon neighbours’ amenity. It considered that these concerns would warrant a site visit and therefore the committee agreed to defer consideration of the application.

A motion moved and seconded, to defer planning permission to enable a site visit to take place was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer planning permission for application P20/S4809/HH, to facilitate a site visit, to view the layout of the site and its relationship to neighbouring properties.