Agenda item

Full planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and open space (as amended by drawings and information received 1 March 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S4155/FUL for the full planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and open space (as amended by drawings and information received 1 March 2023), on land at H & C Pearce & Sons Ltd, Aylesbury Road, 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 planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Thame Town Council. The planning officer then informed the committee that the site was considered brownfield due to its past commercial use.

 

It was also noted that a previous application for a care home on the site was refused in 2022 for its unacceptable impact on the Thame Conservation Area and on the nearby listed buildings. In contrast, the planning officer informed members that the current application comprised a mixture of terraced, semi-detached, and detached dwellings which contained a policy compliant mix of affordable housing, and which would have a neutral impac on the conservation area and the listed buildings. The planning officer also highlighted that the access to the site would be from Aylesbury Road and was acceptable to the highway authority.

 

The planning officer then emphasised that, as the site was brownfield and in a sustainable location, the principle of development was supported by the Local Plan. Although the Local Plan protects employment land unless it is proven not to be viable, the planning officer was satisfied that the applicants had provided enough evidence to show the non-viability of the site to remain in employment use.

 

Although the proposal included a small open space onsite, and a small informal play area, it did not include all the open space required in the Local Plan and so the applicant had agreed to contribute funds for open spaces in other locations in Thame. This arrangement was considered acceptable by the planning officer.

 

The planning officer then covered the reason behind the Town Council’s objection, primarily their concern about amenity space for the affordable housing – plots 20 and 21. However, the planning officer believed that, as the plots were hard up against the site boundary and close to the shared amenity space, it was an acceptable comprise for the retention of the buildings and the importance this would have on the conservation area. It was also noted that all the plots met or exceeded the garden size requirements in the council’s design guide. The planning officer also noted some concerns about the potential for overlooking from plots 1 and 2 on neighbouring properties. Due to the reduction in the elevation to plot 1 and the proposed condition on plot 2 for obscure glazing, the planning officer was satisfied that the impact on the neighbouring amenity was acceptable.

 

Overall, as the application was supported by planning policy, would make a good contribution to the housing supply, would cause no unacceptable harm to the neighbouring amenity or the conservation area, and was acceptable in flood risk terms, the planning officer recommended the application be approved.

 

 

Councillor Helena Fickling spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application. 

 

Markham Hanson, the applicant, and Sophie Innes, the agent, spoke in support of the application. 

 

Councillors Pieter-Paul Barker and Kate Gregory, local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

 

 

The committee asked if there was a public footpath through the site, but the planning officer confirmed there was none and that the distance to walk around the site was not substantial. Members then inquired about the amount of open space provided in the application and if this could be increased. In response, the planning officer emphasised that the site was a brownfield site in a sustainable location and that the application was of a lower density than that required in the Local Plan. For these reasons, as well as the developer’s financial contribution, the planning officer believed there to be an acceptable balance between the delivering of units to the provision of open space. 

 

Members then raised some questions about the housing mix and expressed a desire to see more smaller, one and two bedroom dwellings than those provided, however, the committee ultimately accepted the officer’s assessment that the scheme met the market mix. Members also questioned the number of affordable housing units provided by the application but were also content with the council’s affordable housing teams assessment and their policy compliant recommendation for six affordable houses onsite and 0.85 dwellings offsite.

 

Overall, the committee were particularly satisfied to see the reuse of the brownfield site and although some members questioned the housing mix, they were ultimately satisfied with the officers’ comments that it did meet planning policy. Finally, as there were no objections from the conservation officer, the committee agreed that the application should be approved, subject to conditions.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chair of the Planning Committee, to grant the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

 

 

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chair of the Planning Committee, to grant planning application P22/S4155/FUL, subject to:

 

A) Completion of S106 a legal agreement to

i) secure the affordable housing and

ii) financial contributions and infrastructure as outlined in the report

 

B) The following conditions:

 

1. Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans *

 

Prior to commencement:

3. Levels (details required)

4. Sample materials required (all)

5. Cycle Parking Facilities

6. Archaeology Submission of Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)

7. Archaeology implementation

8. Tree Protection (Detailed)

9. Ecological compensation and enhancement measures

10. Construction Traffic Management (details required)

11. Construction Method Statement

12. Drainage scheme

13. Foul Drainage

14. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions (1)

15. Children’s Play Space

 

Prior to development above slab level:

16. Refuse & Recycling Storage (Details required)

17. Landscaping including hard surfaces and boundaries

18. Landscape Management Plan

 

Prior to occupation:

19. Parking & Manoeuvring Areas Retained

20. New vehicular access

21. Tree pits design

22. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) compliance report

23. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions (2)

24. Energy Statement Verification

25. Electric Vehicle Charging Points

 

Compliance:

26. Obscure glazing

27. Withdrawal of Permitted Development (Part 1 Class A) - no extensions etc

28. Hours of work

29. Ecological Impact Assessment

30. Unsuspected Contaminated Land Condition

31. Vision splay protection