Agenda item

The proposed works consist of a rear extension at first and second floor in line with the neighbouring properties to the north and south. The extension will redesign the existing flat, while also creating space for an additional residential flat. As part of these works the entrance to the residential properties would be moved to Duke Street. (As amended by plan to demonstrate cycle and bin storage and supported by Heritage Statement submitted 19 December 2022) (As amended by plans and documents submitted 01 March 2023 to better reveal heritage importance of building) (Further amended by plans 26 April 2023 to re-arrange internal layout to better retain historic fabric) (As amplified by additional information - noise report received 04 July 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S3105/FUL and associated listed building consent application P22/S3106/LB for the proposed works consisting of a rear extension at first and second floor in line with the neighbouring properties to the north and south. The extension will redesign the existing flat, while also creating space for an additional residential flat. As part of these works the entrance to the residential properties would be moved to Duke Street. (As amended by plan to demonstrate cycle and bin storage and supported by Heritage Statement submitted 19 December 2022) (As amended by plans and documents submitted 01 March 2023 to better reveal heritage importance of building) (Further amended by plans 2023-04-26 to rearrange internal layout to better retain historic fabric) (As amplified by additional information - noise report received 04 July 2023), on land at 6 Duke Street, Henley-on-Thames.  

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 sought permission for extensions and alterations to form one additional flat. The proposed extension was contained to the rear. The officer noted that the existing access was from the rear of the property but that this would be closed off and both flats would be accessed via a shared access from the front of the property on Duke Street.

The planning officer informed the committee that the main objections raised were in relation to concerns regarding the relationship of the proposed flat and the pub to the rear, over-development of the site, the lack of parking provision which was proposed and the means of disposing of waste and recycling.

The planning officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval with the addition of a condition for the provision of mechanical ventilation.

Deidre Wells (Redkite Development Consultancy) representing W H Brakspear and Sons, spoke objecting to the application. 

Claire Truman (Heritage Revival), the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting. The committee asked when the conditioned acoustic report would be required and if the developer would have time to install any additional measures prior to occupation of the flat. The planning officer confirmed that the acoustic glazing would be in place initially and the acoustic report would then need to be carried out prior to first occupation. The planning officer confirmed that the proposed glazing was sufficient in line with the submitted acoustic report. He noted that in making their assessment as to acceptable noise levels, environmental health were required to take into account the character of the area.

The committee went on to enquire as to why there was no allocated parking for the proposed flat and whether this was in line with the local highway authority’s policy. The committee noted that the Henley and Harpsden Joint Neighbourhood Plan required proposals to be in line with current Oxfordshire County Council standards. The planning officer confirmed that the relevant policy was a county wide plan and that the comments submitted by the local highway authority were consistent with this strategy. Henley-on-Thames was a sustainable location with good transport links and therefore the lack of parking provision was not considered to be a constraint.

The committee then asked if the proposed waste cupboards were of a sufficient size. The planning officer confirmed this had been considered by the waste team who were aware of the local area and the issues which could arise. He confirmed that the waste team was satisfied with the provisions which had been made. The committee went on to ask how practicable it was to require the prompt return of waste caddies. The planning officer confirmed that immediate return was not required recognising that residents would be out of the house at work, for instance.

The committee also asked if the use of carbon neutral construction materials would make the flat hotter and if the impact of the installation of mechanical ventilation had been considered. The planning officer advised that insulation would be required between the two flats and the commercial unit below but that the eco credentials of the proposal had not yet been presented. The planning officer then confirmed that they were satisfied that the mechanical ventilation would assist sufficiently with air circulation in the property.

Motions moved and seconded to approve the planning permission and listed building consent applications were carried on being put to the vote. 

The committee was concerned that the waste cupboards were not large enough to store residents waste and that the proposal meant more waste would be placed out on Duke Street for collection. The committee noted that when permission had been granted for another development in the area the waste collection was arranged from the rear of the property on Tuns Lane and this was therefore possible. The committee noted that due to the size of the proposed flat it was unlikely that there would be more than two occupants and therefore the waste storage would be sufficient.

The committee was concerned that the proposal was to build to the lowest possible standards whilst still being acceptable. It did however note that the proposal was in an urban area and the character was therefore different to suburban areas and that this character should be preserved. The committee also noted that there was a need for smaller, more affordable properties in the district.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S3105/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commence development within 3 years

2. Implement development in accordance with approved plans

3. Schedule of Materials to be agreed in writing

4. Glazing specification in accordance with acoustic report

5. Noise levels to be confirmed on site prior to first occupation

6. Mechanical ventilation

RESOLVED: to approve the listed building consent application P22/S3106/LB, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commence development within 3 years

2. Implement development in accordance with approved plans

3. Joinery Details for all windows and doors to be agreed in writing

4. Schedule of Materials to be agreed in writing