<AI1>
35.
Chair's announcements
The chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to an in-person
meeting which was being simultaneously broadcast.
</AI1>
<AI2>
36.
Apologies for absence
There were no
apologies for absence. However, Councillor Janet Shelley was unable
to attend the meeting in person and Councillor Eric Batts attended
in person as substitute. Councillor Shelley attended virtually as
local ward member and did not vote on any of the items.
</AI2>
<AI3>
37.
Minutes
RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held
Wednesday 29 September and Wednesday 20 October 2021 as a correct
record and agree that the chair signs them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
38.
Declarations of interest
There were no
declarations of interest.
</AI4>
<AI5>
39.
Urgent business
There was no
urgent business.
</AI5>
<AI6>
40.
Public participation
The committee
had received statements which had been made by the public in
respect of the application. These had been circulated to the
committee some days prior to the meeting.
</AI6>
<AI7>
41.
Care Home site, Centre West Phase, Kingsgrove
The committee considered application
P21/V2040/RM in respect of a Reserved Matters application for the
construction of a 72-bed care home (Use Class C2), with associated
access, parking, landscaping, plant and site infrastructure,
pursuant to outline planning permission P19/V1269/FUL. Details
submitted in
accordance with conditions 8, 17, 19, 20, 21,
23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34,
35, 37, 38, 43, 48 and 54. As amended by plans
and information received 29 September 2021, 28 October 2021 and 17
December 2021, at Care Home site, Centre West Phase,
Kingsgrove.
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 reminded the committee
that it had deferred consideration of this application on 7
December 2021 for a further revision of the proposal. The reasons
for deferral related to the layout of car parking spaces and
concerns regarding a lack of a continuous pedestrian pavement on
the external road outside the proposed development. Wantage
Town Council had objected on the grounds of pedestrian
safety. The amended plans now incorporated a continuous
footpath on the south side of the site, which necessitated the loss
of two parking spaces, which was acceptable to the council’s
officers. Wantage Town Council continued to object on the basis of
insufficient parking spaces and the need for a marked pedestrian
route.
Mr Andrew Ryley, the agent, spoke in support
of the application.
In response to a question regarding the
Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s objection on the
basis of the purported need for a financial contribution towards
the expansion of Wantage primary care networks, the planning
officer responded that this was not a material consideration for a
reserved matters application. Such issues would require resolution
at outline application stage.
The committee concluded that the amended
application was acceptable and that the application should be
permitted.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning
permission was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: that the Reserved Matters for
planning application P21/V2040/RM are approved, subject to the
following:
Condition:
1. Approved plans.
2. Travel Plan implementation.
Informative:
1. Details pursuant to conditions
8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33,
34, 35, 37, 38,
43, 47, 48 and 54 of outline planning permission
P19/V1269/FUL
are agreed for this phase through the approval of the
Reserved
Matters application.
2. The applicant is reminded of
the obligation of compliance with the
relevant
conditions on the outline application that apply to this phase
(e.g., CEMP
& LEMP implementation).
</AI7>
<AI8>
42.
Former Esso Research Centre, Abingdon Road, Milton Hill, OX13
6BD
The committee considered application
P21/V1171/FUL for the erection of 4no. commercial buildings for
purposes within Classes B2 and B8 together with access and
servicing arrangements, parking, landscaping, boundary treatment,
gatehouse building, public art installation and associated works.
(as per amendments received 30 November 2021 and Transport
Assessment Addendum received 10 January 2022 and additional and
amended information received 18 January 2022) at the former Esso
Research Centre, Abingdon Road, Milton Hill.
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
council’s conservation officer, senior countryside officer
and the Oxfordshire County Council’s principal transport
engineer were present at the meeting to answer any question from
the committee. The planning officer also reported an incorrect date
in paragraph 7.4; “Developer Contributions – Delivering
Infrastructure to Support Development (2017)”; which should
read “2021”.
The planning officer also reported that since
submission of the application in May 2021, there had been several
amendments submitted by the applicant to address technical issues
raised by the landscape officer, drainage engineer, environmental
protection officers, countryside officer, forestry officer,
conservation officer, urban design officer and Oxfordshire County
Council (OCC), the highways authority. These changes included
landscape, drainage, environmental protection, conservation and
tree issues. The latest amendments included a building extent
reduction (unit 1), removal of two units to provide for the
strengthening of a landscape buffer (units 3A, 3B), landscape
buffer strengthening along western unit façade, and building
extent reduction to avoid the root protection areas of two trees
(unit 5). The Oxfordshire County Council did not object to the
amended scheme. The conservation officer had withdrawn their
adverse comments on the basis of the revised scheme. Overall,
council officers considered that the proposal would not cause
unacceptable landscape, visual or arboricultural harm to result in
a conflict with policy CP44.
The planning officer also reported that there
was no Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Village.
With respect to the proposed conditions, the
planning officer reported that condition 12, Landscape Management
Plan, had originally been listed as a Pre-Commencement condition.
It was now proposed to have this as a Compliance condition. This
was acceptable to the committee. Additionally, officers considered
that the applicant should aim to attain the Building Research
Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of
Excellence and therefore a new condition dealing with this issue
would be added.
The planning officer provided the committee
with a slide presentation, giving an indicative three-dimensional
view of the units, which included the access roads. The
applicants had worked with the OCC in respect of the content of the
S.106 agreement. The committee were shown photo slides of the site,
its access points and highways and the proposed landscaping scheme.
The highways impact was acceptable, and officers had concluded that
the application would benefit the local economy.
The speaker on behalf of Milton Parish Council
was unable to address the committee but the parish council’s
statement had been submitted to the committee by the democratic
services officer prior to the meeting.
Councillor Sally Povolotsky, Oxfordshire
Councillor, spoke objecting to the application. Councillor
Povolotsky’s statement had been sent to the committee by the
democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Ms. Carole Hooper and Mr. John Seaton of
Rowstock Residents Association, spoke objecting to the application.
Statements by the Rowstock Residents’ Association had been
sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to
the meeting.
Mr. Stephen Morgan-Hyland of Milton Hill House
Hotel, spoke objecting to the application. A statement by Mr.
Stephen Morgan-Hyland had been sent to the committee by the
democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Mr. Richard Batham-Read, of Equation
Properties, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. A
statement by Equation Properties had been sent to the committee by
the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Mr. Tim Rainbird, the agent, spoke in support
of the application.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding the height of the proposed development, the agent stated
that 18m. high buildings already had permission and that tall
buildings were necessary to facilitate vertical racking
systems.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding delivery timings and noise mitigation, the agent replied
that 24-hour deliveries would be a feature of the operation. Also,
noise consultants had been commissioned to undertake a backyard
night-time survey. Substantial mitigation would result from
the operational management plan agreed with the environmental
health officer, entailing, inter alia, acoustic alternatives on key
boundaries.
Mr. David Frisby, by prior arrangement,
responding on behalf of the developer, answered a question from the
committee regarding roundabout traffic, stated that traffic surveys
had been undertaken in consultation with OCC and that the Rowstock
roundabout would be improved.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding the reasons for including both B2 and B8 use, Mr.
Rainbird replied that both use classes were important for the
success of the development and its commercial operation, and that
the two classifications maximised market attractiveness. Replying
to a question suggesting inadequate parking provision, Mr. Rainbird
replied that the OCC had agreed that the arrangements were fit for
purpose and that overflow space was now provided where unit 3 had
been removed from the final proposal. Generally speaking, B8
occupiers required fewer parking facilities.
The committee noted that the Operational Noise
Management Plan, included in a proposed condition, relied on the
co-operation of drivers and sought assurances as to its
enforceability. Mr. Rainbird replied that as a planning condition,
there would be an obligation in the site’s lease to comply
with the Plan. Legal controls would therefore bind the occupier to
the plan.
Councillor Janet Shelley, a local ward
councillor, spoke objecting to the application.
Councillor Matthew Barber, a local ward
councillor, spoke objecting to the application.
Providing clarification on queries regarding
noise generation, Mr. Alick Natton, environmental health officer,
reported that day and night movements of heavy goods vehicles were
compared against existing figures and fed into a noise model, with
impacts averaged over time. Mr. Ian Marshall stated that Rowstock
Residents Association had requested traffic measurements to only be
morning and evening movements, but that OCC were content with
traffic flows being measured over a 24-hour period. OCC employed a
robust methodology, used by all highways authorities.
In response to a question regarding public
transport, Mr. Marshall reported that to promote cycling and
walking, part of the highway mitigation works included a toucan
crossing and an upgrade of the existing northbound footway on the
A4130 (to a minimum 3m. width, to allow for a shared-use route for
cyclists and pedestrians), from the Packhorse Inn bus stops/byway
(299/13/30) up to the Steventon Lights Junction, without
compromising the A4130 running lane widths. Also, the OCC would
include improvements to the Rowstock roundabout to slow down
traffic at this location and that the authority had an option for
drawing down finance to fund improvements.
In response to a question from the committee
concerning alternative sites, the planning officer reported that
the market assessment made by the economic development unit and the
policy team was up to date and had taken into account all relevant
information.
Whilst acknowledging the work and details
which had gone into formulating and amending the application, the
committee had concerns in respect of scale, nature, overdevelopment
and visual harm. Noise and disturbance at night were also concerns,
as were apparently inadequate transport mitigation measures. The
absence of a completed S.106 legal agreement also did not provide
reassurance. In conclusion, the committee considered that the
proposal did not comply with Core Policy 28.
A motion moved and seconded, to refuse
planning permission was carried on being put to the vote
(Councillor Mike Pighills was unable to participate in the vote
owing to technical difficulties).
RESOLVED: that planning permission for
planning application P21/V1171/FUL is refused, for the following
reasons:
1.
The proposal represents an overdevelopment and would result in a
visually harmful development which is not sympathetic to the
semi-rural character of the
surrounding area by reason of the size, bulk, scale,
height and massing
of the proposed built form. On this basis the
development conflicts with the Core
Policies 28, 37 and 44 of the Vale of White
Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1;
2. Due to 24hr
operation of premises, the proposal would result in noise
and disturbance
late at night in the vicinity of the site to the detriment of
the neighbouring properties and business. The location
of the proposed
buildings and the nature of the proposed business operation (linked
to the Class B2/B8
uses), relative to nearby neighbouring properties and
businesses would be harmful to their amenity, contrary to Core
Policy 28 of the Vale of White Horse Local
Plan 2031 Part 1 and Development
Policies 23 and 25 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part
2; and Paragraphs 185 and 187
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The proposed
development fails to provide adequate transport mitigation
measures to ensure the development would not impact the highway
network and
highway safety and fails to deliver adequate sustainable
transport. Accordingly, the
proposed development would conflict with
Core Policies 33 and 35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031
Part 1 and Development Policies 16 and 17 of the Vale of
White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, as well as paragraphs
110, 111 and 112 of the National
Planning
Policy Framework (2021).
4.
In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement relating to
financial contributions towards traffic and air quality
impact mitigation, public
transport and
travel plan monitoring, the proposal would place increased
pressure on these facilities
and fail to provide the environmental and
social
services needed to support this development. This is considered
contrary to Core Policies 7,
33 and 35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and
Development Policies 16, 17 and 26 of the Vale of
White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2.
NB Reason 4 could be overcome by
entering into a section 106 agreement with Oxfordshire County
Council.
</AI8>
<AI9>
43.
Dulcina, Newmans Close, Upton, OX11 9JA Dulcina,
Newmans Close, Upton, OX11 9JA
The committee considered application
P21/V3077/HH for the partial demolition of existing dwelling.
Erection of new front and rear extensions. Conversion of existing
loft space into habitable accommodation. Refurbishment and
associated internal reconfiguration (parking arrangements and
fenestration detail clarified on plans submitted 28th and 31st
January 2022) at Dulcina, Newmans Close, Upton.
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 Mr. Edward
Church, the council’s ecologist, was present in case the
committee had any questions regarding great crested newts.
The planning officer reported that some
figures shown in the report required correction; the distance from
the southern boundary stated as “1.6m” in paragraphs
5.9 and 5.17 should read “1m. -1.4m”.
Although the cumulative extent of the
development would be significant, planning officers considered that
its juxtaposition to existing dwellings, the size of the plot and
relationship to other dwellings in the street scene, were all
acceptable. The bathroom window at the southern end of the
development would be obscure glazed and installed shut. The
distance between Dulcina and the nearest dwelling was not
considered to represent an unacceptable level of harm. The
committee was shown slides depicting demolition operations on the
site and views from the south of rear gardens.
The planning officer also reported on the
effect of the proposal upon protected animal species. A survey of
great crested newts indicated that these reptiles were sparsely
distributed and featured mainly in the north. This application
would not have an impact upon the newt population.
Dr. Derek Whitmell, a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application.
Mr. James Basey, the agent, spoke in support
of the application. In response to a question from the committee
regarding ridge height, Mr. Basey responded that the design
incorporated dormer windows.
A statement from Mr and Mrs Stimson, local
residents, had been sent to the committee by the democratic
services officer prior to the meeting.
Councillor Hayleigh Gascoigne, a local ward
councillor, spoke objecting to the application.
A statement by Councillor Sarah Medley, a
local ward councillor, had been sent to the committee by the chair
prior to the meeting.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning
permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission
for application P21/V3077/HH subject to the following
conditions:
Standard
1. Commencement of
development within three years
2. Approved Plans
list
Pre-commencement
3. Tree Protection
Details to be submitted
Compliance
4. Materials in
Accordance with Application Details
5. Obscured Glazing
(Opening Top Hung Casement Only)
6. Rooflights (Sill
Height No Lower Than 1.7m from finished floor level)
7. Car Parking area
to be implemented and kept free of obstruction to use
Informative
8. The Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
</AI9>
<AI10>
44.
Dunraven House, 32 London Street, Faringdon, SN7 7AA
Part way through the consideration of this
application, members took a vote just before the meeting guillotine
of 8:30pm to continue.
The committee considered application
P21/V3079/LB for the replacement of existing rotting wooden
slimline double-glazed windows on the first and second floors to
the rear of the property at Dunraven House, 32 London Street,
Faringdon.
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
building was a grade II listed dwelling in the Faringdon
Conservation Area. The committee concluded that the window
replacements would be sympathetic to the historic and architectural
interest of the building and complied fully with national and
council policies.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant listed
building consent was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant listed building
consent for application P21/V3079/LB subject to the following
conditions:
Standard
1.
Commencement within three years.
2.
Development in accordance with approved plans.
Compliance
3. Details
and materials in accordance with the application details.
The meeting closed at 9.40pm
</AI10>
