>
Pl.
35 Chair's announcements
The chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to an in-person
meeting which was also being broadcast.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.36
Apologies for absence
There were no
apologies for absence.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.37
Minutes
The minutes of
the previous meeting, held on Wednesday 21 April 2021, were agreed
to be a correct record of the meetings. It was agreed that the
chair sign them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.38
Declarations of interest
There were no
declarations of interest.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.39
Urgent business
There was no
urgent business.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.40
Public participation
The committee
had received statements which had been made by the public in
respect of the applications. These had been circulated to the
committee some days prior to the meeting.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.41
P21/V0430/FUL - Avon Road Car Park, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Harwell Campus
The committee
considered application P21/V0430/FUL for a Solar Photovoltaic
Carport System (as amplified by plans received 20 April 2021, and
additional supporting information (arboricultural impact, landscape
and visual impact, glint/glare report, lighting scheme, car port
visualisations) received 20 April 2021, and as amended by plans
showing updated layout and landscaping, and additional supporting
information (updated glint/glare report, lighting scheme, landscape
and visual impact report) received 17 June 2021 at the Avon Road
Car Park, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell
Campus.
Consultations,
representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning
history were detailed in the officer’s report and appendices,
which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning
officer reported that the proposal entailed 502 covered car park
spaces, generating 1.6 megawatts per annum (the equivalent of power
for 467 households). The
proposals involved the installation of metal framed structures over
existing car parking bays, onto which solar photovoltaic panels
would be attached. The development was designed to generate
electricity for use by the campus, with any additional generation
being exported to the national grid. The latest situation was that
the solar car park to the west of the site had been set further
back. The objection from the landscape officer had been withdrawn
and there were no technical objections to this
application.
With respect to
glint and glare issues, the planning officer reported that the
Glint and Glare Study had been completed, using approved
methodology. Existing fencing and planting had already reduced
glare, amounting to less than 60 minutes of glare for less than 3
months of the year, in respect of 32 properties on Severn Road,
Potteries Lane, Baths Road and Chilton Field Way. The amended
scheme had removed the proposed lighting columns and that the
lights would be below the roof line. Glint and glare would have a
minimal impact on amenity and was not sufficient to justify a
refusal of planning permission. The planning officer,
referring to the recommended conditions contained in the report,
reported that conditions 3 and 4, relating to landscaping and tree
planting, would be combined into a single ‘landscaping’
condition.
Mr. David
White, a local resident, spoke objecting to the
application.
Councillor
Chris Broad, a representative of Chilton Parish Council, spoke to
the application.
Councillor
Hayleigh Gascoigne, a local ward councillor, spoke to the
application.
A statement by
Mr. Andrew Softley, a local resident, had been sent to the
committee prior to the meeting by the democratic services
officer.
In response to
a question from the committee regarding detailed aspects of glint
and glare mitigation, the planning officer reported that these
issues were identified early in the planning application process
and further information had been requested from the applicants, who
had responded fully. Additional landscaping could not be required
from the developer, as strictly there was no amenity issue. The
planting of mature trees specifically could not be mandated by
officers. However, the developer’s goodwill had ensured
additional landscaping. Also in response to a question regarding
glint and glare and the possible the effect upon local residential
properties, the planning officer reported that the calculation
related to ‘habitable rooms’ on ground floors and that
first floors were not deemed to be affected over and above normally
experienced direct sunlight. On being asked about measures
contained within the glint and glare report, the planning officer
reported that fencing and planting was already in place.
Landscaping and the site plan had evolved over time and the
council’s planning officers considered the detail to be
satisfactory.
The committee
requested details about the effect of the development upon the
local highways network and the need for a traffic management plan.
The planning officer reported that these measures were not
considered to be necessary, as the development was well within the
site, and the delivery of any equipment in connection with the
development would not impact upon the highway
The senior
planning officer advised the committee that if it wished, a
condition could be added relating to the revised scheme, which
could include mature planting, in the interests of the character
and appearance of the area.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put
to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application
P21/V0430/FUL for the following reasons;
1.
Work to commence within three years.
2.
In accordance with approved plans.
3.
Implementation of landscaping scheme.
4.
Tree and planting replacement, in the event of any landscaping is
lost within five years of planting.
5.
Restriction on hours of lighting.
6.
Lighting columns to be removed prior to first use of the solar car
ports.
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.42
P21/V0140/FUL - Workshop and Premises, 2A 2-6 High Street,
Steventon
The committee
considered application P21/V0140/FUL for the redevelopment of
previously developed land involving change of use from Class E to
Class C3, demolition of light industrial buildings (No 2A) and
erection of replacement apartment building providing 7 no.
apartments with undercroft parking and cycle storage,
part-demolition of buildings (Nos 6 and 6A) fronting High Street,
to facilitate provision of parking and bin and cycle storage, with
retained floor area consolidated for commercial use Class E (as
amended by updated contamination report received 1 March 2021, and
as amended by plans omitting balcony to flat 4 and reconfiguring
parking received 6 April 2021, and as amplified by noise assessment
received 13 April 2021 and sun diagrams received 20 April 2021) at
workshop and premises, 2A and 2-6 High Street,
Steventon.
Consultations,
representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning
history were detailed in the officer’s report and appendices,
which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning
officer reported that the application site was classed as
brownfield land and was located centrally within Steventon.
The site was within the Steventon
Conservation Area and there were listed buildings within the
vicinity of the site. The courtyard was within Flood Zone 1,
and both access points fell within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The
adjoining High Street and The Causeway were in Zone 3. The
courtyard was to the rear of commercial buildings and the Co-Op on
the High Street, and behind dwellings on The Causeway. Two accesses
linked the site to these two main roads. The site comprised two vacant industrial
buildings set back within the site, and a restaurant and
café fronting onto the High Street, which were also vacant.
A barn and 2-storey printworks were also located within the
courtyard, but were outside the application area. The Co-Op car
park and delivery yard adjoined the southern edge of the site. The
western edge of the site faced onto open land and private gardens.
The planning officer also reported that Causeway site was now
boarded up and that the flats would be set back into the courtyard.
The warehouse overlooking the Co-Op car park would be demolished.
The roof heights in the proposed development were in line with
existing properties.
The planning
officer also reported that with respect to flood risks, the
council’s drainage engineer had approved the drainage scheme.
The Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), as highways authority, had no
concerns regarding access and egress issues at the site. OCC had
examined the accessibility of parking spaces, and its analysis had
demonstrated that use of the spaces would be safe. In response to
an element of Steventon Parish Council’s objection,
thatthe proposal would result
in the reduction in size of
commercial units and associated employment, the planning officer
also reported that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable
development within the existing built area of market towns, local
service centres and larger villages in accordance with Core Policy
1. The proposal also contributed positively to the housing needs of
the district and local area; the partial redevelopment of the site would bring
back into use land occupied by vacant buildings, and the delivery
of 7 apartments, in a sustainable location, which would contribute
to the district’s housing needs.
Councillor John
Rice, a representative of Steventon Parish Council, spoke objecting
to the application.
A statement
from Councillor Robert Green, on behalf of Steventon Parish
Council, had been sent to the committee prior to the meeting by the
democratic services officer.
Mr. Andre
Botha, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
A statement
from Mr. and Mrs. Colin and Wendy Greenaway, local residents, had
been sent to the committee prior to the meeting by the democratic
services officer.
In response to
a question from the committee regarding the final size of the plot
where a restaurant was presently situated, the planning officer
reported that the rear of the property had been reduced to
accommodate car parking, and in the scheme the reduced floorspace
plot would become available for a commercial Class E use for a
single unit.
In response to
a further question from the committee regarding the bin collection
service, the planning officer reported
that the arrangements were satisfactory; any bin lorry would remain
outside the site. OCC were satisfied with the arrangements. The
planning officer also reported in response to another query
regarding deliveries; it was confirmed that deliveries to the Co-Op
would not use the access to the flats but would use the Co-Op car
park alongside.
The committee
expressed a wish to safeguard the local community from excessive
workers’ vehicle movements during the development. The
planning officer advised the committee that two proposed
conditions, 3., “Demolition statement” and 4.,
“Construction Traffic Management Plan”, would deal with
these issues. There would be traffic management, a defined
construction area, a compound area and a stipulation regarding
hours of working.
The committee
considered that having heard the arguments for and against the
proposal and having been advised of the detailed proposals, they
should visit this complex site, and view its various elements and
envisage the buildings and access arrangements fully in
context.
A motion moved
and seconded, to defer planning permission was declared carried on
being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to defer consideration of the grant of planning
permission for application P21/V0140/FUL, to facilitate a site
visit.
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.43
P21/V1075/LB - Dunraven House, 32 London Street,
Faringdon P21/V1075/LB
- Dunraven House, 32 London Street, Faringdon
The committee considered application
P21/V1075/LB for the replacement of the existing impermeable
pointing, plaster and rendering with breathable lime mortar 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 and appendices, which formed part of the
agenda pack for the meeting.
It was noted that this application had been
referred to committee as the applicant was a ward member. The
senior planning officer reported that the application sought listed
building consent for internal and external works to replace
existing inappropriate materials, implemented by previous owners,
with more appropriate replacements, better suited to the historic
fabric of the listed building.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant listed
building consent was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant listed building
consent for application P21/V1075/LB subject to the following
reasons;
Standard Conditions:
1. Commencement within three years
2. Development completed in accordance with
the approved plans
Compliance Conditions
3. Details and materials in accordance with
the application
|
The meeting closed at 7.30 pm
|
