<AI1>
Pl.60
Chair's announcements and election of vice chair for the
meeting
Councillor Val
Shaw the Chair.
Under the
council’s constitution, the vice chair of the committee took
the chair in the absence of the chair, councillor Max
Thompson.
The committee
considered electing a vice chair of the meeting. A motion moved and
seconded, to elect councillor Ron Batstone
the vice chair of the meeting, was carried on being put to the
vote.
RESOLVED: that councillor Ron Batstone be elected the
vice chair of the meeting.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.61
Apologies for absence
Apologies for
absence were received from councillors Cheryl Briggs and Max
Thompson. Councillor Jerry Avery substituted for councillor Max
Thompson.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.62
Minutes
The minutes of
the meeting of the committee on Wednesday 2 June 2021 were agreed
to be the correct record of the meeting. It was agreed that the
chair sign them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.63
Declarations of interest
There were no
declarations of interest. Councillor Diana Lugova declared an
interest in the application for 16 Selwyn Crescent, Radley
(P21/V0484/HH) as a local ward councillor.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.63
Urgent business
There was no
urgent business.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.64
Public participation
The committee
noted the list of members of the public registered to speak at the
meeting. The committee had received, prior to the meeting, copies
of the statements which had been made.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.65
P21/V0140/FUL - Workshop and Premises 2A, 2-6 High Street,
Steventon, Abingdon
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 Abingdon.
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 this meeting.
Consideration of
this application had been deferred by the committee
on 7 July 2021 to
facilitate a site visit, which had taken place on Monday 26 July
2021. The planning officer reported that Mr Armid Akram of
Oxfordshire County Council highways department was present
virtually at the meeting to answer queries from the committee
regarding highways aspects of the development proposals.
The planning
officer reported that the application site was
classified as brownfield land and was located centrally within
Steventon. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had
changed since this application had been submitted and it had
strengthened such elements as design. The application still
complied with the NPPF standards. Officers had worked on highways
and parking aspects with the developer, particularly the fact that
the Causeway would remain usable for residents. Hedges would be
restricted to 1m. height to ensure good visibility. The
engineering building had existing screening, but further screening
would be required. There was a need for a demolition statement and
a construction traffic plan, which would be covered in the proposed
conditions. The three flats near to the Co-op building had been
designed to be set back from the roof edge, so as not to overlook.
Overall, the design of the proposal was acceptable. It was noted
that the developer had made reasonable efforts to safeguard
existing residents against noise nuisance; an acoustic report had
therefore been submitted to support the application. Subject
to the full implementation of the measures identified in the
acoustic report, officers considered that the development would be
safeguarded from undue noise and disturbance. This would be secured
by a proposed planning condition.
The planning
officer also reported that the courtyard was within flood zone 1,
and both access points were within flood zones 2 and 3. The
adjoining High Street and the Causeway were in zone 3. The access
to this site and connecting roads historically had flooded. In
response to this, the Flood Risk Assessment had demonstrated that a
low hazard access route existed between the site and areas outside
high-risk flood zones. By virtue of the residential
development being solely located in flood zone 1, and supporting
evidence demonstrating that the low hazard access route existed,
the development was considered to comply with national and local
flood risk policy.
The planning
officer referred to some objections on the grounds of the loss of
the hot food facility. The site was not protected as a strategic
site, though restaurants were classified as use class E, which
meant that a new facility at this location would not require
planning permission.
The planning officer concluded
that the principle of residential development through the re-use of
brownfield land was considered acceptable by planning
officers. The loss of any employment was
outweighed by the benefits brought about by the delivery of 7
apartments in a sustainable location, which would contribute
positively to the district’s housing need.
Councillor Robert
Green, a representative of Steventon Parish Council, spoke in
support of the application.
Mr. Andre Botha,
the agent, spoke in support of the application.
The committee
requested further information regarding safeguarding residents from
the noise and nuisance created by the demolition works. The agent
responded that the proposed conditions entailing a construction
management plan and a demolition statement would minimise
disturbance to neighbours.
In response to
concerns from the committee regarding the safety of any cladding
materials to be used in the development, the agent responded that
the details of the materials were yet to be finalised. Discussions
with the urban design officer had not, to date, revealed any
difficulties, and a proposed planning condition dealt with a
schedule of materials, including cladding. The planning officer
confirmed that proposed condition 9 dealt with such a
schedule.
The committee asked
Mr. Akram of the OCC about highways aspects of the proposed
development. He clarified that access to the development
would be via the High Street, with a link to the Causeway, which
would be a secondary access. In the view of the highway authority,
the access was more than adequate for the development’s
traffic. In terms of car parking provision, this equated to 1.4
spaces per unit, which was maximum provision. In response to a
question regarding car parking for business units, Mr Akram replied
that 3 spaces were adequate for the hot food takeaway
operation.
In response to a
question from the committee regarding minimising works’
nuisance to residents, the planning
officer reported that there was an intention to have a site
compound for demolition and construction works. Concerning a
specific query from the committee regarding the prevention of mud
on the road, the planning officer responded
that the proposed management plan would deal with that
issue.
The committee
concluded that the proposed development of residential development
through the re-use of brownfield land was to be supported, as it
provided much-needed residential units for the district and that
therefore planning permission should be granted.
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/V0140/FUL subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Work to commence within three years.
2.
Approved plans.
3.
Demolition statement.
4.
Construction Traffic Management Plan.
5.
If contamination found, development to cease until remediation is
complete.
6.
Detailed sustainable drainage scheme.
7.
Foul water drainage.
8.
Flood evacuation and management plan.
9.
Schedule of materials.
10.
Hard and soft landscaping details.
11.
Mitigation in accordance with acoustic report.
12.
Implementation of parking and cycle provision.
13.
Boundary Treatment.
14.
Screening to western edge of the balcony of flat 3.
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.66
P14/V2873/O - Land to the west of Great
Western Park (Valley Park) Didcot (in the parishes of Harwell and
Milton)
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 P14/V2873/O for outline planning application
for a residential development of up to 4,254 dwellings, mixed-use
local centres, primary schools, sports pitches, community and
leisure facilities, special needs school, open space and extensive
green infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping, attenuation areas,
diversions to public rights of way, pedestrian and vehicular access
and associated works (as amended by drawings and information
accompanying letter from Agent dated 10 March 2016, 21 August 2019,
24 January 2020, 30 March 2020, 20 May 2020, 14 December 2020, 6
May 2021 and 15 June 2021) on land to the West of Great Western
Park (Valley Park) Didcot (in the parishes of Harwell and
Milton).
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 this meeting.
The planning
officer reported that Mr Jason Sherwood of the Oxfordshire County
Council (OCC) was present virtually to answer questions from the
committee in respect of highways issues. The planning officer
reported that since the publication of the agenda two letters of
objection had been received from local residents, one related to
the loss of mature trees and the other stating flood risk,
landscaping and biodiversity concerns. The latest position was that
the developer intended to remove 37 of 228 trees and 16% of the
hedgerows. The developer was under a duty to enhance biodiversity
on the site. Since the committee last considered the report, the
NPPF had been amended, but the changes did not affect the
recommendations to the committee.
The planning
officer reported that the application was last reported to planning
committee on 16 February 2021. The committee had resolved to defer
consideration for the following reasons, allow work to review the
proposed 5-arm roundabout design and investigate options for
details of any pre-designs of the roundabout envisaged by the
applicants and providing either a bridge or an open underpass to
provide direct cycle and pedestrian access across the
roundabout. Deferral also intended to allow the applicants to
commit to providing the £200,000 biodiversity contribution
prior to the development commencing. This had now been agreed by
the applicant. Also, planning officers were asked to engage with
the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (OCCG) to obtain their
opinion on the impacts of the proposal for healthcare provision.
The committee expressed a preference for contributions for improved
healthcare facilities to be secured through the s106 agreement. It
was noted that Andrea Warren was listed as a speaker at the meeting
and would provide the OCCG’s position on the application,
through her representation of a number of local health
centres.
The planning officer reported on the situation
regarding the proposed 5-arm roundabout, upon which SUSTRANS had
been consulted. OCC highways engineers would normally wish to avoid
a 5-arm roundabout, in preference for a 4-arm one. A 5-arm
roundabout at the proposed site would have an irregular slope,
increasing the number of conflict points and possibly leading to
uncertainty for road users. Mr Michael Deadman of the OCC highways
department, who was a virtual attendee, reported that a
‘green wave’ solution for traffic lights with sensors,
giving priority to cyclists, had been considered. The OCC was
satisfied with this technology being introduced and a s106 legal
agreement or s278 legal agreement could secure it, together with
financial contributions towards providing the technology and its
maintenance. Mr. Deadman also reported that as an ideal, a
roundabout should be circular and of a constant width, and a 5-arm
roundabout would not have such features, potentially leading to an
increase in accidents. The planning officer advised the committee
that full details of the amended roundabout designs and technical reports
were included in the report at paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 and
appendices 3 to 6 inclusive.
The OCC had advised that a bridge would be a
safer option compared to an underpass but that its design and
delivery would be difficult to achieve, due to the physical site
constraints involved and would not meet the needs of all the
highway users, particularly equestrians and mobility impaired users. However, OCC had
concluded that a bridge option would not be recommended. An open
underpass was considered to be a potential solution, subject to the
design of the roundabout. A ‘Dutch style’ roundabout
that prioritised cyclists was also considered to be unsuitable
because of potential confusion to road users, especially cyclists,
regarding priority and visibility.
Councillor Neil Paterson, a representative of
Harwell Parish Council, spoke objecting to the
application.
County Councillor Sally Povolotsky, speaking in
her capacity as a county councillor for Harwell, spoke objecting to
the application.
Mr. George Bushell, a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application.
Ms. Andrea Warren, a representative of Oak Tree
Health Centre, Didcot Health Centre and Woodlands Medical Centre,
spoke in support of the application.
Ms. Sophia Thorpe, the agent, spoke in support
of the application. In response to a question from the committee
concerning the content of the amended proposal, Ms. Thorpe
confirmed a number of the features, namely that 35% of the homes
would be ‘affordable’, there would be a facility for
extra care, two schools and land for a special needs school,
football and sports pitches and a new surgery. Cow Lane would be
subject to improvements for cyclists. The planning officer reported
that Cow Lane through Valley Park was already earmarked for
improvement. In addition, the applicants had committed
£50,000 for improvements to the surface of Cow Lane from
Townsend in Harwell to the A34 overbridge. This was agreed by OCC
and could be secured through the s106 agreement.
Mr. Andy Birch, the applicant, and present to
answer technical questions with Ms. Thorpe, responded to a question
from the committee regarding the length of build time; this would
be a 20-year build, with 250 to 350 dwellings being built per
annum. In response to a question in respect of promoting zero
carbon homes, Mr. Birch advised the committee that the
developer’s sustainability statement incorporated an
intention to install carbon-friendly heating systems ahead of
national requirements, including heat pumps and energy-saving gas
boilers (further details were provided in Appendix 6 to the report,
‘Valley Park - Zero Carbon Notes’).
In response to a concern expressed by the
committee in respect of tree loss, Ms. Thorpe responded that some
hedgerow and trees would be lost owing to disease, but that new
infrastructure planting would involve substantial planting of trees
and hedging, with a high proportion of open space. This would
result in an overall net increase of biodiversity. In response to a
request from the committee regarding the installation of electric
vehicle (EV) points, Ms. Thorpe advised the committee that
technology in this field was rapidly changing and that any evolving
policy requirement would be dealt with at the reserved matters
stage.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding the maximum number of dwellings which could be achieved
on the site, the planning officer reported that the NPPF stated a
need to boost housing on acceptable sites and thus, theoretically
more than the 4,254 dwellings quoted in the report could be
possible.
Councillor Andy Cooke, a
local ward councillor, spoke to the application.
Councillor Hayleigh
Gascoigne, a local ward councillor, spoke to the
application.
Councillor Sarah Medley, a local ward
councillor, spoke to the application.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding the funding of OCCG facilities, the planning officer
advised the committee that the council held s106 funding, which
would be released upon application and that the council would
ensure that this expenditure would benefit the Harwell and Didcot
areas.
In response to a question from the committee
regarding the retention of mature trees, the planning officer
responded that proposed planning conditions included
pre-commencement conditions 14 and 15, which dealt respectively
with tree protection and landscaping. The developers would be
required to provide a tree report to the council, detailing the
trees to be retained or removed.
The committee
noted the table shown under paragraph 5.30 of the report, which
listed financial contributions and the ‘triggers’ for
the release of monies, dependent upon the number of occupied
dwellings, or payment of a prior contribution. A question was asked
about bringing forward to earlier dates some of the payments. The
senior planning officer reported that many of the payments were
linked to mitigation through s.106 expenditure. He offered to
discuss the timings with the chair of the committee. The committee
expressed a particular wish to accelerate the expenditure on OCCG
projects.
The committee considered that the proposal was
necessary for improving housing provision in the district and
should be supported. The committee were of the view that the
permission should make particular reference to the Cow Lane
proposed improvements, OCCG expenditure and the necessity to review
the payment ‘triggers’.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning
permission was declared carried on being put to the
vote.
RESOLVED: to grant outline planning permission for
application P14/V2873/O subject to the delegation to the head of
planning in 1.and following conditions in 2. :
1. Completion of S106 agreements between this
council, Oxfordshire County Council, the applicants and land owners
to secure affordable housing, housing for care, schools and public
open space on site, on site infrastructure including roads, local
centres, allotments, play areas, fitness facilities, sports
pitches, sports pavilions and a community building, and financial
contributions towards new and existing infrastructure improvements,
including towards schools, public transport, off site road and road
junctions provision and improvements, cycleway and footpath
improvements, sports, and health centre provision;
2. Conditions as summarised below:
1.
Time limit for commencement – the later of 3-years from date
of this permission and or 2 years from approval of the first
reserved matters application
2.
Time limit for submission of first reserved matters – within
2-years of the date of this permission
3.
Time limit for submission of remaining reserved matters (14 years
from date of the planning permission)
4.
Approved plans and documents
5.
Number of residential dwellings (up to 4,254) and market housing
mix to accord with the 2014 Strategic Housing Market
Assessment
Pre-Commencement Conditions (note these
conditions will allow access and associated infrastructure works to
take place before required details are submitted and
agreed)
6.
Agreement of a Housing Delivery Document for whole site
7.
Submission of reserved matters before each phase –
appearance, access (where not included as part of this
application), landscaping, layout and scale)
8.
Development briefs for the local centres, recreation and community
buildings
9.
Agreement of a site-wide Strategic Design Code which will follow
the general principles of the submitted design and access statement
and the parameter plans. The strategic design code
shall:
-
Set out the principles of good design
-
Include site wide strategies and design principles for the built
environment, landscaping, housing, local centre, permanent sport
and recreation buildings, parking and the movement network, cross
sections and perspectives of key streets, buildings and open
spaces, building materials, boundary and public realm treatments,
cycle and pedestrian movement and cycle parking;
-
Identify the Framework Plan Areas
10.
Agreement of Framework Plans for each sub area of the development
to include:
a)
Permeability and road hierarchy (including location of key primary
and secondary roads);
b)
Public transport accessibility (including bus routes and bus stop
locations);
c)
Location of residential built development;
d)
Location of community infrastructure (details of which are to be
provided in Development Briefs in accordance with Condition
8);
e)
Guidance on scale, building heights/lines/layout and
features;
f)
Integration of foul water pumping station(s), electricity sub
stations and telecommunication cabinets.
11.
Agreement of a site wide phasing plan
12.
Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) for each phase
or sub-phase
13.
Landscape management and maintenance plan submitted concurrently
with details of landscape works under proposed condition
15
14. Tree
protection scheme before each phase/sub-phase
15. Hard and
soft landscaping scheme before each phase/sub-phase and what it
should contain
Concurrent with Each Reserved Matters
Application
16.
Submission of Noise Impact Assessment and mitigation measures for
non-residential areas concurrent with Reserved Matters for each
phase/sub-phase
17.
Submission of noise mitigation for all dwellings sensitive to noise
concurrent with Reserved Matters for each
phase/sub-phase
18.
Biodiversity Enhancement Plan
19.
Submission of Landscape Ecology Management Plan (LEMP)
20.
Archaeology – staged program of mitigation in accordance with
approved Written Scheme of Investigation
21.
Contaminated Land – intrusive investigation
22. Details
of all lighting before each phase/sub-phase in the south of the
site
23.
Submission of a foul drainage strategy for on/off site
works
24. Surface
Water Drainage Scheme before each phase/sub-phase in line with
Flood Risk Assessment
25.
Biodiversity/watercourse buffer zones
26.
Ecological Construction Management Plan
27.
Watercourse crossing details required
28.
Submission of a Community Employment Plan (CEP)
Prior to occupation/ use conditions
29. Hours of
operation for non-residential development (excluding schools) to be
agreed
30. No
non-residential unit to be occupied until footpaths/roads linking
to the existing highway have been constructed in accordance with
approved details for that phase or sub-phase.
31. No
residential unit to be occupied until footpaths/roads linking to
the existing highway have been constructed in accordance with
approved details for that phase or sub-phase.
32.
Submission of Framework Travel Plan
33.
Submission of non-residential travel plans
34. No
occupation of last dwelling in phase until all connecting roads,
footway and cycleways serving that phase to an adjoining phase are
complete.
Post Occupancy Monitoring, Management and Other
Conditions
35. Except
for access and associated infrastructure no development in flood
zones 2 or 3
36. Green
buffer – no built development in areas north and south of
B4493 as shown on submitted plan
37. Time
periods for construction 0700 hours to 1800 hours Mondays to
Fridays, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays. No working at all
on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays
38.
Replacement landscaping if damaged/destroyed within 5 years
following its completion within phase/subphase
39.
Dwelling space standards in accordance with policy DP2 of the
LPP2
Informatives
1.
Broadband provision
2.
Land drainage consent needed for any works to watercourses or
ditches
3.
A separate agreement under s278 of the Highways Act is needed from
OCC for vehicular access, new footway links, bus infrastructure,
carriageway widening, right hand turn lane
4.
It is an offence under S151 of the Highways Act 1980 for vehicles
leaving the development site to carry mud onto the public
highway
5.
No vehicles associated with the building operations on the
development site shall be parked on the public highway, so as to
cause an obstruction. Any such obstruction is an offence under S137
of the Highways Act 1980
6.
Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure
of 10m head (approx. 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at
the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should
take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed
development.
7.
Interference with a water main may be an offence under s174 of the
Water Industry Act 1991. Any work that may require diversion of a
water main, works within 5m of a strategic water main or piling
within 15m of a water main could need the approval of Thames
Water.
8.
Planning Obligation
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.67
P21/V0484/HH - 16 Selwyn Crescent, Radley
Consideration
of this application was deferred to the next meeting of the
planning committee, to be held on 18 August 2021, owing to a lack
of time, following the decision of the committee to close the
meeting, which had reached the constitution’s two and a half
hour time limit.
|
The meeting closed at 8.45 pm
|
