Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chair, and general housekeeping matters.

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Scott Houghton, who was substituted for Councillor Emily Smith, and Councillor Jill Rayner.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2024.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 19 June 2024 as a correct record and agree that the Chair sign these as such.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent. 

There was no urgent business.

To receive any statements from members of the public that have registered to speak on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting. 

The committee noted the list of the members of the public who had registered to speak at the meeting.

A reserved matters application (access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for 115 dwellings and associated infrastructure, pursuant to application reference P23/V0134/O.

(Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which is capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way.)

The committee considered application P24/V0261/RMfor a reserved matters application (access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for 115 dwellings and associated infrastructure, pursuant to application reference P23/V0134/O. (Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which is capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way.), on Land at Crab Hill, Land north of A417 and east of A338 Wantage.  

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 part of an allocated site in the local plan and that it came before the planning committee due to the objection of Wantage Town Council. The proposal was located to the centre of the allocated site, to the west of the existing primary school. The planning officer advised that the proposal comprised three parcels with a mix of apartments and dwellings. The proposal included 42 affordable units which were spread throughout the parcels in accordance with the site wide master plan and the proposed number was in line with housing delivery requirements.

The planning officer then gave an overview of the layouts of each of the three parcels. He advised that all units in parcel A would face outwards creating a courtyard parking arrangement and rear parking for all other units. This arrangement took account of the public space surrounding the parcel. The planning officer went on to give an overview of the features of parcel B and informed the committee that there would be a link from this parcel to Aldworth Avenue which would be delivered by the master developers for the site, St Modwen. The proposed parcel comprised a mixture of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The planning officer informed the committee there was a bus stop and a continuous cycle route located to the northern edge of the site. The planning officer then set out the features of parcel C of the proposal. This parcel also proposed a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings with units facing outwards and a parking court arrangement for the proposed apartments.

The planning officer then advised the committee that parcel B of the proposal was the one which had the most influence on residential amenity and privacy to existing residents in Charlton village. The planning officer identified that properties on Aldworth Avenue and Westfield Way were located closest to the proposal and showed the committee photos from a number of these properties. He then highlighted the section plan which had been included in the agenda pack and detailed the distances from existing properties to the proposal. The planning officer confirmed that officers were satisfied that the distances, levels and relationships between existing and new dwellings were acceptable.

The planning officer concluded by advising that the proposal was considered to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Variation of condition 8 (Drainage Details (Foul Water) (Full) in application P23/V1805/S73

Erection of 22 dwellings together with replacement garage for 10 Halls Close.

The committee considered planning application P23/V2847/S73 for the variation of condition 8 (Drainage Details (Foul Water) (Full) in application P23/V1805/S73 Erection of 22 dwellings together with replacement garage for 10 Halls Close, on Land at 10 Halls Close Drayton Abingdon, OX14 4LU.

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 to vary a condition on a previously approved application for 22 dwellings. He informed the committee that the application was before them following it’s call in by the local ward member, Councillor Andy Cooke. He went on to inform the committee that the application sought to vary condition 8 in relation to foul water drainage. The condition required that the foul water drainage serving the development was fully implemented on the site prior to occupation of any of the new buildings. The application sought to amend this condition to allow for a phased handover of dwellings on the site and to do so it was proposed that the first five dwellings would be moved to a gravity fed foul drainage system. The planning officer advised the committee that the condition as proposed would still require that the foul drainage system relating to properties was complete prior to their occupation, just not that the drainage for the whole site was complete prior to occupation.

The planning officer informed the committee that the drainage engineer had no objections to the revised proposal. He also confirmed that Thames Water had no comments to make on the revised proposal. On the basis of the lack of concern or objection from any of the technical drainage consultees officers were of the view there was no technical reason to refuse the application, therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions. The officer concluded by advising that the condition list had been revised to take account of the conditions which had already been discharged.

Councillor Andy Cooke, a local ward member, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee raised concerns that Thames Water had not raised no objections but instead had no comments to make on the application. The planning officer advised that this was a usual response from Thames Water on revised schemes where there was nothing further for them to assess. Thames Water had already accepted that the additional flow from the development into the system was acceptable. The application before the committee related to the onsite specifics of how the drainage would connect to the system as opposed to creating any additional flow beyond that already agreed.

The committee went on to enquire as to what the drainage engineer would have checked. The planning officer confirmed that they will have checked the technical aspects up to the connection with public sewer. The planning officer further confirmed that no work was anticipated on the part of Thames Water to accommodate the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Permission in principle for residential development of single-storey dwellings.

The committee considered planning application P24/V1017/PIP for Permission in Principle for residential development of single-storey dwellings, on Land at Townsend Road Shrivenham

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 in principle for a residential development of up to five dwellings on the western edge of Shrivenham. She went on to explain that where permission in principle is sought these applications are dealt with in two parts with the permission in principle considered first. If this is granted then a technical details consent application had to be submitted which considered the detail and technical matters. The planning officer advised the committee that the only matters which could be assessed as part of the application before them was if the principle of development was acceptable in the proposed location and if the application complied with the spatial strategy.

The planning officer informed the committee that a previous refusal on the site had been dismissed at appeal as it had been considered that the application site was beyond the built limits of Shrivenham. However, that application had been for a much larger site area. The application before the committee had a much reduced site area which was surrounded on three sides by existing built form.

The planning officer went on to note that whilst there were protected trees on the site this was not a constraint to development. She also advised that there were no drainage constraints which were an in principle issue with the site. The planning officer went on to confirm that infrastructure contributions through the Community Infrastructure Levy would be calculated at the technical details consent stage.

The planning officer clarified that no conditions could be added to a permission in principle but that a minimum and maximum number of dwellings on the site should be stated. In this instance the minimum was one and the maximum was five.

The planning officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Richard Bartle spoke on behalf of Shrivenham Parish Council, objecting to the application.

The committee asked the planning officer to clarify the inability to place conditions on the application beyond the maximum number of dwellings and what would happen if a technical details consent application came forward proposing more than five dwellings on the site. The planning officer confirmed that the role in setting the minimum and maximum number of dwellings was the best mechanism available to limit what could be built on the site. This number was based on a high level assessment and it was for the applicant to submit a technical details consent application with a layout that works within those parameters. The planning officer went on to advise if an application for more than five dwellings was submitted it would be possible to refuse the application as it went against the principle which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

To receive the appeals informtion report fom the head of planning.

Recommendation: to consider and note the appeals information report.

The committee received the appeals information report from the head of planning. The development manager highlighted that the report covered six appeal decisions of which four had been dismissed and two had been allowed. She noted that the quality of decision making was measured on a two year rolling basis and that the council was performing well within national targets for both major and minor applications.

Overall, the committee were happy with the council’s appeal performance and agreed to note the report.