Agenda and minutes

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

The vice-chairman took the chair for this meeting. He explained that the chairman was only able to attend for a short part of the meeting.

He gave housekeeping announcements, outlined the procedure and explained the remit of the committee. The business would be heard in the order presented on the speakers’ list. (The minutes reflect the order in which business was heard to provide a continuous narrative of the meeting, rather than the agenda order).

Councillor Janet Shelley had been appointed to the committee, and the vice-chairman welcomed her to the meeting.

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

None notified.

To receive an up date of housing figures relating to commitments for major housing schemes to address the council’s housing land shortfall.

The cumulative housing figures were received by the committee, members were asked to send any status updates they were aware of, in their areas, to the planning department.

To record the attendance of substitute members, if any, who have been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of standing order 17(1), with notification having been given to the proper officer before the start of the meeting and to receive apologies for absence.

Apologies and substitutions.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 24 April 2013 (circulated). The minutes of the meeting held on 8 May, will be bought to a later committee.

There were no minutes for ratification at this meeting.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, and other declarations, in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

Disclosable pecuniary interests.

Councillor Robert Sharp declared that he had a potential pecuniary interest in item 15 as the applicant is a business associate. He left the room for the duration of this item.

Other declarations

Any statements and/or petitions from members of the public under standing order 33, relating to planning applications, will be made or presented at the meeting.

None.

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

Peter Lewis, from Stanford in the Vale Parish Council, made a statement that the Western Vale had already delivered more than enough commitments to meet the Housing Targets outlined in the Draft Local Plan for the next 16 years.

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

Materials submitted will be on display either on site, or at the meeting, or both.

To include: Land south of Faringdon Road, Southmoor, Kingston Bagpuize

Planning permission P12/V1721/RM Land south of Faringdon Road, Southmoor.

·           Bricks: Ibstock Laybrook multi orange.

·           Stone: Bekstone golden buff artificial stone.

·           Tiles: Sandtoft 2020clay tile in Tuscan and SVK Glenstone artificial slate.

Planning permission P11/V1453/O land at Broadwater, Manor Road, Wantage.

·           Bricks: Desimpel orange soft mud stock and Desimple heritage soft mud stock.

·           Tiles: Eternit Marley plain concrete tile in natural red and Eternit mineral fibre artificial tile.

Materials on both sites fully approved with 12 (all) in favour.

Outline application for demolition of existing 13 dwellings. Erection of up to 120 dwellings with associated infrastructure, access, parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman, vice chairman and the local members, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.     Completion, within the agreed planning performance agreement period, of a section 106 agreement.

2.     Conditions including, the requirements for receipt of a reserved matters application or a detailed scheme within six months and that scheme to be available for the commencement of development within 12 months from the date of the issue of planning permission to help address the immediate housingland shortfall.

Further details of 1 and 2 above in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an outline application for demolition of existing 13 dwellings and erection of up to 120 dwellings with associated infrastructure. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

Two further letters had been received, referring to the historic merit of the existing buildings, not addressed in the report. The land had been laid out by gardeners from Kew, and No 1, had been the home of Sir John Cockcroft, the first commanding officer of RAF Harwell. However, the officer reported that the site was not subject to a national designation, as an historic site.

Nicky Brock (Kemp and Kemp), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Margaret Turner, one of the ward councillors, spoke about the application. The points she raised included the following:

·       No objection to the application in principle but wished to see s106 contributions in line with the letter drawn up by the parish council

·       Concerns about the water supply and waste water and whether it impacts on timescales.

·       Concerns about school capacity in Harwell.

The committee considered this application.

·       Committee asked for an informative reminding the applicant of the need to distribute social housing throughout the site.

·       If granted there would be a subsequent reserved matters application coming back to committee within six months.

·       The density would be 20 units per hectare not 31 as stated in paragraph 2.4.

·       It is not possible to relocate orchids.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman, vice chairman and the local members, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.    Completion within the agreed PPA period of a section 106 agreement for on-site affordable housing provision, contributions toward off-site facilities and services including highway works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, local and area hub recreational and community facility improvements; 

2.   The following conditions including, the requirements for receipt of a reserved matters application or a detailed scheme within six months and that scheme to be available for the commencement of development within 12 months from the date of the issue of planning permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall: 

i.          TL1 - Time limit (12 months).

ii.         MC2 – materials.

iii.       LS1 – landscape.

iv.       LS4 - tree protection details.

v.         RE6 - boundary walls and fences – including walls to open frontages.

vi.       Plot curtilage boundaries.

vii.     Ecology.

viii.    MC24 - drainage requirements.

ix.       Construction traffic management plan.

x.         Travel information packs

xi.       Access visibility.

xii.     Parking provision.

xiii.    Building height parameters.

xiv.    Refuse bin storage.

xv.      Roof top aerials.

xvi.    Maintenance of open space areas.

xvii.  Protect and maintain hedges during development operations.

xviii.Approve drawings.

3.  If the required section 106 agreements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

Erection of 25 dwellings with associated access roads, garages/ car ports and open space. (As clarified by Hydrock surface water pumping drainage strategy, Focus Ecology letter dated 12 April 2013, drawing no: P887/101B and Banners Gate letter dated 5 April 2013 accompanying agent’s email of 18 April 2013).

Recommendation: To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission subject to:

1.    A S106 agreement with both the County Council and DistrictCouncil in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing.

1.    Conditions, as outlined in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 25 dwellings with associated access roads, garages/car ports and open space.(As clarified by Hydrock surface water pumping drainage strategy, Focus Ecology letter dated 12 April 2013, Drawing No: P887/101B and Banners Gate letter dated 5 April 2013 accompanying agent's email of 18 April 2013 and Focus Ecology habitat survey accompanying agent’s email of 10 May 2013). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·       None.

Stewart Scott from East Hanney Parish Council spoke, objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       Recent flooding in the area and that this site is in flood zone 1.

David Blomley, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       Potential flood risk.

·       Sight lines on highways.

·       Local school almost at capacity.

·       Limited facilities in village make site unsustainable.

·       S106 monies should be directed towards school and shop.

·       Proposed development is not within the village envelope.

Andrew Boughton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       There was a proposed hybrid solution to drainage and flooding which, due to the low permeability of the ground, included a pump. The drainage measures would make the site sustainable.

The committee considered this application.

·       The highways and drainage consultees are content.

·       The conditions should be expanded to clarify the Grampian condition

·       There are fewer two bed properties that the 50% sited in the local plan, but it was explained by officers that this is an aspirational target.

·       Concerns were raised about the access point to the development.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission subject to:

1.  A S106 agreement with both the County Council and District Council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing.

2. Conditions as follows:

i.           Time limit - 1 year.

ii.          Approved plans.

iii.        Sample materials to be agreed.

iv.        Position and visibility splays to be agreed for pedestrian crossing and vehicular access.

v.         Access, Parking & Turning in accordance with plan.

vi.        New Estate Roads.

vii.       No Drainage to Highway.

viii.      Submission of Landscaping Scheme.

ix.        Implementation of Landscaping Scheme.

x.         Drainage Details (Surface and Foul) to be agreed.

xi.        Sustainable Drainage Scheme to be agreed.

xii.       Details of sewer connections to be agreed and implemented prior to first occupation.

xiii.      Boundary Details to be agreed.

xiv.     Refuse Storage to be agreed.

xv.       Ecology mitigation to be implemented as per report.

xvi.     Construction traffic management plan to be agreed.

xvii.    Slab levels to be agreed.

xviii.   Works in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment.

xix.     Crime prevention design measures to be agreed.

xx.       New dwellings to achieve Level 4 against Code for Sustainable Homes.

xxi.     Tree protection to be agreed.

3.  If the required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

Erection of 76 new residential dwellings (comprising 1,2,3 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings) with associated works. (Re-submission of application P12/V0275/FUL).

Recommendation: To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.     Completion, within the agreed planning performance agreement period, of section 106 agreements

2.    Conditions, outlined in the officer’s report, including the requirement for the commencement of development within 12 months from the date of the issue of planning permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall 

Councillor Robert Sharp entered the meeting.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 76 dwellings (comprising 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings) with associated works (re-submission of application P12/V2075/FUL). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The technical grounds on which an application on this site had previously been refused had now been overcome.

Stanford in the Vale is one of the larger settlements in the Vale of White Horse district.

Updates from the report

Seven further objections had raised issues about the accuracy of some of the information in the officer’s report.

The aboricultural officer had further commented: regretting the loss of an ash tree and other trees and raising issues on the management of existing vegetation.

Peter Lewis, from Stanford in the Vale Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       The site is unsuitable: a previous application had been turned down on this site.

·       Possible negative affect on the Horse and Jockey’s bed and breakfast business.

·       Contrary to localism and working with the parish council.

·       Outside the village envelope.

Amanda Bailey, on behalf of a group of Stanford residents and businesses, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·       Not a sustainable location, particularly in terms of education provision.

·       Outside the village envelope.

·       Inadequate drainage and sewerage provision.

·       Highways issues.

·       Negative impact on the environment.

Ken Djiksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Robert Sharp, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       The application site was outside the village envelope.

·       The density per hectare would be too high: likely to be between 29 and 30 dph if the wood is taken out of the equation.

·       The proposed access to and exit from the site was poorly sited next to the pub and was likely to have a detrimental effect on business, particularly as the puffin crossing would be likely to cause noise and pollution to the clientele in the pub garden.

·       Some of the “studies” in the proposed dwellings are bigger than typical third bedrooms, meaning that there are effectively fewer two bedroom properties than stated.

·       There is a potential flooding risk.

·       The quality of the design.

The committee considered this application and made the following points:

·       Outside the village envelope.

·       Lack of five year housing land supply does not always supersede making decisions based on the suitability/appropriateness of a development.

·       The housing density is too high.

·       The development would be on the wrong side of a major road.

·       The two bedroom houses with studies are really three bedroom houses.

·       Lack of affordable housing.

·       Concerns about the sustainability of the location: particularly public transport and primary schooling.

·       The A417 is a major road with heavy traffic; this development would turn into an internal village road which would be dangerous and detract from the rural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 285.

Change of use of a public house (class A4) to a residential dwelling (class C3).

Recommendation: To grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application to for a change of use of a public house (class A4) to a residential dwelling (class C3). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

None.

Andrew Guinn, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       Loss of local facility.

·       Contrary to local policies.

·       It will be three miles to the nearest pub.

James Bowden, a representative of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       The pub was not commercially viable as a business, despite significant investment being made.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       Other facilities in the area, such as the shop, post office and the other pub have closed.

·       There is additional housing which has been approved, or waiting for approval in the locality.

The committee considered this application.

·       An additional condition of soft landscaping to the front of the property should be added.

·       The committee were saddened by the closure of this pub.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 2; abstentions 2)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 – Time limit.

2.    List of approved plans.

3.    Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of any proposed external alterations to the building shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4.    Prior to the use or occupation of the new development, a parking area for 4 cars shall be constructed, surfaced and drained on the site in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parking area shall be constructed to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway. Thereafter, the area shall be kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use.

5.    Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, the site's internal and external boundaries shall be enclosed in accordance with a detailed scheme and programme of implementation which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall ensure that the approved boundary treatments are completed prior to the use or occupation of the new development.

Part refurbishment and part redevelopment of existing retail park to allow for phased implementation including revised access, car parking, landscaping and removal of existing petrol station.

Recommendation: To grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application for part refurbishment and part redevelopment of existing retail park to allow for phased implementation including revised access, car parking, landscaping and removal of existing petrol station. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

One further letter of objection has been received, reiterating concerns raised elsewhere.

There has been a minor amendment to the plans, but it does not change the total floor space.

Julia Hammett from North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke, objecting to the application.

The applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. Their speech included the following:

·       The petrol station is on a monthly licence. It is not a usual part of a retail park.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 13; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         TL1 – Time limit.

2.         Approved plans.

3.         MC2 – Materials.

4.         The units hereby permitted as shown on the approved plans shall not be used for the retail sale of food or drink without the prior grant of planning permission.

5.         At no time shall the site contain more than 10 retail units, of which none shall be smaller than 465 sq metres gross floor area.

6.         Any mezzanine floor space inserted in the units hereby permitted shall not exceed a cumulative gross total floor space of 5,135 sq metres.

7.         There shall be no open storage of goods or materials without the prior grant of planning permission.

8.         Landscaping scheme in accordance with specified plan.

9.         LS2 – Landscaping scheme (implementation).

10.       LS4 – Tree protection.

11.      HY6 – Access, parking and turning space in accordance with specified plans.

12.      Cycle parking in accordance with specified plans.

13.      The service yard hereby approved shall remain clear of obstruction and be available for servicing vehicle turning and manoeuvring at all times.

14.      The management of the car parking areas shall be permanently administered in accordance with the management plan (as detailed in the transport statement) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

15.      Prior to the commencement of development a Framework Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Framework Travel Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

16.      Prior to the commencement of development a detailed scheme for external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.  The approved lighting shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development or to each unit to which it relates.

17.      The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the approved drainage strategy and supplementary flood risk assessment rev A by PCS consulting engineers Ltd.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 287.

Erection of replacement dwelling, demolition of existing modern barn and reversion of existing sub-divided farmhouse to single dwelling.

Recommendation: To refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report.

Councillor Robert Sharp declared an interest and withdrew for this item.

The officer presented his report on an application to erect a replacement dwelling, demolish an existing modern barn and the reversion of an existing sub-divided farmhouse to single dwelling. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

Ken Djiksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Anthony Hayward, the ward councillor, spoke to the application.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 0; abstentions 3)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    New home in open countryside - The site is remote from any village boundary, and is also not “infill”, with no frontage to extend. The arguments surrounding a “replacement” dwelling are not considered to be accurate or reasonable. Considering, at the very least that demolition is taking place the new unit is several times the size of the one it “replaces”. Therefore the proposals constitute a new unit, and as such the intensification of residential development in this location is not considered acceptable, which is clearly “creep” in nature in open countryside. Contrary to local plan policies GS2, GS6 and H13 and the NPPF at paragraph 55.

2.    Not like-for-like - Policy GS6 iv) states that outside built-up areas, redevelopment of existing buildings will only be permitted where on a one-for-one basis. This is further qualified by the new dwelling being no more than 50% larger by volume than the dwelling it replaces. Although figures are not provided, by crude calculations, the new unit is several multiples larger than the unit it “replaces” (see reason 1). Therefore the proposals are not considered to accord with policy GS6 of the local plan.

3.    Does not add to a “mix” of homes – The large scale of the home proposed (404m2) will not add to “…the choice and mix of homes available…” in the area and no agricultural exception has been proposed. Policy H13’s subtext, (Para 8.58) a list of smaller settlements is provided, the nearest of which is over one mile from the site. Therefore, it is considered that no allowance for new dwellings is allowed and that the application is contrary to local plan policies GS6 and H13 and the NPPF at paragraph 50. 

4.    Sustainability – There are no local facilities whatsoever in the area, including educational, leisure, medical, retail and employment. The nearest large village is over four miles away meaning that prospective occupants would lead a highly unsustainable lifestyle. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the principles of the NPPF, which supports “sustainable development” at paragraph 197. 

Councillor Robert Sharp left the meeting.

Construction of two dwellings and the demolition of one agricultural barn on the land at Marfield, Kingston Lisle.

Recommendation: To refuse planning permission for the reasons detailed in the officer’s report.

The officer presented his report on an application to construction two dwellings and to demolish one agricultural barn on the land at Marfield, Kingston Lisle. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

None.

Terry Gashe, a supporter of the application and Nick Shipp, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Yvonne Constance, the ward councillor, spoke in favour of the application. The points she raised included the following:

·       The parish council are interested in growth and in bringing new families into the village.

The committee considered this application.

·       This was “ribbon development”

RESOLVED (for 6; against 2; abstentions 4)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    Outside of the main village boundary – the proposal site does not form part of the main village proper, and is also not “infill”, with no frontage to extend. Therefore the creep of ribbon development proposed is not considered acceptable in this location. Contrary to local plan policies H12 and H13 and the NPPF at paragraph 55.

2.    Not a mix of accessible homes – The large scale of the homes proposed will not add to the choice and mix of homes available in the area and no agricultural exception has been proposed. Policy H12 (at Para 8.57) makes allowance for “…small dwellings…not overly large….three bedrooms…”. This is not the case in this application, therefore it is contrary to local plan policies H12 and H13 and the NPPF at paragraph 50. 

3.    Not a sustainable location – Kingston Lisle has only a limited range of facilities and services available to prospective occupants, therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to local plan policy H13 (at para 8.58) the NPPF, which supports only sustainable development at paragraph 197.

To raise the stone boundary wall to a maximum of 730 mm.

Recommendation: To grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application to raise the stone boundary wall to a maximum of 730mm. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

None.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 6; against 2; abstentions 4)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit

2.    Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, all new work shall match the existing wall in all respects, including the type of stone, the coursing of the stone, the pointing and coping

3.    Approved plans