Agenda and minutes

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

The chairman welcomed everyone 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.

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.

Councillor Helen Pighills sent her apologies; Councillor Richard Webber was her substitute.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 20 February and 26 March.

The minutes of the meetings of 20 February and 26 March 2014 were circulated separately in advance of the meeting.

RESOLVED: to approve both sets of minutes as correct records and that the chairman sign them as such.

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

Councillor Anthony Hayward was the agent for application P14/V0133/FUL, Volunteer Inn, Station Road Grove. This is a disclosable pecuniary interest. He left the meeting for the duration of this item.

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.

A list showing the members of the public wishing to address the committee on each planning application was tabled and agenda items were taken in the order of the list.

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

None.

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

Any materials submitted will be on display prior to the meeting.

None.

Proposed redevelopment to provide new buildings for storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and ancillary facilities, car and lorry parking, service areas, access and landscaping.(Revised drawings showing lower height and smaller footprint to main building).

The officer presented the report on an application for the proposed redevelopment to provide new buildings for storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and ancillary facilities, car and lorry parking, service areas, access and landscaping. (Revised drawings showing lower height and smaller footprint to main building). 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

The officer clarified that the warehouse site is not in the ownership of Milton Park.

David Hignell, from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·            The negative impact of cumulative development, especially traffic and drainage.

·            That the village feels as though it’s losing its identity and setting and is being absorbed into Didcot.

·            The proposed development would be out of keeping with the village.

·            Vehicles used by potential employees would increase the traffic.

Philip Campbell from MEPC, the owners of Milton Park, spoke on behalf of the objectors to the application. His concerns included the following:

·            The scale was out of kilter with the existing buildings and would the proposed warehouse would be 40 per cent of the size of Milton Park.

·            Transport and infrastructure: Milton Park traffic would be affected and some of the volume which was currently on private roads would be forced back on to the public highway.

·            Proposed S106 contributions were significantly lower than those for other comparable developments.

·            There were inconsistencies with the Milton Park Development Order.

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

·            The applicant has worked with planning officers to mitigate the scheme.

·            It is an employment based development, and as such should be given “significant weight” under the National Planning Policy Framework.

·            The proposed warehouse would give a boost to local jobs.

·            The proposal has been amended following comments from local people.

·            The proposal is policy compliant.

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

·            The economic argument did not stack up, the proposed development would give a low quality economic return as it was the wrong type of development, not “high tech” enough.

·            The warehouse would be too close to a residential area.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·            The Local Development Order allowed for structures between 12 and 16 metres in height, as permitted development. This application was for a structure 23 metres in height;

·            The transport issues were not resolved, including those of staff transport to and from the site;

·            The committee wanted further information on the s106 agreement, and a review of whether the contributions would be adequate;

·            The scale of the proposed development was too big;

·            The committee did not think that the application would bring appropriate types of jobs to the area: there was not currently a need for a large  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Erection of 63 dwellings and 45 unit extra care facility including public open space, landscape and associated works from outline permission P12/V1836/O (As clarified by Drawing No: 354-400 Revision B accompanying agent's email of 13 January 2014 and as amended by Materials Layout Drawing No: H6501/ML/01 Revision B, Affordable Tenure Drawing No: H6501/ATP/01, Landscape Design plan GL0162-01 Revision C and GL0162-02 Revision C, Extra Care Facility Drawing No: H6501_ECF_01 Revision D, Parking Layout H6501/CPL/01 and as clarified by Acoustic Report all dated 28 February 2014 and further amended by Site Plan Drawing No: H6568/PL/01 Revision F and Acoustic Bund Drawing No: H6501/ABD/10 accompanying agents email of 30 April 2014).

The officer presented the report on an application for the erection of 63 dwellings and a 45 unit extra care facility including public open space, landscape and associated works from outline permission P12/V1836/O. 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

·       Amended site plan received since publication of committee papers to introduce additional visitor parking to overcome holding objection from OCC Highways

Brian Forster, from Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·        The impact of the care home on the neighbouring properties;

·        The parking arrangements did not appear to be adequate;

·        The proposed level of growth would fundamentally change the nature of the settlements;

·        The parish council wished to see the care home removed from the proposal.

Roy Wolfe a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·        The extra care home was out of keeping with the village setting.

Simon Kirk and Jonathan Headland, on behalf of the applicant and Steve Lynch from SOHA housing, spoke in favour of the application. They raised the following points:

·        The design of the care home and had evolved with consultation and is fully compliant with all policies;

·        This type of tenure has very low parking use.

Councillor Melinda Tilley, the ward councillor, spoke the application. The points she raised included the following:

·        Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor is increasing by one third.

·        The height of the care home would be too large;

·        The design and layout of the care home is unattractive and resembles a prison;

·        Visitor parking would be an issue;

·        Drainage and foul drainage issues have been raised by both the Vale of White Horse District Council and by Thames Water;

·        School Lane would be under the threat of closure during the construction period.

·        An extra care home is needed, but not this proposal.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·        There is a very limited number of two bed houses as part of the proposal;

·        The construction management plan must be enforced;

·        The committee were concerned about dominance, layout, height and location of the extra care facility;

·        The committee were concerned about the security of the site and requested the extra condition of “Secure By Design”.

RESOLVED (for 10; against 4; abstentions 0)

To grant reserved matters approval, subject to the receipt of outstanding technical comments, and to those comments proving to be acceptable, and also subject to:

1.     Commencement within 18 months of outline consent on 11/04/2013;

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Samples of all external materials to be agreed;

4.     Panel of walling materials to be provided on site and agreed;

5.     Parking and turning as approved;

6.     New estate roads to County Council specification;

7.     Garage accommodation to be retained on plots 7, 8, 20, 23, 31, 32, 33, 43, 49, 51, 52,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of 9 x 2-bed flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping. New access from North Hinksey Lane (As amended by Drawing No: P02 Revision A accompanying agent's email dated 4 February 2014 and Site Plan Drawing P01 Revision C, Flats 5-9 Drawing P03 Revision C and Elevation/Site Section Drawing P04 Revision C accompanying agent's email dated 1 April 2014).

The officer presented the report on an application for the demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of 9 two-bed flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping with new access from North Hinksey Lane. 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 additional letter of objection received, reiterating previous concerns.

Julia Hammett, from North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·        The proposed development would not make a positive contribution to the locality;

·        Overlooking, mass and height;

·        It would be out of character with the local area;

·        It is contrary to the design guide.

Philip Booth a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·        The impact on the local area;

·        Loss of amenity;

·        Potential for parking overspill and increased hazard on a lane which is a designated cycle route and part of the school run.

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

·        The proposal is in a sustainable location and is consistent with the height of the adjoining properties.

Councillor Debby Hallett, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. The points she raised included the following:

·        The design is of poor quality and not consistent with the local area;

·        There is inadequate amenity space in the proposal, including a lack of car parking;

·        The  proposed building is too high, has a lat roof and is out of alignment with the neighbours;

·        There would be a loss of light, privacy and overlooking issues.

Councillor Eric Batts, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       The proposal does not fit in with the local character;

·       There is inadequate parking.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·        The height and effect of the solar panels is still to be agreed and is covered by a condition;

·        Add condition on bin storage;

·        Slab level condition should include that no building work to commence until the slab level has been inspected;

·        Local members to be added to the delegation.

RESOLVED (for 10; against 4; abstentions 0)

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

a S106 agreement with the County Council in order to secure contributions towards the provision of public transport and

conditions as follows:

1.     Commencement three years;

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Samples of all materials to be agreed;

4.     Sample panel of materials to be provided on site and agreed;

5.     Slab and ridge heights to be agreed and no building work to commence until the slab level has been inspected;

6.     Landscaping scheme to be agreed;

7.     Implementation of landscaping scheme to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Erection of 35 dwellings with open space and associated infrastructure.(as amended by drawings received 25 February 2014).

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 35 dwellings with open space and 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

·       None.

Sarah Day, from Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·        Noise from vehicles on the A420, and the proposed acoustic barrier would be visually intrusive;

·        The proposal was the wrong mix of housing: too many four-beds and a shortfall of one and two-bed properties which was what was needed locally;

·        The far side of the site would be too far from local amenities and would therefore create parking issues in the village.

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

·        The application site currently formed a buffer between residents and the A420 bypass;

·        There would be an increase in traffic.

Robert Froud Williams, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·        The acoustic fence would also provide protection for existing residents and would be softened by landscaping;

·        There are no outstanding objections on highways grounds and Thames Water are content with the proposals.

Councillors Simon Howell and Elaine Ware, the ward councillors, had submitted a statement outlining their objections to the application, which was read on their behalf. The statement is briefly summarised below:

·       Lack of adequate public consultation.

·       Despite no objections from Thames Water, during periods of prolonged rainfall, residents experience raw sewage backing up on to their properties.  Residents in Sandhill, the road adjoining the site, are some of those affected.

·       The A420: there is no contribution to improve this major arterial route.

·       Swindon Borough Council are consulting on 2380 homes at South Marston, which is within less than a mile of the county boundary and a proposed business Hub at Gablecross which is also within a short distance from the county boundary.  Virtually all comments on these consultations refer to flooding risk and A420 issues.

·       If this application is approved then any conditions attached must be monitored and adhered to.

·       The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to a S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing and contributions, and subject to the following conditions:

1.     Time limit – full application (one year from date of decision);

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Material samples and panel on site;

4.     Building details of the proposed dwellings;

5.     MC24 - Drainage details (surface and foul);

6.     MC29 - Sustainable drainage scheme;

7.     LS1 – Landscaping scheme (submission);

8.     LS2 – Landscaping scheme (implementation and management plan) ;

9.     LS4 – Tree protection;

10. Construction traffic management plan;

11. Provision of a local equipped area of play within the site;

12. Boundary treatment details;

13. Development in accordance with recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Reserved matters relating to Outline planning application P13/V0094/O for details of Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping and Drainage for 50 dwellings. (As amended by documents received on the 21-03-2014 submitted by the applicant/agent).

The officer presented the report on a reserved matters application relating to outline planning application P13/V0094/O for details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and drainage for 50 dwellings. 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.

Jessica Holliday, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Bill Jones, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·         Housing Services had raised concerns over the size of the two bedroom properties: this had not been addressed, but the registered social landlord was content;

·         The affordable housing was not adequately distributed throughout the plot.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 1; abstentions 1)

To grant reserved matters, subject to the following conditions:

1.      TL3 - Time limit - reflecting the time frame of the outline – within six months of the approval of reserved matters.

2.      Approved plan numbers;

3.      MC2 - Materials (samples) (full);

4.      MC8 - Wall materials (panel) (full);

5.      RE11 – Restriction on the change of use of garage accommodation without permission;.

6.      RE18 - Slab levels (single dwellings) (full);

7.      Submission of full details of any solar panels to be installed;

8.      RE6 - Boundary details to be approved.

9.      Lighting details (along the main streets) to be approved;

10.  Submission of landscaping details;

11.  Implementation of landscaping scheme;

12.  HY12 – new estate roads layout (to county council specification).

Informative: The outline planning permission reference number P13/V0094/O, together with this approval, constitute the planning permission for this development. All of the conditions imposed on both the outline permission and this approval must be complied with.

Conversion of existing pub to motel including side and rear extensions and new front porch.  Erection of three bay car wash and repair centre and erection of new American style diner with new access to the rear.

Councillor Anthony Hayward left the meeting for the duration of this item, as he was the applicant’s agent and therefore had a disclosable pecuniary interest.

The officer presented the report on an application for the conversion of existing pub (A4) to motel (C1), including side and rear extensions and new front porch; also erection of three bay car wash (sui genaris) and repair centre and erection of new American style diner (A3) with new access to the rear. (officer additions in italics). 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

·        A TPO tree unacceptably impacted by one of the spaces. A condition requesting revised drawings to the satisfaction of the tree officer has been appended.

June Stock,  from Grove Parish Council, spoke saying that the parish council were generally in support of the application but were concerned about the following:

·       The exit/ entrance to the site, especially with the proposed changes to the local bridge and the blind spots;

·       Size and location of the proposed signage.

John Bishop, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He made the following points:

·        The proposed motel would create 40 to 50 jobs and would bring the building back into use.

Councillor Sue Marchant, one of the ward councillors, spoke in favour of the application, but was also concerned about the safety of the ingress and egress points.

RESOLVED (for 13; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement three years - full planning permission;

2.     Approved plans; 

3.     Sample materials required (all);

4.     No additional windows, doors or other openings;

5.     No alterations or extensions;

6.     UNIQUE - sustainable design Vale of White Horse District Council;

7.     New vehicular access;

8.     UNIQUE - Access and vision splays;

9.     Parking and manoeuvring areas retained;

10. Cycle parking facilities;

11. Green travel plans;

12. No surface water drainage to highway;

13. Landscape management plan;

14. Tree protection (general);

15.  No additional commercial floor space; 

16. No panel beating / spraying;

17. No sale or display of vehicles;

18. HY8[I] - Car parking spaces (details not shown) (full);

19. MC24 - Drainage details (surface and foul (full);

20. MC29 - Sustainable drainage scheme (full).

Councillor Anthony Hayward returned to the meeting.

Variation of condition 4 of planning permission P13/V0146/FUL.

This item was deferred to a later meeting.