Agenda and minutes

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements. He also thanked staff for their hard work in getting the planning committee organised following the fire at the Crowmarsh Gifford office.

Councillor Margaret Turner sent her apologies; Councillor John Amys substituted for her.

Councillor Janet Shelley stated that in relation to P14/V1964/FUL at land North of Portway Villas, Reading Road, East Hendred, she is a member of East Hendred Parish Council but did not participate in the council’s consideration of the application.

Councillor Roger Cox stated that in relation to P14/V0715/FUL at land between 13 and 17 Coxwell Street, Faringdon, he is a member of Faringdon Town Council but had not participated in the council’s consideration of the application.

RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the committee meeting held on 17 December 2014 as a correct record and agree that the chairman signs them as such.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Councillor Bill Jones missed the beginning of the presentation and therefore took no part in the discussions or voting on this application.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V1810/FUL for planning permission to develop land for 90 new homes including private and affordable public open space and the protection of the existing route of the Wiltshire and Berkshire canal on land West of Stockham Farmhouse, Wantage.

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: An additional objection has been received and can be summarised as follows:

·         The upgrade works to the main access onto Denchworth Road (required for phase 1) have not been completed and until the required vision splays are in place, permission should be refused.

Officer’s Response: The objection raised is covered by a S278 agreement with the county council and construction is currently underway to complete the access upgrade works.  The county highways team raise no objection to the application, and a refusal based on this would therefore not be defendable on appeal as the required works will be completed shortly.

Amendment to report: Paragraph 3.6: Since writing the report, the planning agent and the county council have agreed a revised secondary school figure of £556,740.

All other figures are now agreed.

June Stock, a representative of Grove Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

• The entrance to Phase 1 of the development is dangerous, especially for mothers and children;
• There is no slip road leaving the site;
• You already need to wait a while at the junction of Denchworth Road as there is no roundabout; and
• There is one regular town bus service which can take a long time, concerns that this will be axed in the future.

Julie Mabberley, a representative of Wantage and Grove Campaign Group, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included:

• Lack of compliance with Phase 1 conditions – specifically road access and noise;
• No bungalows are proposed despite 83% respondents of the Local Plan consultation expressing a need for bungalows; and
• Local infrastructure is already at capacity (GPs, roads, leisure centre, schools).

Andrew Wagstaff, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. His speech referred to the following:

• The application contributing to the 5 year housing land supply shortfall;
• The current Phase 1 access is temporary as works have been delayed;
• A condition can be added to delay occupation until phase 1 conditions are met; and
• The infrastructure contributions are deemed acceptable by the County and District Councils.

Jenny Hannaby, one of the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns were regarding:

• A lack of infrastructure, splitting the phases into three reduces contributions;
• The key traffic junctions are already at capacity and congested – the transport assessment was not robust; and
• There is a problem with the enforcement of conditions from Phase 1.

The committee considered this application,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V1964/FUL for a residential development comprising 26 dwellings and off-site highway works on land north of Portway Villas in East Hendred.

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: An additional comment has been received from a neighbouring property requesting a condition requiring the developers to fund the re-routing and maintenance of a private water supply pipe and raising concerns over its future maintenance. The email included a series of correspondence with the developer over the past year relating to construction damage to the pipe and the promise by the developers to re-route the supply.

The officer has also received updated comments from Oxfordshire County Council Highways raising no objections to the application and that they are now satisfied with the level of parking on site, the proposed access, and the proposed controlled crossing on the A417 subject to conditions and the S106 Agreement.

Officer Response: The additional letter relates to an ongoing civil issue between the developers and a group of neighbouring properties. As long as there is a sufficient supply to serve the development in addition to existing residents, the responsibility for its maintenance is a private matter. There are no technical objections to the development in relation to water supply from Thames Water and therefore there are no reasonable grounds to object on this issue.

A requirement to re-route a private water supply in the interests of future maintenance is not something we could legally require under the planning permission. Whilst the developers can offer this in kind, a planning condition to this effect would not meet the legal tests as referenced under the (National) Planning Policy Guidance as it is not required to make the development acceptable.

Amendment to report: Paragraph 3.1 under OCC Highways – that the previous concerns have been addressed in relation to visitor parking and the site access and that no objections are raised subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

Dr John Sharp, a representative of East Hendred Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included the following:

• Phase 1 of the development is built next to housing, however this application extends into open countryside;
• The application is against the wishes of the parish council to develop north of the parish and would result in a change. to the character of the area;
• The proposal could set a precedent for further development as the buffer from phase 1 is breached by this phase; and
• S106 contributions towards village facilities improvements.

Tim Roberts and Mr M Simmonds, two local residents, spoke objecting to the application, their concerns included the following:

• The proposed development does not serve local needs;
• The buffer from Phase 1 has been disregarded;
• The site floods badly already;
• Traffic congestion on the A417;
• Parking spaces are too far away from the dwellings; and
• Pedestrian crossings and speed limits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2335/FUL for planning permission to amend planning application P14/V0597/FUL to enlarge flat 10 from a 2-bedrooms to a 3-bedrooms with one extra parking space at 66 Cumnor Hill, Oxford, OX2 9HB.

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.

June Stock, a representative of Grove Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

• The entrance to Phase 1 of the development is dangerous, especially for mothers and children;
• There is no slip road leaving the site;
• You already need to wait a while at the junction of Denchworth Road as there is no roundabout; and
• There is one regular town bus service which can take a long time, concerns that this will be axed in the future.

Paul Southouse, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His speech referred to the following:

• Improvements from the original application include replacing the white render with brick; and
• In response to the Parish Council objections to the increase in mass – the amendment to block 2 marches block 2 and does not cover the full area of the roof.

The committee considered this application and had no objections.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V2335/FUL subject to the following:

1.    TL1 – Time Limit.

2.    Approved Drawings.

3.    MC3 – Materials as detailed in the application.

4.    H7 – Car Parking.

5.    LS2 – Landscaping Scheme.

6.    LS4 – Tree Protection.

7.    MC29 – Sustainable Drainage Scheme.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2441/O for the construction of a two storey dwelling attached to 4 Elmside, Fernham, Faringdon, SN7 7PA.

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: Five further neighbour objections have been received reiterating the same issues. Terrace out of character; loss of mature trees; traffic and parking issues; and an extension to dwelling similar to others would be acceptable.

Two sets of comments have been received on the amended plans from highways officer. Neither highway officer has any objection to the scheme. Both suggest conditions relating to the provision of vision splays, no drainage to the highway; construction of the parking; and for it to be SUDS compliant.

Officer’s Response: The substance of the objections has already been covered within the committee report. The mature vegetation/trees on the boundary is within the site and is not protected. A landscaping condition is suggested in the recommendation to ensure new more sustainable planting is achieved.

The amended plans are acceptable to the highway officers. It is suggested that the submission of details of the construction and surfacing of the parking is included within suggested condition 4, to prevent any loose material migrating onto the highway, and that an additional condition requiring details of the vision splays to be submitted for approval is included. Drainage will be covered by suggested condition 7.

Gordon Bunting, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Accuracy of the highways report on visibility of access; and

·         Insufficient parking spaces.

Roger Baker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His speech referred to the following:

• This application will be in line with other extensions in the road and although a separate dwelling, it will appear to be an extension;
• Any greenery lost will be replaced

The committee considered this application and agreed to add a condition for the inclusion of visibility splays.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V2441/O subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit – outline permission.

2.    Reserved matters submission.

3.    List of approved plans.

4.    Parking and access in accordance with approved plans. Details of construction of parking to be submitted for approval.

5.    Full landscaping and boundary details to be submitted for approval.

6.    Implementation of approved landscaping.

7.    Foul and surface drainage scheme to be submitted for approval.

8.    Visibility splays to be submitted for approval.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2624/FUL for the erection of a five bedroom dwelling and garage at The Croft, Barnards Close, Appleford, OX14 4NS.

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: Additional representation has been received from Councillor Gervase Duffield: “I have no objection to this application but I note you have added an informative about the exit. It would be a lot better if the exit could be onto Barnards Close. Consider: as proposed it will mean no less than 5 exits onto the main road with a blind corner at one end where drivers regularly break the speed limit encouraged by the long straight to the east, and a hump back narrow bridge the other end, both of which are completely blind. Also 3 of these are increasingly busy exits (Chambrai, Church St., & Barnards). There are slopes involved, up from Chambrai onto main road and 2 more ups on the opposite side from private drives. I believe it would be a lot better and safer to have the exit of this house onto Barnards Close and move the garage.

I see you have marked the sight lines on p.85 but what is not made clear is that immediately after them as marked are totally blind busy main road areas (the bridge and the bend for Church St turn by the green).

Can I suggest that it be made a condition to look at this suggestion, and have OCC meet with say you and me to agree it all before an OCC final decision…”

Officer’s Response: This issue is covered in the committee report; the local highway authority has assessed the proposal as submitted which proposes a new vehicular access onto Main Road and has concluded that the access is acceptable in highway terms. A condition requiring detailed drawings of the proposed access including visibility splays is recommended. The informative relates purely to the fact that the applicant/agent will need to apply for consent directly to the local highways authority in addition to any permission granted.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V2624/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement of development within three years.

2.    Approved plan list.

3.    Details of external materials to be submitted for approval.

4.    Details of boundary treatments to be submitted for approval.

5.    Written Scheme of Investigation (submission).

6.    Archaeological watching brief (implementation).

7.    Full details of new vehicular access including visibilty splays (2.4m by 45m both directions) to be submitted for approval.

8.    Parking area to be laid out in accordance with details on submitted plan 1107-Site, and to be constructed to ensure no drainage or loose material onto highway.

9.    Garage accommodation to be retained for parking purposes only.

Informative

1.    Permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2785/HH for the erection of a two storey extension at the side and single storey extension at the rear of the existing property at 5 Sutton Close, Abingdon, OX14 1ER.

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 committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V2624/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit - Full permission.

2.    Planning condition listing the approved drawings.

3.    RE1 - Matching materials.

4.    The car parking area shown on approved drawing number 14893.2 shall be retained and kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use.

5.    The work shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree protection plan shown on approved drawing number 14893.4.

6.    The additional residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied only as ancillary accommodation to the existing dwelling on the site and shall not be occupied or used separately, and no separate curtilage shall be created.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V22578/FUL for a box dormer and new gable end to form a loft room; a single storey side extension with double storey portion to extend the existing first floor bathroom; and to demolish the existing garage at 64 North Hinksey Lane, North Hinksey, OX2 0YL.

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: Additional representation has been received from the Drainage Officer:  “My only comment on this relates to the excavation to the rear of the existing building and the requirement for suitable drainage to accompany this. Details of this should be submitted and approved prior to development commencing.”

Officer’s Response: The requested condition will be added to any planning permission granted.

A petition has been received from local residents re-iterating the same issues highlighted within the report.

Officer Response: The substance of the objections has already been covered in detail within the committee report.

The submitted plans indicate that the proposed living room and the enlarged kitchen are to be used as a shared living space. There are no other indicators that suggest the dwelling would be used for multiple occupants. It is not considered in the officer’s opinion that the dwelling would be converted into a House in Multiple Occupation.

The proposal will be seen within the context of the existing property and the surrounding area. It is not considered that the proposed works and alterations appear incongruous or obtrusive, and the proposed development will not cause harm to the character or appearance of the existing building or the surrounding area. In addition the neighbouring properties have been extended and altered in a similar way.

The Highways Liaison Officer has no objection to the proposal, as such it is considered the proposal, complies with the provisions of the development plan, in particular policy DC5 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Andrew Pritchard, a representative of North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application being contrary to:

o   DC1 – affecting the character of the area;

o   DG102 – the Design Guide;

o   DG104 – avoiding proposals which wraparound existing dwellings and conflicting roof forms;

o   DG105 – not in line with the existing design and window layout;

o   DG108 – impact on neighbours with overlooking;

o   DG110 – dormer roof extensions should be set within the roof slope; and

·         Drainage of surface and subterranean water damaging neighbouring properties.

John Brett, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Contrary to DC1 – high quality and local distinctiveness;

·         Contrary to DC9 – amenity of neighbours whereby the proposal will be  overbearing and dominant;

·         The rendered blockwork is out of character;

·         Question reasons for development as four bathrooms would indicate multiple occupancy; and

·         Impact on parking.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V0715/FUL for the erection of a new four bedroom detached dwelling with off road car parking and new dropped kerb at 13-17 Coxwell Street, Faringdon.

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 committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate. Their discussion included highlighting errors in the drawings.

RESOLVED (for 13; against 0; abstentions 1)

To grant planning permission to approve application P14/V0715/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 – time limit – full application.

2.    Planning condition listing the approved drawings.

3.    The development shall be built using only the external materials specified on the forms and/or shown on the approved drawings the subject of this planning permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4.    Prior to the use or occupation of the new development, the new vehicular access and parking area/spaces shall be constructed and the visibility splays provided in accordance with the details shown on approved drawing number 13/1329 7. The parking area shall be constructed to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway. Thereafter, the parking area shall be kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use, and the visibility splays shall be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision.

5.    No surface water from the development shall be discharged onto the adjacent highway.

6.    Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed scheme for the surface water and foul water drainage of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any new building.

7.    Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, the sites 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 for each dwelling are completed prior to the occupation of the last dwelling.

8.    Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the existing ground levels of the site and the proposed slab levels of the new dwelling shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved slab level.

9.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 (or the equivalent provisions of any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), there shall be no extension to the dwelling hereby permitted and no ancillary buildings or structures shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling without the prior grant of planning permission.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B and C of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.