Agenda and minutes

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

Councillors Margaret Turner and John Woodford had sent their apologies for absence and appointed Councillors John Amys and Andrew Skinner respectively as their substitutes. 

Councillor Robert Sharp declared interests in applications P14/V2654/FUL (land west of Fawler Road, Uffington) and P15/V0027/HH (15 Badswell Lane, Appleton) as he knew the applicant and the architect respectively.  He did not take part in the consideration of these items and left the room for the duration. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 4 March 2015 (attached). 

RESOLVED: to adopt the minutes of the committee meeting held on 4 March 2015 and agree that the chairman signs them as such. 

The planning officer gave an update on the council’s five-year housing land supply.  He referred to the head of planning’s letter appended to the addendum report tabled at the meeting, which stated that at 30 September 2014 the council had 3.1 years’ housing land supply, including a 20 per cent buffer.  Strategic sites included in the published draft Local Plan to 2031 could not be included in the housing trajectory at this stage.  The effect of this was that there would be no significant change in the council’s five-year housing land supply until the council knew the inspector’s findings on the local plan. 

In answer to a question from a councillor, it was reported that housing numbers could only be counted in the housing land supply once a development was built. 

The list showing 21 members of the public that had registered to speak on planning applications was tabled at the meeting. 

None

RESOLVED: to approve the following materials for application P15/V0512/DIS for residential development of 31 dwellings on land at Sutton Road, Milton:

• WienerbergerMaplehurst Light Multi stock brick
• WienerbergerWarnham Red stock brick 
• Russell plain cottage red roof tiles
• Russell Moray black roof tiles
• Russell plain black tiles
• Russell cottage red ridge tiles?
• Russell black ridge tiles?

Construction of 80 dwellings with associated open space, roads and parking provision.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P14/V1663/FUL to construct 80 dwellings and associated open space, roads and parking provision on land south of Blenheim Hill, Harwell.  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. 

Mrs Convery, a representative of the parish council, spoke objecting to the application raising concerns about:

·         the amount of housing development in Harwell that was not included in the local plan

·         consistency of application of planning policy

·         the proposed development was unsustainable and too far from village services

·         the site encroached on the rural gap to Didcot

Peter Hobin spoke in objection to the application about:

·         poor access from the site to the village centre

·         poor drainage at the site

·         some of the proposed buildings were higher than the existing adjacent buildings, giving a visually obtrusive appearance

·         the development would be visible from some footpaths in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to local plan policy NE9

·         the development would have an adverse impact on values of nearby property

·         erosion of the gap to Didcot, contrary to local plan policy NE10

·         poor social cohesion of the site to the remainder of the village

·         the development being unsustainable

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application, believing that the proposed development had been carefully re-designed to make the best use of the site. 

Dr Keith Beswick spoke in support of the application, believing that the A34 already bisected the village, separating it from the part of Great Western Park that was within Harwell’s parish boundary.  The proposed development site, to the west of the A34, would be assimilated into the village. 

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

·         the committee had to consider this application against the lack of a five-year housing land supply in the district and therefore it became sustainable in planning terms

·         it could not be refused on the grounds of distance from the site to the village facilities

·         the housing numbers proposed for the site had been reduced

·         there had been no objection from the highways authority

·         the development would bring affordable housing

·         the site was well-contained visually

·         the adjacent properties in The Cleave were protected

·         there should be an additional condition to determine slab levels

·         there should be an additional condition to require a communal television aerial on the apartment block

RESOLVED (11 votes for; 1 against; and 2 abstentions)

To authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee to approve planning permission on application P14/V1663/FUL, subject to the completion of section 106 agreements with the county and district councils to secure contributions to local infrastructure and affordable housing, and subject to the following conditions:

1. TL1 – Time limit – One year
2. Approved plans listed
3. Submission of material samples including panel on site
4. Submission of Building Details
5. Submission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Demolition of numbers 74 and 78 Milton Road. Residential development comprising 28 units, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P14/V2362/FUL to demolish 74 and 78 Milton Road, Sutton Courtenay, and provide residential development of 28 homes, car parking, public open space and landscaping.  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. 

David Hignell, a representative of the parish council, spoke objecting to the application raising concerns about:

·         the council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply

·         more housing in the village

·         the lack of consultation with the parish council on the section 106 agreement

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application, believing that:

·         the developments either side of this site meant that the proposed development was sustainable

·         it had met all the technical requirements for highways and drainage

·         it formed a natural completion of this part of the village 

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

·         there were no reasons to refuse this application

·         the parish council would be consulted on the section 106 agreement

·         conditions 10, 11, and 21 set out in the report could be deleted

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil)

To authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee to approve planning permission on application P14/V2362/FUL, subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement with the county and district councils to secure contributions to local infrastructure and affordable housing, and subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development within 18 months.
2. Approved plans.
3. Materials to be agreed.
4. Hard and soft landscaping scheme to be agreed.
5. Landscaping implementation.
6. Tree protection to be agreed.
7. Sustainable drainage scheme to be agreed.
8. Foul Water drainage strategy to be agreed and implemented before the development is occupied.
9. Wildlife enhancement measures to be agreed.
10. Contamination investigation to be agreed.
11. Car parking spaces to be agreed.
12. Garages to be used for parking.
13. Construction traffic management plan to be agreed.
14. Green travel plans to be agreed.
15. Access details to be agreed.
16. Vision splays – 2.4m x 43m.
17. No dwelling shall be occupied until that part of the roads, footways and street lighting (apart from the wearing course) have been constructed in accordance with the specification in Oxfordshire County Council’s Residential Road Design Guide.  These works shall include a footpath to link all of the dwellings to the existing footpath on Sutton Road. 
18. Construction method statement.
19. No drainage to highway.
20. Slab level details to be submitted. 

Erection of six semi-detached three bedroom houses.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P14/V2830/FUL for six semi-detached three-bedroomed homes on land at King’s Lane, Longcot.  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. 

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application, believing that the proposed development was modest and had been carefully designed to fit in with the village.  There had been no objections from the parish council. 

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

·         there were no reasons to refuse this application

·         following advice from the highways authority, there must be no access gates to the site

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil)

To approve planning permission on application P14/V2830/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement of development three years.

2 : Approved plans list.

3 : Details of materials to be submitted.

4 : Full details of all boundary treatments to be submitted. 

5 :Vehicle access details to be submitted (there must be no gates to the accesses of the site).

6 : Visibility splays to be provided.

7 : No drainage to highway.

8 : Garages to be retained for parking purposes.

9 : Sustainable surface water and foul water scheme to be submitted.

10 : Landscaping scheme full details to be submitted.

11 : Landscaping scheme (implementation in accordance with condition 10).

12 : Slab level details to be submitted.

13 : Removal of permitted development rights for fences and walls.

Proposed extension to the existing grounds to provide four additional full size tennis courts, one mini tennis court and two padel courts with associated fencing and landscaping works.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V1411/FUL to extend the existing grounds to provide four additional full size tennis courts, one mini tennis court, and two padel courts, with associated fencing and landscaping works at Abingdon Lawn Tennis Club, Lambrick Way, 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. 

Richard Wilson spoke in objection to the application about:

·         the effect of the proposed development on flooding to nearby homes

·         no plans to test the drainage scheme before the development was constructed

Lynn Carter spoke objecting to the application, raising concerns at:

·         already inadequate car parking for the site, resulting in cars parked along Lambrick Way at the weekends

·         the ability of emergency services vehicles to access adjacent housing due to parking problems along Lambrick Way

·         the potential for the methane and landfill membrane to be disturbed

Jason Oliver, a member of the tennis club, spoke in favour of the application:

·         there were no flood risks as the courts would be made with permeable surfaces

·         the car park had sufficient capacity; overspill onto Lambrick Way was caused by other sports, not the tennis club

·         the landfill and methane area did not reach as far as the tennis club

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

·         the proposed development would provide a useful addition to sports facilities in the area

·         it would not require floodlights

·         methane build-up under or within buildings on former landfill sites was a known issue but this application did not propose any new buildings and so the committee had no concerns

·         the survey carried out by the county council demonstrated that the car park had sufficient space

·         if residents were concerned about parking on the highway they should contact their local councillor

RESOLVED (13 votes for; none against; and 1 abstention)

To approve planning permission on application P14/V1411/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement three years – full planning permission.

2 : List of approved plans.

3 : Submission of material details – fencing.

4 : Written scheme of investigation to be submitted.

5 : Archaeological watching brief to be carried out and report produced.

6 : The finished ground levels to be no higher than the existing ground levels of the site.

7 : Details of surface water drainage to be submitted.

Variation of condition 2 on planning permissions P11/V2894/FUL and P12/V2380/FUL and condition 1 on planning permission P13/V1469/FUL for the addition of roof lights, gable windows and rear dormer window to the houses on Plot A and Plot B of Greenacre. These houses are now called Courtenay House and Stanton House. (as amended by the applicants email received on 26 January 2015 including revised location plan for Stanton House and Courtenay House and a reduced number of velux windows, plus gable windows and dormer window and as revised by the additional roof plans received from the applicant on 12/02/2015 showing two additional skylights in both Stanton House and Courteney House and :- as amended by the applicants email dated 6 March 2015 and plans COURT2-Rear/REV2, COURT2-Roof/REV2, COURT2-SEC/REV2 showing a revised rear elevation at Courtenay House. The rear elevation has had its rear gable removed and now reflects what has been built on site).

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P14/V2735/FUL to vary condition 2 of permission 1 of permission P11/V2894 and P12/V2380/FUL and condition P13/V1469/FUL for the addition of roof lights, gable windows and rear dormer window to houses on Plots A and B (known as Stanton House and Courtenay House) of Greenacre, Stanton Road, in the parish of North Hinksey.  The officer also tabled an amended plan showing the rear elevation to Courtenay House.  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. 

Andrew Pritchard, a representative of the parish council, spoke objecting to the application raising concerns about:

·         the application being contrary to local plan policies DC1 and DC9

·         the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and would cause overlooking of adjacent property

Susan Hockey spoke in objection to the application:

·         questioning why permitted development rights had been removed

·         the development had been built too high as no slab levels had been specified by condition

·         the houses were too bulky

·         the proposed windows gave the houses a dominating appearance and were obtrusive

Lynn Horn, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application, believing that:

·         the houses had been built to the correct size and height in accordance with the approved plans

·         the roof lights and windows were not obtrusive

·         landscaping would be added

·         there would be no harm to the character of the area and no overlooking of adjacent property

·         there would be no contravention of any planning policy, guideline or precedent  

Councillor Debby Hallett, one of the local ward members, believed that:

·         application did not comply with the council’s Design Guide

·         the windows to the habitable rooms were too close to the neighbouring property

·         the dormer windows were too large

Councillor Eric Batts, another of the local ward members, questioned the large number of windows applied for. 

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

·         the application could not be refused on privacy grounds

·         but the proposed variation to add windows gave the houses a bulky and incongruous appearance in design terms

The chairman put the officer’s recommendation to permit the application to the vote but with 5 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 3 abstentions, this was lost. 

The committee then provided a reason to refuse the application. 

RESOLVED (8 votes for; none against; and 6 abstentions)

To refuse application P14/V2735/FUL for the following reason:

The proposed roof light windows, dormer windows and gable windows in both Stanton House and Courtenay House represent an unacceptable design feature in these dwellings and would result in a dominating and visually intrusive development that would be incongruous and out of character within the surrounding street scene, contrary to Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, paragraphs 5.7, 5.8 and 10.7.18 of the Residential Design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Outline planning permission for a single dwelling.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2468/O for outline planning permission for a single dwelling on land adjacent to The Poplars, School Lane, 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. 

Edward Prescott spoke objecting to the application raising concerns about:

·         this being a former tip site and the need for it to be cleaned of flammable materials

·         the development would generate extra traffic

·         there should be provision for service vehicles to access the site

·         this was an undesirable precedent for Blackbird Lane

Simon Keogh spoke in objection to the application about a previous permission on the site for a woodyard and whether this permission would rescind the previous permission.  

Zoe Hoskins, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application, believing that:

·         many neighbours were content with the proposal

·         the access road was a bridleway not a road and was used by service vehicles

·         she could not recall there being any accidents at the junction before

·         the woodyard was on the adjacent site, not the application site

·         the application site had never been used as tipped land and was not contaminated

·         there had been no objections from the county highways authority nor any drainage objections from Thames Water

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

·         there were no grounds to refuse this outline application

·         highway conditions would be a matter for a later reserved matter application

·         there should be an additional condition requiring a phase 1 contaminated land survey

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil)

To approve outline planning permission on application P14/V2468/O, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Standard outline condition.

2.    Time limit (outline application).

3.    Approved plans.

4.    Arrangement of archaeological watching brief.

5.    Implementation of archaeological watching brief.

6.    Phase 1 contaminated land survey to be submitted. 

Two storey rear and side extensions, single storey rear extension.

Councillor Robert Sharp (Chairman) declared an interest in this application and left the meeting during its consideration.  Councillor Sandy Lovatt (Vice-Chairman) took the chair for this item. 

The officer presented the report on application P15/V0027/HH for planning permission for two-storey rear and side extensions, and a single-storey rear extension at 15 Badswell Lane, Appleton.  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. 

Mark Ives, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application:

·         There were no objections from neighbours

·         There were differing architectural styles in the locality

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

·         there were no grounds to refuse this application

·         the proposal was acceptable on a difficult site

RESOLVED (13 votes to nil)

To approve planning permission on application P15/V0027/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Samples of materials. 

4.    High level window.    

Application for grazing, the erection of a stable block with associated hard standing, fencing, vehicular access and access track.

Councillor Robert Sharp (Chairman) declared an interest in this application

and left the meeting during its consideration. Councillor Sandy Lovatt (Vice-Chairman) took the chair for this item.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2654/FUL for planning permission for grazing, the erection of a stable block with hard standing, fencing, vehicular access and access track on land west of Fawler Road, Uffington.  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.

Geoffrey Forster spoke objecting to the application, raising the following concerns:

·         the application, if permitted, would provide a vehicle access to the site

·         this access could assist the application for 42 homes on the same site

·         consideration of this application should be deferred and looked at in conjunction with the housing application

Councillor Yvonne Constance, the local ward member, addressed the committee:

·         the site was south of the village and towards White Horse Hill

·         as such the site was inappropriate for housing development

·         if the application for a stable was approved, the vehicle access would open up the site for 42 houses, which was contrary to the local plan

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

·         approval of this application would not cause a precedent for the housing application; each application must be determined on its merits

·         there were no grounds to refuse this application

·         the council would risk an appeal if it did not determine this application and deferred it without reasonable grounds

RESOLVED (11 votes for; none against; and 2 abstentions)

To approve planning permission on application P14/V2654/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2 : Approved plans.

3 : Materials in accordance with application.

4 : Prior to occupation access and visibility splays constructed in accordance with plan, construction details and material submitted for approval.

5 : Prior to occupation turning space constructed.

6: No drainage to highway.

7: Any gates to be minimum 10m from highway.

8: Details of fencing to enclose paddocks and footpaths submitted for approval. To follow denfinitive footpath lines

9 : Manure/bedding storage and removal details to be submitted for approval.

10 : Stable block for private use only.

New signage.

The officer presented the report on application P15/V0038/A for advertisement consent for new signage at College Farm, Majors Road, Watchfield.  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 committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covering the following points:

·         there were no grounds to refuse this application

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil)

To approve consent to display advertisements on application P15/V0038/A, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Approved plans.

2 : The intensity of illumination of the advertisement(s) hereby granted consent shall not exceed that recommended in the Institution of Lighting Engineers -  Technical Report No. 5 (Third Edition, 2001).

3 : The advertisement(s) hereby granted consent shall only be illuminated during the opening hours of the business to which the advertisement(s) relate.

First floor side extension.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2869/HH for planning permission for a first floor side extension at Olde Willows, Great Coxwell.  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. 

Councillor Roger Cox, the local ward member, spoke in favour of the application. 

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

·         there were no grounds to refuse this application

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil)

To approve planning permission on application P14/V2869/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Approved plans.

2 : CN9 - submission of joinery details (full).

3 : MC3 - materials in accordance with application (full).

4 : MC5 - roof materials (samples)(full).

5 : MC7 - wall materials (samples) (full).

6 : TL1 - time limit - full application (full).

7 : RE26[I] - no windows or rooflights (full).

Extend ground floor w.c. to front of property. Construct new mono pitch roof at front and alter front entrance doorway. Two storey side and rear extensions to provide additional living space. To create lounge/kitchen area on the ground floor. Demolish the existing garage to side elevation. To create a new garage on the ground floor and provide a new en-suite bedroom on the 1st Floor. Remodel internal layout.

The officer presented the report on application P14/V2825/HH for planning permission to extend the ground floor toilet to the front of the property, construct new mono pitch roof at front and alter front entrance doorway, two storey side and rear extensions to provide additional living space, create lounge/kitchen area on the ground floor, demolish existing garage and create new garage on the ground floor, provide new en-suite bedroom on the first floor, and re-model the internal layout, at 2 Rimes Close, Kingston Bagpuize. 

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.

Bob Brennan spoke objecting to the application, raising the following concerns:

·         the proposed extension projected three metres beyond his house

·         this would give an oppressive and overpowering effect that was not in keeping with Rimes Close

Marco Cecchini, the applicant, made the following points:

·         the application had been carefully prepared to meet the Design Guide

·         as such it would not cause any adverse impact to the neighbour at no.3

·         there were other examples of long house extensions nearby

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

·         the application would not cause any overlooking

·         it would not block sunlight to 3 Rimes Close

·         it met the Design Guide

·         there were no reasons to refuse this application

RESOLVED (14 votes to nil) 

To approve planning permission on application P14/V2825/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Approved plans.

2 : RE1 - Matching materials (full).

3 : TL1 - Time limit - full application (full).