Agenda and minutes

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

Councillors Sandy Lovatt tendered his apologies; Councillor Chris Palmer substituted.

Councillors Eric Batts, Roger Cox, Jenny Hannaby, Anthony Hayward, Bob Johnston, Janet Shelley and Catherine Webber stated that in relation to application P15/V2016/FUL – Land off Hanneys Road, Steventon, they were acquainted with the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Stuart Davenport declared an interest in application P15/V2077/O – 10 Halls Close, Drayton, Abingdon as had attended meetings of the parish council at which the application had been discussed but he had not expressed an opinion. 

Councillor Bob Johnston declared an interest in application P15/V2494/HH – Paddock Brow, Jarn Way, Boars Hill as he was a member of the county council which had considered the application but he was not present at the meeting when the application had been discussed. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 25 November 2015. 

RESOLVED: to adopt the minutes of the committee held on 25 November 2015 and agree that the chairman signs them as a correct record.

To receive any updates since the publication of the agenda in the addendum report.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Erection of 18 affordable dwellings and 26 open market dwellings, with associated access road, landscaping and public open space.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2016/FUL for the erection of 18 affordable dwellings and 26 open market dwellings, with associated access road, landscaping and public open space on land off Hanney Road, Steventon.

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.

Robert Green, a representative of Steventon Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The application was being rushed through;

·         The application contributed to the cumulative effect of a disproportionate increase in housing in the village;

·         There was an acute shortage of school places and this application would exacerbate the problem;

·         The application would have an adverse impact on village infrastructure, particularly with regard to transport and foul water drainage; and

·         There would be an increased risk of flooding.

He requested that a decision be postponed pending a revised response from Oxfordshire County Council (OCC).

Brendan Ludden, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application, raising concerns about the increased risk of flooding and insufficient network capacity to cope with foul water drainage.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         The application site adjoined two earlier phase of development which had been successfully completed despite concerns raised about flooding;

·         All dwellings will be located within Flood Zone 1 so the risk of flooding was remote; and

·         The drainage engineer raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions.

Councillor Matthew Barber, the local ward councillor, submitted a statement to be read out objecting to the application. He echoed the Parish Council’s concerns regarding foul water drainage and school capacity and suggested that if these concerns did not justify refusal of the application then it should be deferred to enable OCC to assess and propose a solution to the shortfall in pupil places.

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

·         The cumulative impact of the application had been addressed in the report and addendum.  In the officer’s view these grounds were not sufficient to refuse the application;

·         The drainage engineer was of the view that the drainage/flooding issues could be dealt with by condition;

·         OCC was responsible for the provision of school places. It had raised no objection to the application but had requested a financial contribution to mitigate any harm arising;

·         OCC was in the process of drawing up traffic calming measures and this would be secured by condition.

·         A Grampian condition was proposed to ensure that development did not commence until a detailed drainage strategy for on and off site infrastructure was submitted to and approved by the planning authority and implemented before any discharge to the public system was accepted; and

·         A member reported that Thames Water had stated that it would be upgrading local pumping stations in 2017.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 2)

Residential development of 39 dwellings.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2175/FUL for a residential development of 39 dwellings on land west of the plant nursery, Steventon Road, East Hanney.

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.

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

·         Overdevelopment of the site;

·         Lack of provision for safe pedestrian crossing of the A338; and

·         The proposed access was unsafe.

John Lagan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. His speech included the following:

·         None of the consultees other than the Parish Council had objected;

·         The Highway Authority did not object to the application; and

·         The risk of flooding was minimal. 

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

·         Concerns about pedestrian safety;

·         Concerns about the applicant’s confirmation that it was unwilling to accommodate a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) compliant housing mix on the site as it considered that this would render the scheme unviable; and

·         Concerns about the number of proposed conditions which were “to be agreed”.

Officers advised that:

·         As OCC as highway authority had not objected to the application refusal on the grounds of pedestrian safety could not be justified. However the Committee could agree to an Informative seeking OCC’s views on the safety of the pedestrian crossing with the response to be reported to a future meeting;

·         Until the five year housing land supply is agreed, it is not possible to enforce a SHMA compliant housing mix.  However 40% affordable housing has been negotiated; and

·         Whilst it would be preferable for all conditions to be agreed prior to the application coming before the Committee, it would not be reasonable to refuse or defer the application. Should conditions not be agreed subsequently then the application would fail.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 1, abstentions 1)

Outline application to provide up to 28 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2077/O for an outline application to provide up to 28 dwellings on land to the rear of 10 Halls Close, Drayton.

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.

Robert Williams, a representative of Drayton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         Whilst he had no issue with the suitability of the site, it was not an approved housing development site within the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan (DNP);

·         The proposal was, therefore, contrary to the DNP; to approve the application would undermine local democracy; and

·         To approve the application would set a precedent which would threaten the integrity of the DNP and other neighbourhood plans.

Sir Tom Shebbeare, spoke objecting to the application.  He emphasised that the DNP had been created by local consensus and reiterated that the application was not on a site allocated for housing development within the DNP.

Simon Tofts, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application:

·         The proposal was for high quality retirement homes;

·         By providing such accommodation it would free up other properties;

·         There were no technical constraints on the site.

Councillor Stuart Davenport, the local ward councillor, expressed the view that the application was so controversial that it would be appropriate for it to be determined by a higher authority, for example the Planning Inspectorate. He believed that it would not be unreasonable to refuse the application given that the application was in conflict with the DNP.

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

·         The planning considerations for and against the application were finely balanced;

·         The perceived harm to both the DNP and other neighbourhood plans; and

·         The objection from the Conservation Officer as detailed in the addendum report.

Officers reported that, given that the five year housing land supply had not yet been agreed, counsel’s opinion was that, notwithstanding the recent adoption of the DNP, its relevant policy for the supply of housing must be treated as out of date.

In accordance with the committee’s normal procedure, the chairman moved the planning officer’s recommendation to delegate authority to approve the application.  This was put to the vote but was lost by nil votes to nine with two abstentions. 

It was then moved and seconded that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·         This development is not an allocated site and lies outside the settlement boundary and is therefore contrary to that growth strategy as outlined in the Drayton Neighbourhood Plan, as well the Local Plan 2011 and advice within the NPPF;

·         It would represent an unwarranted extension of the village into the countryside that would cause material harm to the setting and historic interest of the Drayton Conservation Area and the listed buildings within; and

·         In the absence of a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 234.

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission P14/V0080/FUL: residential development on land at Penstones Farm, Stanford in the Vale to provide 18 dwellings (8 for the over 55 age range, 7 affordable and 3 open market dwellings) with landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The officer presented the report on application P15/V1752/FUL for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission P14/V0080/FUL to provide 18 dwellings (10 for the over 55 age range, 7 affordable and 3 open market dwellings) with landscaping and associated infrastructure.

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 Pedder, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application and requested the inclusion of a number of additional conditions should the application be approved.

Simon Tofts, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application:

·         Two additional retirement homes were proposed;

·         There had been no objections from technical consultees to the proposals;

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.  With regard to the objector’s request for additional conditions, the planning officer advised that it would be appropriate to add some of the conditions regarding external street lighting given the location, heat pump details, and site access details. The county archaeologist would be consulted on the need for an archaeology survey given new information available since the appeal decision.  Other suggested conditions were already covered or would be inappropriate.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 0)

That authority to grant planning permission for application P15/V1752/FUL is delegated to the head of planning, subject to:

Demolition of existing dwelling.  Erection of replacement dwelling with garage and associated works, parking and landscaping.

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION

This item was withdrawn from the agenda and was therefore not considered.

Erection of two 5-bedroom dwellings and associated landscaping.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2628/FUL for the erection of two 5-bedroom dwellings and associated landscaping at Geggs Corner, Newbury Road, East Hendred.

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.

Nicky Brock spoke objecting to the application. She stated that the application was a back garden development, was in a conservation area and would have an adverse impact due to increased traffic movements, all contrary to local plan policies.

Philp Waddy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application:

·         There had been no objections from the Parish Council or statutory consultees;

·         Although there had been five objections from neighbours, there had also been five letters of support; and

·         There were other back gardens developments in the vicinity.

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

RESOLVED (for 10, against 0, abstentions 1)

To grant planning permission for application P15/V2628/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.  Three year commencement time limit.

2.  Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.  Submission of details: joinery details.

4.  Submission of details: external ducts and flues.

5.  Submission of details: landscaping scheme.

6.  Submission of details: materials.

7.  Submission of Details: sustainable drainage scheme.

8.  Submission of details: access iImprovements.

9.  Submission of details: slab levels.

10. Submission of bin storage and collection details.

11. No drainage to highway (full).

12. Permitted development restriction on dwellings: extension/outbuilding.

Removal of condition 7 (storage of boats) of planning permission P12/V1083 (Change of use of former water treatment works to boat hire business, including construction of new moorings, use of former chlorinator building for visitor reception, use of former pump house and garage building for storage, maintenance and repair of boats, minor external alterations to former pump house, laying out of parking and boat manoeuvring area, creation of ecological restoration area and associated works).

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2019/FUL for the removal of condition 7 (storage of boats) of planning permission P12/V1083 at Brandy Island, Buscot.

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.

John Hopkins, a local resident spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included:

·         Nothing had changed to justify the removal of the condition;

·         The boatyard was of no economic benefit to the community;

·         The proposal would have a negative visual impact; and

·         The proposal will harm wildlife habitats.

Mrs Wheeler, the applicant spoke in support of the application:

·         There would be no new buildings or additional infrastructure;

·         The proposal included an enhanced landscaping scheme.

Councillors Simon Howell and Elaine Ware, the local ward councillors, submitted a statement to be read out objecting to the application. They stated that, as there had been no material change since the original planning application there was no justification for removing the condition.

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

RESOLVED (for 11, against 0)

To grant planning permission for application P15/V2628/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.  Planning condition listing the approved drawings.

2.  Submission of further landscaping scheme.

3.  Implementation of further landscaping scheme.

4.  No boat storage outside the car park area marked on the approved plan.

5.  Restriction on hours of operation at site between 08:00 and 19:00.

6.  Delivery and removal of boats by river only and not road.

7.  Wildlife mitigation in accordance with previous report.

8.  Recommendation of reptile survey to be followed.

9.  All boats shall only be removed and replaced in river by forklift and not crane.

10. Operation in accordance with permitted flood risk assessment only.

11. Any works within 5 metres of the bank require a further water vole survey

 and submission of mitigation strategy.

12. All repair works requiring mechanical equipment to take place within the

 building.

Erection of a two-storey and single storey side extensions.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/V2494/HH for the erection of a two-storey and single storey side extensions at Paddock Brow, Jarn Way, Boars Hill.

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.

Teresa Slater, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included:

·         Concerns about the way the application had been dealt with; and

·         The design and materials were inappropriate.

Andrew Davies, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. He stated that approval of the application would set a dangerous precedent for development within the green belt.

Nicolas Usiskin, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He stated that the design was innovative and of good quality and that the objectors lived some distance away.

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

·         Whether permitted development rights could be removed; and

·         Whether a condition could be added to prevent ancillary use.

The officers advised that permitted development rights could only be removed in exceptional circumstances and could not be justified in this case.  However a condition regarding ancillary use could be added.

RESOLVED (for 10, against 0, abstentions1)

To grant planning permission for application P15/V2494/HH, subject to the following conditions:

1. Time limit.

2. Materials in accordance with application.

3. Approved plans.

4. Additional accommodation to be ancillary to the existing dwelling