Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Chris McCarthy and Janet Shelley. Councillors Robert Hall and Ben Mabbett substituted.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meetings held on 20 April and 18 May 2016. 

The minutes of 20 April and 8 May were agreed as a true record of the meeting and the Chairman signed them as such.

None.

The speakers’ list was tabled at the meeting and the agenda followed the order of this list. All speakers spoke directly before the relevant application.

None.

None.

Development of up to 88 dwellings including 40% affordable housing, landscaping and other associated works with all matters reserved with the exception of access.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0652/O for a development of up to 88 dwellings, including 40 percent affordable housing, landscaping and other associated works with all matters reserved with the exception of access; to land at Park Farm, East Challow.

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 was asked to consider the principle of the scheme and the access arrangements.

The applicant has amended the plans to widen the footway and therefore the highway authority no longer object.

Phil Knight, a representative of East Challow Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application; the key points raised were:

·           Lack of five year housing land supply: figures used by the planning officers are out of date. The local inspector’s response today states that there is a 7.2 year supply of deliverable housing and therefore there is no need to allocate more land for housing in advance of Local Plan Part 2.

·           East Challow should not be allocated as a “larger village” even using the Vale’s criteria.

Craig Roberts, the applicants’ agent, spoke in support of the application as follows:

·           The location is sustainable, and is very close to Wantage.

·           Integration of the proposal with the rest of the village.

·           Consultation has been carried out with the local residents.

·           The development would bring numerous benefits to the local community.

Yvonne Constance, the local ward member, spoke in objection to the application:

·           East Challow Parish Council do not object to all development and are in consultation with the developers.

·           Park Farm is a visual setting and country frame for the whole village.

·           The proposed development would further increase coalescence with Wantage.

·           The proposed development is not sustainable.

·           The planning inspector’s acceptance of 7.2 years of housing land supply is significant.

The committee discussed and considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate.  The discussion included the following points:

·           The planning inspector’s report is an interim report and carries limited weight. There are still points to be addressed and it cannot be considered as evidence of the district having a five year housing land supply.

·           It is important for the committee to be consistent.

·           No statutory consultees are objecting to the application

·           Concern about contractors’ vehicles going up Letcombe Hill: this will be covered by condition 13, the traffic management plan.

·           The sustainability issues are covered in the officer’s report.

·           The Inspector’s letter is positive news, however he emphasises that it may be subject to change and it has limited weight and cannot be relied on until the Local Plan, Part 1 is adopted.

·           The roundabout is not absolutely necessary; however it improves safety on the major roads and was broadly welcomed by residents in consultation.

·           Concerns raised about impact of accumulative development in the village.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED (For 9; Against 0; Abstentions 2)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Minor material amendment to P14/V2757/FUL (Residential development of 68 new homes, public open space and new site accesses) for redesign of plots 19 - 22.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0370/FUL for minor material amendments P14/V2757/FUL (residential development of 68 homes, public open space and new site accesses) for redesign of plots 19-22; at land off Colton Road, Shrivenham.

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 Bartle, the chairman of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

·           This is the third minor material amendment to this application.

·           Linden Homes, the developer have not consulted with the parish council or local residents.

·           The new proposals will overlook the neighbouring bungalows.

·           The larger properties proposed will not meet the needs of local residents.

Michael Ross spoke in objection to the application as follows:

·           This is a significant variation from the planning support statement which was originally submitted based on local residents and the parish council’s view, which was for bungalows on this site.

The clerk read out a statement from the ward councillors, Simon Howell and Elaine Ware, objecting to the application. The statement is included in the addendum report.

The committee debated this issue with assistance from officers where appropriate.

·           The proposed chalet bungalows will not be suitable for elderly people wishing to downsize and free up family homes, but the developer will need to provide appropriate suitable housing elsewhere in the site.

·           Drainage – awaiting formal notification from Thames Water that the strategy has been agreed prior to first occupation.

·           Some bungalows in the area have already been extended upwards.

·           These bungalows are not part of the 40 percent affordable offer on the site.

·           Neighbourhood plan is in draft in Shrivenham, and has not significant weight.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

Demolition of existing bungalow and industrial workshops/storage sheds. Erection of 14 flats, car parking, landscape and works there to.

The officer presented the report on application P16/V0527/O for the demolition of the existing bungalow and industrial workshops/ storage sheds; and for the erection of 14 flats, car parking, landscape and works thereto at The Bungalow, Townsend, Grove.

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.

Officers consider that the application, as now presented, provides an acceptable solution to housing on the site.

Sarah Anns, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application, her concerns included the following:

·           The proposed development would be dominant and overlook the neighbouring properties.

·           Three storeys would be too high.

·           Parking would not be adequate for the site.

Ben Mabbett, one of the ward councillors, spoke to the application:

·           Scale of the development is too great.

·           Access into the development is on a busy corner with no facility for street parking: as proposed the parking is inadequate.

·           The height of the building is out of keeping with the local area.

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

·           This is an outline development and there would be a reserved matters application which would deal with the detail of the development, but as currently proposed, it would be likely to be proposed as it is currently shown, and therefore members of the committee can take it into consideration for this application.

·           The county engineer is content with the current access proposals.

·           The plans being shown are for outline agreement and access only.

·           An additional condition could be added to limit the scale near to the neighbours.

·           Amendments to condition 9.

·           One extra condition relating to the height in relation to Cotton Close.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

Informative

Bat roosting

Erection of a three-bedroom dwelling on land associated with 20 Market Place, with access via Regent Mews. Demolition of section of wall to gain access into site (resubmission).

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P15/1858/FUL for the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling on land associated with 20 Market Place, with access via Regent Mews. Demolition of section of wall to gain access into site (resubmission).

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.

Comments have been received concerning accuracy, these have been addressed in the addendum report.

The neighbourhood plan has been examined, but has not yet been subject to a referendum and is, therefore, still in draft form.

Technical officers are content except for the landscape officer who still has concerns about the height of the property although it has been improved since its previous submission.

Jonathan Puddifoot spoke in objection to the application, his concerns included the following:

·           This is one of the green corridors into the town centre which is part of the draft neighbourhood plan.

·           This is outside of the Faringdon development plan boundary, inside the conservation area and surrounded by listed buildings.

·           The site is boggy and dark.

·           The site is not sustainable.

Alla Hassan, the applicants’ agent spoke in favour of the application.

·           The lack of a five year housing land supply and the sustainability of the site means that the application should be approved.

·           The application has taken the local area and the vegetation into account.

·           Impact has been minimised.

Councillor Cox, one of the local ward members, spoke to the application and considered that it was in a sustainable site close to the town centre, and does not impact negatively on the local area.

The committee discussed the application, with input from the officers, where appropriate.

·           The statutory consultees have no objections, except for the conservation officer who still has an objection to the design and height, but the impact of this is considered to be minimal.

·           The committee asked for a slab level condition to be included.

·           Consideration should be given to hand digging round the trees (covered by condition 16).

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

Demolition of existing garage, workshop and ancillary accommodation, replacement with a two bedroom dwelling.

The officer presented the report on application P16/V0345/FUL for the demolition of the existing garage, workshop and ancillary accommodation, and the replacement with a 2 bedroom development at 41 Sutton Wick Lane, 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.

David Mitchell, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application, as follows:

·           He had made amendments to the original design based on advice from officers.

·           There were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees and it was in line with the Vale’s design guide.

The ward councillor, Stuart Davenport, spoke in respect of this application.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

Installation of giant umbrella to south elevation of pub and retractable roof system with bi-fold doors to east elevation.  Create doorway from window to gain access to roof system from dining room and reduce size of adjacent window.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0734/FUL for the installation of a giant umbrella to south elevation of pub and retractable roof system with bi-fold doors to east elevation; and to create adoorway from window to gain access to roof system from dining room and reduce size of adjacent window; at the Pack Horse Pub, Abingdon Road, Milton 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.

Chris Green and Kelsey Jones spoke objecting to the application on behalf of six local residents, their concerns were:

·      The pub has increased significantly in size in recent years, leading to increased noise. There are cooking smells coming from the gardens and a rat infestation, allegedly due to poor waste management.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED

Single storey side extension to form a study.

The officer presented the report on application P16/V0698 for a single story side extension to form a study at 68 Howard Cornish Road, Marcham.

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 ward member, Councillor Catherine Webber, spoke regarding the application. She was concerned as to whether this extension could later be increased by a storey, but it was confirmed that this would require a further planning application.

MichealHoath, representing Marcham Parish Council spoke regarding the application:

·           Particular concerns were around the parking, access and potential traffic to the site, given its proximity to the local primary school.

·           If the committee were minded to approve the application, the parish council would like a condition for a dropped kerb and additional car parking to prevent builders vans from parking in the road and on the pavement.

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

·           It was not reasonable to add the condition suggested by the parish council.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED (For 10, Against 1; Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement of development three years.

2.     Development in accordance with the approved plans.

3.     Materials in accordance with application.

Single storey front extension.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0911/HH for a single storey front extension to 40 Stonhouse Crescent, Radley.

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.

There were no public speakers or ward councillors to address this item.

The committee discussed the application with advice from the officers.

A motion, moved and seconded for approval, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.     Commencement of development three years.

2.     Development in accordance with the approved plans.

3.     Materials in accordance with plans.