Agenda and minutes

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

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

Councillor Bob Johnston declared an interest in relation to application P16/V2827/HH, 129 Poplar Road, Kennington.  As a member of Kennington Parish Council and the local ward member, he declared that he would leave the room and not take part in the debate for this item.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Councillor Catherine Webber tendered her apologies.  Emily Smith acted as her substitute.

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. 

There were no items of urgent business.

To receive any statements from members of the public that have registered to speak on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting. 

The registered speakers list was tabled at the meeting and each speaker would be heard during the relevant agenda item.

Part retrospective application for the retention and construction of earth bunds and the change of use of land to private recreational use.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0254/FUL which was a part retrospective application for the retention and construction of earth bunds and the change of use of land to private recreational use.

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 of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.  His points included the following:

·         The site causes severe harm to the residential amenities.

·         No ecological survey was carried out.

·         The site is unneighbourly.

·         The existing and proposed bunds have led to increased water levels.

·         85-95% of trees have now been removed.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who added:

·         If the bunds are intended to prevent trespassing they serve little purpose, as trespassing is not a major problem at the site.

David Mckenzie and Daron Burrows, whose properties are adjacent to the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Their points included the following:

·         There is a loss of light and outlook to their properties and the bunds are unsightly.

·         The bunds are of unacceptable height and density.

·         The vegetation is uncontrollable.

·         Drainage and safety is of concern leading to water run-off.

·         Bund A should be lowered and reprofiled.

·         No flood risk assessment, drainage assessment or contamination risk assessment has been carried out.

Questions of clarification were put to the speakers, who confirmed that:

·         The bunds adversely affect the view from their properties, vegetation grows on top of the bunds in summer, leading to the residents vacating the property during periods of the summer, and dead matter grows in winter.

·         Communication between the applicant and local residents has broken down and enforcement has had no practical impact.

·         The lighting around the trees is directed at their properties and has been left on overnight.  The residents were concerned that if this land is turned into private recreational use, the lights would be left on permanently.

·         The residents were concerned about chemical pollution.

Tony Kernon, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of his application:

·         The proposals are uncontentious.

·         Bunds do not reduce light; a fence would have the same effect.

·         The site has now been cleared for planting and the ecology will be enhanced by plants and trees.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who confirmed that:

·         Neighbours have the choice to put mesh, a wall, railings or bunds around their property to reduce the view of the site.

·         There have been no breaches of planning controls.

·         Bund A provides a bigger screen with a lesser footprint and ensures privacy.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application and recommended that the following conditions be imposed to ensure neighbourly relationships and good planning:

·         A test on pollution.

·         A reduction in the height of the bunds.

·         The installation of a drainage pipe.

Questions of clarification were put to the officers, who confirmed that:

·         It was acceptable to request a limit on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

The proposal is to demolish the existing public toilet building and replace it with a new public toilet block which will provide: two accessible toilets, two unisex toilets, one accessible baby changing room, four urinals and the necessary service zone.  The proposal also includes a new access route to the splash pad area of the park and fencing to enclose the splash pad.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V3123/FUL which was a proposal to demolish the existing public toilet building and replace it with a new public toilet block which will provide: two accessible toilets, two unisex toilets, one accessible baby changing room, four urinals and the necessary service zone.  The proposal also includes a new access route to the splash pad area of the park and fencing to enclose the splash pad.

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.

No public speakers had registered to speak for this item.

The officers provided clarification on the following point:

·         The fence around the splash pad area was put in for safety purposes.

The committee agreed that an additional condition to lock the public toilets at night was to be added for security purposes.

A motion, moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for item P16/V3123/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Tree protection.

4.    Materials in accordance with application.

5.    Drainage and flooding details – flood resilent construction, flood plan, drainage details.

6.    Development carried out in accordance with recommendations in site investigation report.

7.    Toilet block to be locked at night.

Reserved matters application following outline planning permission P13/V1514/O 'Outline application for residential development comprising up to 59 dwellings with associated highways works, landscaping and infrastructure improvements’.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V2868/RM which was a reserved matters application following outline planning permission P13/V1514/O 'Outline application for residential development comprising up to 59 dwellings with associated highways works, landscaping and infrastructure improvements’.

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, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke against the application.  His points included the following:

·         There has been a lack of public consultation with regards to this application and there has been no public presentation of the plans.  An agreement might have been reached earlier if local residents had been consulted more.

·         The site features a large number of houses built very close together and the design is out of keeping with the local area.

·         The proposed dwellings will destroy the character of this part of Shrivenham village.

·         Strategic sites have been allocated to Shrivenham and a five year land supply is now in place, so these dwellings are not required.

·         There is speeding traffic along Longcot Road and the pavements are inadequate.  A suitable plan for pedestrian access therefore needs to be put forward.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who added:

·         The dwellings proposed are more urban than rural in design and should be single-storey/two-storey houses with large gardens which would better reflect the character of Shrivenham.

David Fisher, of New Maritime Ltd, spoke in objection to the application.  His points included the following:

·         This application should be deferred to allow for more consultation as the applicant has failed to adhere to council procedures to engage with members of the local community.

·         A robust buffer boundary wall should be included and year round screening should be provided.

·         The Section 106 money is insufficient.

Steven Neal, representative of the applicant Taylor Wimpey, spoke in support of his application.  His points included the following:

·         There has been good engagement and a detailed dialogue with both Vale of White Horse District Council and local residents and comments have been taken on board.

·         The buffer is a generous five metres to provide ecological enhancement.

·         A financial contribution is being made to Oxfordshire County Council to improve the footpath.

·         Improved access makes it safer for pedestrians.

·         The mix of housing is suitable to meet the local need.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who confirmed that:

·         The development is not dissimilar in style to other sites locally.

·         There has been a good dialogue with Vale of White Horse District Council.

Councillors Simon Howell and Elaine Ware, the ward councillors, had provided a written statement objecting to the proposals which was read out by the clerk.  Their main points included the following:

·         There has been a lack of consultation and local engagement.

·         The buffer between the development and existing properties on Vicarage Lane required proper maintenance.

·         Design is not in keeping with local area.

·         A robust Construction Traffic Management Plan is required to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

Demolition of existing agricultural buildings and a new residential development of 57 dwellings, together with a new vehicular access on to Abingdon Road, new pedestrian and cycle accesses on to Abingdon Road, Henleys Lane and Gravel Lane and public open space including a new village green and associated landscaping.

Councillor Stuart Davenport, the local ward councillor, stepped down from this item and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V1705/FUL for the demolition of existing agricultural buildings and construction a new residential development of 57 dwellings, together with a new vehicular access on to Abingdon Road, new pedestrian and cycle accesses on to Abingdon Road, Henleys Lane and Gravel Lane and public open space including a new village green and associated 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.

Richard Williams, of Drayton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His points included the following:

·         Any development consisting of two- to three-storey buildings cannot enhance the conservation area.

·         There should be a reduction in the number of houses in the proposed development and more of a balance in favour of green space.

·         The development will harm the rural character and the Drayton conservation area.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who added:

·         Drayton Parish Council suggested the removal of at least one house from the development.

Daniel Scharf and Richard Wade spoke in objection to the application.  Their points included the following:

·         The Drayton Neighbourhood Plan allows for approximately 50 houses and that the housing reflects the rural area.

·         Impact would be reduced by removing dwellings 52, 55, 56 and 57.

·         64% of the open area will be taken.

·         The conservation area will be harmed.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who added:

·         It was reasonable to request that two houses be removed from the plan.  This would still be over the approximate figure of 50, however.

Mike Robinson, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  His points included the following:

·         The applicant has worked closely with the parish council.

·         Large accessible green space will act as a focal point for the village.

·         There have been no technical objections made by statutory consultees.

·         The development offers the opportunity for wider benefits for the village.  Funds have been provided for village facilities such as sports facilities and refurbishment of the village hall.

·         The site is well-designed.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who confirmed that:

·         Compromise has already been reached with the parish council to reduce the scale of the site.

Councillor Stuart Davenport, the ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application.  His points included the following:

·         The original plan stated approximately 50 homes.  57 may not sound like a large increase, but it would be.

·         More cooperation is needed.  There is a need to defer this item to remove the houses mentioned.

Questions of clarification were put to the speaker, who added:

·         The removal of houses would not lead to dead space.  Instead, it would increase the buffer, improve the overall design and open up more green space.

The committee discussed the application, with clarification from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

Retention and continued use of fabricated building for the use by Cumnor Pre School for a further temporary period of five years.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V2820/FUL for the retention and continued use of fabricated building for the use by Cumnor Pre-school for a further temporary period of five years.

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 registered speakers for this item.

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

A motion, moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P16/V2820/FUL subject to the following conditions:

1.    Approved plans list.

2.    The building hereby permitted and any ancillary works or structures shall be removed on or before 24 March 2022 and the land re-instated to its condition prior to the erection of the building.

Two storey rear and side extension.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V3010/HH for a two storey rear and side extension on a three-bedroom detached house. A mono-pitch roof over the existing garage was also proposed along with internal changes to lengthen the garage.

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.

Russell Irving, a resident in a neighbouring property, spoke in objection to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·         The extension will be oversized and overpowering.

·         The extension will cause loss of light in the kitchen and utility room at his property.

·         Two of the proposed windows will be situated directly opposite his landing window leading to a loss of privacy.

·         Accepting this application would create a terrace block domino effect on the street.

Councillor Judy Roberts, the ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application.  Her concerns included the following:

·         The extension is overbearing.

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

A motion, moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: To grant planning permission for application P16/V3010/HH subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.    Materials in accordance with application.

3.    Obscured glazing on windows on the eastern elevation of the extension.

4.    No garage conversion into accommodation.

5.    Parking plan for three spaces (including garage) to be submitted and approved.

Loft conversion including dormer on rear elevation.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V2827/HH for a loft conversion including dormer on the rear elevation.

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.

Colin Charlett, a representative of Kennington Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application:

·         In principle, Kennington Parish Council would support this application if it were not for the following reasons:

o   The proposals are overly large, unneighbourly and the elevated nature of the rear of the property makes it unsightly.

o   Granting planning permission for this application may set a bad precedent.

David Sawyer, the agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

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

A motion, moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: To grant planning permission for application P16/V2827/HH subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement within three years.

2.    Development to be built accordance with approved plans.

3.    Submission of material details, prior to commencement.

4.    Obscured glass and fixed shut, apart from top-hung opening vent only to rear window.

5.    Car parking provision to be retained and maintained.

Demolition of existing rear extension, erection of a new single storey rear extension. Proposed loft conversion and new front porch.

The officer informed the committee that item number P16/V3069/HH for 11 Finmore Road, Botley had been withdrawn from the agenda for this meeting to allow for the submission of amended plans.