Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 3 June 2020 5.00 pm

Venue: Virtual meeting, viewable via weblink;https://tinyurl.com/yb4tdty9

Contact: Paul Bateman 

Items
No. Item

107.

Chairman's announcements

To receive any announcements from the chairman, and general housekeeping matters.

Minutes:

The Chair had no announcements but ran through housekeeping arrangements as applied to virtual meetings.

108.

Apologies for absence

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

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Eric Batts. Councillor Simon Howell attended as his substitute.

109.

Declarations of interest

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

Minutes:

Councillor David Grant and Councillor Bethia Thomas, the members for Faringdon, declared an interest in item 7 on the agenda, 13 -17 London Street, Faringdon, declining to comment on this application. In a statement to the committee, each declared an interest; Councillor. Thomas had previously worked for, and continued to be  friends with the developer in question, and Councillor Grant lived in close proximity to the proposed development (the full text of their statement is given at Minute 113 below).

110.

Urgent business

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. 

Minutes:

The Chairman declared that there was no Urgent Business.

111.

Public participation pdf icon PDF 39 KB

To receive any statements from members of the public that have registered to make a representation on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting. All representations must be received by 12 noon, two working days before the meeting, namely by 12 noon on Friday 29 May 2020.

 

Statements duly received will be published and thus available to the public. They will not be read out at the meeting.

 

Statements received are published below.

 

Minutes:

Statements made by the public and duly received within a published deadline had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting and had also been published on the Council’s website.

112.

P19/V0023/FUL - Tilbury Fields, off Bushy Close, Botley, Oxford, OX2 9SH pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Retrospective application to regularise public realm works in connection with applications P07/V0741/O and P13/V0817/RM, including changes to approved roads and footpaths, parking areas, hard and soft landscaping, boundaries, recycling storage facilities, vehicle access prevention to Tilbury Lane, and surface water drainage (as amended by plans and information received 19 June 2019 and 5 August 2019).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered application P19/V0023/FUL, a retrospective application to regularise public realm works in connection with applications P07/V0741/O and P13/V0817/RM, including changes to approved roads and footpaths, parking areas, hard and soft landscaping, boundaries, recycling storage facilities, vehicle access prevention to Tilbury Lane, and surface water drainage.  (As amended by plans and information received 19 June 2019 and 5 August 2019) at Tilbury Fields, off Bushy Close, Botley.

 

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 the meeting.

 

The planning officer reminded the Committee that the application had been considered on 29 January 2020, who resolved to defer the decision for officers to investigate and report back. The Committee received a copy of the original report as an appendix to the report under consideration.

 

 

The Committee was advised of the requirement for a Deed of Variation to the S106 Legal Agreement. The original S106 agreement required the owner to provide 0.58 hectares of public open space (POS) to the council (together with a Public Open Space Commuted Sum). The council’s infrastructure team had identified a problem with the initial land offer, as it included drainage elements which the Council’s property team was not willing to accept. Alternative POS land had therefore been identified, but due to the estate layout, the alternative offer only amounted to 0.549 hectares, slightly below the 0.58 hectares required in the agreement. The planning considerations of this were dealt with in the report, but the Committee was advised that if the shortfall was accepted, the S106 would require a variation under S.106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which would be processed independently of the planning application.

 

The planning officer reported that land immediately adjacent to properties in Seacourt Road was outside the application’s boundary and was owned by a third party. The developer had undertaken not to transfer the site to the residents until planning permission had been obtained and that the lead of the residents association would be present at the handover event. The developer cited the hot weather as contributing to the dryness of the site and limiting growth and success in tree survival. There remains the intention to have planting in the swales and seeding and herbicide spraying and watering would take place. The aim was to complete all remedial works by September 2020 and this would be monitored by Council officers

 

In respect of roads subsidence, the planning officer reported that there were four specific problem areas and that a meeting would be held with the contractor on Monday 8 June 2020 to finalise a programme of works, and notification of such works would be shared with residents. It was reported that updated surface water drainage plans had been submitted for consideration in the application. The drainage scheme complied with CP42 and could be approved, but at present required gritting of porous areas.

 

The planning officer outlined changes to the spine road on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

113.

P19/V1340/FUL& P19/V1341/LB - 13-17 London Street, Faringdon, SN7 7AE pdf icon PDF 281 KB

Demolition of existing storage shed and garage to the rear of the property and conversion of existing offices, storage and bakery in the listed building into 2 x 2 bed apartments and 2 x 1 bed apartments. Development on land to the rear consisting of 3 x 1 bed apartments with associated parking and landscaping (bat survey received 18 July 2019).  (Revised Heritage Statement, Transport Statement, Design and Access Statement and revised drawings: C209.02A, C209.03B, C209.04B, C209.05A, C209.06A, C209.07A, C209.08A, C209.10A, C209.11A and C209.12A and Viability Statement, Contaminated land questionnaire received 6 December 2019 and amended by site plan C209.03revC received 14 Jan 2020) (amended plans showing vehicle tracking and cycle parking received 2 March 2020).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered applications P19/V1340/FUL and P19/V1341/LB for the demolition of existing storage shed and garage to the rear of the property and conversion of existing offices, storage and bakery in the listed building into 2 x 2 bed apartments and 2 x 1 bed apartments. Development on land to the rear consisting of 3 x 1 bed apartments with associated parking and landscaping (bat survey received 18 July 2019) (revised Heritage Statement, Transport Statement, Design and Access Statement and revised drawings: C209.02A, C209.03B, C209.04B, C209.05A, C209.06A, C209.07A, C209.08A, C209.10A, C209.11A and C209.12A and Viability Statement, Contaminated land questionnaire received 6 December 2019 and amended by site plan C209.03revC received 14 Jan 2020) (amended plans showing vehicle tracking and cycle parking received 2 March 2020) at 13-17 London Street, Faringdon.

 

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 the meeting.

 

The democratic services officer read to the Committee a statement made by Councillor David Grant and Councillor Bethia Thomas (referred to above in minute 109 - Declarations of Interest), which gave their reasons for not commenting on the applications. The full text was;

 

“Dear Chair and members of the Vale of White Horse Planning Committee,

 

We are writing to you to explain why, despite being ward members for Faringdon, we are unfortunately unable to comment on this application due to conflicts of interests.  Cllr. Thomas previously worked for and is friends with the developer in question, whereas Cllr. Grant lives in close proximity to the proposed development.

 

While we are aware that the Town Council are objecting to the development, we feel it would be improper for either of us to comment on this application in either direction to avoid the appearance of undue bias or impropriety.  We understand the Development Manager has used her discretion under the circumstances to call this development into the planning committee and we thank the committee in advance for giving the application its consideration.

 

Yours faithfully,

Cllr. Bethia Thomas & Cllr David Grant”

 

The planning officer reported that the proposed scheme had been amended considerably since it was first submitted, notably the reduction in scale of the new-build accommodation.  A viability report had been produced in respect of the office accommodation and was attached to the report (Appendix 1).

 

The Committee noted the relevant planning considerations in the determination of the application namely: The principle of the development – housing/employment/retail policy; visual impact and heritage considerations; impact on residential amenity, traffic, parking and highway safety; environmental considerations - flood risk, drainage, biodiversity and contamination considerations; Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

 

The planning officer reported that the Faringdon Town Council wished to retain the office use, which they considered was supported by neighbourhood plan policies. The viability report, however, had concluded that residential use was the only realistic option; the office space had been unoccupied for four years. Additionally, planning officers did not consider that the proposed use detracted from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.