Agenda and minutes

The Chair had no announcements but ran through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to a virtual meeting.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Robert Maddison, Janet Shelley and Max Thompson. Councillor Amos Duveen substituted for Councillor Max Thompson.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 24 June 2020. 

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on Wednesday 24 June 2020,were agreed to be a correct record of the meeting. It was agreed that the Chair sign them as such.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

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 was no urgent business.

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 on Tuesday 7 July 2020.

Statements duly received are published below. They have also been circulated to members of the Committee. They will not be read out at the meeting.

ADDITIONAL NOTE

Statements received

A schedule of the written representations received is attached.

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.

Variation of Condition 3 - Highway works to be agreed to application ref P15/V2887/FUL to swap the provision of a pedestrian crossing for a new footpath, to enable the provision of a safer pedestrian route to the nearby primary school that will not require children cross and recross school road (as amended on 17 January 2020). Erection of 15 dwellings and associated works.

The committee considered application P18/V1498/FUL for the variation of Condition 3 - Highway works to be agreed to application ref P15/V2887/FUL to swap the provision of a pedestrian crossing for a new footpath, to enable the provision of a safer pedestrian route to the nearby primary school that will not require children cross and recross school road (as amended on 17 January 2020) on land off School Road West Hanney Wantage, OX12 0LA.

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. At the meeting the planning officer provided projected plans of the works previously permitted in connection with condition 3 of application no. P15/V2887/FUL and the route of the new footpath and pedestrian routeway to the primary school and details for the upgrading of a public footpath.

The planning officer advised the Committee that the application was brought to the planning committee as it could represent a significant departure from the views expressed by the highways authority. Planning permission had been granted for 15 dwellings on this site under planning application P15/V2887/FUL. Condition 3 of that permission required, prior to development commencing: 1. the submission for approval of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing in the immediate vicinity of the access junction, to allow safe pedestrian travel across School Road onto the existing footway on the southern side of School Road and 2. the upgrading of the West Hanney footpath number 5 from the site to its junction with School Road. The reason for the condition was in the interests of highway safety and to promote sustainable methods of transport. The applicant had explained to the Council that the crossing to the existing footway on the south side of School Road could not be secured as the embankment on the southern side of the road was common land.  The planning officer informed the committee that work on the development of the dwellings had already commenced.

In response to a question form the Committee, the planning officer reported that

there was no defined width to the public footpath. It was noted that some local residents, in their statements in response to the application, had suggested that the 1.5 metre-wide public footpath requested by the highways officer could not be achieved, as the public footpath was only up to 1.2 metres wide. He advised the Committee that the provision of a 1.5 metre-wide public footpath could encroach into neighbouring gardens and could result in the removal, or part removal, of adjacent hedges which provided privacy for adjacent residents. The current proposal was for upgrading the footpath between existing timber edging strips which were approximately 1 metre apart.  This was below the highways officer’s recommended width, but would restrict the space available to pedestrians, and those with pushchairs, or wheelchairs, to pass.  The Committee considered that irregular width footpaths were a common feature in the district and that the Council should support reasonable workable proposals.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.