Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted that the Chair of the Committee, Councillor Bob Johnston, was having difficulty in connecting to the virtual meeting and this had delayed the start of the meeting. The Vice Chair, Councillor Val Shaw was also not present at this time. It was agreed that a Chair for the meeting should be elected.

A motion moved and seconded, to elect Councillor Max Thompson as Chair of the meeting was declared carried on being put to the vote. RESOLVED: to elect Councillor Max Thompson as Chair of the meeting.

The Vice Chair, Councillor Val Shaw was later present and a motion was moved and seconded, to elect Councillor Val Shaw as Chair of the meeting, which was declared carried on being put to the vote. RESOLVED: to elect Councillor Val Shaw as Chair of the remainder of the meeting.

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 were received from Councillor Eric Batts.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 26 February 2020. 

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on Wednesday 26 February 2020, were agreed to be a correct record of the meeting. It was resolved that the Chairman 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, two working days before the meeting, namely by 12 noon on Thursday 21 May 2020.

Statements duly received will be published and thus available to the public. 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 two working days prior to the meeting and had also been published on the Council’s website.

Application for Stage 2 Technical Details Consent for one dwelling, in accordance with Permission in Principle for 1-2 dwellings, ref: P18/V2637/PIP. (Re-submission of withdrawn Stage 2 application ref: P19/V1287/TDC) (As amended by plans received on 28 January 2020, and additional drainage details received 25 February 2020 and 28 February 2020).

Councillor Janet Shelley, the local ward councillor, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

The committee considered application P19/V3304/TDC, for Stage 2 Technical Details Consent for one dwelling, in accordance with Permission in Principle for 1-2 dwellings, ref: P18/V2637/PIP (re-submission of withdrawn Stage 2 application ref: P19/V1287/TDC) (as amended by plans received on 28 January 2020, and additional drainage details received 25 February 2020 and 28 February 2020), at Monks Court, 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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that since the publication of the agenda, a statement of support had been received from the applicant. Also, a statement of objection had been received, referring to scale, mass, dominance and potential harm, also mentioning impact upon local character and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The East Hendred Parish Council had not objected but remained concerned about the bulk and height of the proposed dwelling. Eight letters of objection had been received, as detailed in a table at paragraph 2.1 of the report. The planning officer reported that the Conservation Officer had no objection.

The planning officer referred to the fact that the permission in principle had received consent in February 2019 for the development of 1 - 2 dwellings. Following consent, it was necessary to grant a technical details consent before the development could proceed.

Councillor Janet Shelley, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application, citing the effect upon the street scene; it was considered that the slope of the site made the development more dominant.  The glass porch could also be a source of light pollution. The slab levels also required control in the interests of restricting the turning of vehicles.

The planning officer reported that the height of the development was not considered to be out of place in the street scene. In respect of the slab levels, the senior planning officer reported that a pre-commencement condition was already recommended, to require the submission of access and visibility splay details.  A slab level condition could be added to the conditions.

A motion, moved and seconded, to grant planning permission, subject to an additional condition in respect of slab levels, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P19/V3304/TDC subject to the following conditions:

Standard

1.         Commencement of development within three years

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans

Pre-commencement

1.         Samples of materials to be submitted

2.         Access details and visibility splays to be submitted

3.         Tree protection details to be submitted

4.         Boundary treatment details to be submitted

5.         Hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted

Pre-occupation

6.         Implementation of approved landscaping scheme

7.         Parking and turning in accordance with approved plan

8.         Implementation of approved drainage scheme

Compliance

9.         Retention of hedgerow

10.       Gates to be set back 5.5m from carriageway edge and open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Erection of single storey side extension and front extension, and extension to existing garage (Corrected plans received 9 March 2020. Description correction agreed by agent on 9 March 2020).

The committee considered application P20/V0175/HH for the erection of a single storey side extension and front extension, and extension to existing garage (corrected plans received 9 March 2020. Description correction agreed by agent on 9 March 2020) at 10A Katchside, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon.

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.

With reference to paragraph 2.1 of the report, the planning officer reported that the Sutton Courtenay Parish Council had not raised any objection to the proposal but requested that a condition be considered to prevent the garage being used for residential purposes. The Oxfordshire County Council had objected on the basis of the potential generation of new vehicular trips through a sensitive part of the highway network. This was acknowledged by the district council but officers considered that this did not outweigh the benefits emanating from the permitted development rights.

The planning officer confirmed that a side extension was acceptable by virtue of permitted development rights under class A of Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order), as it did not require planning permission. Under these circumstances it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission. Also, parking space was considered to be adequate (paragraph 5.11 of the report).

Councillor Richard Webber, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. He stated that the district and county councils apparently had maintained a joint position of objection, unless a bypass was constructed.  He requested deferment of a decision, to allow the councils to develop a new joint position and to await a decision on highways funding. Some members of the committee proposed a deferment of the application, but this was not put to a vote. The senior planning officer advised the committee that in the event of a deferment, the permitted development element would not be included in the application before the committee.

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 P20/V0175/HH subject to the following conditions:

1.  Commencement of development within three years

2.  Development in accordance with approved plans

3.  Materials in Accordance with submitted details

4. Restrict conversion of the garage without planning permission (additional condition)

Proposed change of use from A3 to D1 (dental surgery)

(Additional information - Flood Risk Assessment received 5 February 2020 and amended by revised location plan received 13 February 2020)

(Transport Statement, including addendum to existing received 15 February 2020)

(Marketing report submitted 10 March 2020).

Councillor Bob Johnston attended the meeting prior to commencement of discussion on this item.

The committee considered applications P20/V0073/FUL & P20/V0076/LB for a proposed change of use from A3 to D1 (dental surgery) (additional information - Flood Risk Assessment received 5 February 2020 and amended by revised location plan received 13 February 2020) (Transport Statement, including addendum to existing received 15 February 2020) (Marketing report submitted 10 March 2020) at The Old Gaol, Bridge Street, Abingdon.

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 reported that a late submission had been received from the applicant in support of the application, which had been circulated to the committee. The planning officer referred to the relevant planning considerations in the determination of the application, which were detailed in paragraph 5 of the report, namely, the principle of the development - Employment/Retail Policy; the visual impact and heritage considerations; impact on residential amenity; public access; traffic, parking and highway safety; Community Infrastructure Levy; and environmental considerations - flood risk and drainage, air quality, ecology.

The planning officer also reported that the Abingdon Town Council’s representation had referred to the original approval in 2010 for the Old Gaol development being on the basis of a mixed-use development, including a Class A3 restaurant/cafe in Unit 5B. The planning officer advised the committee that the unit had never been occupied due to difficulty in finding a tenant to lease the space. It was considered that after a number of years of the unit remaining vacant and after unsuccessful marketing efforts, it was appropriate to consider alternative uses.

In respect of appropriate town centre use, the planning officer reported that in the policy context this proposal would be considered ‘Main Town Centre use’ under the Local Plan 2031. Additionally, Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which defined “major town centre uses” for the purposes of town centre policy, included restaurants and also health and fitness centres. Officers considered that a dental practice fell within a health centre use and was therefore appropriate in a town centre.

The planning officer reported that the neighbour in the apartment above the proposed unit considered that the intended use was preferable to a restaurant, and had requested adequate noise insulation from the use and would favour alteration works being limited between 8.00am and 5.00pm. The planning officer did not consider that the proposed use would generate additional noise.

The planning officer reported that the Friends of Abingdon Civic Society were concerned about “use of the modern glass addition to Treatment Room 1 as this raises privacy issues for patients and concerns about what screening will be proposed. Could detail be provided, or the space be reorganised?” The Friends had also alluded to the proximity of Treatment Room 1 to the riverside path which “could result in pressure to close the Bridge Street entrance to the gardens”. The planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.