<AI1>
Pl.26 Chair's announcements
The chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to a virtual
meeting.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.27 Apologies for absence
There were no
apologies for absence.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.28 Minutes
The minutes of
the previous meeting, held on Tuesday 16 February 2021, were agreed
to be a correct record of the meeting. It was agreed that the Chair
sign them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.29 Declarations of
interest
There were no
declarations of interest.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.30 Urgent business
The chair
reported that the order of items on the agenda would be altered to
ensure that the committee and the public would have access to full
information. The application for land at Hids Copse, Cumnor Hill,
would be considered second on the agenda, and not last, as the
council’s senior tree officer would be present to give advice
on the application, but owing to an impending appointment elsewhere
had only limited time available at the beginning of the
meeting.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.31 Public participation
The committee
had received statements which had been made by the public in
respect of the applications. These had been circulated to the
committee some days prior to the meeting.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.32 P20/V2669/FUL - Fourwinds, 26 Bagley
Wood Road, Kennington
Councillor
Diana Lugova, a local ward councillor, stood down from the
committee for consideration of this item.
Councillor
Robert Maddison encountered technical communication problems during
the presentation of this item. The councillor was unable to
participate in or hear the whole debate and did not vote on this
application.
The committee
considered application P20/V2669/FUL for the erection of a new
detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space within
curtilage of existing house served by a vehicular/pedestrian
access. External alterations to existing dwelling house.
(Amended plans received 18 December 2020- reducing the height of
the boundary fence, additional levels plan), at 26 Bagley Wood
Road, Kennington.
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 the application was in respect of a
three-bedroom dwelling of traditional design, served by the
existing access. The site sloped upward from Bagley Wood Road and
had its own amenity space. Planning officers considered that the
proposal would not result in a cramped form. The front
windows of the proposed dwelling were 21m. from the adjoining
property and did not present any issues regarding overlooking. It
was acknowledged that there would be a marginal loss of light to
neighbouring property, number 24, owing to a proposed projecting
gable partially encroaching the 40 degree line rule to the
southernmost ground floor window, but some compensation would be
offered with the proposed removal of a tall conifer hedge, which at
present restricted light. There would also be the installation of a
new native hedge and 1.8m high fence. The issue of highways safety
had been considered and car parking would be adequate, and no
safety issues identified. The Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), as
highways authority, had no objection to the application, subject to
the conclusion of a s.106 agreement to maintain visibility splays
across a neighbour’s land, in the interests of highway
safety, and the drafting of a construction management plan. The
planning officer concluded that, overall, the proposal would
represent acceptable impact to the character of the local area, and
to neighbours’ amenity, and that there were no
technical objections to the proposal.
Councillor
Colin Smith, a representative of Kennington Parish Council, spoke
objecting to the application. A statement by Kennington Parish
Council had been sent to the committee prior to the meeting by the
democratic services officer.
Mr. David
Burson, the agent, spoke in support of the application. A statement
by Mr. Burson had been sent to the committee prior to the meeting
by the democratic services officer.
In response to
a question regarding local plan policy CP 37 on ‘design and
distinctiveness’ and the extent of pre-application work on
these issues, the agent responded that influences were drawn
broadly from Vale of White Horse buildings to reflect the
vernacular, with attractive detailing. A proposed projecting side
gable had been reduced in order better to assimilate the dwelling
into the street scene.
The committee
was concerned about the level of construction traffic on Bagley
Wood Road, which was a single width road without a footway, and
asked how construction traffic would be controlled in the interests
of highway safety. The agent replied that a construction management
plan was being devised, which was subject ultimately to OCC
approval. The seriousness with which this subject was regarded was
evidenced by the fact that developments this minor did not usually
attract such a plan. The planning officer also responded that a
proposed pre-commencement condition covered the issue of a
construction management plan.
Councillor Bob
Johnston, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application.
In response to
a question from the committee regarding further details regarding
the S.106 agreement, the planning officer responded that the
neighbour’s land which was the subject of the agreement was
outside the boundary of the application. The senior planning
officer confirmed that the neighbour had accepted the proposed
agreement. The development could not proceed without the conclusion
of this agreement.
With reference
to paragraph 5.4, relating to the proposed dwelling meeting unmet
housing need in Kennington or Oxford, owing to good pre-existing
transport links, a question was asked about the frequency of these
services. The planning officer reported that they were regular and
that most bus stops were within 10 minutes’ walk of the
site.
The committee
concluded that the principle of development on this site was
appropriate and that the amended scheme was acceptable in terms of its impact on the
character of the area and upon neighbouring residents. The
committee concurred that a S.106 agreement was necessary, to ensure
that the visibility splay to the south was maintained and kept free
from obstruction.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put
to the vote.
RESOLVED: that authority to grant planning permission
for application P20/V2669/FUL is delegated to the Head of Planning
Services, subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement, and
subject to the following conditions:
Standard
1.
Commencement of development within three years
2.
Development in accordance with approved plans
Pre-commencement
1.
Details of materials to be submitted
2.
Landscaping scheme submission
3.
Surface water drainage
4.
Foul water drainage
5.
Construction traffic management plan
Pre-occupation
1.
Obscure glazing to new first floor northern window
2.
Obscure glazing to existing eastern dormer on existing
dwelling
3.
Removal of existing dormer on eastern elevation on existing
dwelling
4.
Car parking in accordance with approved plan
5.
Boundary treatments in accordance with approved plan
Informative
1.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
2.
Wild bird informative
3.
Works within the highway
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.33 P20/V3322/FUL - Land at Hids Copse,
Cumnor Hill, Cumnor
The committee
considered application P20/V3322/FUL for the erection of single
detached 'Tree House' dwelling on land at Hids Copse, Cumnor
Hill.
Commencement of
discussion of this application was delayed as Councillor Robert
Maddison had encountered technical communication problems during
the presentation of this item. The councillor was unable to
participate in or hear the whole debate and did not vote on this
application.
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 the proposal was for the erection of an
individually designed ‘floating’ tree house in timber
and glass. Access would be from Hids Copse, (which contained
84 trees with tree preservation orders - TPOs), and the existing
access to the site would be utilised. The application had addressed
the shortcomings of a previous application and the dwelling was of
an innovative design, did not entail the removal of any trees, and
incorporated piling techniques as an alternative to conventional
foundations, to minimise damage to trees. Cumnor Parish Council
supported the application.
The planning
officer referred to paragraph 5.9 of the report, which stated that
the proposal was supported by an Internal Daylight Adequacy and
Overshadowing Assessment, which had concluded that adequate
daylight would be received in the dwelling and that 53% of the
garden had received at least 2 hours of sunshine on 21 March
2021. Since the publication of the agenda, a further
neighbour objection had been received, which corrected the daylight
and overshadowing details. In fact, this evaluation applied to only
a small area adjacent to the dwelling, which the planning officer
depicted in the presentation to the committee.
The planning
officer’s presentation incorporated site plans of the
proposed dwelling, with floor plans and elevations. The council
officers’ reasons for recommending the refusal of planning
permission were listed, including the reasonable expectations of
future occupiers and how the effect of TPOs could be undermined if
there was a poor relationship between the dwelling and protected
trees. Additionally, if the proposal proceeded, the council’s
ability to resist works to TPO trees could be limited.
The officer
concerns also included the anxiety of occupiers purportedly created
by an anticipation of storm activity and storm debris. There was
also concern in respect of unattended damage during the
construction stage. The complex construction processes and
materials and their storage would cause concern, and the tree cover
would reduce flexibility during this phase, and dealing with
unexpected consequences. Officers took the view that constructing a
dwelling at Hids Copse would provide a significant risk owing to
unpredictability, particularly as underground conditions were not
fully known. The loss of habitat was also a concern, with increased
harmful disturbance to biodiversity.
The democratic
services officer had sent a statement by Cumnor Parish Council to
the committee prior to the meeting.
The democratic services officer had sent a
statement by Mr. John
Guillebaud, a local resident, to the committee prior to the
meeting.
Baroness Deech,
a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Mr Themis
Avraamides, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The
democratic services officer had sent statements by Mr and Mrs
Avraamides to the committee prior to the meeting.
Mr. Phil
Easton, the architect, spoke in support of the application. In
response to a question, Mr. Easton explained the design of the
dwelling and its innovative features, including the helical piling
method, which did not require traditional trench foundations. He
responded to a further question regarding the protection of tree
roots and service routes; avoiding soil compaction and root damage,
cell web technology mats would be employed for vehicles, load
spreading and protecting roots during construction and subsequent
car parking. Also, off-site prefabrication of elements of the
building minimised disturbance. In response to a question
regarding utilities, services would be fully ducted, with access
chambers, entailing no soil or root disturbance in the event of
maintenance or repairs. The applicant would work with council
officers, and a construction methods statement would be approved.
Responding to a question regarding amenity space, the architect
reported that this was a large site, with many spaces without
trees, ensuring adequate amenity space.
In response to
a question regarding the safeguarding and enhancement of
biodiversity, the architect responded that his agency’s
ecologist had not identified the existence of bats or protected
species on the site. All species could easily pass through the site
without disturbance. The proposal would increase
biodiversity, with the provision of bat boxes and additional tree
planting. Responding to a question regarding fire hazards
connected with a largely wooden building, the architect replied
that it would be fire protected, have adequate emergency access,
and comply with building regulations.
The
council’s tree protection officer advised the committee on
the need for root protection during this type of development, in
that all roots would need to remain to ensure the integrity of a
tree. The officer also responded to a question in respect
of
the powers
available to the council in the event of damage during
construction. Redress for the council was limited, as planning
permission took precedence over TPO powers. However, there was some
recourse to the magistrates’ court and crown court to apply
for damages against an offender. In response to a further question,
the tree officer confirmed that the helical piling technique
represented high risks, because of the relative lack of information
available on this technique.
Alison Jenner,
a local ward councillor, spoke in support of the
application.
The committee,
whilst acknowledging an innovative application, remained concerned
at the impact the development would have on the character of the
local area and the amenity of neighbours. It also considered that
protected trees could not be safeguarded and that there would be
public safety risks from tree debris. The committee also considered
that the site’s biodiversity could not be sufficiently
mitigated by the proposals.
A motion moved
and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being
put to the vote.
RESOLVED: that planning permission for application
P20/V3322/FUL is refused for the following reasons;
1. That the
proposed development would be detrimental to the visual
amenities
of the locality and would lead to a progressive
detraction from the character of the area due to potential damage
from construction and the likely pressure on the protected trees,
for removal and lopping due to overshadowing, public safety
and debris following any residential occupation on this site. It is
considered that this would cause substantial harm to the character
and appearance of the area and wider landscape, contrary to
policies CP37 and CP44 of Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 part
1 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.
2. The proposal has failed to sufficiently
demonstrate that the priority habitat can be protected and that any
biodiversity impacts as a result of the development can be
sufficiently mitigated against or offset. As such the proposal is
considered contrary to policy CP46 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1
and paragraphs 170 and 175a of the NPPF.
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.34 P20/V3183/HH - West Wilden, 11 Brook
Street, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon
The committee
considered application P20/V3183/HH for the extension to an
existing garden store for ancillary use to the main house
(additional levels plan received 31 March 2021) at West Wilden, 11
Brook Street, Sutton Courtenay.
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 the site was located within the Sutton
Courtenay Conservation Area. The application sought planning permission to
extend the existing store outbuilding in the rear garden to create
additional space for the storage of tools and a hobby space.
This application was partially
retrospective; the foundations for the proposed extension to the
outbuilding had already been constructed. A slab level plan had been submitted which
depicted the total height of the extension including the footings,
in addition to its relationship to number 15 Brook Street, the
house in closest proximity to the extension. The planning officer
provided the committee with a slide presentation, depicting the
proposal’s relationship to number 15, which showed no
conflict or overshadowing. The single storey proposal had no south
facing windows and large car parking provision was available. There
was no expectation of increased traffic as a result of the proposed
development being permitted. The scale, form and massing of an
outbuilding would pressure the character of the conservation area
and existing building. However, there were no technical objections
to the application.
In response to
a question about the retrospective nature of elements of the
application, the planning officer advised the committee that
hardstanding in situ was expressly covered by permitted development
rights. Any future development required planning permission, as the
proposal projected beyond a side elevation within a conservation
area.
Mr. Robin
Heath, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
The committee
concurred with the planning officer that the proposal had a
sympathetic and appropriate form for the area and would employ
materials that were respectful and complimentary to the existing
built form in the vicinity. The outbuilding would be set back in
its plot and would not appear prominent. This, in combination with
the high boundary treatment at the site access, would ensure that
the outbuilding would not be readily visible in the street
scene.
RESOLVED: that planning permission is granted for
application P20/V3183/HH, subject to the following
conditions:
Standard:
1. Commencement
within three years.
2. Approved
plans list.
Compliance:
3. Materials in
accordance with application details.
</AI9>
<TRAILER_SECTION>
</TRAILER_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION>
</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</
TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
</
COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
a)FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
b)FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
|
The meeting closed at 8.11 pm
|
