<AI1>
Pl.35 Chair's announcements
The chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to an in-person
meeting which was being simultaneously broadcast.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.36 Apologies for absence
Apologies for
absence were received from Councillor Cheryl Briggs and Councillor
Ben Mabbett.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.37 Minutes
The minutes of
the previous meetings, held on Wednesday 10 March 2021 and
Wednesday 31 March 2021, were agreed to be a correct record of the
meetings. It was agreed that the chair sign them as
such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.38 Declarations of
interest
There were no
declarations of interest.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.39 Urgent business
There was no
urgent business.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.40 Public participation
The committee
noted the list of members of the public registered to speak at the
meeting. The committee had received, prior to the meeting,
copies of the statements which had been made.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.41 P19/V1728/RM - Land at Appleford
Road, Sutton Courtenay (Former Amey Works)
The committee
considered application P19/V1728/RM for
a reserved matters application for details of the appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed development following
planning permission P18/V0069/O (amended plans received 1 October
2020 and 4 December 2020 to show amendments to design, housing mix
and layout, and landscaping and as amended by plans received 1
March 2021) (Residential development of 91 dwellings Amey
Works).
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 at its meeting on 27 January 2021, the
committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application to
facilitate a site visit and to allow for further negotiations
between the developer and council officers. A site visit, attended
by members of the committee, took place on 24 May 2021.
The planning
officer reported on the detailed reasons for the deferral. Firstly,
members wished to see the site in context, hence the site visit.
Secondly, further discussions were required in respect of providing
a link from the site to Millennium Common. Thirdly, further work
was required on public open space, play provision and garden sizes.
Lastly, the committee requested an increased number of electric
vehicle charging points.
The planning
officer reported that discussions had taken place between the
Millennium Common trustees and the developer, and every effort had
been made to obtain agreement to a link. The Trust could not agree
to any additional access onto its land from the site, as this would
compromise the biodiversity of the Common. Although the council
would support the inclusion of a link to increase connectivity
between Sutton Courtenay to the west, the development site and the
neighbouring development to the east, there were no planning
grounds to insist on a link to third party land.
The planning
officer, with the assistance of a slide presentation, also reported
that the provision for public open space had been increased to 16.4
percent, which was in line with the policy requirement of 15
percent of usable open space. The provision of a local area for
play (LAP) and a local equipped area for play (LEAP) also met
council policy requirements. In respect of garden sizes, the
original proposals did not fully meet design guide space standards.
The private amenity space had been increased to the point that only
9 plots out of 91 (9.9% of the development) were below the
recommended size in the council’s design guide document. When
taken as a whole, the amount of amenity space per dwelling is
acceptable in the revised proposal. The planning officer offered to
put the changes into context. In the adjoining site, 43 percent of
gardens were below standard. Additionally, in a recent appeal
decision on a site in the district, the inspector concluded that
although 25 gardens were below the size standard, in conjunction
with the full amount of public open space being provided, this
would offset this ‘minor shortfall’. In the
planning officer’s opinion, these were significant
improvements in space provision on the site and it would be
unreasonable for the council to require further changes.
Paragraph 110
of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required
developments to be designed to enable the charging of plug-in
vehicles. There was no local plan policy to provide guidance on how
this would be done or requiring a certain percentage of housing to
have access to charging points. The proposed number of electric
vehicle (EV) points had now increased from 12 to 38, plus 2
‘pay as you go’ points adjacent to the play
area.
The planning
officer, with the assistance of a slide presentation, also reported
on the concerns of residents in respect of the management of the
bunds and land transfer. The bund behind 1-7 Amey Close would
remain as open space within the development. The bund backing on to
numbers 5, 6 and 7 would become part of the private gardens of
those properties. As the land backed directly onto the gardens of
the new dwellings, it was agreed that it would not be practical for
a management company to be involved in the maintenance of this
land. In respect of the bund backing onto numbers 1, 3 and 4 Amey
Close, this faced onto front gardens of the new dwellings and a new
public footpath. If this were incorporated into the private
gardens, a dividing fence would be required up to the footpath and
this would create an imposing barrier in front of the new dwellings
and thus would not be practical. This area would remain as public
open space, and be accessible for public use and maintenance from
within the development.
The planning
officer concluded by stating that since the January 2021 committee,
all concerns regarding the proposal had been reviewed by council
officers and the developer, resulting in a development which would
be highly accessible, with good connectivity, a good provision of
private and public open space, and which encouraged the use of
electric vehicles.
Mr. Norman
Griffiths had been registered to speak to the committee but was not
present. However, his statement had been sent to the committee by
the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Ms. Caroline
Green, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
A statement by
Mr. David Hignell, Chairman of the Millennium Common Management
Committee, had been sent to committee by the democratic services
officer prior to the meeting.
A statement by
Mr. Ian Bush, a local resident, had been sent to committee by the
democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
The committee
concluded that the proposal represented a good use of a brownfield
site. With the amended details relating to LAP and LEAP provision,
public open space, garden sizes, the bund and electric vehicle
charging points, the proposed development was most acceptable. The
Trust’s position on declining the request for the link to
Millennium Common in the interests of preserving biodiversity was
wholly understandable.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put
to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application
P19/V1728/RM, for the following reasons;
Conditions
1.
Approved plans
2.
Materials
3.
Estate roads and footpaths
4.
Landscaping and S278 works
5.
Car parking
6.
Cycle parking
7.
Visibility splays
8.
Landscaping
9.
Electronic vehicle charging
10.
Maintenance and upkeep of the site
Informatives
1.
Planning Obligation
2.
CIL- reserved matters approval
3.
Superfast broadband - 30 plus dwellings
4.
Advance payments code – private street works
5.
Public highway works
6.
S38 / Private streets agreement
7.
Thames Water
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.42 P20/V1279/FUL - Land at Townsend
Road, Shrivenham
The committee
considered application P20/V1279/FUL for the redevelopment of the
site to provide 10 new dwellings (a net gain of 9 units) and
associated parking, gardens, access improvements and landscaping,
following the demolition of the existing workshops and bungalow (as
amended by details received 28 October 2020 and 4 November 2020 and
visibility details 7 May 2021) on land at Townsend Road,
Shrivenham.
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 this application had been
deferred at the committee meeting of 21 April 2021, as further
information was required from the applicant in respect of the
proposal addressing local housing need and supporting local
employment, services and facilities. The applicant had now
submitted this information in the form of a statement which had
been the subject of a re-consultation with the parish council. The
planning officer also reported the latest situation regarding the
Shrivenham Neighbourhood Plan; it was now afforded full weight. The
parish council had expressed concerns regarding the effect upon the
character of the local area and an apparent lack of evidence to
justify extra housing of this nature in Shrivenham. The planning
officer advised the committee that the proposal was acceptable from
a planning perspective, as it was for an acceptable use and was on
a brownfield site. Trees would be retained along the western edge
of the site and the local highway authority, the Oxfordshire County
Council, had required an amendment to the site’s access,
which was now satisfactory. There were no technical objections to
the proposed development and drainage and diversity arrangements
were acceptable.
A statement by Ms. Angela Brickell, a local resident,
was sent to committee by the democratic
services officer prior to the meeting.
Councillor
Richard Bartle, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council,
spoke objecting to the application. A statement by Councillor
Bartle on behalf, of the parish council, was sent to committee by
the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Ms. Sarah
Hockin, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor
Elaine Ware, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application. Statements by Councillor Ware were sent to committee by the
democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
In response to
a question regarding the commercial viability of the site and any
efforts to market it, the planning officer advised the committee
that an independent assessor had examined the site’s viability using government approved methodology.
The conclusion of the study was that the site was not viable for
re-development for employment purposes. A further question was
asked about privacy and the potential overlooking of existing
bungalows by the development. The planning officer reported that
obscure glazing would not be suitable for habitable rooms, which
were mainly bedrooms, as most would be side facing. With the
incorporation of two lines of boundary fencing, there was an
intention to have a walkway to service the properties from the
rear, which would be ‘secure by design’.
Responding to a
question regarding housing need, the planning officer reported that
if permission was given to the proposal, it would contribute to
local and district-wide housing needs being met. This location was
classified as a ’windfall site’ and would contribute to
Vale’s total housing supply requirement. In response to a
question regarding total housing unit ‘caps’, the
planning officer confirmed that there was no such maximum figure
for housing in Shrivenham or similar villages, a principal factor
being the unpredictable availability of windfall sites.
The committee
accepted that the site was not viable for commercial purposes and
the proposal would provide a reasonable number of dwellings to the
local area and to the district on a brownfield site.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put
to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application
P20/V1279/FUL, subject to the following conditions;
Conditions
1.
Approved plans
2.
Materials
3.
Estate roads and
footpaths
4.
Landscaping and S278
works
5.
Car parking
6.
Cycle parking
7.
Visibility splays
8.
Landscaping
9.
Maintenance and upkeep of the
site
Informatives
1. Planning obligation
2. Reserved matters approval
3. Superfast broadband – 30
dwellings
4. Advance payments code – street
works
5. Public highway works
6. S38/private streets agreement
7. Thames Water
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.43 P20/V1706/FUL - Lock Farm, Buscot,
Faringdon
The committee
considered an application P20/V1706/FUL for a change of use of
agricultural buildings to office space use and associated works and
infrastructure (Heritage Impact Statement received 9 September
2020) (proposed layout plan rec 14 Sept 2020) (amended plans,
arboricultural information, flood risk assessment and landscape
proposals received 17 March 2021) at Lock Farm, Buscot,
Faringdon.
The planning
officer reported that the buildings were owned by the National
Trust, who were applying for a change of use of agricultural
buildings to office, co-working and meeting space. The site was
within the wider setting of a grade I listed building, the Church
of St. Mary and the Old Parsonage, a grade II listed building. The
application site shared an access with these buildings and the
planning officer considered that vehicular traffic to and from the
development would not have an impact upon these assets. Concerns by
local residents at the application included increased traffic
generation, harm to the setting of the listed buildings, impact
upon wildlife and possible unacceptable overflow car parking. The
planning officer reported that there were no technical objections
to the application and that the drainage arrangements were
satisfactory. The scheme also incorporated tree protection
measures, hedgerow reinstatement and landscaping.
Mr. Guy Jordan,
a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Mr. Christian
Walker of the National Trust, the applicant, spoke in support of
the application.
Councillor Elaine Ware, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to
the application. A joint statement by Councillor Ware and fellow
local ward councillor, Simon Howell, had been sent to committee by
the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
A statement by
Ms. Ellen Hopkins, a local resident, had been sent to committee by
the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
The committee
considered that the proposal represented a sympathetic re-use of a
non-designated heritage asset and was satisfied that the proposal
would bring into active use a redundant agricultural building to
the benefit of the rural economy.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put
to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application
P20/V1706/FUL, subject to the following conditions;
Standard:
1.
Commencement
2.
Approved plans
Pre-Commencement:
3.
Archaeology – written scheme of investigation
4.
Tree Protection
5.
Biodiversity enhancement plan
6.
Surface water drainage
7.
Foul water drainage
8.
Levels for car park
9.
Contamination
10. Security
entrance gates
11. External
lighting
12. Obtain
derogation licence for bats
13. Obtain
derogation licence for great crested newts
Prior to
Occupation:
14. Specified
visibility splays
15. Access
parking and turning in accordance with plans
16. Turning
space for emergency/servicing vehicles
17. Vehicle
swept paths and passing places
18. Bicycle
parking provision
19. Refuse
storage
20. Electric
vehicle charging points
Compliance:
21. Restricted
use – offices only
22. Archaeology
– publication of findings
23. Landscaping
implementation
24. Development
in accordance with Ecological reports
25. Development
in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment
26.Materials in
accordance with application
27. Hours
restriction
</AI9>
<TRAILER_SECTION>
</TRAILER_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION>
</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<HEADING_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 7.35 pm
|
