<AI1>
Pl.205
Chair's
announcements
The Chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to a virtual
meeting.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.206
Apologies for
absence
Apologies for
absence were received from Councillor Robert Maddison.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.207
Minutes
The minutes of
the meetings held on Wednesday 21 October 2020 and Wednesday 2
December 2020, were agreed to be a correct record of the meetings.
It was agreed that the chair sign them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.208
Declarations of
interest
Referring to
39A and 39B Ock Street, Abingdon, (item 10 on the agenda,
applications P19/V3158/FUL and P20/V2131/LB) the Chair declared
that he was a resident of Ock Street, Abingdon, but lived at a
sufficiently great distance from the application site to not have
an interest in the proposals.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.209
Urgent
business
There was no
urgent business.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.210
Public
participation
The committee
had received a list of public speakers and statements which had
been made by the public in respect of the applications. These had
been circulated to the committee prior to the meeting.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.211
P19/V1728/RM - Land
at Appleford Road, Sutton Courtenay (Former Amey
Works)
Councillor
Jenny Hannaby joined the meeting after its commencement and did not
hear the whole debate on this application and did not participate
in the vote on this application.
Owing to
telecommunication difficulties, Councillor Diana Lugova did not
hear the whole debate and did not vote on this
application.
The committee
considered application P19/V1728/RM 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).(Residential development of 91 dwellings and
associated access) on land at Appleford Road, Sutton Courtenay
(Former 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 the proposed development comprised 91
dwellings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed units, with a mixture of flats,
terraces, semi-detached and detached properties. Planning officers
had worked hard together to provide safe and attractive accessible
public open space for the residents. It was intended that a locally
equipped area of play (LEAP) would be situated to the eastern
central area, and a smaller local area of play (LAP) would be
situated to the south-western corner of the site. The LAP would be
100 square metres, the minimum sized requirement. The planning
officer provided the committee with a slide in connection with the
management plan. Although this was not a matter covered by the
planning permission, it was important to inform the committee that
a private a management company would gift half of the bund area to
residents to use and to manage.
The planning
officer clarified paragraph 5.31 regarding car parking. The
development would provide 223 car parking spaces, which equated to
2.5 spaces per property, representing 43 spaces above the
Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) standard.
Mr. Ian Bush, a
local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Ms. Caroline
Green, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
In response to
a question, it was reported that 12 of the dwellings out of the 91
in the development would be installed with electric vehicle (EV)
charging points. The
committee were most supportive in principle of EV points in
developments. However, it considered that 12 dwellings represented
an unacceptably low proportion of all the properties.
In response to
further questions, it was confirmed that the application did not
include access to Millennium Common; a pedestrian link between the
development and Millennium Common had been removed at the
landowner’s request. The planning officer also confirmed that
there would not be an environmental impact assessment at this site,
as the development would not meet the threshold for an assessment.
With reference to paragraphs 5.3.and 5.4 of the report concerning
‘movement and access’, the planning officer reported
that OCC as highway authority had reviewed the proposal and raised
no objections in terms of highway safety. Improving the
infrastructure outside the development area would not be
possible.
In respect of a
question regarding a better market housing mix, to include a larger
number of smaller units, the planning officer reported that the
developer had made changes to the mix, but overall, the figures
were acceptable to the council. The committee were concerned at the
small size of some of the gardens.
A motion moved
and seconded, to grant planning permission, failed on being put to
the vote.
A motion moved and seconded, to
defer determination of application
P19/V1728/RM to have a site visit
and to allow for further negotiations
was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: that consideration of application P19/V1728/RM
be deferred to facilitate a site visit and to allow for further
negotiations.
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.212
P20/V0526/FUL -
Westcot Farm, Westcot, Wantage
Councillor
Jenny Hannaby 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/V0526/FUL an
application for the conversion of existing farm buildings to form
seven family homes with associated parking, amenity areas,
landscaping, and associated works.(Amended plans and information
received 24 August 2020 as detailed in the accompanying covering
letter). (Additional waste vehicle tracking plan received 4
September 2020) at Westcot Farm, Westcot, Wantage.
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 site was not located within a
designated conservation area but was in a rural location. This
conversion of redundant farm buildings to dwellings had a number of
innovatory design aspects associated with it. The National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) placed significant weight on innovatory
design promoting sustainability. The proposal included making the
dwellings sustainable in terms of energy use, with solar panels,
heat recovery and electric vehicle charging points.
The planning
officer reported that paragraph 79 of the NPPF also supported homes
in the countryside if the development would re-use redundant or
disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. The planning
officer also reported that under Policy DP7 in Local Plan Part 2
(LPP2),’’Development in open countryside will not be
appropriate unless specifically supported by other relevant
policies as set out in the Development Plan or national
policy’’. This proposal complied with that
policy.
The planning
officer advised the committee that the conservation officer
considered that there was scope to convert the existing barns,
which would enhance the setting of the grade II listed barn and the
non-designated assets on the site. In conclusion, the planning
officer reported that in the view of officers, the proposal
represented a good use of a brownfield site which was not harmful
to neighbours’ visual amenity and was not out of character
with the area. There were no outstanding technical objections to
the proposal, notably no highways objection. Officers therefore
recommended that the application be approved, subject to the
conditions listed in the report.
Councillor Tim
Comyn, Chairman of Sparsholt Parish Council, spoke objecting to the
application.
Mr. Tom
Tuke-Hastings, a local resident, spoke objecting to the
application.
Mr. Tom Pryor,
a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.
Mr. David
Burson, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Paul
Barrow, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application.
In response to
a question, relating to paragraph 5.29 of the report, the planning
officer reported that the intention of a grampian condition was to
ensure that off-site works were completed prior to the commencement
of the main development. The committee noted that an aspiration of
the development was to install electric vehicle charging points in
the residents’ parking bays and also the visitors’
parking spaces. Minimal gas boilers would be subject to future
discussions at the next design stage. It was noted that
window louvres would be added to afford additional screening to
prevent overlooking.
In respect of
Barn G, the committee was concerned about the preservation of a
tall leylandii hedge along the north and
west boundaries of the site and considered that the proposed 2
metres height was not adequate for screening purposes. Therefore,
an additional condition would be required, in the event of
permission being granted, to preserve its height to a minimum of 3
metres and to ensure that replanting took place in the event of its
removal or dying.
The planning
officer reported, in response to question from the committee
regarding potential light pollution, that external lighting on
buildings would be controlled by condition, whereas internal light
emanating from windows was not included.
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/V0526/FUL, subject to the following conditions, including an
additional condition in respect of the preservation of the
hedge along the north and
west boundaries of the site:
1.
Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission
2.
Approved plans
Pre-commencement
3.
Off site highway improvements to passing places
4.
Bat licence submission
5.
Biodiversity mitigation and enhancement strategy
submission
6.
Surface water drainage scheme submission
7.
Foul water drainage scheme submission
8.
Landscaping and boundary scheme submission
Pre-occupation
9.
Access, turning, parking in accordance with plans
10.
Contamination remediation and validation report
completed
11. External
lighting scheme submission
12. Electric
charging points in accordance with plans
13. Bicycle
storage in accordance with plans
14. Removal
of buildings in accordance with plans
15.
Materials in accordance with plans/information
Compliance
16.
Landscaping scheme implementation
17.
Retention of hedges
18.
Permitted development removal for alterations and
outbuildings
19.
Permitted development removal for boundary changes
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.213
P20/V2180/HH - 22
Thornley Close, Abingdon
The committee considered application
P20/V2180/HH for the erection of 1.8m fence. (Retrospective)
(Additional information - visibility splays rec 29 Oct 2020)
(Additional information - revised visibility splays and photo rec
11 Nov 2020) at 22 Thornley Close, 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 the premises where the1.8 metre fence was
located were on a corner location on a road with modern housing.
The site featured existing close board fencing either end of the
road, and a nearby communal car parking area also had this
fencing. It was reported that Abingdon Town Council had
concerns about the possible impact of the fencing on the character
of the area. Council planning officers considered that this
retrospective application would not be detrimental in the context
of this modern development, with hard surfacing as a feature, and
was in keeping with existing visual amenity.
The democratic
services officer reported that a statement by the Abingdon Town
Council, received on the day of the meeting, had been emailed to
all members of the committee.
Mr. Jeremy
Phelps, a local resident, spoke objecting to the
application.
Mr. Sumon
Bhattacharrya, the applicant, spoke in support of the
application.
Councillor Eric
de la Harpe, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application.
Mr. Andrew
Mason, of Oxfordshire County Council highways department, advised
the committee regarding visibility splays on this road. He referred
to an analogous appeal decision in this area of Abingdon, stating
that although the visibility splay at Thornley Close might not meet
normal standards, namely that a driver should see the edge of road
from 43 metres distance and 2.4 metres back into the turning, it
would be possible to edge forward in safety, as this was a road
having very low levels of traffic. Therefore, there were no
highways safety issues upon which to object.
In response to
a question from the committee regarding flooding, the planning
officer reported that flood mapping of this area was out of date.
This was an issue examined during the initial modelling for this
application and there did not appear to be any flooding issues at
the present time.
The committee,
whilst always supporting the principle of green space features,
accepted that the landscaping of the area was limited, but in
keeping with the local area’s character. In addition, it was
satisfied with the explanations regarding highways safety, and
considered that permission should be granted.
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/V2180/HH, subject to the following conditions:
Standard:
1.
Approved plans
Compliance:
2.
Materials in Accordance with Application
</AI9>
<AI10>
Pl.214
P19/V3185/FUL &
P20/V2131/LB - 39a & 39b Ock Street, Abingdon
This
application was deferred due to the meeting guillotine having been
reached prior to its consideration. It would be considered at the
Planning Committee meeting on 11 February 2021.
|
The meeting closed at 8.40 pm
|
