<AI1>
Pl.215
Chair's
announcements
The Chair ran
through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to a virtual
meeting.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Pl.216
Apologies for
absence
There were no
apologies for absence.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Pl.217
Minutes
The minutes of
the previous meeting, held on Wednesday 6 January 2021, were agreed
to be a correct record of the meeting. It was agreed that the Chair
sign them as such.
</AI3>
<AI4>
Pl.218
Declarations of
interest
There were no
declarations of interest.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Pl.219
Urgent
business
None.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Pl.220
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
statements which had been made.
The chair
advised the committee that in view of the considerable number of
speakers at the meeting, he would allocate a maximum of six minutes
per speaking category.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Pl.221
P19/V3185/FUL &
P20/V2131/LB - 39a & 39b Ock Street, Abingdon
Councillor
Robert Maddison, a local ward councillor, stood down from the
committee for consideration of this item.
Owing to
telecommunication difficulties, Councillor Jerry Avery did not hear
the whole debate and did not vote on this application.
The committee
considered applications P19/V3185/FUL & P20/V2131/LB for
a redevelopment to provide 1 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedroom
flats, and a 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette (amended plans received 7
August 2020), with demolition of curtilage listed buildings and
boundary walls at 39a and 39b Ock 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 site visit had been held at these
properties on Tuesday 9 February 2021. The application site was an
old commercial yard with vehicular access via an archway. The site
contained four single storey buildings that were generally in a
poor state of repair. The
proposal was to demolish all of the existing buildings and boundary
walls and to erect new pitched roof buildings of one- and
one-and-a-half storeys, in a courtyard arrangement. With reference
to the density of the proposal, the planning officer reported that
Policy CP23 of Local Plan Policy 1 (LPP1) required a minimum net
density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities were
encouraged in locations where it would result in the optimum use of
land, where there was good access to services and public transport,
and where it would contribute to enhancing the character of a
place. In the view of planning officers, this brownfield site was
in a sustainable location.
The planning
officer reported that a heritage impact assessment (HIA) had been
submitted, which had identified that two of the existing buildings
on the east boundary, together with the east and north boundary
walls, were curtilage listed. The HIA stated that the structures
had been considerably altered over recent time, to have minimal
heritage interest, and that therefore, their removal was deemed
acceptable. It was also considered that the design and scale of the
proposal represented an acceptable impact on the character and
appearance of the Abingdon Town Centre Conservation Area and on the
setting of the Albert Park Conservation Area.
The planning
officer reported that the conservation officer agreed with much of
the HIA, but considered that the impact of the development on the
setting of the adjacent listed buildings had been underestimated.
The conservation officer did not support the proposed removal of the east boundary wall
which, although recently altered, provided heritage interest as a
record of the historic burgage plots that existed behind the Ock
Street frontages. Employing the recognised national heritage
measure, the officer considered that the harm arising from the
scheme was “less than substantial, minor”. Following
the advice provided by the National Planning Policy Framework
(paragraph 196), this harm should be balanced against the public
benefits of the proposal.
Mr. Nick
Barnes, representing the Ock Street Clinic (dentists), at 45 Ock
Street, and a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application.
Mr. Richard
Tamplin, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. The
democratic services officer had sent Mr. Tamplin’s statement
to the committee prior to the meeting.
Mr. Paul
Marland, a local resident, who had registered to speak in objection
to these applications for the planning committee meeting on 27
January 2021 (the committee had run out of time to consider the
application on that occasion), was unable to speak to this
committee meeting, but his joint statement with Danielle Marland
had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer
prior to this meeting (11 February 2021).
Mr. Anthony
Pettorino, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
The
democratic services officer had sent Mr. Pettorino’s statement to the
committee prior to the meeting.
Councillor
Robert Maddison a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application.
The committee
considered that the proposed construction management plan would not
adequately safeguard residents from the loss of amenity as a result
of out of hours delivery vehicle movements. The committee also
considered that, by reason of its scale and massing, and the number
of intended dwellings, the proposals represented overdevelopment.
Additionally, the committee contended that the development would
cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality.
The committee took the view that
proposed development caused harm to the amenity of neighbours
through overshadowing and dominance. It also considered that the
proposed development provided an inadequate amount, and poor
quality, of outdoor space for future occupiers, to the detriment of
their amenity. The committee
expressed concern at the probable heritage loss caused by the
intended removal of the east boundary wall. For these reasons
the committee concluded that planning permission and listed
building consent should be refused.
A motion moved
and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being
put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application
P19/V3185/FUL, for the following reasons;
1.
The proposed development, by reason
of its scale and massing, and the number of dwellings proposed,
represents an overdevelopment of the site that is inappropriate
within its context, thereby causing harm to the character and
appearance of the locality, contrary to policy CP37 of the Vale of
White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1.
2.
The proposed development causes harm
to the amenities of neighbours through overshadowing and dominance,
contrary to policy DP23 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031
Part 2.
3.
The proposed development provides an
inadequate amount and a poor quality of outdoor space for future
occupiers, to the detriment of their levels of amenity, and does
not function well. As such, it is contrary to policy CP37 of the
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1.
4.
The proposed development, by reason
of its scale and massing, and the removal of the curtilage listed
east boundary wall, causes harm to the character and appearance of
the Abingdon Town Centre Conservation Area and harm to the setting
of the Albert Park Conservation Area, and fails to preserve the
special interest of, and the setting of, adjacent listed buildings.
As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CP39 of the Vale of
White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, to policies DP36, DP37 and DP38
of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, and to advice in
the NPPF.
A motion moved
and seconded, to refuse listed building consent was carried on
being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to refuse listed building consent for
application P20/V2131/LB, for the following reason;
1.
The demolition of the curtilage
listed east boundary wall does not have clear or convincing
justification and fails to preserve the special architectural and
historic interest of the listed building, and its setting. As such,
the proposal is contrary to policies DP36 and DP38 of the Vale of
White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and advice in the
NPPF.
</AI7>
<AI8>
Pl.222
P18/V2791/O - Land
East of Kingston Bagpuize
Councillor Jerry Avery, 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
P18/V2791/O for a
hybrid planning application
comprising:
1) outline planning permission, with all matters
reserved except for access, for development of up to 660 homes (use
class C3), extra care development of up to 70 units (use class C2),
a local centre of up to 0.5ha (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1(a), C2, D1 and D2) a one form entry primary school on an area
for education provision of up to 2.2ha, playing field and car
parking, informal open space, landscape and sustainable drainage
areas, access, footpaths, cycle ways, infrastructure and associated
engineering works (including a noise attenuation bund and acoustic
fence) and
2) full planning permission for construction of
a three-arm roundabout to the A420 (Oxford Road), a four arm
roundabout to the A415 (Abingdon Road) and link road between. As
amended by plans and information received 31 July 2020 and 12
November 2020 on land east of Kingston Bagpuize.
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 this
application sought outline permission for 660 dwellings, which
included an extra care development, sports and playing fields, open
space, a primary school, outside infrastructure and associated
works. The application also sought full permission for the
construction of a link road and two roundabouts. The principle of
development was contained in the Local Plan, and planning officers
considered that the application did not represent unacceptable
landscape harm or visual harm. All of the housing elements,
including the housing mix and space standards, could be secured by
the development and the building heights were acceptable.
Additionally, the proposal was acceptable to planning officers from
flood risk, drainage, heritage and biodiversity perspectives.
Notwithstanding the application’s overall acceptability,
planning officers considered that highways and air quality issues
arising from the proposal could frustrate approval.
The planning officer also advised the committee
of a correction to the report; regarding the contributions in
connection with the s.106 legal agreement, shown at paragraph 5.84
and associated table. The committee was advised that the public
transport contribution figure was based on 700 dwellings, whereas
the correct figure should be 660. The total figure for public
transport should be shown as £708,271. Additionally, to
mitigate the extra care element impact upon public transport, the
Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) had requested a further
£23,851, as it was considered that some residents, staff and
visitors would make use of the public transport service.
Expanding upon his opening statements, the
planning officer reported that council officers were satisfied that
through detailed design the development can be integrated into the
landscape without material harm, and through the development of
appropriate landscape proposals at reserved matters stage.
A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA),
submitted with the application, confirmed that the site lay within
Flood Zone 1 and was at a low risk of flooding. The council's
drainage team raised no objection, subject to conditions requiring
a fully detailed scheme based on the FRA be submitted and
approved.
The committee noted paragraph 5.35 of the
report, which stated that the occupation of dwellings on the site
would not commence prior to the completion of the upgrade to
Frilford junction, unless an alternative phasing plan was agreed
with the OCC and satisfactory air quality mitigation for Marcham
was introduced. A representative of OCC highways section reported
that a survey of the junction was to be undertaken and mitigation
measures were possible, dependent upon changes being made by the
developer or by a larger contribution being forthcoming.
The committee noted that Policy CP33 of Local
Plan Policy 1 (inter alia) ensured that developments were designed
to promote sustainable transport access, and promote and support
improvements to the local road network which increased safety and
improved air quality. The committee also noted paragraph
5.38, which stated that three key locations, the Frilford Junction
and the A34 interchanges at Botley (with the A420) and Marcham
(with the A415) already had severe peak hour traffic congestion.
The committee concurred with council officers in contending that
the proposal would add to peak hour traffic queues, increasing the
severity of congestion.
The planning officer reported that there
remained some concern on the part of OCC regarding the transport
modelling that had been undertaken and that further information was
requested. In the absence of information available on the detail of
the mitigation requirement and the timescale for its delivery,
officers considered that at the present time it could not be
demonstrated that the development would be sustainable in terms of
mitigating traffic generation and severe congestion to an
acceptable degree. The planning officer reported the latest
situation, namely that further correspondence between the applicant
and OOC had now taken place regarding some outstanding issues
listed in the response in appendix 3 of the report. An optioneering
study for Frilford junction, and in respect of air quality issues
in Marcham, had now commenced. It was expected that it would take
12 months to identify options from the study. In respect of the
Marcham interchange, the developer had undertaken further modelling
on proposals for the western arm to mitigate the effect of
development. The developer would be prepared to undertake the
improvement themselves. OCC considered that this could provide
mitigation to an acceptable level. However, at this stage, OCC were
unable to confirm whether the developer would deliver the
improvements direct or whether this could be facilitated by a
financial contribution for wider scheme. The planning officer
reported that an OCC acceptance of any such measures did not affect
the district council’s reasons for disapproval on other
items.
Councillor Julian Mellor, a representative of Fyfield and Tubney Parish
Council spoke objecting to the
application. The
democratic services officer had sent Councillor Mellor’s
statement to the committee prior to the meeting.
Councillor David Warr, a representative of
Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council spoke objecting to
the application. The democratic services
officer had sent Councillor Warr’s statement to the committee
prior to the meeting.
The committee expressed sympathy with the parish
council and residents that the sewage smell in the Kingston
Bagpuize environs continued to be an intermittent problem and that
Thames Water should be pressed for a reliable infrastructure
solution, which would be required in the event of development in
Kingston Bagpuize.
Councillor Michael Hoath, a representative of
Marcham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the
application.
Dr. Paul Barrow, a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application.
Professor John Cobb, a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application.
Barnes. The democratic services officer had sent
Councillor Warr’s statement to the committee prior to the
meeting.
Mr. Roger Smith, the agent, spoke in support of
the application.
Ms. Vicky Bilton, the applicant, spoke in
support of the application.
The democratic services officer had sent Mr.
Smith’s and Ms. Bilton’s joint statement to the
committee prior to the meeting.
Councillor
Eric Batts, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application.
Councillor Jerry Avery, a local ward councillor,
spoke objecting to the application.
The committee maintained concerns that adequate
highways improvements prior to development had not been
demonstrated and that the impact of additional traffic movements
associated with the proposed development would be severe and add to
existing congestion. Also,
Local Plan polices required
that occupations of dwellings
on this site would not begin until the completion of an upgrade at
Frilford Junction. The Local Plan also stipulated that occupations
of dwellings would not commence prior to satisfactory air quality
mitigation for Marcham. Thus, air quality also remained an
important concern of the committee.
A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning
permission was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application
P18/V2791/O for the following reasons;
1. The proposal was contrary to
paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework which
states: "Development should only be prevented or refused on
highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on
highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road
network would be severe." Further, Development Policy 16 (ii) of
the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 requires evidence to demonstrate that
acceptable off-site improvements to highway infrastructure can be
secured where these are not adequate to service the
development.
2. The proposal would generate
additional traffic movements onto the highway network, including
through the A34 interchange junctions at Botley and Marcham and the
Frilford junction, which had been identified as operating over
capacity in the peak hours. Based on the findings of the local
highway authority, the impact of additional traffic movements
associated with the proposed development would be
severe.
3. The mitigation proposals would be
inadequate; paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework
states: "it should be ensured that any significant impacts from the
development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and
congestion) can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable
degree."
4. The applicant has not been able
to fully demonstrate that it is possible to mitigate the harm in
terms of congestion, and the local highway authority has not yet
been able to undertake the necessary studies to identify strategic
schemes and calculate necessary contributions. Furthermore, the
adopted site template under policy CP8a of Local Plan 2031 Part 2
confirms occupations of dwellings on this
site will not begin until the completion of an upgrade at Frilford
Junction.
5. In the absence of details of what
mitigation is required and how this will be delivered at the
Frilford junction, Botley and Marcham interchanges and
notwithstanding the fact that the application site is allocated for
housing development in the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2, the
proposal does not amount to sustainable development and would be
contrary to core policy 8a and development policy 16 of the Local
Plan 2031 Part 2 and to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
6. Air quality issues have not been
adequately addressed; an air quality management area (AQMA) exists
beside the A415 through Marcham village. The proposal would add
traffic onto the A415 and through the AQMA. The additional
pollution generated by the increased traffic flows in the AQMA
would be detrimental to the living conditions, and potentially the
health of occupants of dwellings within the AQMA.
7. Furthermore, the adopted site
template under policy CP8a of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 confirms
occupations of dwellings on this site will not begin prior to
satisfactory air quality mitigation for Marcham. The applicant has
not been able to fully demonstrate that it is possible to
satisfactorily mitigate the harm arising from the development in
terms of air quality for Marcham. This is considered contrary to
core policy 43(vi) of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part
1, core policy 8a and development policy 26 of the Vale of White
Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, and to paragraph 181 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
8. In the absence of a S106 legal
agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing, a
primary school and land for expansion, onsite play and sports
provision and financial contributions towards traffic and air
quality impact mitigation, public transport, travel plan
monitoring, public art, street naming, waste bin provision,
education and the management of public open spaces, sport and play
areas, the proposal would place increased pressure on these
facilities and fail to provide the environmental, social and
recreational services needed to support this development. This is
considered contrary to core policies 7, 22, 24, 33 and 35 of the
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and development policies
17, 20, 26, 28 and 33 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031
Part 2.
</AI8>
<AI9>
Pl.223
P20/V2125/FUL - April
Cottage, 39 Stallpits Road, Shrivenham
Part way
through the consideration of this application, members took a vote
prior to the meeting guillotine of 8:30pm to continue.
The committee
considered application P20/V2125/FUL for the development of four
dwellings to the rear of April Cottage (amended plans, tree survey
and transport technical note received 26 November 2020 - includes
reduction in dwelling numbers to four) at April Cottage, 39
Stallpits 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 reported that this was a proposal in respect of one of the
district’s larger villages and was in a sustainable location.
No objections had been received from the technical consultees in
respect of the application. In response to a question regarding a
construction traffic management plan, the planning officer reported
that in view of the small scale of development, it would not be
reasonable for such a plan to be required. Highways obstructions
were covered by highway legislation and it was usually acknowledged
that there would be some short-term disruption related to small
construction sites such as this. It was expected that construction
workers would follow a code of practice that included working
within reasonable hours. Any unreasonable noise would normally be
covered by relevant environmental health legislation for noise
nuisance.
Councillor
Richard Bartle, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council,
spoke objecting to the application.
Ms. Sarah
Wright, a local resident, spoke objecting to
the application.
Ms.
Sandra Green a local resident, spoke
objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had
sent the joint statement by Ms. Wright and Ms. Green to the
committee prior to the meeting.
Mr. Jon Langdon–Bates
the agent, spoke in support of the
application. The democratic services officer
had sent the statement by Mr. Langdon–Bates to the committee prior to the
meeting.
Councillor
Elaine Ware, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the
application. The democratic services officer had sent the joint
statement from Councillors Elaine Ware and Simon Howell (the latter
also a local ward councillor) to the committee prior to the
meeting.
In response to
a question, the planning officer reported that there would be a
requirement to remove a section of hedge from the front of the site
to widen the access and also some trees adjacent to the east and
south boundaries. There were no highways objections following
amendments to the proposals.
In response to
a question as to whether the proposal represented overcrowding, the
planning officer reported that the reduction in the number of
dwellings on the site, and the reduction of their size, had
afforded more space around the dwellings and the parking and public
areas. It was not considered that the dwellings would appear
cramped in their plots. Although the plots might be slightly
smaller than those immediately surrounding, they would all meet the
recommended garden sizes and provide sufficient parking, with some
opportunity for planting along the access driveway and within the
gardens. Planning officers considered that it would be difficult to
regard the proposal as overdevelopment. The buildings had been
altered in design to be more respectful to the area.
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/V2125/FUL, for the following reasons;
1.
Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission
2.
Approved plans
Pre-commencement
3.
Surface water drainage details submission
4.
Foul water drainage details submission
5.
Landscaping scheme submission
6.
Tree protection including updated protection plan showing utility
routes
7.
External and internal boundary treatments submission
8.
Slab and ridge levels submission
Pre-construction above slab level
9.
Details of materials
Pre-occupation
10. Access
and visibility splays in accordance with plans
11. Parking
and turning space in accordance with plans
12. Refuse
collection point provided
13. Removal
of permitted development rights for Classes B and C (roof
enlargements or alterations)</AI9>
<TRAILER_SECTION>
</TRAILER_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION>
Pl.1
</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 8.45 pm
|
