Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chair, and general housekeeping matters.

The chair ran through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to an in-person meeting which was being simultaneously broadcast.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Councillors Cheryl Briggs and Ben Mabbett tendered apologies.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 18 August and Wednesday 8 September 2021.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 18 August and Wednesday 8 September 2021 as a correct record and agree that the chair signs them as such.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

Councillors Jenny Hannaby and Janet Shelley stood down from application P21/V2544/FUL as they were local ward members.

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. 

None.

To receive any statements from members of the public that have registered to speak on planning applications which are being presented to this committee meeting. 

The committee noted the list of members of the public registered to speak at the meeting, virtually and in person.  The committee had received, prior to the meeting, copies of statements which had been made.

Variation of condition 1 (Specified Layout & Form) in application P19/V1269/FUL.  There is a need to change the parameter plans and thus condition 1 is required to be amended.

The committee considered application P21/V2544/FUL for the variation of condition 1 (Specified Layout & Form) in application P19/V1269/FUL, on land north of A417 and east of A338, Wantage. There was a need to change the parameter plans and thus condition 1 was required to be amended.

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 informed the committee that the countryside officer had made comments on the reduced amount of woodland planting, swale and retained hedgerow on the western corner of the development in relation to the water main. However, planning officers considered the change to be acceptable and not significantly visually harmful. The planning officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Nicky Brock, the agent, spoke in support of the application. Ms. Brock in response to a question regarding vegetation, explained that replacement planting would not be required as a result of the changes proposed. Ms. Brock also added that the landscaping officer had raised no objection when assessing the application.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby, local ward member, spoke to the application. In response to a query on the stance of the ward member regarding the application, Councillor Hannaby confirmed she had no objections to the application.

The committee asked two questions, with the first being on whether Thames Water had expressed any changes of view towards this application compared to its predecessor. The planning officer answered that there had been no response from Thames Water, and they were content with the view that no response could be interpreted as no objection to the new application. The second question sought clarification on the condition which related to a required footway link during the first phase. The planning officer explained that the footway was now already on the site and led to council owned land and was therefore completed, and they had thus removed the condition, as it was no longer required.

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 P21/V2544/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.     Approved plans

2.     Quantum of land uses

3.     Time limit – submission of Reserved Matters

4.     Foul water strategy

5.     Development delivery strategy

6.     Housing delivery document

7.     Master plan

8.     Reserved Matters

9.     No more than 1500 dwellings to be constructed on the site

10. Environmental Statement

11. Reserved Matters applications to be no less than 50 dwellings

12. SHMA mix

13. Adaptable homes (Cat 4M2)

14. Development briefs – neighbourhood centre and community building

15. Design guide

16. Phasing plan

17. Construction Environment Management Plans

18. Hours of construction

19. Energy delivery strategy

20. Energy efficiency

21. Hard and soft landscaping

22. Landscape replacement

23. Tree protection plan

24. Landscape management plan

25. Woodland management plan

26. Playing field management and maintenance

27. Noise impact assessment

28. Noise mitigation

29. Noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Detached annex for family member in rear garden of No. 7 Childrey Way for ancillary use to the main house (amended certificate of ownership received 15 July 2021 and amended plan CHDR.P01E received on 22 November 2021).

The committee considered application P21/V1643/HH for a detached annexe for family member in rear garden of No. 7 Childrey Way for ancillary use to the main house (amended certificate of ownership received 15 July 2021 and amended plan CHDR.P01E received on 22 November 2021) at 7 Childrey Way, East Challow.

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 officer introduced the item and informed the committee that the existing property was a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, and the adjacent properties were one and a half storeys. The proposed annexe application had been amended to a proposed height of 2.6m high with a dual pitched roof 4.7m in height, with a length of 8.8m. The annexe would be situated in the rear garden of the main property and was an ancillary building to the main property. The officer confirmed that subject to conditions, the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Paul Barrow, local ward member, detailed the position of East Challow Parish Council as the attending speaker was unable to participate in the meeting due to technical difficulties.

The committee sought clarification from the planning officer on whether the proposal was meant for a family member, and whether there were any subsequent legal considerations required. The planning officer explained that under Local Plan Policy DP04, the annexe as an ancillary structure, was required to fall under the criteria of forming a strong supporting relationship with the main property. The planning officer added that as the annexe had no kitchen and was contained in the curtilage of the main house, it would fall under the required criteria. In a follow-up question, the committee asked whether a condition was required to ensure any use of the property as a hotel or rentable short-break property would be prevented. The officer explained that this was not necessary, as a new planning application would be required if the applicants wanted to change the ancillary dwelling into a separate residential unit.

The committee also asked about the five parking spaces and whether these spaces were for public use or exclusively for use by the property’s occupants. The planning officer explained that the access road was not owned by the applicants. As a result, a condition was added that all parking spaces on the frontage would be kept, ensuring a minimum impact on facilities and to ensure that there were adequate spaces for both the property and the proposed annexe.

Two questions were raised on both whether objections from neighbours had been made, and whether a site visit had been considered. The officer explained that an objection from number six had been raised on the grounds of overshadowing, loss of privacy, adverse impact on residents, and being too imposing. The officer then clarified that a site visit was the committee’s prerogative, but the subsequent comments from the ward councillor to the amended application demonstrated that the issues had been addressed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Remove rear conservatory and replace with a single-storey rear extension with a solid roof, and replace windows on front elevation enlarging the first-floor window (additional information and amended plans received 22 November 2021).

The committee considered application P21/V2373/HH to remove rear conservatory and replace with a single-storey rear extension with a solid roof, and replace windows on front elevation enlarging the first-floor window (additional information and amended plans received 22 November 2021) at 15 Fisherman's Wharf, 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 explained that the application was a mid-terraced home in the marine area of Abingdon and the proposal was a single-story extension with a pitched roof. They elaborated that the application had been reduced in scale by amendments from 4.155 metres to 3.5 metres. The planning officer also provided further context that the applicant had a lawful development certificate which would allow a 3 metre deep extension under permitted development rights. The officer concluded that on balance, and with the reasons detailed in the report, the application was acceptable, and the application was recommended for approval by the committee.

Viv Boorman, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Ms. Boorman, upon request from the committee, clarified that the houses connected to the applicant’s dwelling were staggered in design, with the property applying for planning permission being the furthest forward.

The committee asked why the application was not considered problematic, based on the concerns raised by the speaker who had objected to the application. The planning officer explained that due to permitted development rights, the applicant could build a boundary wall or fence at 2 metres height along the entire length of the neighbouring boundaries. As a result, the planning officer explained that the difference between this amount and the application was acceptable. Additionally, a further question was asked on the extension depth and overhang of the guttering into the neighbour’s property. The planning officer confirmed the overhang was 35 centimetres.

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 P21/V2373/HH subject to the following conditions:

Standard

1.     Commencement

2.     Approved plans

Compliance

3.     Implement sustainable drainage and floor risk measures

4.     Materials – submit details

Informative

5.     Contaminated land