Agenda and minutes

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the meeting procedure to be followed. He also explained emergency evacuation procedure.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Val Shaw, who was substituted with Councillor Jerry Avery.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.

Councillor Janet Shelly declared an interest in item 9 on the agenda due to application P22/V0416/FUL being part of her ward and so she will not take part in the debate or vote on this application.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent. 

There was no urgent business.

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 the members of the public who had registered to speak at the meeting.

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA AND MOVED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 30 NOVEMBER 2022.

Erection of two dwellings with associated access and landscaping (as amended by plans received on the 25th of August 2022).

The application was withdrawn from the agenda due to the applicants request and was moved to the Planning Committee meeting on 30 November 2022.

Demolition of existing building comprising dwellinghouse and self-contained flat; erection of 3 no. 5-bed detached dwellings, each with parking, private amenity space, bin and bicycle storage. Improvements to vehicular access from Grosvenor Road. (As clarified by revised tree protection and service routes plan received on 7 January 2022 and Biodiversity Assessment received 8 March 2022 and as further clarified by full Biodiversity metric, photomontage and appeal note accompanying Agent's email dated 26 April 2022 and Plot size analysis received on 18 May 2022 & as amplified by Analysis Draft v2 - AO & Plot Size Analysis Plan Rev A received 18 May 2022). (As amended by drawing nos 20130 - PV0010 - C and 20130 - PP1011 - C altering access arrangements.)

The committee considered planning application P21/V3123/FUL for the demolition of existing building comprising dwellinghouse and self-contained flat; erection of 3 no. 5-bed detached dwellings, each with parking, private amenity space, bin and bicycle storage. Improvements to vehicular access from Grosvenor Road. (As clarified by revised tree protection and service routes plan received on 7 January 2022 and Biodiversity Assessment received 8 March 2022 and as further clarified by full Biodiversity metric, photomontage and appeal note accompanying Agent's email dated 26 April 2022 and Plot size analysis received on 18 May 2022 & as amplified by Analysis Draft v2 - AO & Plot Size Analysis Plan Rev A received 18 May 2022). (As amended by drawing nos 20130 - PV0010 - C and 20130 - PP1011 – C altering access arrangements), on land at Whitwick Grosvenor Road, Oxford.  

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. 

Due to technical difficulties, the development manager presented this item. The development manager introduced the report and highlighted that this was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Debby Hallett.

The development manager informed the committee that the application sought permission for construction of three detached five bed houses from the site of an existing dwelling and self-contained flat, accessed through private roads. The site was also noted as not being within the Oxford Green Belt. The main concerns of neighbours and the parish council were that the proposal was overdevelopment and harmful to the character of the area. Although within the density parameters for the area, policies do indicate that lower density is required where higher density would harm the character of the area.

The development manager also spoke about the concerns that residents and the parish had over the designs of the dwellings. It was noted by members that the design of each dwelling is different, but they do have similar features and use the same materials. In addition, the officers report stated that the distance between these proposed dwellings and the neighbours was in excess of requirements and so would be considered acceptable. Ultimately, as there was no objection from technical consultees, subject to conditions, the officers recommended that the application be approved.

Gilliane Sills and David Wyatt spoke objecting to the application. 

Matt Chadwick, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Debby Hallett, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. Some Councillors expressed a desire to defer the application in order to get more clarity about the private road leading to the site and about the proposed condition put forward by the applicant that they were willing to make improvements to the road within their site boundary. Although this improvement was welcomed by the Committee, as the road was not owned by the applicant or agent, it was unknown how this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Addition of one Velux conservation style rooflight in north elevation of main roof to match those existing.

The committee considered listed building consent application P22/V2109/LB for the addition of one Velux conservation style rooflight in north elevation of main roof to match those existing, on land at Beaulieu Court Cottage Beaulieu Court Sunningwell 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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee as the applicant is related to a member of the planning service.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was for the addition of a single roof light to a grade 2 listed building, which would be in addition to the five existing rooflights following the granting of listed building consent in 2018. As there was no perceived harm to the character of listed building and no objection from conservation officers, the application was recommended for approval.

The councillors asked the planning officer if this application would have come to the committee if it was not submitted by a relative of the planning service and they confirmed that it would not have. Overall, the committee was satisfied with the planning officers report and recommendations and could see no material planning reason for refusal.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the listed building consent application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve listed building consent application P22/V2109/LB, subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions:

1. Commencement within 3 years

2. Development completed in accordance with approved plans

Compliance Conditions:

3. Details and materials in accordance with application

Erection of two employment buildings, with associated landscaping and car parking. (As amended by plans and documentation received 23 August 2022, 16 September 2022, 5 October and 20 October 2022).

The committee considered planning application P22/V0416/FUL for the erection of two employment buildings, with associated landscaping and car parking (as amended by plans and documentation received 23 August 2022, 16 September 2022, 5 October and 20 October 2022), on land south of Curie Avenue and west of Eighth Street Harwell Campus Didcot.  

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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to committee due to the objection of East Hendred Parish Council.

The planning officer highlighted that the original application was a hybrid application for four buildings, two being outline and two in detail, but that this application is seeking permission for two buildings. Building one is a contemporary design approximately 65 metres long, 56 metre wide, and 14.6 metres at the highest point. Building two is a more conventional design and is 85 metres long, 56 metres wide, and 12.6 metres high. Vehicle access is from Curies Avenue and there is a separate HGV access into a shared service yard with enough parking spaces for those currently provided on site. 

The planning officer considered the principle of development acceptable. As there was no adverse impact on flood risk, ecology, archaeology, highways safety, subject to further detail on the proposed planning conditions, the adjoining woodland, or permitter landscaping, the planning officer recommended the application be approved, subject to conditions.

Steven Roberts, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Janet Shelly, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee were satisfied with the planning officers report, and the conditions laid out in them, and found no material planning reasons to refuse the application.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/V0416/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

Standard:

1. Commencement of development within 3 years

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

Pre-commencement:

3. Construction traffic management plan (CTMP)

4. Sustainable drainage scheme

5. Foul drainage scheme

6. Biodiversity offsetting

7. Biodiversity enhancement plan

8. Rare plant species mitigation strategy

9. Landscape scheme

10. Landscape management plan

11. Rooflights to prevent light spill

12. Community Employment Plan

13. Tree protection implementation

Pre-occupation:

14. Demolish/vacate buildings on Innovation Quarter

15. SUDs compliance report

16. Car parking in accordance with plan

17. Cycle parking in accordance with plan

18. EV charging points

19. Public art

Compliance:

20. Materials

21. Ecological Mitigation

22. Travel Plan

23. External Lighting

Informatives:

1. Biodiversity offsetting

2. Thames Water

Application to raise existing roof ridge to form chalet bungalow with rooms in the roof (part retrospective) (As amended by plans received 1 September 2022).

The committee considered planning application P22/V1786/HH for the application to raise existing roof ridge to form chalet bungalow with rooms in the roof (part retrospective) (As amended by plans received 01.09.22), on land at Hillsview 13 Sunningwell Road Sunningwell 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 introduced the report and highlighted that this was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Emily Smith. The application itself was part retrospective and falls withing the Oxford Green Belt. Work original commenced on the site under the assumption that it was allowed via permitted development rights. However, as a prior approval application was required, this was not the case. In response to this site background, a condition for this application for the removal of those works within two months was proposed and agreed by the applicant. It was emphasised however, that these works are not material considerations to this application.

The planning officer informed the committee that in order for an application to be acceptable it would need to meet the criteria for developments in a green belt or be considered to be a special circumstance. As the applicant retained the right to build a single storey extension to the rear of their property through permitted development rights, something the applicant considered a fallback position in case this application was refused, this would be considered a material planning consideration for the application and so provide the special circumstance needed for the proposed development to be acceptable in a green belt.

The reason the planning officer believed this permitted development position would provide the circumstances which would allow for the approval of the application was that the fallback development would have a larger increase in the overall footprint of the property over a larger area than that proposed in the application. In addition, as the development in the application would be contained within the existing footprint of the building while ensuring the height of the building is in keeping with the others in the area, that distance between the rear windows and the rear neighbour would be in excess of the design guide, and that it would allow for a restriction to be put on further permitted development rights, the planning officer believed this application should be approved.

Ultimately, as the planning officer believed that the proposal would not be considered overbearing on the neighbours on either side, had sufficient parking, was fully contained in the existing footprint, and had a simplified design in comparison to the permitted development option, which is a material consideration, it was recommended for approval.

John Hughes, Richard Adams, and Stuart Morgan spoke objecting to the application. 

Kathy Hills, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Emily Smith and Debby Hallett, local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee conducted a site visit prior to the discission of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.