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 the emergency evacuation procedure.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ron Batstone.

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 Diana Lugova declared that she was ward member for item 7 on the agenda, P22/V2811/FUL. Councillor Lugova confirmed that she would stand down from the committee and not participate in the debate or vote for this item.

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

Retention of the single storey barn, demolition of other existing buildings, and mixed use redevelopment comprise erection of a 3-storey building to the rear, a 2.5 storey building fronting the High Street and a single storey extension to the barn to provide no.13 x residential units (Class C3) and no.2 x Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) units, ancillary floorspace, car parking, cycle parking, landscaping, refuse and recycling storage and associated works.

The committee considered planning application P22/V1425/FUL for the retention of the single storey barn, demolition of other existing buildings, and mixed use redevelopment comprise erection of a 3-storey building to the rear, a 2.5 storey building fronting the High Street and a single storey extension to the barn to provide no. 13 x residential units (Class C3) and no. 2 x Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) units, ancillary floorspace, car parking, cycle parking, landscaping, refuse and recycling storage and associated works on land at 2A, 2, 6 and 6A High Street, Steventon, Abingdon, OX13 6RS.

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 site was located in the centre of Steventon adjacent to the existing Co-Op. The current use of the site was commercial but the planning officer highlighted that the four buildings on the site were currently vacant. The planning officer noted there were two shop units at the front of the site adjacent to the High Street, at the north of the site there was an existing non-designated heritage barn and a workshop and to the southwest corner of the site there were two 3-storey buildings in commercial use. The planning officer identified that the site incorporated an access from the north of the site from The Causeway and an access from the east of the site from High Street. The planning officer stated it was important to note that the site benefited from a previous consent which was extant. He went on to highlight that the extant permission included changes to the car parking arrangements on High Street, retention of one of the buildings on the front of the site but, most importantly for the application before committee, seven new apartments in two buildings to the rear of the site. The planning officer pointed out these new buildings, granted permission under P21/V0140/FUL, were essentially the same as the new buildings applied for under the application before the committee.

The planning officer informed the committee that the proposal comprised 13 dwellings specifically 12 apartments and one, one bed dwelling within the non-designated heritage barn. The officer went on to confirm that there would be five one-bedroom apartments in the High Street frontage and seven apartments in the new buildings to the rear as granted under the extant permission. In addition two commercial units were proposed. The planning officer advised that there was an error in the officer’s report which stated that the development would provide 17 parking spaces. 16 spaces were to be provided, 13 for the apartments and three for the commercial units. The officer went on to confirm the application had been assessed on this basis and that the correct site plan had been considered. In addition to this there were 38 cycles spaces being proposed and four Sheffield stands on the frontage for use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Construction of 4no. one bed flats and associated parking and external landscaping, following demolition of the existing dwelling at 3 Sandford Lane  (as amended by plan received 12 December 2022 and plans received 2 March 2023 and updated description agreed 28 February 2023 and amended plans received 13 April 2023 and as amended by plans 26 May 2023).

Councillor Diana Lugova declared a non-registerable interest in this item as she was local ward member. She stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.

The committee considered planning application P22/V2811/FUL for the construction of 4no. one bed flats and associated parking and external landscaping, following demolition of the existing dwelling at 3 Sandford Lane (as amended by plan received 12 December 2022 and plans received 2 March 2023 and updated description agreed 28 February 2023 and amended plans received 13 April 2023 and as amended by plans 26 May 2023), on land at 3 Sandford Lane, Kennington Oxford Oxfordshire, OX1 5RW.

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 referred to the committee at the discretion of the planning manager. He went on to advise that the application followed a previous refusal for five flats on the site which had been dismissed at appeal. He informed the committee that the application before them comprised two ground floor and two first floor flats. Five parking spaces would be provided to the front of the property and the new building would be set down from the existing ground level. The planning officer went on to compare the current application with that which was dismissed at appeal and highlighted that the main area of concern for the inspector had been the harm to visual amenity due to the over engineering of the proposal, notably through the provision of level parking which would have required the use of retaining walls. The planning officer noted that under the current proposal, much of the existing gradient was to be retained, the parking would be set off from the highway and no retaining walls would be required. As such he was of the view that the proposed changes were sufficient to overcome the inspector’s previous findings of over engineering. The planning officer went on to note that the overall scale of the proposal was similar to that of the previous application on the site and that this had been acceptable to the inspector.

The planning officer informed the committee that properties in the road were set above the highway and that there was a staggered building line. He identified that there were a number of other properties along Sandford Lane with significant areas of hardstanding but in general there was a mixture of hardstanding and garden, as found by the inspector.

The planning officer concluded that the main considerations when determining the application were impacts on design and character, highways safety and neighbour impact and that the previous appeal decision was also an important consideration. The officer advised that for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and subject to the recommended conditions officers were of the view that the application was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Demolition of existing bungalow. Construction of a new 4 bedroom dwelling. Conversion of the existing garage into an ancillary residential annexe (as amended by plans and additional supporting information received 03 March 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/V2607/FUL for the demolition of existing bungalow. Construction of a new 4 bedroom dwelling. Conversion of the existing garage into an ancillary residential annexe (as amended by plans and additional supporting information received 03 March 2023) on land at Colt Corner, Horn Lane, East Hendred Wantage, OX12 8LD. 

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 site was located in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was bounded to the north by the East Hendred Conservation Area. The officer highlighted that along Horn Lane there was a mixture of single and two storey buildings fronting the road, but westwards the properties were set further back from the road in larger plots.

The planning officer informed the committee that, subject to proposed conditions, there were no outstanding technical matters on the application but the impact of the proposals design upon the appearance of the site and the character of the area were key considerations. Whilst the officer noted that design could be subjective having taken into account the scale, bulk and massing of the proposed dwelling, the size of the plot and the proposed positioning of the dwelling on the plot and the differences in land level between the site and Horn Lane, the officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor Roger Turnbull spoke on behalf of East Hendred Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Steve Gardner and Steve Badcock spoke objecting to the application.

Hannah Wiseman from Bluestone Planning, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The committee asked why the reason for refusal only made reference to core policy 37 and why the officer had not included core policy 39 and DP 36 and 37 and CP 44. The planning officer confirmed that whilst the conservation officer’s comments referred to impact upon the conservation area, when it had been weighed in the planning balance that impact was limited. She confirmed that the proposal had a limited but not unacceptable heritage impact.

The committee asked the planning officer to describe the nature of the elevated plot in relation to the other surrounding buildings. The planning officer confirmed that the height difference from Horn Lane to the level ground of the site was approximately 1.4 metres. She advised that the topography of the site was variable depending on which angle you were approaching it from.

The committee asked if there were any specific design features which the officer felt were unacceptable or if it was an accumulation of factors. The planning officer confirmed it was a combination of factors, notably the design of the dormers and eaves height taken in combination with the massing of the building and how it was set forward in the plot.

The committee appreciated that the site was not located within the conservation area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.