Agenda and minutes

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

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on the emergency evacuation arrangements.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Scott Houghton, who was substituted by Councillor Emily Smith.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024 as a correct record and agree that the chair sign these as such.

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 Val Shaw declared that she was ward member for item 7 on the agenda, P24/V0687/HH. Councillor Shaw 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 members of the public who had registered to speak at the meeting.

Proposed part demolition of existing property and proposed two-storey front extension and side extension and roof dormers.  Erection of a detached garage with accommodation above.  Existing access improvements, gate relocation and associated hard and soft landscaping works.  (Amended plans and Design & Access Statement received 14 October 2024).

Councillor Val Shaw declared a non-registerable interest in this item as she was the local ward member. Councillor Shaw 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 P24/V0687/HH for proposed part demolition of existing property and proposed two-storey front extension and side extension and roof dormers. Erection of a detached garage with accommodation above. Existing access improvements, gate relocation and associated hard and soft landscaping works. (Amended plans and Design & Access Statement received 14 October 2024) on land at Pemberley, Lamborough Hill, Wootton, Abingdon, OX13 6BY.

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 provided an update that a response was no longer outstanding in regard to the pre-commencement conditions.

The planning officer informed the committee the proposal sought permission for two storey front and side extensions on a detached plot with alterations to the existing access. She showed the proposed elevations and outlined the orientation in relation to the existing neighbouring dwellings. The planning officer advised that the extension would project forward of the existing elevation and the proposed garage contained vehicle and cycle parking to the ground floor with a workshop and bathroom area above. She highlighted an existing flat roof and dormer window and informed the committee the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Vivienne and Micheal Li, the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Val Shaw, a local ward councillor, spoke on the application.

The committee asked officers if the addition of a construction traffic management plan (CTMP) condition would be acceptable. The planning officer advised this was possible but consideration had to be given as to if this was reasonable and necessary. The planning officer confirmed that officers had not proposed any CTMP conditions. The Development Manager advised that it would be unusual for such conditions to be required for a householder development and that adding an informative covering the relevant information would be more appropriate.

The committee asked officers to confirm if in light of the concerns raised in relation to overlooking a condition requiring planting could be added? The planning officer advised there was a proposed landscaping condition which would require the applicants to submit details and officers would then make an assessment.

A motion, moved and seconded to approve the application with an informative highlighting environmental health standards and that construction traffic is parked on site was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee reflected that they were pleased to positive conversations between neighbours and that the Parish council response was also important.

The committee noted their concerns about the busy road the site was on and that the informative would serve as helpful reminder of the restrictions on working hours.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P24/V0687/HH subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Variation of condition 2 (Materials), condition 7 (Landscaping Scheme), condition 10 (Surface water drainage), condition 11 (Foul water drainage) and condition 15 (Wastewater network upgrades) on application P22/V2618/S73

S73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) and remove condition 9 (obscured glazing) on application P20/V1279/FUL.

Redevelopment of the site to provide 10 new dwellings (a net gain of 9 units) and associated parking, gardens, access improvements and landscaping, following the demolition of the existing workshops and bungalow.

The committee considered planning application P23/V1518/S73 for variation of condition 2 (Materials), condition 7 (Landscaping Scheme), condition 10 (Surface water drainage), condition 11 (Foul water drainage) and condition 15 (Wastewater network upgrades) on application P22/V2618/S73. S73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) and remove condition 9 (obscured glazing) on application P20/V1279/FUL. Redevelopment of the site to provide 10 new dwellings (a net gain of 9 units) and associated parking, gardens, access improvements and landscaping, following the demolition of the existing workshops and bungalow.

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 for technical changes. The approved development of 10 dwellings was almost complete but a change was proposed from the previously approved onsite pumping station to an onsite sewage treatment plant. The planning officer informed the committee it had come to light that the required 15 metre distance of an onsite pumping station from dwellings was no achievable whereas an onsite sewage treatment only required a distance of seven metres.

The planning officer demonstrated how the sewage treatment plant would work and advised that the water would be 95 per cent clean by the time it was discharged into the ditch. She confirmed that the Environment Agency had approved the required licence for discharge and that this carried weight when considering the application. It was proposed that a management company would manage the drainage equipment. The planning officer confirmed that the site currently discharges into the ditch.

The planning officer advised that the application was to address a technical matter and no objections had been received from technical consultees. As such the application was recommended for approval.

Bob Sheldon, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Marc Willis, the agenda for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Katherine Foxhall, a local ward member, spoke on the application.

The committee asked what weight the issued Environment Agency certificate carried. The planning officer advised their confirmation that they could connect to the drainage ditch was a material consideration and carried full weight as an alternative drainage solution.

The committee raised concerns around the maintenance being the responsibility of a management company and asked if there was anything which could be done to ensure they carry out their duty. The planning officer advised that some information on how management and maintenance would be carried out was provided in the drainage statement but that a condition specifically setting this out could be required if this was felt to be reasonable.

The committee further asked if there was a way to ensure the quality of the effluent into the ditch. The planning office advised they would be uneasy with requiring details on the monitoring process. She confirmed that off-site this would be dealt with under separate legislation by the Environment Agency and that on-site a drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.