Agenda and minutes

The Chair ran through housekeeping arrangements appropriate to a virtual meeting.

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

There were no apologies for absence.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6 January 2021. 

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.

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

The chair declared that he was a resident of Ock Street, Abingdon, but was located at a sufficient distance from 39a and 39b Ock Street not to have any interest in the applications at those addresses.

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.  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.

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)

Demolition of curtilage listed buildings and boundary walls.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

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.

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 up to 660 dwellings, which included a 70-bed 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 acceptable as the site was allocated in the Local Plan, and planning officers considered that the application would not cause unacceptable landscape harm or visual harm. All of the planning policy requirements relating to housing, including 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 in terms of flood risk, drainage, heritage and biodiversity perspectives. Notwithstanding, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

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).

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.