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.

The chair then paid his respects to Paul Bateman, former democratic services officer servicing the planning committee, who passed away on 9 November 2022 and held a minutes silence in his memory.

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

There were no apologies for absence.

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 an interest in item 6 on the agenda due to application P22/V1120/FUL being in her ward and so she would 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. 

The development manager informed the committee that the planning service had withdrawn application P20/V2298/FUL on the land at Yarnells Hill, Oxford, from the agenda following legal advice.

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.

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

The committee considered planning application P22/V1120/FUL for the erection of two dwellings with associated access and landscaping (as amended by plans received on the 25th of August 2022), on land at Site Of 1 Sugworth Crescent, Radley, 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 called into the committee by Councillor Diana Lugova. The planning officer informed the committee that site was in the parish of Radley but was considered to be within the built-up area of Kennington, withing the Oxford Green Belt. There was previously a single dwelling on the site, but this was demolished leaving the site vacant.

The planning officer also indicated that permission was previously granted for a new dwelling to the north of the site, and that this application sought to subdivide the plot and erect 2 semi-detached houses on the south side.

As this application fell within the Oxford Green Belt, it would be considered
inappropriate development unless there were certain exceptions. As the planning officer believed that the application could be considered limited infilling in a village, they recommended permission be granted subject to conditions.

Chris Henderson spoke on behalf of Radley Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Alex Edge, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Bob Johnston, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Members then asked why officers considered the site was in the built-up area of Kennington, when it was in Radley, and the planning officer confirmed that it was considered to be in the built-up area of Kennington village in planning terms but was in the parish of Radley.

The committee also noted that the application was for a pair of semi-detached
houses in addition to the previously approved plans for the north of the site for an additional dwelling, meaning there would be three dwellings on the site in total if the application was approved. Members believed that if three properties were put forward together then they would not be approved as it would be considered overdevelopment and out of character with the surrounding area.

As the committee agreed that this application was overdevelopment of a green belt site and that the semi-detached buildings and their frontage onto the road were out of character with the surrounding area, the members agreed that the application should be refused.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P22/V1120/FUL, for the following
reasons:

1.       The proposed erection of two dwellings in addition to the single dwelling previously approved is considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site which would harm the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to policy CP13 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, policy PP.2 of the Radley Neighbourhood Plan and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Erection of three detached dwellings, including access and landscaping (as amended by drawings and information received 27 July 2021 and amplified by consultants reports received 8 September 2022 and additional information received 10 October 2022).

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Improvements to public open space, including footpath connections, landscaping, and swales (as amended by plans and documentation received 8 August 2022).

The committee considered planning application P22/V1545/FUL for the improvements to public open space, including footpath connections, landscaping, and swales (as amended by plans and documentation received 8 August 2022), on land at Public Open Space, Pointer Place, Marcham, 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 due to the objection of Marcham Parish Council. The application itself was seeking to regularise a breach of planning control in the Willow Farm development and reinstate what was required in the original application. The planning officer noted that the parish council objected as it wanted to see additional linkages of the site to the north, and to the east where 90 dwellings had been approved. However, as the reserved matters application only contained the south link westwards, and not a link to the north, the Planning Enforcement officers were only pursuing the link shown on the approved plans. If the application was approved, it was confirmed that Planning Enforcement officers would pursue planning breaches in the adjoining site to ensure that the footpath would link, and that surfaces would be tarmacked.

The planning officer also noted the concerns of residents about the provision of a bench. The original plans had indicated there would be four benches and the planning officer advised the committee an acceptable compromise had been reached with the provision of one bench.

Overall, as both the hard and soft landscaping were considered acceptable, that the application did not diminish the character of the area, and that it was considered acceptable in drainage terms, the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Councillor Michael Hoath spoke on behalf of Marcham Parish Council, objecting to the application.

A statement was read out on behalf of Councillor Catherine Webber, a local ward councillor who could not attend the meeting, objecting to the application.

The committee asked about the possibility of implementing a link from the site to the eastern development. However, the planning officer indicated that as the land was owned by a private third party it would not be possible. Also, when asked about the link to the north not being implemented, the planning officer confirmed that enforcement action could only be taken on what was in the detailed layout plan, and therefore only the south linkage could be pursued.

Members also asked the planning officer about footpath treatment and the necessity of making it a tarmacked surface, but as the path would be used by buggies and wheelchairs, the officers considered this to be a necessity. Finally, in response to a question about the placement of the proposed bench, the planning officer also confirmed that it would be placed in a public open space and not by a private garden.

The committee expressed their concern that the footpath and linkages were not implemented when the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Change of use from high way to private garden (amended ownership certificate received 1 September 2022).

The committee considered planning application P22/V1851/FUL for the change of use from high way to private garden (amended ownership certificate received 1 Sept 2022), on land at Wrens Hobbit, Betty Lane, 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. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to committee by the request of the planning manager. The planning officer then informed the committee that the application was for the change of use from a highway to a private garden enclosed by a timber fence. The site itself was within the Oxford Green Belt, adjacent to the applicant’s dwelling, and separated from the A34 by land of unknown ownership – although that land was not materially relevant to the application.

The planning officer noted that despite being designated as a highway, Oxfordshire County Council, the highways authority, did not have the title for the site and had no objection to the application.

Although the parish council believed that the application would harm linkages from Betty Lane to the garden centre to the north, the path through the land was not a recognised public right of way in the definitive map. In addition, the planning officer presented the definitive map to the committee and showed members the existing bridleway that linked Hinksey Hill to the garden centre and did not consider the route to be inappropriate or inaccessible.

The planning officer also noted the key planning consideration for the application about the longer-term implications its approval would have on sustainable transport aspirations. However, as the route was not a formally recognised right of way, there were no proposals or initiatives to create a route, and the existing informal route was not considered safe or accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, officers believed there were no reasonable right of way or sustainable transport reasons for refusal.

Furthermore, the planning officer believed that through approving the application, conditions could also be placed on the land to limit hard surfacing, inappropriate boundary treatment, and to prevent outbuildings, and so meet the green belt requirements.

Overall, as the highways authority did not object and the application would not interfere with the sustainable transport requirements in the local plan, officers recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Paul Barney, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The committee noted that the site was currently considered a public highway, but also that there was no objection from the highway’s authority about its change of use into a private garden. In addition, members recognised that there was currently no known owner of the site as Oxfordshire County Council possessed no title and the land was not registered with the land registry. The planning officer also informed the committee that it was the applicant’s intent to take possession of the land over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Installation of electric vehicle charging point and outdoor power socket, including electric cabling.

The committee considered planning application P22/V2414/HH for the installation of electric vehicle charging point and outdoor power socket, including electric cabling, on land at Dunraven House, 32 London Street, Faringdon.  

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 application was a district councillor and local ward member. The planning officer then presented the design and placement of the proposed electric vehicle charging point and power socket at the back of the building. The planning officer believed that the proposed application was acceptable and so recommended it was approval subject to conditions.

The committee then asked if this application would have come to the committee if it was not applied for by a ward councillor and the planning officer confirmed that they did not believe it would.

Members were satisfied with the officer’s report and could not see any material planning reason for refusal.

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

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/V2414/HH, subject to the following conditions:

Standard:

1. Commencement within three years

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

Compliance:

3. Details and materials in accordance with the application details

Installation of electric vehicle charging point and outdoor power socket, including electric cabling.

The committee considered planning application P22/V2278/LB for the installation of electric vehicle charging point and outdoor power socket, including electric cabling, on land at Dunraven House, 32 London Street, Faringdon.  

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. 

Members considered the listed building application with the prior householder application and were also satisfied with the officer’s report and could not see any 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/V2278/LB, subject to the following conditions:

Standard:

1. Commencement within three years

2. Works in accordance with approved plans

Compliance:

3. Details and materials in accordance with the application details