Venue: First Floor Meeting Space, 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, OX14 4SB
Contact: Candida Mckelvey 07895 213820
To receive any announcements from the chair, and general housekeeping matters.
Chair opened the meeting with general housekeeping matters for hybrid meetings.
Apologies for absence
To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members.
Apologies were received from Councillor Cheryl Briggs.
To adopt and sign as a correct record the Planning Committee minutes of the meetings held on 11 May, 22 June and 6 July 2022.
RESOLVED: The committee agreed that the Planning Committee minutes of the meetings held on 11 May, 22 June and 6 July 2022 were a correct record, and the chair will sign them as such.
Declarations of interest
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 Ron Batstone declared that, as ward member for the item seven, P22-V0550-O-SW, he would not participate in discussion or voting for this item.
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.
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 had received a list of public
speakers prior to the meeting. Statements
Committee considered an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access into the site) for up to 300 dwellings and provision of public open space including associated landscape planting with associated infrastructure, drainage measures and earthworks and all other associated works (as amended by plans and information received 24 June 2022) on land east of Grove, east of the A338, Station Road, north of Tulwick Lane, Grove.
Officer shared a presentation with committee. Five further letters of objection were received since the report was written, and a further letter from Stagecoach who reiterated concern over lack of convenient stopping facilities for public transport, which would encourage reliance on private vehicles, which was contrary to current local and national policy.
The report detailed the objections raised by multiple consultees. Officers from the planning department assessed the application on its own merits, and in considering the adopted Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), officers are assured that the district has a five-year housing land supply, and the housing policies in the development plan can be given full weight. The proposal conflicted with the development plan, and the tilted balance in the NPPF did not apply. The NPPF was clear that where an application conflicted with a current local plan, permission shouldn’t be granted. There were further concerns detailed in the report. The officer advised refusal of the application as per the reasons set out in the officer’s report.
Two public speakers were present.
Mr Murray Cox spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. Mr Murray Cox spoke of the beneficial transport links, and also defended the applicants view on the five-year housing land supply, stating that within Science Vale, the housing supply was lower. Speaker explained that this was a sustainable area that could support achieving housing land supply.
Clarification was given from planning officer regarding the council’s certainty over the five-year housing land supply.
Committee asked about the concerns over the lack of transport assessment, landscaping and archaeological work. Also concern over the lack of Section 106 agreement. Speaker replied that there was no impediment to S106 agreement, and that the applicant had felt that they had given enough response to the other concerns.
Councillor Batstone, a local ward member, spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, due to it being an unallocated site and contrary to the local plan part 1 and 2. There would be an impact to the landscape and the local parish had objected. We do have a five-year land supply, so Part 1 and 2 of the Local Plan should apply. Oxfordshire County Council highways had objected due to proximity to a very busy road which could be a risk to pedestrians, especially if there were traffic management measures put in place such as lower speed limit ... view the full minutes text for item 27.
The committee considered a proposal for the demolition of a current extension and construction of new ground floor extension to lead up to neighbouring development.
• proposal of new first-floor extension for new master ensuite
• reconfiguration of existing internal layouts
• replace and install new roof lights
• and to replace and install new metal framed glazing on land at 21 Norreys Road, Cumnor.
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.
Planning officer gave a presentation to the committee. She explained that there were concerns about overlooking, loss of light and overshadowing, but that the application did comply with advice in the adopted Design Guide, and that issues of overlooking were mitigated through planning permission conditions.
Highways officer had approved of the application, with a condition added to ensure two car park spaces are permanently free of obstruction to such use.
Officers felt that the impacts were acceptable, and therefore planning permission should be granted with the suggested conditions.
There were two public speakers. Councillor Lawrence Waters spoke against the application. He had concerns over overlooking of property no.19.
Mr Dan James, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the purpose was to update the property as a long term, sustainable family home. He confirmed during clarification that there was no concern raised by his neighbours when he sent them the plans, pre-application.
Councillor Judy Roberts, ward member, was unable to attend but the Democratic Services Officer read out her statement, which was previously circulated to the committee. Councillor Roberts spoke against the application. Both speakers raised concerns over overlooking.
The committee went into debate. A motion was moved and seconded, to grant planning permission. It was noted that there was now a condition added for bike storage. This motion was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P22-V0781-HH-MD subject to:
Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
1 : Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission
2 : Approved plans *
3 : Materials in Accordance with Application
4 : Car Parking
5 : Bike Storage
6 : Obscured Glazing (Non-Opening)
7 : Rooflight Sill Height Facing West and East
8 : Restriction on use of roof as balcony