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 (as amended by details received 28 October 2020 and 4 November 2020 and visibility details 7 May 2021).
The committee considered application P20/V1279/FUL for the 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 (as amended by details received 28 October 2020 and 4 November 2020 and visibility details 7 May 2021) on land at Townsend 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 reminded the committee that this application had been deferred at the committee meeting of 21 April 2021, as further information was required from the applicant in respect of the proposal addressing local housing need and supporting local employment, services and facilities. The applicant had now submitted this information in the form of a statement which had been the subject of a re-consultation with the parish council. The planning officer also reported the latest situation regarding the Shrivenham Neighbourhood Plan; it was now afforded full weight. The parish council had expressed concerns regarding the effect upon the character of the local area and an apparent lack of evidence to justify extra housing of this nature in Shrivenham. The planning officer advised the committee that the proposal was acceptable from a planning perspective, as it was for an acceptable use and was on a brownfield site. Trees would be retained along the western edge of the site and the local highway authority, the Oxfordshire County Council, had required an amendment to the site’s access, which was now satisfactory. There were no technical objections to the proposed development and drainage and diversity arrangements were acceptable.
A statement by Ms. Angela Brickell, a local resident, was sent to committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Councillor Richard Bartle, a representative of Shrivenham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. A statement by Councillor Bartle on behalf, of the parish council, was sent to committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
Ms. Sarah Hockin, the agent, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Elaine Ware, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. Statements by Councillor Ware were sent to committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.
In response to a question regarding the commercial viability of the site and any efforts to market it, the planning officer advised the committee that an independent assessor had examined the site’s viability using government approved methodology. The conclusion of the study was that the site was not viable for re-development for employment purposes. A further question was asked about privacy and the potential overlooking of existing bungalows by the development. The planning officer reported that obscure glazing would not be suitable for habitable rooms, which were mainly bedrooms, as most would be side facing. With the incorporation of two lines of boundary fencing, there was an intention to have a walkway to service the properties from the rear, which would be ‘secure by design’.
Responding to a question regarding housing need, the planning officer reported that if permission was given to the proposal, it would contribute to local and district-wide housing needs being met. This location was classified as a ’windfall site’ and would contribute to Vale’s total housing supply requirement. In response to a question regarding total housing unit ‘caps’, the planning officer confirmed that there was no such maximum figure for housing in Shrivenham or similar villages, a principal factor being the unpredictable availability of windfall sites.
The committee accepted that the site was not viable for commercial purposes and the proposal would provide a reasonable number of dwellings to the local area and to the district on a brownfield site.
A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P20/V1279/FUL, subject to the following conditions;
1. Approved plans
3. Estate roads and footpaths
4. Landscaping and S278 works
5. Car parking
6. Cycle parking
7. Visibility splays
9. Maintenance and upkeep of the site
1. Planning obligation
2. Reserved matters approval
3. Superfast broadband – 30 dwellings
4. Advance payments code – street works
5. Public highway works
6. S38/private streets agreement
7. Thames Water