Agenda item

Demolition of structures; erection of newbuild structures including central water feature and extensions to existing buildings; external alterations to existing buildings including new and replacement glazing / doors, thermal improvements, roof alterations installation of roof-mounted PV panels and new timber gates; introduction of external store; installation of PV solar array in south meadow; informal overflow parking area with new walkway; new guest parking area; drop-off & disabled parking area with driveway access; new service access to bin store and service area; and hard and soft landscaping works, including new pond, ground alterations associated tree works and boundary treatment (as amended by plans and information received 26 July 2023 and as amended & amplified by information received 07 November 2023 and as amended & amplified by information received 09 November 2023.).

Councillors Houghton and Shaw declared non-registerable interests in this item as they were local ward members. Councillors Houghton and 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 P23/V0508/FUL for the demolition of structure; erection of newbuild structures including central water feature and extensions to existing buildings; external alterations to existing buildings including new and replacement glazing/doors, thermal improvements, roof alterations installations of roof-mounted photovoltaic (PV) panels and new timber gates; introduction of external store; installation of PV solar array in south meadow; informal overflow parking area with new walkway; new guest parking area; drop off and disabled parking area with driveway access; new service access to bin store and service area; and hard and soft landscaping works, including new pond, ground alterations associated tree works and boundary treatment (as amended by plans and information received 26 July 2023 and as amended & amplified by information received 07 November 2023 and as amended & amplified by information received 09 November 2023.), all on land at Chilswell, Carmelite Priory, Boars Hill, 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, before introducing his report stated that the applicant’s agent agreed to the proposed pre-commencement planning conditions. The planning officer then introduced his report highlighting the application was constrained due to its position within the green belt. The officer also noted the long use of the priory and the public footpaths set around the area.

The officer proceeded to show the committee the existing site and its access points and then went on to show what the site would look like with the proposed changes.

 

The planning officer then showed the committee the enhanced floor plan of the site and each level of the building. The officer noted that each bedroom within the property would be enlarged and given ensuite bathrooms but that the total number of bedrooms would be reduced from 32 to 30. The officer then showed the committee the landscaping plan which revealed the extensive levels of planting proposed on the boundaries and within the site, particularly the screen planting on the north and western boundaries.

 

The planning officer then showed photos of the site to the committee, both within the site and from the public rights of ways. The officer noted that looking at the topology of the area and the extensive level of tree cover, the site was practically screened from public vantage points.

 

The officer noted there were no technical objections to the application, the main consideration was the harm to the green belt. It was agreed that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the green belt. Officers noted that elements of the development would also harm openness and, with regard to the solar array, conflict with the purposes of the green belt.

 

However, officers stated that inappropriate development in the green belt could only be accepted in very special circumstances where the harm to the green belt was clearly out weighted by other circumstances. The officer noted that the proposal carried several benefits that should be looked at that could weigh in favour of approving the application, such as the increase in biodiversity and the reduction in CO² emissions, the economic benefits, particularly during the construction period, the cultural benefit and the lack of alternatives. It was the officer’s belief that the benefits from granting the application outweighed the impact to the green belt from the application and did believe special circumstances existed. The officer therefore suggested that planning permission should be granted.

 

Father Alexander Ezechukwu, the applicant, and Jeremy Flawn, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Scott Houghton, the local ward member, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The committee then asked officers for clarification surrounding paragraph 5.14 of the report around the increase in cubic metre squared and the actual figure. The officer stated that the number laid out was an approximate figure but accepted that it was inappropriate development and a substantial increase in volume.

 

The committee also acknowledged the age of the buildings, and they were past their use by date and there was a need for developments, some members asked whether the height of the building had decreased. The officer clarified that it had in fact increased in size from the proposals put forward at the pre-application stage. The officer pointed out to members that the new design of the building was of a much better standard than the pre-application advice enquiry.

 

Members also enquired about the public footpaths and whether the increased building size would have an impact on those; the officer believed that there would be no impact.

 

Members also acknowledged that there were no objections from the bodies that would normally object to development like this and this must be taken into consideration.

 

Members acknowledged the concerns from Cumnor Parish Council but believed that development in this instance was acceptable.

 

Members noted the detail in the amount of biodiversity that would be added because of the application and how detailed it was, which should add weight in favour of the application. Members asked officers at what point was elevation in habitat units and hedgerow units given significant weight. The officer stated that through the Environment Act, any application of this should provide a minimum of 10 per cent, but that did not apply to this application, so there was no legal requirement to provide anything. Therefore, weight must be given to the full 15 per cent. 

 

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

 

Members reflected the complex situation of balancing the mitigating factors in support or against the application. Members believed that the mitigating factors of the trees and gradient of the land shielding the views of the site mitigated the impacts of the increased mass of the building and the overall impact on openness and look on the site. Members did state that, had the site been a more open location their views may have been different.

 

Members also commented they believed the design and build of the site would fit in well with the area.

 

Other members noted the huge increase of buildings on the site with very little change of function for the site. The members did acknowledge the need for improvement of the buildings on the site, members commented on the overbearingness of the site. Members were concerned about approving something that was irreversible. Members argued that some of the mitigating factors that supported the application could also be achieved without such a large-scale build, such as the increase in biodiversity.

 

Members also raised concerns regarding the solar array and the issues that could arise from it.

 

On-balance, members supported the application in line with the material planning matters set out in the officer’s report.

 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/V0508/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

 

Standard

1. Commencement within three years

2. Approved plans

Prior to commencement

3. Tree protection details

4. Archaeology (Submission and implementation of WSI)

5. Bat protection and mitigation

6. Construction traffic management (implementation)

7. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

8. Landscaping scheme

9. Surface water drainage scheme

10. Foul water drainage scheme

11. Surface water drainage during construction

 

Prior to development over slab level

12. Samples of materials

 

Prior to first use

13. Details of electric vehicle charging points

14. Great Crested Newt (GCN) mitigation strategy

15. Foul water drainage compliance report

16. Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP)

17. Details of cycle parking

18. Implementation of sustainable design features

19. Surface water drainage compliance report

 

Compliance

20. Landscape & Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)

21. External lighting in accordance with submitted details

 

Informatives

22. EPS Licence Informative

23. Wild Bird Informative

24. Surface water drainage informative

25. Foul water drainage informative

26. Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan Policies

27. Wootton and St Helen Without Neighbourhood Plan Policies