Agenda item

Reserved Matters application for the details of appearance, landscaping, scale, and layout following Outline Approval P21/V0679/O(Outline application for access for residential development of up to 5 dwellings).(Amended plans and information received 21 March 2024 as set out in accompanying agent cover letter)

The committee considered planning application P23/V2385/RM for reserved matters application for the details of appearance, landscaping, scale, and layout following Outline Approval P21/V0679/O (Outline application for access for residential development of up to 5 dwellings). (Amended plans and information received 21 March 2024 as set out in accompanying agent cover letter) on land at 25 Orchard Way, Harwell, Didcot.

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 followed approval of an outline application in 2021. The application sought permission for 5 dwellings and concerned the reserved matters of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping. The planning officer informed the committee the application was before them as it had been called in by the local ward member. In response to comments made by a neighbour, the planning officer went on to confirm that she had carried out a site visit on the 5 December 2023.

The  site itself was located on the western side of the village with the recreation ground to the south. The proposal was for a single storey dwelling at the front of the site with four two storey dwellings behind. The planning officer informed the committee that the boundary treatments would comprise hedges to the external site and closed board fencing to the neighbouring property.

The planning officer described the built form in the area and advised the committee that the views from the recreation ground would be taken in the context of the existing built form. She reminded the committee that the principle of development had been approved and therefore was not for reconsideration. The planning officer was of the view that, on balance, the proposed landscaping, scale and design were acceptable, there was sufficient parking being provided to meet current standards and that the proposal accorded with the adopted local plan. For these reasons,  the application was recommended for approval.

Paul Luper spoke on behalf of Harwell Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Jez Hawthorne spoke objecting to the application.

Sean Bates, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. During his allocated speaking slot Mr Bates experienced technical difficulties and therefore the time was stopped to allow him to reconnect. The remainder of his speaking slot was given following the local ward member.

Councillor Hayleigh Gascoigne, a local ward councillor, spoke on the application.

The committee asked if officers were satisfied with the reduction in building heights which had been secured since the original submission of the application. The planning officer confirmed they were happy with the changes to the heights detailing that plots 1-3 and 5 had been reduced from 8.6 metres to 7.46 metres and plot 4 had been reduced from 8.25 metres to 7.74 metres. She went on to advise that this should be considered in line with the levels details which showed the ridge heights in context of the surrounding properties. The planning officer advised that she was satisfied the bungalow was a single storey building and advised that high pitched rooves were traditional for the area. She concluded that the proposal complied with the design guide.

The committee raised concerns about the views of the development from the recreation ground and queried why the proposal was not being compared to the older properties in the area. The planning officer advised that Armstrong Close is part of the built up area and therefore formed part of the context.

The committee highlighted that the local highway’s authority had requested secure cycle storage and EV charging points by condition. The planning officer confirmed that the requirement for secure cycle parking could be added to the relevant condition. She went on to advise that EV charging points would be covered under Building Regulations.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was not carried on being put to the vote.

The committee reflected that outline permission for the site had already been approved. It was noted that five properties could to be built on the site but that the committee were unhappy with the size proposed and felt it was important to see the area.

Some members of the committee noted that a balance had to be struck between the houses being marketable and other considerations. The developer had made compromise, but it was not possible to will houses that developers do not want to build.

A motion, moved and seconded, to defer application P23/V2385/RM in order for the committee to conduct a site visit was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee noted the importance of seeing the context of the proposal in order to make an informed decision.

RESOLVED: to defer planning application P23/V2385/RM in order to allow for a site visit to take place.