02 February 2016 – Minutes

THAME TOWN COUNCIL

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning & Environment Committee held on 2 February 2016 at 7.25pm In the Upper Chamber, Thame Town Hall.

Present: Cllrs B Austin, D Bretherton (Deputy Chairman), P Cowell, M Deacock,
N Dixon (Town Mayor), L Emery, D Dodds, H Fickling (Chairman), M Stiles and T Wyse
Officers
G Hunt, Town Clerk
A Oughton, Committee Services Officer

1 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Midwinter (Holiday).

2 Declarations of Interest and Dispensations

Cllr Cowell declared an interest in planning application P15/S4328/FUL as the applicant was known to him. Cllr Deacock declared an interest in planning application P15/S4355/HH as a resident of Cotmore Gardens. Cllr Fickling declared an interest in planning application P15/S4322/HH as the architect for the scheme and left the meeting during discussion of this item.

3 Public Participation and Public Questions

Esme Humphries and Melanie Hayden, residents of Moats Crescent spoke against planning application P15/S4328/FUL – Rear of 1 & 2 Moats Crescent. The point was made that eight weeks ago the Committee had listened to the applicant state how important the proposed outbuilding was to the family to now be here again to consider a planning application to construct a bungalow on the site of the proposed outbuilding.

It was not considered a personal vendetta but a need to protect the neighbourhood from overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would result in backland development, be out of keeping with the character of the area and incongruous. There was no direct access to the rear of No. 2 Moats Crescent and the proposed dwelling would therefore lead to increased use of the access to the side of No. 1 Moats Crescent.

The intention was that the two proposed bungalows would be for older people which raised the question as to how future occupants would manage to move the wheelie bins to the roadside on collection days. The proposed level of parking was below the minimum standard and there was already a problem with on street parking in Moats Crescent.

The applicant Tiny van de Velde and Mark Spragg spoke in favour of the planning application for the Rear of 1 & 2 Moats Crescent. The principle of backland development had been accepted with the approval of the construction of a bungalow to the rear of No. 1 Moats Crescent.

The proposed bungalow to the rear of No. 2 Moats Crescent would not be visible from the street scene. The private amenity areas provided would be greater than that provided at 1 & 2 Moats Crescent and would be well separated from neighbouring properties with no prospect of overlooking. The 4m height of the bungalow would not be overbearing and was the same size as that of the proposed outbuilding.

One parking space plus a visitor space was provided for each bungalow. The problems of on street parking in Moats Crescent was as a result of residents from Kings Close using the Crescent to park and people parking who then visited the Town Centre. There was no provision for bungalows on the new developments around the town. This site provided the opportunity to construct two bungalows, close to the centre of town that would be ideal for older residents. The applicant was happy to consider a condition restricting the age of future owners to ensure the bungalows would be occupied older residents.

The objections that had been heard tonight were based on personal objections. The proposals provided for two bungalows on a sustainable site.

4 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

5 Planning Applications

9588
P15/S4328/FUL REAR OF 1 & 2 MOATS CRESCENT
Erection of 2 no. two bed bungalows.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. The proposals represent a cramped and unacceptable form of backland development harmful to the character of the area.
2. The design of the bungalows is bland and uninspiring and fails to respect or reflect the locally distinctive design qualities of Thame.
3. The increased use of the access would adversely affect neighbouring amenity by reason of noise and disturbance
4. The amenities of Plot 1 would be unacceptably compromised by the use of the access, parking and turning of vehicles connected with Plot 2.
5. Insufficient parking is provided, leading to additional on-street parking in Moats Crescent that would be detrimental to highway safety, with the access of insufficient width to serve two dwellings.

9589
P15/S4355/HH 5 COTMORE GARDENS
Proposed rear extension.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, D1, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9590
P15/S4322/HH 46 CEDAR CRESCENT
Side Extension.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ19. ESDQ21, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies:G6, D1, D2, D4, H13, T2
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9591
P15/S4195/HH 35 OLD UNION WAY
Single storey timber outbuilding for use as a garden room.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ20, ESDQ21, ESDQ22, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: CON7, D1, D4
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3

9592
P15/S4376/HH 6 BEECH ROAD
Proposed replacement sunroom to rear and pitched roofs over garage and bedrooms.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16
SODC Local Plan Policies: D1, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9593
P15/S0006/HH 1 PARK TERRACE
Two storey end of terrace extension.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Subject to the extended part of the dwelling not becoming a separate dwelling in the future.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ20, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, CON7, D1, D2, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3

9594
P16/S0015/FUL KUBOTA (UK) LTD, UNIT 1, DORMER ROAD
Erection of smoking shelter and paving.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: WS13, ESDQ16, ESDQ26, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, D1, D4
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9595
P16/S0013/FUL KUBOTA (UK) LTD, UNIT 1, DORMER ROAD
Erection of smoking shelter.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: WS13, ESDQ16, ESDQ26, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, D1, D4
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9596
P16/S0133/HH 2 VICTORIA MEAD
Loft conversion with lead clad box dormer on rear roof slope.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ19
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, D1, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

9597
P16/S0138/HH 43 OLD UNION WAY
Convert existing double garage to accommodate a studio.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ20, ESDQ21, ESDQ22, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: CON7, D1, D2, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3

9598
P15/S4245/LB 1 SOUTHERN ROAD
Replace casements of bathroom window.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ20
SODC Local Plan Policies: G6, CON3, CON7, D1, D4
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3

9599
P15/S3934/A PEOPLES HOUSE, COTMORE WELLS ROAD
Non illuminated fascia sign.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: WS13, ESDQ16
SODC Local Plan Policies: D1, AD1
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3

6 MW.0015/16 ASM Auto Recycling Ltd, Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame
Planning application for permission for the Regeneration of existing Industrial site and buildings for augmentation of Auto Recycling and end of life of vehicles on adjacent site at ASM Auto Recycling Ltd, Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame.

Following discussion it was agreed that a comment of No Strong Views be submitted to Oxfordshire County Council.

7 MW.0016/16 ASM Auto Recycling Ltd Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame
Planning application for permission for the continuation of development without complying with Condition 1 (approved plans) of Planning Permission P09/E0744/CM (Regeneration of existing industrial site and buildings for waste material recycling facility for end of life vehicles (ELV) including rebuilding one part of existing building), in order to vary the Traffic Management Plan to include access to and through the transport depot area adjoining at ASM Auto Recycling Ltd, Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame.

Following discussion it was agreed that a comment of No Strong Views be submitted together with the observation that the hedging / screening around the site boundary but particularly from the street scene be reinstated.

7a MW.0017/16 ASM Auto Recycling Ltd, Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame
Planning application for permission for the Retrospectively operational developments of steel and concrete safety barriers, including changes to existing boundary fencing, security cameras and masts and a new weighbridge installation at ASM Auto Recycling Ltd, Menlo Industrial Site, Rycote Lane, Thame

8 Reports from Town Council Representatives

a) Transport Representative
Further to the report Cllr Stiles gave an update on the bus petition which had 50 signatures in just 48 hours. A copy of the petition was available at the meeting should anyone wish to sign it. The Parish Transport Representative for Watlington had taken a copy of the petition and would encourage bus users in the local area to sign it.

Cllr Stiles would hand the petition to the County Council at their meeting on 16 February and was intending to speak. However, this may not be permitted as Cllr Stiles had spoken at the Cabinet meeting when the budget was discussed. In the event of not being able to speak Cllr Stiles would nominate another representative to speak against the planned cut in bus subsidies. Towersey Parish were also lobbying the County Council.

9 For Information

The items for information were noted.

Particular reference was made to misinformation in the public domain with regard to the Children’s Assessment Centre, currently under construction along the Chinnor Road. Members were asked to ensure that the correct message about the work of the Children’s Assessment Centre was promoted.

Members also noted that a large amount of hedgerow / vegetation along the boundary of the Children’s Assessment Centre site and the Chinnor Road had been removed and what appeared to be second vehicular entrance was being constructed. It was agreed that the Council write to the Planning Department at Oxfordshire County Council to express concern at the possible deviation from the approved planning permission.

The meeting concluded at 8.30pm

Signed ……………………..
Chairman, 23 February 2016

Post meeting note: It was agreed that Cllr Dixon would attend the District Planning Committee meeting on 10 February 2016 to speak against the Planning Officer’s recommendation of approval for P15/S3279/FUL – 27 Cotmore Gardens.