26 May 2015 – Minutes
THAME TOWN COUNCIL
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning & Environment Committee held on 26 May 2015 at 6.30pm In the Upper Chamber, Thame Town Hall.
Present: Cllrs B Austin, D Bretherton (Deputy Chairman), P Cowell, M Deacock, N Dixon (Town Mayor), D Dodds, L Emery (Deputy Mayor), H Fickling (Chairman),
A Midwinter, M Stiles and T Wyse
Officers
G Hunt, Town Clerk
A Oughton, Committee Services Officer
A Midwinter, M Stiles and T Wyse
Officers
G Hunt, Town Clerk
A Oughton, Committee Services Officer
1 Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies for absence.
2 Declarations of Interest
Cllr Deacock declared an interest in planning application 9479 P15/S1261/FUL as he lived next door but one to the proposed development. Cllr Midwinter declared an interest in planning application 9476 P15/S1177/FUL as Vice Chairman of Thame & District Housing Association which met in the property next to the application. Cllr Emery declared an interest in planning application 9480 P15/S1301/HH as a member of Chiltern Vale Residents Association.
The Town Clerk confirmed a general dispensation was in place which allowed the Council to consider planning application 9481 P15/S1285/LB.
3 Public Participation
Mr and Mrs Gerhardt spoke against planning application 9480 P15/S1301/HH as immediate neighbours to 12 Hawthorn Avenue and strongly opposed the proposal to erect a fence around the boundary of the property. It was felt the fence would not only restrict light into their property but also devalue it. The application was not in keeping with the character of the area and would be strongly opposed by Mr and Mrs Gerhardt regardless of its location on the Chiltern Vale estate. Mr Gerhardt is totally blind and uses the path outside 12 Hawthorn Avenue and crosses the road where the proposed new gates would be installed. The installation of the fence would result in pedestrians not being visible to vehicles exiting no. 12 as the vehicle would have to move forward at least a bonnet length onto the pavement before the driver would see approaching pedestrians or vehicles.
Twenty three letters of objection had been lodged with the District Council. Mrs Gerhardt felt the application for a high fence, white walls, white posts, electric gates and a pedestrian gate was not in keeping with the area. It was estimated that the fence would be 10 inches from their bedroom window and would result in significant in loss of light.
4 Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
5 Planning Applications
9459
P15/S0654/HH 45 AYLESBURY ROAD
Amendment No 1
Two storey rear extension and rebuild of existing front extension with alteration to roof (as amended by drwg no. PL-PR-001B received 27 April 2015 reducing the depth and height of the two storey rear extension).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S0654/HH 45 AYLESBURY ROAD
Amendment No 1
Two storey rear extension and rebuild of existing front extension with alteration to roof (as amended by drwg no. PL-PR-001B received 27 April 2015 reducing the depth and height of the two storey rear extension).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ19, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: D1, D2, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
9476
P15/S1177/FUL
CHARTER HOUSE, 14 WELLINGTON STREET
Conversion of existing building (D1 use) to 6 no. two bedroom flats with associated car parking and amenity space.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment – would prefer to see 1 bed apartments. The proposal for 2 bed apartments was unacceptable
2. Quality of living accommodation for future occupants would be substandard
3. Outside amenity space inadequate
4. Require further proof that there is no need as a community asset.
P15/S1177/FUL
CHARTER HOUSE, 14 WELLINGTON STREET
Conversion of existing building (D1 use) to 6 no. two bedroom flats with associated car parking and amenity space.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment – would prefer to see 1 bed apartments. The proposal for 2 bed apartments was unacceptable
2. Quality of living accommodation for future occupants would be substandard
3. Outside amenity space inadequate
4. Require further proof that there is no need as a community asset.
9476
P15/S1177/FUL CHARTER HOUSE, 14 WELLINGTON STREET
Amendment No. 1
Conversion of existing building (D1 use) to 6 no. two bedroom flats with associated car parking and amenity space. The south-east elevation first and second floor windows are as amended by revised plans accompanying agent’s email dated 8 May 2015.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment – would prefer to see 1 bed apartments. The proposal for 2 bed apartments was unacceptable
2. Quality of living accommodation for future occupants would be substandard
3. Outside amenity space inadequate
4. Require further proof that there is no need as a community asset.
P15/S1177/FUL CHARTER HOUSE, 14 WELLINGTON STREET
Amendment No. 1
Conversion of existing building (D1 use) to 6 no. two bedroom flats with associated car parking and amenity space. The south-east elevation first and second floor windows are as amended by revised plans accompanying agent’s email dated 8 May 2015.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment – would prefer to see 1 bed apartments. The proposal for 2 bed apartments was unacceptable
2. Quality of living accommodation for future occupants would be substandard
3. Outside amenity space inadequate
4. Require further proof that there is no need as a community asset.
9477
P15/S1198/HH
100 WELLINGTON STREET
Single storey rear extension and new window to front elevation.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S1198/HH
100 WELLINGTON STREET
Single storey rear extension and new window to front elevation.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ19, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: D1, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
9478
P15/S1242/HH
60 TOWERSEY DRIVE
Proposed single storey front extension and a part single and part two storey rear extension.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment
2. Unneighbourly
P15/S1242/HH
60 TOWERSEY DRIVE
Proposed single storey front extension and a part single and part two storey rear extension.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment
2. Unneighbourly
The scale, height, mass and bulk of the two-storey extension would appear over-bearing from, and detract from the outlook to, the rear of 53 Cotmore Gardens.
The depth of the single storey extension would result in an adverse loss of light to 58 Towersey Drive.
The depth of the single storey extension would result in an adverse loss of light to 58 Towersey Drive.
The extent of glazing to the rear of the two-storey extension would increase the perception of overlooking to the rear gardens of properties in Cotmore Gardens.
9479
P15/S1261/FUL
WINDRUSH, BRIDGE TERRACE
Demolition of Windrush and erection of four terraced dwellings; two 3 bed and two 2 bed.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment
2. Character of the area
3. Loss of privacy and light
4. Highway safety
P15/S1261/FUL
WINDRUSH, BRIDGE TERRACE
Demolition of Windrush and erection of four terraced dwellings; two 3 bed and two 2 bed.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Overdevelopment
2. Character of the area
3. Loss of privacy and light
4. Highway safety
- The scale, height, mass, footprint and excessive site coverage of the proposed dwellings would represent a cramped, over-development of the site harmful to the character of the area;
- The proposed dwellings would appear overbearing from neighbouring properties, particularly Ridgeway;
- There would be an adverse loss of privacy to the principal area of amenity space serving 2 Cotmore Gardens.
- The access to the site is sub-standard in visibility terms at the junction with Cotmore Gardens/Bridge Terrace, and the intensification of use of the access thereby represents a highway and pedestrian safety constraint. Furthermore, there is no evidence that parking can be delivered with safe turning in the manner proposed given ownership constraints;
- The scale of the amenity areas serving the proposed dwellings would be unacceptable and would fall below the standards set out in the Design Guide.
- No provision is made for affordable housing, and the District Council should provide clarification as to whether local policy in connection with such has been superseded by the recent Ministerial Statement.
9480
P15/S1301/HH 12 HAWTHORN AVENUE
New wall, fence and gate to the front of the property.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Unneighbourly – loss of light/amenity to neighbour
2. Not in keeping with the character of the area
3. Highway safety.
P15/S1301/HH 12 HAWTHORN AVENUE
New wall, fence and gate to the front of the property.
RECOMMEND REFUSAL
1. Unneighbourly – loss of light/amenity to neighbour
2. Not in keeping with the character of the area
3. Highway safety.
The principle issue concerns the appropriateness of enclosing the property, with a close boarded fence/wall. The scale and design is not in keeping with the characteristics of the Chiltern Vale estate which are of open, soft landscaped frontages. It was therefore considered it would be detrimental to the character of the area.
9481
P15/S1285/LB MARKET HOUSE, NORTH STREET
Installation of a commemorative plaque to the east facing wall.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S1285/LB MARKET HOUSE, NORTH STREET
Installation of a commemorative plaque to the east facing wall.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ20
SODC Local Plan Policies: CON3, CON7, D1, AD1
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3
9482
P15/S1256/FUL LAND BETWEEN ELM TREE FARMHOUSE AND FOUR SEASONS, MORETON
Removal of condition 10 (Code for Sustainable Homes) of planning permission P14/S1515/FUL
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S1256/FUL LAND BETWEEN ELM TREE FARMHOUSE AND FOUR SEASONS, MORETON
Removal of condition 10 (Code for Sustainable Homes) of planning permission P14/S1515/FUL
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ2
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ2
9483
P15/S1345/HH 22 WINDMILL ROAD
Demolition of existing single storey rear extension. Erection of a two storey rear extension.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S1345/HH 22 WINDMILL ROAD
Demolition of existing single storey rear extension. Erection of a two storey rear extension.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ19, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: D1, D2, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3
9484
P15/S1217/HH 27 SOUTHERN ROAD
Refurbishment and extension of existing conservatory.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
P15/S1217/HH 27 SOUTHERN ROAD
Refurbishment and extension of existing conservatory.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ20, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: CON7, D1, D4, H13
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3
Core Strategy Policies: CSQ3, CSEN3
9485
P15/S1414/A
19-20 HIGH STREET
Erection of 1 x fascia sign and 1 x projecting sign.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL for the erection of 1 x fascia sign
RECOMMEND REFUSAL for 1 x projecting sign
P15/S1414/A
19-20 HIGH STREET
Erection of 1 x fascia sign and 1 x projecting sign.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL for the erection of 1 x fascia sign
RECOMMEND REFUSAL for 1 x projecting sign
9486
P15/S1415/LB 19-20 HIGH STREET
Replacement and additional illuminated and non-illuminated signage.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL for the erection of 1 x fascia sign
RECOMMEND REFUSAL for 1 x projecting sign
P15/S1415/LB 19-20 HIGH STREET
Replacement and additional illuminated and non-illuminated signage.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL for the erection of 1 x fascia sign
RECOMMEND REFUSAL for 1 x projecting sign
6 Reports from Town Council Representatives
a) Transport Representative – Cllr Stiles reported the next meeting of Transport Representatives would take place on 17 June 2015. Cllr Stiles intended to raise a question regarding the provision of a bus stop to serve residents living in the Pearce Way and Garden City area of the town.
7 For Information
The items for information were noted. Item g) Report on visit to Site C on 19 May 2015, a written report had been made available to Members in the drop box. Item h) Elms Park and Site F – discussions regarding S106 funding had taken place. Further revised submissions to the planning application for The Elms had been received from the applicant. The Council would await formal notification from SODC before proceeding.
The meeting concluded at 7.30pm
Signed ……………………..
Chairman, 16 June 2015
Chairman, 16 June 2015