Skip to main content

Agenda item

Applications for Development

Purpose:

To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached schedule.

Recommendation:

That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.

 

 

Page No

Application No

Address

Officer

13-28

21/03834/FUL

10 Burford Road Carterton

 

David Ditchett

 

29-39

22/00764/FUL

 

26 Milestone Road Carterton

 

David Ditchett

 

40-52

22/00946/FUL

Land (E) 428959 (N) 207797 Monahan Way Carterton

 

Abby Fettes

 

53-62

22/00947/FUL

Brooklyn Nurseries  65 Shilton Road Carterton

 

Sarah Hegerty

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Chair explained where there were public speakers in attendance, those applications would be heard first.

 

22/00946/FUL Land (E)428959 (N)207797 Monahan Way Carterton.

The Head of Development Management, Abby Fettes introduced the application for construction of coffee shop / bakery with ancillary drive through (use class Ea/b) and associated works.

Aiden Murray spoke in support of the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of these minutes.

The Chair invited questions from the Councillors. Councillor Fenton asked if the colours of the totem and opening hours had been agreed. Mr Murray confirmed both had been agreed.

Councillor Prosser queried cyclists and pedestrians to access the site. Mr Murray explained traffic has been directed away from cyclists and pedestrians. The outdoor area for eating  was adjacent to the footpath for connectivity.

Councillor Leverton asked about the electric points and whether they would be a profit centre for the developer. Mr Murray explained that he was in discussion with Fast Charge Services.

The Development Manager continued with the presentation confirming that the bakery and coffee shop fell within Class E in accordance with the outlined permission. She highlighted the access for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parish Council’s concerns about the colours on totem and materials had been addressed.  The main issue raised by local objectors had been highways but as no objection had been raised by Oxfordshire County Council.

Drainage details and an ecological corridor has been secured in the outline application. Thames water requested an informative be attached to the permission. Beyond the retail site there would be a play area and car park.  Officers proposed a recommendation for approval.

Councillor Fenton asked about the opening hours.  The Development Manager confirmed under condition 10, included in recommendation, the applicant requested standard opening hours Monday to Saturdays 6am – 10pm, Sundays and Bank Holidays 8am – 10pm. Councillor Fenton asked if these met with the Parish Council’s request. Councillor Nicholls  asked  how they compared with other opening hours on the estate. The Development Manager agreed to clarify hours and check hours of other retailers.

Councillor Leverton asked about the direction of travel for cars entering the site and was told that the longest possible route was to be used to prevent traffic issues.

The Development Manager confirmed there were cycle routes through the site but not dedicated cycle lanes on the highway. The drive through is ancillary to the main use of the unit.  Councillor Levy asked if walking and cycling had been positively encouraged in the spirit of the Local Plan as part of the application. The Development Manager explained that people use cars to get to amenities such as shops and schools but there is provision for people from the local area to walk or cycle.

 

Councillor Prosser asked for a condition regarding for better access for cyclists to the site. The Development Manager confirmed that the road layout had been approved. The Chair agreed that there were no technical objections regarding the highways. The Chair asked the Development Manager if there could be an informative for safe cycle access.

 

Councillor Dingwall supported the application as providing mixed use of cars, electric vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Councillor Dingwall proposed approval as per the recommendation in the report. Councillor Fenton seconded the proposal.

The application was put to the vote in line with the Officer’s recommendations for approval and was carried . (Councillors Dan Levy, Andrew Prosser, Alaric Smith and Andy Goodwin abstained from the vote).

Resolved as per the Officer’s recommendation with the informative for safe cycle access to site.

 

22/00947/FUL Brooklyn Nurseries 65 Shilton Road Carterton.

 

Sarah Hegerty, Planning Officer introduced the application for demolition of existing and associated outbuildings and construction of 4 detached dwellings with associated parking, private gardens and amenity space. Alterations to existing vehicular accesses.

Neil Parry spoke in support of the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of these minutes.

The Chair invited questions from the Councillors. Councillor Goodwin asked the speaker to elaborate on the sustainability aspect of the application. Mr Parry confirmed that the properties would have air-sourced heat pumps, solar PV and EV chargers, super insulation for all properties.

Councillor Poskitt asked for clarification on flat roofs.  Mr Parry explained that there was an element of flat roofs in the design but it was small and not easily seen. Councillor Poskitt asked about the height of the houses in comparison to the road. Mr Parry explained how the site dropped back from the road.

The Planning Officer continued with the presentation showing both the previous application and the present application so the Committee could see the amendments. The Planning Officer showed the surrounding properties in relation to the application. She explained that the proposed dwellings are significantly larger and would not compliment the established character of the locality. Therefore the recommendation was for refusal as per the report.

The Chair confirmed that the original reason loss of a historic building no longer applies due to a separate application which allowed the applicant to demolish the building.

Councillor Poskitt asked what improvements would come out if the application was re-submitted. The Planning Officer confirmed regarding the number of dwellings was, in principle, acceptable but the dwellings needed to be smaller in scale and reduced in size in keeping with the single storey buildings in the surrounding area.

Councillor Goodwin asked for clarity on the sustainable element of the application. The Planning Officer explained that it does not form part of the condition as it drafted. The Chair asked if conditions could be included. David Ditchett, Senior Planning Officer, explained that if the Committee were in favour of approving the application based on the sustainability credentials of the proposed development then a certain standard could be secured.

There was further discussion on making minor changes to the appearance and size of the dwellings. Mr Parry confirmed that he would have to go back for discussion with the applicant.

Councillor Prosser acknowledged that the application could be improved and proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendations of refusal. Councillor Aitman seconded the proposal.

The application was put to the vote in line with the Officer’s recommendations for refusal and was carried.

Resolved as per the Officer’s recommendation within the report.

 

21/03834/FUL 10 Burford Road Carterton.

 

Councillor Leverton left the Chambers.

 

David Ditchett, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of six 2 bedroom flats together with associated parking and access (amended plans).

A statement was read out by Democratic Services on behalf of Richard Turner who was in opposition of the application. A copy of this submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes. The Planning Officer confirmed Richard Turner resided on Church View Road and is in correspondence with the resident at number 12 Burford Road.

 

The Planning Officer continued with the presentation stating there were no updates since the last application.  No biodiversity survey had be submitted despite the area being over grown, the site having been vacant for 3 years. The Planning Officer explained the design was acceptable in keeping with properties in the area and that there were no objections regarding highways. There was the consideration of harm to the occupier of no.12 regarding loss of light, overshadowing and perception of overlooking from windows on northern elevation with a condition for glazing to be obscured. Also there was moderate harm regarding noise, vibration and disturbance from the car park. The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval as per the report.

 

The Chair invited questions from Members.

 

Councillor Prosser asked for clarification on landscaping. The Planning Officer confirmed that hedges and trees would be removed. Councillor Goodwin asked for clarification on boundaries. Abby Fettes, Development Manager explained how the Planning department provided maps and clarified where the boundaries were.  Councillor Nicholls asked about the size of the units. The Planning Officer did not have the details of square footage however confirmed that the units met the requirements for minimum space standards. Councillor Poskitt thought that the design was cramped and asked how the driveway would work. The Planning Officer confirmed there would be a one way system. The Chair reminded the Members that there were no Highways objections. Councillor Poskitt felt that it was cramped, contrived and un-neighbourly and proposed refusal. Councillor Goodwin seconded the proposal.  Councillor Goodwin stated that the buildings at the back of the site made the units smaller and resulted in overdevelopment of the site. Councillor Fenton agreed and highlighted the impact on the occupants of 12. Burford Road.

The Planning Officer asked the Members for clarification on reasons for refusal.

The application was put to the vote for refusal and was carried.

Resolved refusal as per Members concerns over size of site, inconvenience of driveway use   and impact on neighbours.

 

22/00764/FUL 26 Milestone Road Carterton

Councillor Leverton returned to Chamber.

 

David Ditchett, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two semi-detached dwellings with formation of a new access and associated works.

 

A statement was read out by Democratic Services on behalf of James Purdue who was in support of the application. A copy of this submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes.

 

Councillor Leverton confirmed that the bungalow has now been demolished.

 

The Planning Officer continued with the presentation and explained the existing bungalow had already been demolished without expressed planning permission or demolition notice but that there were no objections or conditions regarding safe demolition from Environmental Regulatory Services, (ERS). Planning Officers were asking that the application to be delegated back to them to deal with drainage and material matters. The application was before the Committee due to objections from Carterton Town Council regarding parking and overlooking. There were no objections from Highways. The proposed dwellings would result in some loss of light to solar panels on a neighbouring property which would be a material consideration. The applicant had engaged in the pre-application process with the Planning department but had not strictly followed the guidance on materials due to costs.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Members.

 

Councillor Alaric Smith asked about the neighbouring house and overshadowing.  The Planning Officer explained that the Planning team did not have the technology to measure this, but estimated that there would be 2 to 2 ½ hours when sunlight was restricted.  Councillor Poskitt asked about materials and the use of brick colour. The Planning Officer confirmed that the brick and render would be yellow and there would be a materials pre-commencement condition.

 

Councillor Dingwall proposed approval as per the recommendation in the report. Councillor Nicholls seconded the proposal.

 

The application was put to the vote for approval and was carried.

Resolved as per the Officer’s recommendation within the report.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages