06 April 2021 – Minutes

THAME TOWN COUNCIL

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning & Environment Committee held on 6 April 2021 at 6:30pm by Zoom Conference Call.

Present:

Cllrs B Austin, P Cowell, M Deacock, A Dite (Deputy Chairman), D Dodds, L Emery, H Fickling (Chairman), C Jones, A Midwinter and T Wyse

Officers

G Markland, Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer
L Fuller, Committee Services Officer

1 Apologies for Absence

There were no apologies for absence.

All Members who were present were able to be seen and be heard.

2 Declarations of Interest and Dispensations

With regards to planning applications P21/S0945/LB and P21/S0947/FUL – Tithe Barn, Cllr Fickling declared an interest as a Church Warden for St Mary’s Church, and Cllrs Deacock and Dodds declared an interest as trustees at Thame Barns Centre. These were not pecuniary interests and did not preclude Members from debating or voting on these applications.

3 Public Participation and Public Questions

Mr Jake Collinge spoke as the agent for planning applications P21/S0945/LB and P21/S0947/FUL – Tithe Barn. Ms Emma Foster, the applicant, was also available to answer questions. Mr Collinge advised that planning permission was not required for change of use to a nursery, given the existing established use. The applications were for internal and external alterations, which included the provision of fencing and a shed. The Tithe Barn is a Grade II* listed building. The proposals in the listed building application were for modern interventions which would not affect the historic fabric of the structure and were reversible. The proposed external works had been designed with due sensitivity to the historic status of the listed building. The proposed fence would be in keeping with the scale and form of existing fencing. The shed would be modest and in a discreet location that preserves the setting of the historic heritage assets.

A question was raised with regards to the proposed toilets. Ms Foster advised that six toilets and four basins would be provided, with four freestanding baby changing units. It was noted that a lot of the children would be in nappies and therefore six toilets would be adequate.

A question was asked in relation to the change of use, given that in 2010 a proposal for a nursery was refused. Mr Collinge explained that in September 2020, the Government issued changes to the Use Classes Order that amalgamated a number of use classes and that following this, prior approval and permission were not required to change the property from offices to a nursery.

A question was raised with regards to the proposed traffic movements and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Ms Foster advised that there would be staggered times for drop-off throughout the day rather than a set time. It was also expected that a lot of families would be within walking distance given the central location. It was confirmed that the drop-off would be on Church Road, not Priest End.

A question was raised with regards to the design and materials of the shed, given its visible position and setting within the Conservation Area. Mr Collinge advised that the visual impact of the shed had not been dismissed. It was proposed that the existing timber screening around the air-conditioning units would be used around the shed. The design and materials would be guided by advice from the District’s Conservation Officer.

A question was raised with regards to the target market of the nursery. Ms Foster advised the nursery would be for children aged 3 months to school age and for working families who needed childcare and would have places for Government-funded hours. The nursery would be open all day for those who required it and would occupy the whole building.

A question was raised with regards to the number of parking spaces. Ms Foster advised that there was a large gravel parking area to the rear, and it was expected that quite a few staff would be apprentices and not able to drive.

A question was raised regarding the boundary line shown on the application. Mr Collinge advised that the owner of the Tithe Barn owned a wider area but this application only applied to the area contained within the red line.

Cllr Midwinter joined the meeting.

Mr Mike Storey also spoke in relation to planning applications P21/S0945/LB and P21/S0947/FUL. Whilst he was not against development at The Tithe Barn, there were several issues that needed to be raised. Firstly, concern was raised regarding the accuracy of the plans which did not appear to recognise the right of access to the garages of 7 Church Road, and the boundary appeared to be incorrect. Secondly, the proposal shows 3 parking spaces and concern was raised as to how this would be managed with parking requirements for staff, visitors, and parents. There were wider concerns about vehicles manoeuvring and parking in the cul-de-sac and ensuring access for surrounding businesses. It was recognised that parking considerations were outside the scope of this application. Thirdly, the site plan does not show the old well which is a feature of The Tithe Barn. It is currently covered with a grid, but concern was raised as to how this will be protected, and children kept safe. The application stated that the trees on the site were not part of the local landscape character, however they are important in the context of the Conservation Area and for biodiversity. The Tithe Barn has in the past had concerns over the presence of bats however the application stated that there were no priority species on the site.

Mr Collinge advised that they were fully aware of the right of access and statutory requirements had been met.

Members then discussed and made a recommendation regarding planning applications P21/S0945/LB and P21/S0947/FUL.

4 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2021 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

5 Planning Applications

1384 – 35 ROOKS LANE

Fit two rooflights to front elevation of existing roof structure, with relevant flashings.
P21/S0607/HH

SUPPORTS

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ17, ESDQ20
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES6

1387 – 4 HAMPDEN AVENUE

Proposed single storey rear extension and proposed part 2-storey part single storey side extension.
P21/S0832/HH

SUPPORTS and has a RESPONSE:

      • Subject to no objection from the County Highways Officer.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES5, TRANS5, DES6, DES8, H20

1388 – GREENACRE, MORETON ROAD

Proposed garden building.
P21/S0880/HH

OBJECTS

      • Insufficient and inadequate information to understand the proposed building’s dimensions.

Comment: Without access to paper copies or suitable software, the Town Council cannot scale the drawings.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ21, ESDQ22, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES5, DES7, ENV1, DES6, DES8, H20

1389 – TITHE BARN, CHURCH ROAD

Internal Alterations – all as detailed in the Planning, Heritage and Design and Access Statement
P21/S0945/LB

NO COMMENT

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: WS12, WS13, CLW1, ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ19, ESDQ20, D1
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES2, DES3, DES7, EMP2, EMP3, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, CF2, DES6, DES8

1390 – TITHE BARN, CHURCH ROAD

Provision of fencing and a shed
P21/S0947/FUL

OBJECTS:

      • Insufficient information on the design of the shed
      • Impact on the setting of the listed building and Conservation Area

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: WS12, WS13, CLW1, ESDQ15, ESDQ16, ESDQ19, ESDQ20, D1
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES2, DES3, DES7, EMP2, EMP3, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, CF2, DES6, DES8

1391 – 7 KING’S ROAD

Rear and side single storey extension. Garage conversion.
P21/S0912/HH

SUPPORTS and has a RESPONSE:

      • The committee regret the loss of the garage for its original purpose.
      • Subject to no objection from the County Highways Officer.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ28, ESDQ29
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES5, DES7, TRANS5, DES6, DES8, H20

1392 – 35 CHINNOR ROAD

Proposed single storey rear extension.
P21/S1078/HH

SUPPORTS

Neighbourhood Plan Policies: ESDQ16, ESDQ18, ESDQ28
SODC Local Plan Policies: DES1, DES5, DES7, STRAT1, STRAT5, TH1, DES6, DES8, H20

6 Reports from Town Council Representatives

  1. Transport Representative – in the absence of an elected Transport Representative, Cllr Fickling advised that she had prepared and submitted the Town Council’s response to the County Council’s Local Transport & Connectivity Plan, with input from Cllr Austin and Thame Green Living. A copy of the response had been circulated to Members.

7 For Information

The items for information were noted.

In relation to Item 7f, Cllr Wyse had represented the Town Council at the District Council’s Planning Committee but was advised by the Chairman that the Town Council had not objected on the grounds of highways impact. The Neighbourhood Plan Continuity Officer (NPCO) advised that the Town Council had commented on highways particularly with regards to the impact on neighbouring amenity and other reasons. The County Highways Officer had raised no objections and therefore this ground for objection held little weight. The Town Council’s objection related more to the impact on neighbouring amenity rather than highways safety. The Chairman thanked Cllr Wyse for representing the Town Council.

In relation to Items 7d and 7e, it was noted that works were taking place at 20 Upper High Street despite planning permission being refused for the change of use. The NPCO advised that these alterations could be reasonable given that permission had been granted for the listed building works. It was hoped that the District’s Conservation Officer would be monitoring the works.

The NPCO noted the minutes of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee, who had again commented on the poor state of the building, particularly the windows, occupied by Fitzgerald Dentist. The NPCO advised that this matter had been raised with building control last year who had found that the windows were sound. However, the windows may have deteriorated further, and it may be possible for the District Council to raise a Section 215 if the windows are harming the amenity of the area. The NPCO advised that he had already raised a request for this to be looked at, but Covid-19 pandemic had presumably intervened.

 

The meeting concluded at 7:38pm.

 

 

Signed …………………….

Chairman, 4 May 2021