PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 FEBRUARY 2008
ADDENDA
ITEM
1. Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments
Council on Tuesday 12 February appointed Councillor Alan Bryden to the vacancy on the Committee
4. Petitions and Public Address
5. Hickman Bros Landscapes Ltd, Shipton Hill, Fulbrook
Additional Representations
Gary Mardon, Fulbrook Parish Council
Gilly Kay (Chairman Fulbrook Parish Council) and I had decided that if the recommendations were in line with our own position we would not wish to speak at the meeting, and I believe that they are.
The recommendation made by Chris Cousins appears to restrict the operations to those uses ancillary to a landscape contractor's yard, which is a similar position to our own. However, I trust that this means that the amount of third party waste which is not ancillary to a landscape business is, therefore, limited.
We are very concerned about any detrimental impact on an AONB. This site is in a prominent positiom.The tree and bush cover around the site is not consistent (particularly during the winter months) so the height of material stock piles should be kept low.
We are somewhat concerned about the monitoring of the waste management activities if a licence is granted. Additional information recently provided by Hickman's Consultant appears to show some previous short comings in record keeping.
In closing I have to congratulate Mr Cousins and his colleagues for preparing a very professional and succinct document. I hope that you will have an opportunity at the meeting to convey my congratulations.
6. Extension to Hanwell Fields Community School,Rotary Way, Banbury. Application C.19/07
Additional Representations
Consultation Replies
Banbury Town Council – No objection, the development is welcomed.
RECOMMENDATION
As main report.
7. Installation of a Synthetic Grass Sports and Play Area atWhitchurch Primary School, Application No S.12/07
Additional Representations
Mr Jim Reed, Meadowside, Eastfield Lane, Whitchurch-on-Thames
Has due consideration been given to the possibility of contamination or interruption of water supply to those houses in the vicinity of the school that rely on underground sources rather than the mains?
There are nine such properties, to the south and west of the site, one of which is Mr Reed's.
Neil Huntington, Eastfield Cottage, Eastfield lane, Whitchurch-on-Thames
As a parent at Whitchurch School I strongly object to the installation of a synthetic play surface for the following reasons:
· The environment: this proposal will remove all the remaining grassed area in the school grounds and is a “wish” rather than a “need” on the part of the school.
· As owners of the school, OCC should set an example to the pupils, the parents and the wider community and not promote proposals that are environmentally damaging. This undermines the OCC’s own “Future First” initiative.
· The project has been promoted by the head and a small group of governors. It is not popular with the majority of parents, who were never consulted or given an opportunity to make their feelings known prior to the decision being taken.
· It is acknowledged that this surface can cause injuries and indeed has already done so in the small patches that are already in place. This could potentially lead to a claim for damages against the school or the OCC.
· I am concerned that the annual maintenance costs have not been considered carefully and there will be a call for further funding from the OCC to maintain it, or worse, a situation where the school, which is very small, having to re-direct funds from other essential costs.
· If the project does go ahead please can it be made a condition that the school is not allowed to let it out to third parties. The accessibility is poor and there are no parking facilities.
OCC should set an example to the school and the community and refuse this planning application.
Mrs Kate Preston, Cliff Cottage, Hardwick Road, Whitchurch-on-Thames comments attached (download as .doc file).
Mr Charles Cotgreave who will be addressing the Committee has asked that a summary of his main points, including references to relevant policy documents, council and government initiatives and an updated ground plan be circulated to members of the Committee. Copies are attached (download as .doc file).
8. Application Nos. O.20/07 & O.19/07 Increase in pupil numbers at SS Phillip & James CE Primary School, Navigation Way (off Aristotle Lane), Oxford
Consultation Replies
Oxford City Council – The City Council have made the following additional comment:
‘The creation of a path to the north of the site across the Trap Grounds to be used during daylight hours be explored’
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
The comments made by the City Council can be added as an Informative on any consent that might be given.
RECOMMENDATION
As main report but to include Informative from Oxford City Council.
9. Application No. S.20/07 – Demolition of existing building and erection of 2 storey building on site to create new town Library; the Pied Pedlar, 3 North Street, Thame
Consultation Replies
Five letters have been received objecting to the loss of the toy shop from this site commenting that it provides a valuable facility for the town centre.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) – Comment as follows; “We are pleased to support the decision of the local planning authority to introduce a Library and other public uses in Thame town centre. We are encouraged to see a contemporary approach to the design of the new building and believe that, if successfully resolved, it could work well within its historic context.
We like the roof form and the proposed materials (brick and glass), which have the potential to make the proposed building sit comfortably within its context. However, we feel that some elements of design and detailing could be improved, particularly on the elevation facing North Street. The combination of the planar glazing, the wrapped brick work (which does not meet the eaves) and the punched windows, does not come together to make a fully resolved composition. For example, the proportions of the windows are uncomfortable and the full height glazing does not work well in this instance.
In addition, the complexity of the junction between the eaves, brick work and glazed top storey, in the top right corner of this elevation, will be difficult to detail.
We feel that this elevation should be simplified to make a bold yet subtle contribution to the street-scene.
Similarly, there is a wide range of materials (including timber and render) used on the elevation facing the neighbouring garden and we suggest that the palette should be limited and perhaps used more consistently on all sides of the building.
We are pleased to see the effort that has been made to naturally ventilate and naturally illuminate the building. However, we wonder if light glare and solar gain through the west facing roof lights will result in retro-fitted shades, thus defeating the purpose. We suggest that the architect should consider other alternatives, such as north lights or clerestory.
The success of this development will also be dependent on the use of good quality materials and it will be important for the local planning authority to condition materials and details, as necessary. You may find the CABE publication ‘Protecting Design Quality in Planning’ (which is available from our website) useful in this respect. On the whole, we support the planning application, subject to our concerns being satisfactorily addressed.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
Officers and the project architect have recently met with officers from SODC to try to address the concerns that they have raised over the design of the new building. As a result of this meeting, and the response received from CABE outlined above, the application has been amended. The main amendments relate to:
· lowering of the roof vents to hide them behind the proposed sloping roof; · simplification of the north elevation by removing the rendered panels. The elevation is now to be constructed in good quality brickwork laid in Flemish bond; · simplification of the North Street frontage by removing the ‘punched’ window openings and increasing the element of glazing; · removing the solid two storey circular staircase extension to the south elevation and its replacement with a glazed staircase extension set back from the southern boundary of the site.
These amendments are currently the subject of a re-consultation exercise for which the deadline for receiving replies expires after the date of this committee. I propose therefore that the recommendation in the main report be changed as follows:
Revised Recommendation
It is RECOMMENDED that the Head of Sustainable Development, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee, be authorised to approve Application No. S.20/07, subject to consideration of any comments that may be received from the South Oxfordshire District Council or Thame Town Council or other interested parties on the amended plans, subject to:
· Condition 1 in the main report being altered to ensure that any permission granted relates to the amendment plans that have been submitted;
· all other conditions referred to in the main report to
remain.
|