Agenda and minutes

To record the attendance of Substitute Members, if any, who have been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1), with notification having been given to the proper Officer before the start of the meeting and to receive apologies for absence.

The attendance of Substitute Members who had been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) was recorded as referred to above with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Roger Cox, Richard Gibson, Briony Newport and Margaret Turner. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 8, 22 and 24 May 2006 attached.

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 8, 22 and 24 May 2006 were adopted and signed as correct records, subject to minute DC.344 regarding 'Demolition of Existing Garden Centre and Extension to Store and Car Park, on land at Tesco, Abingdon' in the minutes of 8 May 2006 being amended in the paragraph labelled (1) to read "…Department of the Community and Local Government…".  

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

In accordance with Part 2 of the Local Code of Conduct and the provisions of Standing Order 34, any Member with a personal interest must disclose the existence and nature of that interest to the meeting prior to the matter being debated.  Where that personal interest is also a prejudicial interest, then the Member must withdraw from the room in which the meeting is being held and not seek improperly to influence any decision about the matter unless he/she has obtained a dispensation from the Standards Committee.

Councillor Richard Farrell declared a personal interest in the Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan as he was a member of the Faringdon Area Project (minute DC.52 refers).  Councillor Matthew Barber declared a personal interest in the Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan as he was involved with the Faringdon Community Bus (minute DC.52 refers).  Councillor Jenny Hannaby declared a personal interest in the planning application for the former Dow site at Letcombe Regis as she was a member of the Letcombe Brook Steering Group (minute DC.53 refers).  Councillor Jerry Patterson declared a personal interest with regard to the application at Sutton Mill, Sutton Courtenay as he knew Honorary Alderman Margaret MacKenzie who was speaking on behalf of the Parish Council (minute DC.56 refers).  Councillor Tony de Vere declared a personal interest in the application at Sutton Mill, Sutton Courtenay as he knew Mr Eastwood, one of the public speakers (minute DC.56 refers). 

To receive notification of any matters, which the Chair determines, should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances, which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the Chair.

The Chair asked Councillors and members of the public to switch their mobile telephones off during the meeting and to listen to the debate in silence.

For the benefit of members of the public, the Chair advised that a local Member who was not a Member of the Committee or was not substituting for an absent Member, was able to address the Committee on applications in their ward only, but was not allowed to vote.

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

(1)        Anna Marlow made a statement on behalf of the Faringdon Area Project regarding the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the land between the A420 and Faringdon, to the north of Park Road.  With regard to a performance venue, the Guidance had stated that a performance venue already existed.  This was not the case.  What existed was an old, small theatre in need of refurbishment and with no parking.  Faringdon Area Project had identified the need for a multi-use performance venue, suitable for dance, drama, skating, cinema, concerts.  There was not a suitable sized venue in the town.  This was a prime opportunity for some money to be allocated that would enable grant funding to be sought.

Regarding a creche and car parking, the original Supplementary Planning Guidance had included an extension to the gym at the Leisure Centre.  This had now been replaced with the need for a crèche and parking.  Neither facility had been identified as needed by the Faringdon Healthcheck.  The inclusion of a car park pre-empted the findings of the parking study that had been referred to in the Guidance.  She suggested that both these items should be removed, pending investigation.  These were of a lower priority than the facilities identified by Faringdon Area Project and the Town Council. 

The need for a detailed parking study had been included covering ’on and off street parking in the town centre, car parks, leisure centre and local schools’.  The work carried out by a member of Town Council and local people had been well documented.  It was hoped that this would be used as a basis for the technical study. 

The Faringdon Healthcheck had identified the need for better links to national transport services, hence the request to include a place for coaches to stop and turn on Park Road.  The comment that it would be more appropriate for coaches to stop in the Market Place, took no account of the congestion often experienced in the town, or the fact that coach operators stopped coming into Faringdon for this very reason.  She asked the Committee to reconsider this – a place where National Express coaches could stop would be of great advantage to existing and new residents.  Now the town centre had been refurbished, it might be that tour operators would reconsider coming into the town centre. 

Oxfordshire County Council would be seeking contributions from the developers to enhance the local bus service.  This needed to be clarified.  It seemed there was already a move to stop the Heyfordian service.  A contribution to the community bus was included as a requirement in the Guidance.  It was assumed that this was to support the existing service and therefore any contribution would go directly to the Faringdon bus group.

The Vale Council's Arts Strategy explained that the aim to use the arts to improve the physical environment would be developed and shared with planners, the private sector, artists and potential partners, including local people and communities.  Throughout  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Any questions from members of the public under Standing Order 32 will be asked at the meeting.

None

Any statements and/or petitions from members of the public under Standing Order 33, relating to planning applications, will be made or presented at the meeting.

It was noted that eight members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting, although one declined to do so. 

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

ANY MATERIALS SUBMITTED WILL BE ON DISPLAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

None

Lodged

The following appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

(i)         Appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a first floor extension at 2 Ogbourne Close, Wantage. 

(ii)        Appeal by BHP Harwood against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of existing barn to architects offices, land opposite Vale of White Horse Depot, Challow Road, Wantage.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of two appeals which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

To receive and consider report 27/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) and the recommendations of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group meeting held on 26 June 2006. 

This report has been printed as a supplementary document, separately stapled.  Members are requested to retain these papers for the meeting of the Executive to be held on Friday 7 July 2006. 

(Councillors Richard Farrell and Matthew Barber declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

The Committee received and considered report 27/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), which set out comments received on the revised draft Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan.  The report recommended changes to parts of the Guidance as a result of the comments received.  The Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group had given careful consideration to the comments and agreed with the majority of the recommendations.  However, the Advisory Group had suggested several changes to the recommendations.  These changes were set out in a briefing note tabled at the meeting.  Also tabled was a draft version of the Guidance relating to Affordable Housing.  This showed the text in its amended form, if all of the recommended changes were agreed. 

The Development Control Committee had listened to two statements from members of the public, both representing the Faringdon Area Project, targeting their comments at Appendix 11 relating to the land between the A420 and Faringdon, to the north of Park Road.  They had suggested amendments to the Supplementary Planning Guidance as part of the statutory consultation and made further suggestions to Members at the Committee meeting.  The Planning Officer responded to these as follows:

·         There had been extensive consultation on the Supplementary Planning Guidance, including an exhibition in July 2004 and re-consultation in March/April 2006

·         Faringdon Town Council and the Faringdon Area Project had responded, as well as many other community groups.  As much as the officers would like to have met all consultees, there was not time to do this in the timescale available

·         Gene Webb's response had been included in the schedule of comments received, under the name of Faringdon Area Project

·         There was no specific proposal for a performance venue so the Council could not ask for funding towards it

·         The requirement for contributions towards a crèche and car parking at the Leisure Centre were included following a request by the Council's Leisure Service

·         The Community College could not be asked to provide car parking for the Faringdon area generally

·         The Council would be seeking a contribution from developers towards the Faringdon Community Bus but could not demand specific pick up points

·         The officers would look at the cycle routes identified in the Faringdon cycleway map to check whether appropriate linkages to them were shown in the Guidance

·         A coach stop and turning point could not be required to be funded by the development.  The town centre was thought to be the most appropriate location - the Town Council was understood to be discussing this further with National Express

·         Community art on the site would be the subject of extensive community consultation in accordance with the Guidance on Planning and Public Art

·         The location of the proposed skate park was considered to be better closer to some housing where there could be some casual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Committee received and considered report 27/06 of the Deputy Director detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.  

(CouncillorJenny Hannaby declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

The Committee was advised that:

• the development was a departure from the development plan
• it was class C2 and therefore there was no requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the scheme
• the Letcombe Brook Project Officer had raised several issues but these had since been resolved
• the CountyEcologist and English Heritage were happy with the recommended conditions relating to ecological and archaeological issues
• negotiations on the Section 106 agreement had resulted in the applicants agreeing to provide all the items set out in the report with the exception of £75,000 contribution to the Wantage Independent Advice Centre
• an additional £40,000 had been requested by the County Council towards bus services if the applicants' minibus scheme did not come to fruition
• the applicants had agreed to pay the Parish Council £10,000 for the provision of additional burial ground
• the applicants had also agreed to pay the Parish Council an additional £25,000 for the construction of a new tennis court
• the paddock area on the eastern edge of the site was to be the subject of a covenant to protect it from development
• negotiations between the Parish Council and the applicants were believed to have overcome some of the objections
• a further ten letters of support had been received for the application
• a further four letters of objection had been received asking for a better balance of housing which should make provision for younger people
• two additional conditions were suggested:

(i)         to control external lighting

(ii)        to control the number of units on the site, limited to no more than indicated in the outline application unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority

·         condition 21 should be amended to read "Notwithstanding the submitted plans, there should be no…"

·         the recommendation (ii) in the report had been amended to delegate authority to approve the Conservation Area consent

·         an informative should be attached to the permission stating that, when submitting the detailed application, the applicants should have regard to the scale and elevational treatment of the scheme as shown in the outline application as this had been influential in the Council's consideration of the application

Maurice Ginniff made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council.  He commented that Letcombe Regis was a very small village with no amenities.  The Parish Council had struggled with the problem of the large brownfield site at Letcombe Laboratory for many years, trying to ensure it was developed in harmony with the village setting.  The Local Plan Inspector's decision to allocate 100 dwellings on this site  meant the Parish Council had a distressing choice of 100 houses or a care village, both meaning a 50% increase in the population.  Meetings between the managing director of the care village and the Parish Council had resulted in an application that the Parish could now support. 

Mr Rowley, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Committee was advised that:

• An amended plan had been received with some changes to reduce the impact of the development on neighbouring properties.  The amended plan was still the subject of consultation
• A letter had been received from Southern Electric Power stating that it had no objection to the application
• A letter of support had been received from Councillor Alison Thomson, local Member
• A letter of objection had been received from the owner of 16 Coxwell Road regarding the plans to block the access to his property from the site's access road.  The objector had commented that he might seek a judicial review and damages from the Council.  The Planning Officer reported that this was a private matter between the objector and the developer.  It was not a planning matter which the Committee needed to take account of

Mr Janata, made a statement objecting to the application.  He lived at 16 Coxwell Road and objected to the planned blocking of the access to his property.  He stated that he had a legal right of access.  His letters to the developers had been ignored.  He intended to pursue the matter through Human Rights legislation, in particular, his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property.  He believed that the Council was open to challenge under the Human Rights Act and could not claim that his case was not relevant. 

The Committee asked for legal advice on Mr Janata's statement.  The Council's Solicitor advised that this was not a planning matter.  Individuals had the right to challenge this under judicial review but she considered that this was a matter for the objector to take up with the developer.  The developer would not be able to implement the permission if it breached the objector's rights.  Members agreed with the advice, believing that the Committee could not take this into account.  It was a civil manner between the objector and the developer. 

The Committee agreed with the local Member that the application was a well arranged plan, designed to cause minimum disturbance to surrounding properties.  However, it was considered important for the hedges to be maintained and suggested this should be the subject of a condition. 

RESOLVED    (by 15 votes to nil)

that authority to approve application GFA/4905/7-D be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to reconsultation on the amended plans and conditions including materials, parking, boundary treatment (including a minimum and maximum hedge height), landscaping, and the removal of permitted development rights to insert windows in certain elevations on the proposed houses. 

Mrs Effer, the applicant, made a statement outlining the intention to improve this family dwelling, taking into account the comments made by neighbours and the local planning authority in its guidance.  The intention was to reduce the impact on neighbours and to ensure the development was not detrimental to its surroundings. 

The Committee supported the application.

RESOLVED    (by 15 votes to nil)

that application KBA/16091/1 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

(Councillors Jerry Patterson and Tony de Vere both declared personal interests in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

The Committee was advised that:

• Two further letters of objection had been received, expressing concerns at two properties, rather than one, being planned to front onto Tullis Close 
• A third letter from SPAB called for a condition to prohibit sandblasting of the wood on the Listed Building.  The officers supported this

Honorary Alderman Margaret MacKenzie made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council.  She believed that over the past few years, the Parish Council had been increasingly ignored by the District Council in its comments on planning applications and felt that it was paying lip service to the concept of consultation.  On this occasion, the Parish Council supported the application, subject to two provisos.  The ListedBuilding, Sutton Mill, should be protected from conversion to a residential property at a later date.  There should also only be one dwelling fronting Tullis Close. 

Mr Eastwood made a statement objecting to the application.  He represented the views of twenty households in the area in believing that there should only be one dwelling fronting Tullis Close.  Two houses in that position would dominate the street scene and be out of character with the surrounding area.  One dwelling in this location, designed to fit in with the street scene, would be acceptable. 

Mr Lyzba, the applicant's agent, spoke in favour of the application.  He believed that it had been well designed, respecting the setting of its surroundings in relation to the Mill and Tullis Close and complied with the Council's design standards.  The Mill would be an ancillary building to one of the new dwellings on the site but would not be a separate residential property. 

In response to the comments made by the Parish Council, the Chair reminded the meeting that the Committee always listened to and took into account views expressed by Town and Parish Councils but had to make its decisions based on planning law, the Local Plan and planning guidance.  Members always took Parish Council comments into account but might not always agree. 

The local Member did not oppose the application but expressed concern at two houses fronting Tullis Close.  He believed this was too cramped and would destroy the street scene; it should be just one dwelling.  He also felt these houses were shown too far forward on the plans, breaching the building line.  He also expressed concern that two healthy trees had been removed from the site and he did not wish for more to be disturbed.  He also asked whether the hedges adjacent to the site frontage on Tullis Close could be protected by a planning condition.  Officers advised that the hedges and shrubs fronting Tullis Close were not worthy of preservation and would be likely to be removed to provide access to the dwellings.  However, a landscaping scheme would be required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

None