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 a Substitute Member who had been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) was recorded as referred to above with an apology for absence having been received from Councillor Roger Cox.  Apologies for absence were also recorded from Councillors Jenny Hannaby and Pam Westwood.

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.

Members declared interests in report 103/06 – Planning Applications as follows: -

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 announced that Emma Phillips the Senior Planning Officer in the South Team was soon to leave the employment of the Council.  He was joined by other Members in wishing her well for the future.

The Chair reminded Councillors and members of the public that all mobile telephoned should be switched off during the meeting.

The Chair announced for the benefit of members of the public that only those Members who were members of the Development Control Committee could vote.

The Chair announced that application SAH/5911/4 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Finally, the Chair invited the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to address the Council. The Deputy Director reported that the Council’s performance in determining planning applications had improved and the Council was no longer a standards authority.  He thanked the Officers who had worked hard to achieve this.

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

None.

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 eleven members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However one member of the public 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.

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the following: -

(1)        WAN/10044/2 – McCarthey and Stone, Grove Road, Wantage

RESOLVED

(a)        that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Istock Leicester Multi Red Stock bricks

Ibstock Surrey Cream bricks

Self coloured render

(b)        that the configuration of materials shown on the ‘option 1’ drawings was acceptable.

(2)        WAN/19361 – The Wharf, Mill Street, Wantage

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Natural Clay tile – colour to be agreed by officers

Contrasting red detail brick – alternative colour to be sought by officers

Sandringham dark natural slate

Contrasting Butterley Wilnecote Blue Smooth detail brick

Terca Winchester Multi brick

Dismissed

The following appeal has been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

Appeal by Mr and Mrs A S MacDonald against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a single storey extension to front, existing single storey extension to rear to be demolished and replaced with 2 storey extension to existing dwelling, 106 Kennington Road, Kennington (KEN/19144/1).  A copy of the appeal decision is attached as Appendix A.  No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of one appeal which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings was presented.

RESOLVED

that the list be received.

To receive and consider report 108/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

The Committee received and considered report 108/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy)             which sought approval to take enforcement action in respect of The Close, West Street, Childrey and in respect of Woods Farm Barn’, Woods Farm Road, East Hendred.

In referring to “The Close” one Member whilst expressing support to take enforcement action raised concern that the Parish Council had approached this Authority a year ago regarding this matter.  He commented that the Council needed to be more prompt in taking action and that this delay was unacceptable and that developers might ignore planning rules and regulations if they were not enforced.

The Officers explained that they had been negotiating with the appellant and that it was now appropriate to take enforcement action.

By 12 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, to take enforcement action in the following cases, if in his judgement it is considered expedient to do so:-

(1)        to secure the surfacing of ‘The Close’ in accordance with the requirements and intent of Condition 7 of planning permission CHD/18694 at The Close, West Street, Childrey; and

(2)        to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use and the removal of the unauthorised building ‘Woods Farm Barn’, Woods Farm Road, East Hendred, EHE/19461.

To receive and consider report 102/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

Carole Nicholl the Democratic Services Officer had declared an interest in this item.

The Committee received and considered report 102/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which advised of an application where planning permission had been granted, although some neighbours had not been notified of the proposal.  The Committee was advised of an amendment to the report in that the turbine would be sited 50 metres away from the closet dwelling and not 52 metres.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that there had been two additional letters of objection reiterating the concerns previously raised.

The Parish Council had submitted representations referring to the concerns of the objectors regarding noise and visual impact; lack of neighbour notification; the commercial purpose of the proposal; proximity; scale; height and noise.  The Parish Council had advised that it had a policy to forward all comments received and that it reiterated the objections submitted.  Attached to the Parish Council’s submission was a letter stating concern that condition 2 could not be complied with and concerns regarding noise.

Further to the report, the Officers clarified that the site was outside the Conservation Area (CA) although the turbine would be visible from the CA. It was explained that the proposal was for a slimline, small scale turbine, but it would be a prominent feature from the footpath and from Horsecroft the turbine would be visible behind a hedge and would also be visible from the High Street.

It was explained that the neighbour who would be most affected by the proposal had not been consulted and neither had other neighbours and therefore this had necessitated this matter being presented to Committee. Details of their objections to the proposal were set out in the report.

It was explained that in determining the application, the Officers had given significant weight to wider environmental issues such as renewable energy. Whilst there would be some visual impact, the turbine would not be in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or the CA; the turbine had a slender design and there were mature trees which would provide screening.  In terms of noise it was explained that the turbine would be 50 metre away from 25 Horsecroft.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had recommended condition 2 requiring that noise attenuation measures should be carried out to ensure that the background noise was not increased by more that 3 dB at the boundary of the site.

It was explained that the Committee could decide to revoke permission but that this would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and compensation to the applicant might be necessary.

Mrs Thomasson made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Speaking on behalf of the petitioners she commented on the mistake of the Officers and the inability of residents to express their views when this application was considered.  She advised that she was not opposed to renewable energy but that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

The Committee received and considered report 103/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) 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.

This application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Mr Strange made a statement on behalf of Milton Parish Council commenting that whilst the Parish Council had supported the Club in the past the current proposal was inappropriate.  He raised concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to Local Plan Policy GS.2 in that it was unjustified development in the open countryside in that the Club already had facilities.  He made reference to Bramley Cottage in Potash Lane where planning permission was refused for reasons associated with traffic generation.  He explained that the Committee should be consistent and refuse this application for similar reasons. Finally he expressed concern regarding parking which he considered would be inadequate for this proposal.

Mr Smith speaking on behalf of the applicant advised that the Football Association had increased the seating capacity requirement for Grade 5 clubs and therefore the Club had been forced into putting forward a proposal.  He explained that in addition the Club did not have facilities for disabled people.  He commented that the Club provided football for the community and that the facilities were used for training By the Oxford United Football Club and local schools. He advised that there was sufficient parking and in the event that additional parking was needed the Club had permission from Grove Farm to use its land for overspill parking.  He commented that the average attendance was 70 people, with the largest gate being 680 people.  At this event no parking problem had been experienced and that there was no on-road parking. Finally, he commented that there would be no visual impact and that there was an avenue of trees and some broadleaf trees which provided screening.

One Member expressed sympathy for the comments made by the Parish Council regarding the Committee being inconsistency.  She referred to the refusal of an application nearby due to increase traffic and questioned how it would be possible not to refuse this application having regard to that. She suggested that this facility would draw traffic into the area and that there would be more traffic at the Milton interchange.  However, she commented that she understood the need for more seating and she expressed concern that other clubs would come forward with similar applications.  Finally, she referred to the use of land at Grove Farm for overspill parking, albeit on an adhoc basis, questioning whether this was acceptable. 

The Officers reported that the Council had already received similar applications for seating because of the new Football Association requirements and that each application needed to be considered on its merits.  He clarified that the issue of parking on the neighbouring farm land would qualify for temporary use rights and would not require planning permission if it occurred on no more than 28 days in the year.

Other Members spoke in support of the application commenting that there were no reasons to refuse permission.  However, it was commented that the Council would not wish to see extensive advertising all over the stand.  The Officer clarified that the stand was to be painted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.

Councillors Jim Moley and Eddy Goldsmith had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.  Councillor Terry Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Officers explained the comments of the County Engineer and it was reported that a Tracking Plan had been received earlier in the day setting out the vehicle manoeuvring capabilities.

The Officers referred to the impact on neighbours raised by the Inspector commenting that the Inspector had not concluded that this was sufficient on its own to warrant refusal. 

The objections received were highlighted and it was noted that the neighbour had raised concerns regarding parking, vehicle manoeuvring, design and impact. 

Finally, the Officers advised that they considered that this proposal overcame the previous objections.

At this point in the meeting, one Member drew attention to the comments of the Highways Authority which stated that “the present application had taken accounts the Inspector’s reasons for refusal of the previous appeal and therefore a refusal based on these grounds could not be sustained at appeal”.  She asked the Committee to disregard this as the Highway Authority could not predetermine an Inspector’s future opinion.

S Whitfield a planning consultant representing the views of neighbours made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding inadequate parking; vehicle manoeuvring and adverse impact on 5 and 6 Belmont.  He explained that the proposal was contrary to National Guidance DB32 in that there were only 5 metres in front of the bays and a strip of 200 mm at the back whereas the minimum requirements were 6 metres and 800 mm respectively.  He commented that whilst the Highways Authority had stated that there were additional clear areas either side, the width of the forecourt and parking spaces were the same as before with only a slight increase in depth due to the setting back of the dwelling.  However, he explained that there was still inadequate room to enter and leave the forecourt in one movement without encroaching on the land opposite.  He expressed concern regarding the effect on 6 Belmont in that the extension would be only 10 metres from habitable rooms whereas the minimum requirement was 12 metres.  He referred to the adverse visual and overbearing impact of this.  He raised concern regarding the effect on 5 Belmont in terms of the 2 storey rear element projecting 0.5 metres beyond the rear elevation of 5 Belmont which was beyond the 40 degrees angle struck from the rear window. He commented that the protruding element did not comply with planning guidelines.  Finally, he commented that the application had many deficiencies and was contrary to Structure Plan Policy T8 and Local Plan Policies DC5 and DC9. 

Mr Wolage made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to paragraph 4.2 of the report and it was explained that objections had also been raised regarding the effect of the proposal on the neighbour’s trees.  Also, it had been requested by neighbours that if the Committee was minded to grant planning permission conditions should be attached removing permitted development rights; requiring that the material used to raise the garden be removed from the site; landscaping be provided and that the proposed building should not be used as a dwelling, for entertainment or for business uses.

It was clarified that planning permission would be required for use of the building for any other use than that which would be ancillary to a dwelling.  Furthermore, the Officers considered that a condition requiring the removal of the material was reasonable.

Further to the report the Committee was advised of the distances of the proposal from the boundary and the differences between this application and one previously refused.

Charlotte Riggs speaking on behalf of the neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She explained that she disagreed that the building was single storey pointing out that there would be an internal staircase.  She commented that the door would be replaced by a window which in her view would not address concerns regarding overlooking.  She expressed concerns regarding mass emphasising that the building had not reduced in size from that previously refused, highlighting that the eaves and ridge height were the same.  She referred to the raising of the garden level reporting that some 95 lorry loads of material had been delivered.  She considered that raising the garden level was in her opinion presumably to give an impression that ground levels were lower and to lessen impact.  She also raised concerns regarding visual impact and dominance explaining that the building was visible from other dwellings I the vicinity.  She expressed concern regarding its intended use and particularly concerns regarding noise commenting that whilst there were powers available to the Council under Environmental Health legislation, the Council should pre-empt the possibility of disturbance now by refusing permission.

Jane Luker had given notice that she wished to speak objecting to the application but she declined to do so.

In response to a question raised the Officers advised that the proposal was 0.6 metre higher than what could have been built under permitted development rights.

Members spoke against the proposal making the following comments: -

-           It could not be seen how removal of the balcony had reduced the size and bulk of the building. 

-           The building was higher than that allowed under permitted development rights.

-           It was thought that there had been considerable engineering works to raise the garden and there were some concerns regarding the purpose and impact of this. 

-           The building was dominant and out of keeping.

-           There was concern regarding impact and over looking of the property in Radley Road.

-           There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that a further letter of objection had been received raising concerns regarding the design and access statement was inadequate.  Members were informed that an e-mail from the applicant’s agent had been received which drew attention to permitted development rights and advising that the properties could be altered at a future date in any event and that there would be less disruption if such works were undertaken at this stage.

Mr Roger Turnball the neighbour made a statement objecting to the application in terms of the inadequacy of the design and access statement. He referred to Circular 1 of 2006 which stated what was required in such a statement.  He explained that matters such as the justification of layout; scale; clearance and landscaping etc would need to be included and that as part of this there should be community involvement; an evaluation of information collected; alternatives to how the development needs could be met and the design needed to show how that assessment had been carried out.  He stated that the design and access statement submitted as part of this application was comprised of only three short paragraphs which in his view was wholly inadequate.  He considered that in accepting this statement the Council would be setting a precedent for the future.  He suggested that it might be helpful if the Council included information on the requirements of design and access statements on its website.  Furthermore he expressed concern regarding the possible loss a tree. He explained that fencing around the tree had been removed and he sought a condition that should the tree be removed it should be replaced with a tree similar in location, size and species. Finally, he commented that there should be planning conditions and that there should be a survey of the trees on site.

One Member spoke in support of the application commenting that planning permission already existed for two dwellings on this site and therefore the Committee was being asked to consider the difference between the two schemes.  However, he suggested that additional conditions should be added to any permission to address slab levels and the protection of trees during construction.

In response to a question raised regarding the hedge which had been removed along the front boundary it was commented that an informative advising that the Council would look to see this replaced could be attached to any permission.

One Member made reference to the comments made by the speaker and it was noted that the design and access statements were required for all new dwellings and that the reason why the short statement had been accepted in this case was that planning permission already existed for two dwellings.

By 13 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application EHE/19767 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        additional conditions to address slab levels and to provide for the protection of tress during construction; and

(3)        an informative to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mr Peter Biggs on behalf of the Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the Parish Council had a policy to oppose the loss of all retail facilities in the village.  However, he explained that he understood why the proposal was put forward and he commented that he hoped a solution could be sought.  He reported that the Parish Council was opposed to the loss of the shop which was the only shop in this part of the village where there were many young families and elderly residents who would find it difficult to shop elsewhere.  He reported that the Parish Council was financially unable to take on the shop.

Mr Hardiman, the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that he had run the shop for 23 years with his wife who was now disabled.  He explained that the shop had been closed for some months.  He referred to local competition reporting that the shop had not made enough to employ additional staff.  Finally, he commented that after nearly 24 years he could not longer run the shop and that all attempts to sell it had been unsuccessful.

One of the local Members commented that times had changed and that with supermarkets and home deliveries local stores such as this one struggled to survive. He commented that it was unfortunate that Kennington would lose a shop but there were no reasons to refuse permission.

Another local Member agreed that within the Local Plan there was no provision to save a shop of this kind and that whilst some local residents would miss the facilities there were no reasons for the Committee to refuse the application.

By 13 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/19783 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.