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 Richard Farrell.  An apology for absence was also recorded from Councillor Roger Cox.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 16 October 2006 attached.

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 16 October 2006 were adopted and signed as a correct record subject to the deletion of the word “eternal” in the third paragraph of minute DC.159 and the substitution thereof with the word “external”.

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 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 all mobile telephones should be switched off during the meeting.

The Chair reported that a letter from Thames Valley Police had been sent to all Members entitled “Planning out Crime”.

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 6 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement. 

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

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

None.

Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

(i)         Appeal by Miss A Bennett and Mr G Busby against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the installation of French doors and construct an external staircase to allow access to the garden without going through the garage at Plot 76 Deerhurst Park, Besselsleigh Road, Wootton (WTT/1002/60).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Deputy Director under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached at Appendix 1.  No reference to costs was made with the notice.

(ii)        Appeal by Mr and Mrs Wakefield against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of existing derelict house and garage and construction of new garage and 4 bedroom house at Rose Cottage, Gainfield, Buckland (BUC/18468/2).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached at Appendix 2.  No reference to costs was made with the notice.

(iii)       Appeal by Mr A W Impney against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of existing double garage and erection of a 4 bedroom bungalow along with a detached garage block providing garaging for the new bungalow and Longwall House and new shed for Longwall House, all at Longwall House, Northcourt Lane, Abingdon (ABG/10612/16).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached at Appendix 3.  No reference to costs was made with the notice.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

Councillor Monica Lovatt had declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Terry Cox and Jerry Patterson had each 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 an agenda item which advised of three appeals 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.

The Committee received and considered a list of forthcoming Public Inquiries and Hearings.

RESOLVED

that the list be received.

To receive and consider report 112/06 of the Landscape Officer attached.

Introduction and Report Summary

In August 2005 the Council received a planning application from the Vale Housing Association to develop the garage area of Barwell and part of the garden of 53 Barwell, Wantage. The development would have meant the loss of a large weeping willow that currently stands in the rear garden of no. 53. Following discussions with the Council’s Planning Officers and the Vale Housing Association the application was withdrawn.  A plan showing the location of the tree is attached at Appendix 1.

In April 2006 the same application for development was made by the Vale Housing Association. The Council was not able to come to an agreement with the developers about repositioning the buildings to allow the willow to stay.  Consequently a Tree Preservation Order was issued in June 2006 to protect the willow. 

An objection was received to the Order from the Vale Housing Association.

The contact officer for this report is George Reade, Landscape Officer (Arboriculture) 01235 540504. 

Recommendation

that the Order be confirmed.

The Committee received and considered report 112/06 of the Landscape Officer (Arboriculture) which advised that in August 2005, the Council had received a planning application from the Vale Housing Association to develop the garage area of Barwell and part of the garden of 53 Barwell, Wantage.  It was reported that the development would have meant the loss of a large weeping willow that stood in the rear garden of no. 53. Following discussions with the Council’s Planning Officers and the Vale Housing Association the application was withdrawn. 

The Committee noted that in April 2006, the same application for development was made by the Vale Housing Association. The Council had been unable to come to an agreement with the developers about repositioning the buildings to allow the willow to stay.  Consequently a Tree Preservation Order was issued in June 2006 to protect the willow.  A plan showing the location of the tree was appended to the report.

An objection was received to the Order from the Vale Housing Association details of which were outlined in the report and reiterated at the meeting.

One of the local Members commented on the importance of the tree in this area but also recognised the need for affordable housing.

Another Member spoke in support of confirming the Order commenting on the significance of the tree and the contribution it made to the lives and enjoyment of the residents in the area.  He noted that the land was in the ownership of the applicant and he disagreed that the scheme would be unviable if the tree was retained.  Finally, he welcomed affordable housing but not to the detriment of the area through the loss of this significant tree.

Another Member spoke against confirming the Order commenting that the provision of affordable housing took precedence over the retention of trees.

Other Members spoke in support of confirming the Order commenting on the significance of the tree, its contribution to the local area and the need for its protection noting that it had a likely life span of a further 30 to 40 years.  It was commented that there was no justification not to confirm the Order.

By 13 votes to nil, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that Tree Preservation Order (Wantage) No.6 be confirmed.

To receive and consider report 111/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

Introduction and Report Summary

This report seeks the approval of Committee to take enforcement action, at Cothill Kindergarten, 68 Marcham Road, Cothill, Abingdon, OX136QL

The Contact Officer for this report is Paul Yaxley, Enforcement Officer (01235 540352, direct line, or 01235 520202 extension 352).

Recommendation

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 respect of the alleged conversion of a garage into a classroom at Cothill Kindergarten, 86 Marcham Road, Cothill, Abingdon, if he considers it expedient to do so.

The Committee received and considered report 111/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought approval to take enforcement action in respect of the alleged conversion of a garage into a classroom at Cothill Kindergarten, 68 Marcham Road, Cothill, Abingdon.

The Committee was advised that a planning application had now been lodged but there was insufficient information for it to be processed. 

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that a letter had been received from one of the neighbours supporting enforcement action in this case.

Members spoke in support of taking enforcement action thanking the Officers for bringing the report to the Committee in a timely way.  It was commented that without a planning application it was difficult for Members to consider a different use. It was emphasised that it was essential that enforcement action should be taken where planning permission did not exist.  However, it might be that the change of use would be allowed in this case, notably if it did not result in an increase in the number of children that the nursery cared for.

One Member commented that the Enforcement Officers had been reasonable and that efforts to obtain the information had been continuous.  It was explained that enforcement action might not be necessary in this case if the additional information sought was forthcoming. 

By 13 votes to nil, with 1 abstention 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 respect of the alleged conversion of a garage into a classroom at Cothill Kindergarten, 86 Marcham Road, Cothill, Abingdon, if he considers it expedient to do so.

Application Reference – PD/18/01/07 refers.

Notification has been received under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the following works to trees at Hill Barn Close, Chapel Lane, Blewbury: -

• Fell one Blue Cedar
• Fell one Multi-stemmed Conifer

This notification is being put before Committee as the person giving notice is married to an elected Member of the Council.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the proposed works.  

The Parish Council has not commented on the proposed works.

Recommendation

that no further action be taken.

All Members of the Committee had 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 an agenda item which advised that notification had been received under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for works to trees at Hill Barn Close, Chapel Lane, Blewbury.

This notification was reported to the Committee as the person giving notice was married to an elected Member of the Council.

The Committee noted that the conifer was small and there would no loss to the village if the cedar was felled.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received and no further action be taken.

The Committee received and considered report 113/06 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.

One of the local Members thanked the Officers for arranging an organised visit to the site which she had found beneficial.  She expressed support for the proposal commenting that the summer house faced the applicant’s house and was screened by high hedging.  However, she commented that the building was close to the neighbouring property, the occupier of which had expressed concern regarding a potential for noise disturbance.

Another Member agreed commenting that any measures to mitigate noise should be required.

One Member commented that the building was unattractive building, although noted that this was not a reason to refuse permission.  She expressed concern that the property could be used for residential purposes and that a condition to prevent noise disturbance should be added.

Other Members spoke in support of the proposal considering that there would be no harm but agreeing that a condition to prevent a noise nuisance was appropriate, together with a condition regarding the colour of the building.

Members discussed potential activities which might take place in the property such as playing drums.  It was noted that this could be acceptable provided a noise nuisance did not result.  If a noise nuisance did occur this would be dealt with under Environmental Health legislation.  To this end it was considered that a condition restricting amplified music would be reasonable. 

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19058/2 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        a further condition requiring the building to be maintained a specific colour; such colour to be agreed by the Planning Officer;

(3)        a further condition to restrict the playing of amplified music; and

(4)        an Informative setting out this Committee’s concern regarding potential noise disturbance and drawing attention to the relevant Environmental Health legislation in this regard.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/19517/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/6267/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

On Member asked that the Officers be requested to check that the parking was being provided.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/19744 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that additional comments had been received from the County Engineer asking that the garage be retained as a garage; a parking plan be sought and a pedestrian access vision splay be provided.  However, the Officers reported that they did not consider that this was reasonable.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application GRO/10877/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that car parking was a main issue to consider as part of this application.  However, the Officers explained that there were car free flats elsewhere in Oxford and that the site was contained within an area of on-street parking control.  The Committee was asked to consider how likely it was that residents of the proposed flats would have a vehicle.  It was commented that the Botley shopping centre was nearby and that there were cycle and bus routes immediately in front of the site.  Therefore, the Officers had concluded that it was likely that the residents of the flats would not necessarily need to have a vehicle.  However, should they have a vehicle the Committee was asked to consider what harm would be caused.

The Officers explained that they had made several visits to the site at different times of day to assess the parking situation. It was reported that there was parking in the area during the day but not the evening, which suggested that the area was not used for residents parking.  Where there were no parking restrictions there was on-street parking.  Therefore, the Officers had concluded that it was difficult to argue that cars from this scheme would cause on-street parking.  It was commented that the site was in a sustainable area and that the application could not be refused on highway grounds.

Mr P Stevens made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the level and continuity of traffic; parking restrictions and the lack of parking provision.  He suggested that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Guidance in view of the lack of parking proposed.  He suggested that the development would require several parking spaces and that no spaces was unreasonable and contrary to the Guidance and he suggested that there was a need for better supporting information where there was a lower amount.  He suggested that the application should be refused which was the view of the Parish Council.

Mr P Uzzell the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application advising that the key matter was that the site was in an appropriate location for a car free scheme and that it would be difficult to find another more sustainable location.  He explained that in terms of PPG3 and PPG13, the absence of any parking provision was aimed at reducing the need for parking.  He highlighted that the County Engineer had raised no objection and that there were car free scheme in similar locations in Oxford city. Notwithstanding the merits of the application in terms of the acceptability of not requiring parking provision, he advised that there was some spare capacity for parking in the evenings in the vicinity and consequently residents would not be compromised. He explained that there would be no overlooking, loss of privacy and all the windows were positioned forward of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

All Members had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mrs A Green made a statement in support of the application commenting that she believed that Botley was a developing area and that the change of use would be an improvement on the existing use.  She reported that the change would result in the availability of a disabled toilet which was currently used for storage.  She explained that previously the flat had been occupied by tenants which had been difficult to manage and the flat had been neglected. She considered that the change of use would not significantly impact on the availability of residential accommodation and would be beneficial to her business.  She referred to a similar situation where a flat had been converted into offices.  Finally, she commented that the proposal would not result in the need for additional parking.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal.

In response to a question raised, the Officers explained that planning permission was not necessary for a flat above a shop and therefore should the current lease holder surrender the lease, the premises could revert back to residential accommodation.  However any other change of use would require planning permission.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/19799 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.

Mr S Grigson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that advances in technology had enabled people to work from home but that this type of home working was different. He commented that the proposed use was more akin to a retail shop use.  He advised that there were no restrictions regarding employees.  He reported that the road frontage was very open and gardens had low walls. As such the proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of the disturbance caused by visitors and parking. He commented that the circumstances of this application were different to those of a similar application at No. 63 Oxford Road, where the site was set back from the road and was well screened.  He suggested that one intention of working from home was to minimise travel.  He considered that this proposal would result in increased traffic to the area as clients would visit the property and that this traffic generation was contrary to the objectives of the policy on home working.

Mr Talbot also made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the area was residential and that approval of the proposal would set a precedent for similar applications in the area.  He referred to the number of clients which would visit the property expressing concern regarding loss of privacy; increased traffic; parking; damage to verges and pavements and loss of outlook.  He explained that he would be able to view the commercial premises from his garden and he expressed concern regarding the number of staff which could be employed.  He commented that there was already a hair dresser and shops nearby which served the local community and that there was no need for the proposal.  He commented that the proposal would change the character of the area causing harm to the amenity of neighbours.  Finally, he questioned whether approval would be personal to the applicant should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

Mr Homewood made a statement on behalf of the applicant referring to the improvements made to the property.  He reported that the outbuilding had been installed by the previous owner. He explained that it was unobtrusive and that there would be no noise, smell or other disturbance from its proposed use and that there would be no loss of amenity.  He advised that there was 6ft high fencing along one boundary and the applicant was willing to provide similar fencing along the other boundary.  He reported that there was sufficient parking on site for customers and that there was excellent visibility when entering and leaving the driveway.  He reported that there would be no deliveries and that there were numerous types of businesses run from home and he gave several examples of others locally. He commented that in comparison to the examples given, the proposed use would not be a nuisance and there would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

Colin Broadley made a statement on behalf of the Parish Meeting and as a neighbour objecting to the application raising concerns regarding safety in terms of increased traffic, traffic speeds and pedestrian safety.  He advised that he had previously been approached regarding the sale of part of his garden with a view to the development of two new properties.  He expressed concern regarding the reason for this application and the future development intentions.  He expressed concern regarding increased traffic along the track and commented that sufficient space for two garages would exist. He reiterated concerns regarding safety commenting that a traffic accident was inevitable.  He referred to the comments of the County Engineer and suggested that there should be a restriction on the number of vehicles which could use the access.  Finally, he asked the Committee to consider the original plans commenting that the access proposal contained in those would be safer.

In response to the speaker’s comments, the Officers reminded the Committee that each application had to be judged on its merits and that assumptions should not be made regarding future development proposals.

One Member spoke in support of the application but considered that an additional condition should be added to require a mechanism to prevent parking to the rear of cottages 2 and 3 (such as a close boarded fence) and closure of the vehicular access to the rear of the cottages.

Another Member commented that whilst he had sympathy with the views of the objector there were no material planning reasons to refuse permission. 

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SHE/19644 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and further conditions to require a mechanism to prevent parking to the rear of cottages 2 and 3 and the closure of the vehicular access to the rear of the cottages.

Members noted that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 October 2006 when this application had been considered previously were set out elsewhere on the agenda.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/19729/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that an email had been received from the objector reiterating the concerns previously raised and expressing concerns regarding the fence around the site.  However, the Officers explained that planning permission was not required for the fence, but an informative could be added to any permission advising the applicant of the need for the fence to be sympathetic to its rural setting.

One Member commented that the Town Council had raised concerns regarding pest control matters although it was noted that this was not a material planning consideration.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/19791 be approved subject to the condition and informative set out in the report and a further informative to advise of the need for the fence to be sympathetic to its rural setting.

None.