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 Terry Quinlan and Peter Saunders.

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.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 November 2006 were adopted and signed as a correct record at the last meeting.  However, since that time notification has been received from one of the members of the public who spoke at the meeting asking that corrections be made to her statement and furthermore that a correction be made elsewhere in the Minutes.

Set out as an Appendix is the relevant extract of the minutes with the corrections identified.

Recommendation

that the corrections be noted.

It was noted that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 November 2006 had been adopted and signed as a correct record at the last meeting.  However, since that time notification had been received from one of the members of the public who spoke at the meeting asking that corrections be made to her statement and furthermore that a correction be made elsewhere in the Minutes.

The corrections were set out as an Appendix to the agenda.

RESOLVED

that the corrections be noted.

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

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 7 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.

Lodged

The following appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

Appeal by Try Homes Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a residential development of 4 dwellings and associated access (MAR/19761).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda report which advised of one appeal which had been lodged with 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.

The Committee received and considered report 147/06 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.

(Councillor Derek Rawson had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

It was reported that two further letters of objection had been received raising concerns to matters already covered in the report.  Furthermore, a request had also been received that consideration of the application be deferred until all Members of the Committee had visited the site.  Members attention was drawn to the guidance set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3).  It was reported that the County Engineer had suggested an additional condition requiring further details of the access drive were provided prior to the commencement of development.  In response to comments made by the Consultant Architect regarding the dormers being inconsistent between the plans, it was proposed that an informative be added to any permission to clarify that the dormers as shown on the elevations were the ones approved and not those as shown on the block plan.

Mr N Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He noted that infilling development was causing much concern locally but stated that the application before the Committee met both Government planning guidance and District Council Planning Policies.  He referred to the support of the Council’s Consultant Architect and reminded the Committee that the density of the proposed development was at the lower end of the density scale.  He considered that the design and layout of the scheme was imaginative and referred to the retention of trees and the provision of a wildlife corridor as part of the development.

One of the local Members, present at the meeting referred to the level of local concern regarding the increasing amount of infilling development in the area.  He expressed disappointment that the proposed development and a previous development permitted at 7 Dean Court Road had not included provision for affordable housing, which was required locally.  He supported the comments of his fellow Ward member, as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report, regarding drainage problems in the locality and made mention of a letter on the Planning file from the Council’s Drainage Engineer regarding flooding.  In this regard he asked whether these concerns were covered by the proposed drainage condition.  He expressed concern at the impact of increased traffic and asked whether a traffic assessment had been undertaken.  Finally, he suggested that separate drainage conditions to address surface water and foul water be attached to any permission and that similar wording be used as detailed at condition 15 on page 39 of the agenda. 

In response, the Officers confirmed that the development site was not within any Flood Zone and the proposed drainage condition covered the views of the Council’s Drainage Engineer.  Furthermore, the drainage problems being experienced in the local area were caused by severe weather conditions and not the capacity of the drainage system.  In respect of the access arrangements, the County Engineer had expressed a preference for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

(Councillors Briony Newport and Derek Rawson had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

It was reported that a letter dated 8 January 2007 had been received from Dr Evan Harris MP expressing concern at the number of applications for developments in the area of lower Cumnor Hill and Eynsham Road, whereby an existing footprint was expanded, with the result that there was less screening and more traffic.  He noted a number of recent applications in the local area, none of which had been sufficient in size for the Council to insist on a significant proportion of affordable housing and therefore did little to deal with the wider social housing needs in the area.  His concern and that of many of his constituents was that sequential piecemeal applications of this nature would over time change the neighbourhood from one which had an extremely rural feel and that local planning policy needed to reflect the need to maintain the character of the area, especially in the absence of making progress in meeting local housing need through these developments.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following additional information:-

Local Objections

A further 35 letters of objection had been received reiterating concerns already covered in the report and making additional comments, as follows:-

• The amended proposals made little change to the overall proposal, apart from some tinkering with the positioning of the various units and did nothing to address the core problem in that the proposal was out of keeping with Cumnor Hill.
• The archway was narrower than previously and would pose more of a risk to pedestrians walking underneath.
• The relocated Coach House restricted the amount of on site parking, making it inevitable that visitors would park on Cumnor Hill.
• The slope of the driveway was now greater, which would increase the revving of engines to the detriment of neighbouring amenity.
• Car parking was still inadequate. 
• There was now no vehicular access to the terraced houses and the parking area was now closer to no 36 and no 42 Cumnor Hill, which would lead to light pollution, exhaust emissions and noise.
• The block of flats, being forward of the existing building line, remained intrusive and out of keeping with the character of Cumnor Hill. It was still higher than surrounding property and filled the width of the plot.  The bay windows also protruded further than before. 
• The proposed bin store was totally inappropriate and would be unsightly.  It replaced the few trees that might have remained on the northern part of the road frontage.
• Should permission be given, there should be a condition requiring appropriate mature trees to be planted adjoining the pavement.
• The amended block of flats remained extremely intrusive to no 36 Cumnor Hill, and undermined the privacy to the bedroom that faced the site, which only had one window and not two as stated in the applicant’s supporting information.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

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

The Committee was reminded that the Council had a statutory duty to protect Listed Buildings, irrespective of whether it was in public view.

Some Members, whilst accepting the above, considered that the environmental benefits outweighed any harm that might be caused to the character of the property.

By 11 votes to 3, with one abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/14126/20 be refused for the following reason:-

The proposed installation of solar panels on a principal roof slope of this Grade II listed building would harm the special architectural and historic interest of the building.  The proposal, therefore, is contrary to Policy HE5 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan and the advice in PPG15.

It was reported that the description of the application on the agenda was incorrect, and should have read “Extension & alteration to existing dwelling.  Erection of a domestic garage.”   It was further reported that two further letters of local support had been received and a letter from the applicant’s agent had been received responding to concerns raised locally.  A letter of support had also been received from the local Member, the content of which was read out in full at the meeting.  In particular the local Member asked that he be consulted on the materials to be used and sought confirmation that the legal agreement relating to the site still applied.

In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the legal agreement relating to a previous permission still applied and suggested an informative, in the event that planning permission was granted, stating that the application was for an extension and should the existing dwelling be demolished then no planning permission would exist to rebuild the property and the reasons for permitting this development would not apply.

Major D Shaw, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He questioned the Officer view that the proposal would enhance the character of the area.  He referred to a previous planning application submitted by the applicant to convert the stables to form three dwellings at the site, which was withdrawn in September 2005.

Mr A Fox-Edwards made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns to matters already covered in the report.  He claimed that the proposed development would be detrimental to the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and supported the views of the Planning Advisor to that body.

Mr C Strang, the applicants agent, made a statement in support of the application.  In response to objections raised he explained that extensions to dwellings in the AONB were allowed.  He accepted that there were some public views into the site but considered that the development would be well screened.  The proposed development of one and a half storeys would be an attractive construction which would enhance the local area.  He referred to the Officer report which addressed all of the objections and noted that the closest neighbour to the site had raised no objection and that the Parish Council had not been unanimous in its objection.

Members supported the proposal and commended the design, which it was considered enhanced the AONB and was an improvement on the existing dwelling.  It was accepted that the proposed extension was large and that the use of appropriate materials would be an important consideration.

One Member, although welcoming the design of the proposed extension, expressed concern that its size might be contrary to policy.  In response, the Development Control Manager understood this concern but confirmed that two principal walls of the existing dwelling would be retained and therefore the proposal did not constitute a complete rebuild.

By 14 votes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

It was reported that a further six letters of objection had been received raising concerns to matters already covered in the report.  In addition, concern was expressed that the proposed properties fronting Conifer Close would result in a loss of daylight and outlook and would be out of keeping with the Close.  Furthermore, it was claimed that the turning space for vehicles on the site was inadequate and that the drawings accompanying the application misrepresented the gap between the proposed building and 3a Cumnor Hill.  Finally, there was concern regarding dust and noise pollution during demolition and construction works.   It was reported also that the Parish Council had raised no objection to the amended plans but it had expressed some concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans.  The Council had requested that if the application was approved, it was important that there was special protection for the neighbours during demolition and construction works due to ill health.

Mr J Philcox, the applicants agent, made a statement in support of the application..  He explained there had be much discussion with the Vale and Oxfordshire County Council regarding the amended plans and he noted that the Parish Council had now withdrawn its objections.  He claimed that the proposed development would lessen the impact on neighbouring properties compared to the existing dwelling, which was set well back in the site.  Off street car parking had been provided in accordance with County Council standards and there was adequate public transport provision locally.  Finally, he considered that the proposed development made the most efficient use of the site.

One of the local Members, present at the meeting, welcomed the amended plans to reduce the number of flats to six but still expressed a preference for one dwelling at the rear of the site.  She requested that in the event planning permission was granted, separate drainage conditions be included covering both surface and foul water and supported the decision taken earlier in the meeting that the views of Thames Water be sought on its plans to address drainage problems in the local area.

One Member expressed his disappointment with the design of the semi detached dwellings.  Another Member expressed concern at the adequacy of the turning space on the site and the dangers of vehicles reversing onto a busy junction.

By 14 votes to 1, it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/1660/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and separate drainage conditions for surface and foul water, such conditions to  reflect the wording of condition 15 on page 39 of the agenda.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/19799/1 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.   

None.