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 Peter Saunders.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 29 January 2007.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 January 2007 were adopted and signed as a correct record.

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 to switch off theire mobile telephones during the meeting.

The Chair announced that applications GFA/16464/3-X and GFA/19649/1-X would be considered together as they related to virtually the same site.

The Chair announced that application SHR/17622/2 had been withdrawn (Minute DC.284 refers).

Fiannly, for the benefit of the members of the public, the Chair explained that local Members who were not members of the Development Control Committee were unable to vote.

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 265/06 – Planning Applications as follows: -

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.

Eight members of the public had given notice that they each wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However two 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 application: -

HAR/16731 - Hotel at the Harwell International Business Centre

By 12 votes to 3 it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that the following materials be approved: -

Windows – Anodised aluminium BS Code M4J0048

Roof – Grey aluminium sheet

(b)        that the following materials be refused: -

Bricks – Baggeridge Barkham (Buff)

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.

Councillor Roger Cox sought an update on the current position in respect of applications GCO/2087/21-X (cessation of existing lorry park use; erection of new building for business use (648aq.m) with new parking and turning area; new access to A420 and closure of 2 existing accesses) and GCO/2087/22-X (new access to A420 and closure of two existing accesses) both at Lorry Park, Chowle Farm Industrial Estate, A420, Faringdon.  The Officers undertook to provide an update to Councillor Cox outside of the meeting.

On consideration of this item, one Member referred to an article he had read in a recent edition of Planning Magazine which had reported on a High Court decision to quash a decision regarding an unauthorised agricultural building in Oxfordshire and he questioned whether the Officers were aware of this case. The Officers reported that the article related to the unauthorised barn off Coxwell Road in Faringdon which it was explained had been built as permitted development but the Council had pursued enforcement action and appeal against which was dismissed by the Planning Inspector.  However, the appellant had subsequently made an appeal to the High Court.  It was explained that essentially the Court had decided that the building was authorised and could be remedied to make it agricultural.  The matter had yet to be considered by another Planning Inspector.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 165/06 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.

Dr Furzedone-Davies was due to make a statement on behalf of the Parish Council but he declined to do so.

Further to the report, the Officers clarified that the existing vegetation was to be retained.

The Officers reported that a further representation had been received referring to the Officer’s report raising concerns regarding the comments set out paragraph 5.5 concerning energy issues and that they were relevant according to Policy D2 of the Local Plan; a contention that the new development did not explicitly exclude new extensions; energy efficiency design concerns and the need to protect the beech tree.  The Officers responded that the block plan showed this tree and it was referred to, although no reference was made to any proposed works to the tree.  The Officer’s conclusions set out in the report were highlighted although it was suggested that a condition could be added to ensure the protection of vegetation during construction.

One Member expressed concern regarding the proposed chimney and it was considered that an informative to advise the applicant that sample materials related to this should be added also.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/251/2 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)               a further condition to protect the existing vegetation during construction; and

(3)               an informative to the condition MC2 – submission of materials, to state that this applies to all elements of the chimney also.

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during it consideration.

The Officers reported that should the Committee be minded to approve the application a further condition should be added to ensure that the posts to be used should be timber. 

Councillor Alan Bryden made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to Planning Policy HE1 and its adverse affect on the Northcourt Conservation Area.  He referred to a letter sent to Members of the Committee from Martin Smith, the Chair of the Planning and Highways Committee in this regard.  He explained that the property was in a prominent position, opposite where a telecom mast would have been had it not been dismissed on appeal, the reasons for which were relevant in his case.  He suggested that any proposal affecting the setting of the Conservation Area should be refused.   He commented that whilst it stated in the report that the proposal would be 18.5metres from the road, the canopies would be clearly visible from the road.  He explained that the house was once the home of Cecil Kimber the founder of MG and was of importance historically.  He reported that the proposal was out of keeping and character with the area and would adversely affect the setting of the Conservation Area.  He suggested that the proposal for this shelter for smokers next to the front door made a mockery of the purpose behind the legislation to prevent smoking in public places in that customers would need to pass through the area to access the front door.  He suggested that the application should be refused and that erecting such canopies to the rear of the property, where there was adequate room and accesses should be suggested to the applicant.

Some Members spoke against the application agreeing that it was not appropriate to site the non smoking area so close to the entrance. It was commented that the structure would be clearly visible in this open area and has such harmful to the appearance of the building.  It was suggested that the structure should be sited to the rear of the building.

One Member referred to the Design Statement noting that the Magnolia tree near the front door was to be removed. He expressed concern at the loss of this tree which he considered contributed significantly to the visual appearance of the building and should be protected. The Member reported that he had sought advice from the Council’s Arboricultural Officer regarding the need to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree and he urged the Officers to follow this up.  It was suggested that the canopies could be re-sited further away from the entrance to protect the tree. 

Another Member made reference to the proximity of the Conservation Area commenting that some weight should be attached to that consideration. He agreed that if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 280.

Councillor Peter Green had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during it consideration.

The Officers explained the amended details of the proposal which included the removal of a unit to improve the separation of the properties; the removal of two flats to make a parking area; and the adjustment of a unit to enable the required distances between properties in Raleigh Close to be met.

It was reported that a Tree Preservation Order had been placed on the pink Chestnut trees and that discussions had been held with the applicant regarding flood works to enable the building works to take place with a neutral impact on flooding.

Further to the report it was noted that an additional letter had been received raising concerns regarding boundary treatments and loss of privacy.

The Officers referred to the traffic appraisal commenting that in the peak hour a filling station could expect to have 100 movements per hour, whereas the proposed level of housing would generate between 45 to 50 movements.  Therefore, the effect on peak hour congestion would be less than the permitted use and on this basis the County Engineer had raised no objection.

The Officers referred to concerns raised regarding noise, reporting that because of the town scape benefits the Environmental Health Officer supported the scheme.

It was explained that the legal obligations were progressing and that the S106 obligation with the County Council was nearly completed.  However, it was suggested that if the legal obligations could not be agreed quickly, an additional condition should be attached to any permission to require that a S106 obligation be completed with the District Council prior to the commencement of development.  Furthermore it was suggested that a condition also be added regarding slab levels.

David Thomas, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the negotiations which had taken place commenting that there had been a change of architect to address concerns regarding density and footprint.  He reported that there were further minor amendments to the plans now being considered. He commented that the site was a brownfield site and therefore it was suitable for development. He drew attention to the Consultant Architect’s comments agreeing that the proposal would result in an improvement to the appearance of this disused site.  He noted that the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection to the proposal.   He referred to the level of affordable housing and highlighted that traffic generation from a residential use would be less than from the permitted use.  Hence there would be a significant reduction in potential traffic movements and consequently turning which was considered a benefit by the Highway Authority in terms of highway safety.

One of the local Members expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its density and traffic generation.  He highlighted Policy H15 noting that it referred to a density of 40 dwellings per hectare  ...  view the full minutes text for item 281.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during it consideration.

Peter Uzzell the applicant’s agent was due to make a statement in support of the application but he declined to do so.

One of the local Members reported that the Town Council had been concerned regarding the railing However, he did not support this view and considered that the proposal would improve the visual appearance of the building.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/7697/8 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

As referred to elsewhere in these Minutes, the Committee considered applications GFA/16464/3–X and GFA/19649/1–X together.  The discussion on both applications is recorded below.

Councillors Roger Cox and Tony de Vere had each declared a personal interest in these applications and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during it consideration.

Further to the report the Officers reported the following: -

·                     The applications were both for outline permission with access only at this stage.

·                     The County Engineer had no objection to the use of one access. 

·                     The Officers were in discussion with the applicant and the County Council to resolve the financial contributions.

·                     Since writing to the report, the Town Council had objected to application GFA/19649/1-X, but had not objected to application GFA/16464/3-X but had sought further details regarding the number of houses proposed and financial contributions.

·                     Six additional letters, (3 on each application) had been received reiterating previous objections regarding security to the rear boundary; loss of the Christmas trees (which provided a sound barrier; a visual barrier and a habitat for wildlife) and drainage.  It had been suggested that no more than 3 houses should be constructed and that a contribution towards youth centre provision should be made.

·                     The District Council was seeking a contribution towards public open space, play equipment and a work of art.

·                     Securing the provision of affordable housing could be covered by condition.

·                     If the Committee was minded to approve the applications a further condition to require the completion of a 106 obligation with the District Council prior to commencement of development was suggested.

·                     The Council’s Arboricultural Officer had inspected the Christmas trees and had advised that they were not worthy of protection by way of a Tree Preservation Order.

Clive Davis made a statement objecting to application GFA/16464/3-X raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to the following concerns: -

·                     The land, which was part of the Winslow Market Garden being referred to as “garden space”.  He explained that the land was a “green field site” of approximately 42x50 yards;

·                     The original application had been for 4 dwellings after the demolition of the Winslow Bungalow.  The Winslow Bungalow was one of the original 4 and so there should now be 3 remaining;

·                     The revised application was for 4 dwellings at the rear of Winslow House, using its access off Coxwell Road;

·                     The plot was too small for 4 five bedroom dwellings;

·                     The dwelling on plot 1 would be sideways to the rear of the garden of No.6 Carters Crescent and built within a metre of the boundary wall;

·                     It was reasonable to assume that there would be windows on the first floor of the dwelling at plot 1 resulting in overlooking of the properties at No.s 6 and 7 Carters Crescent;

·                     The development shoule be limited to a maiximum of 3 five bedroom dwellings, not including Winslow Bungalow;

·                     With the possibility of 3 to 4 cars per dwelling, there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

As referred to elsewhere in these Minutes, this application had been withdrawn.

This application was considered in conjunction with application GFA/19649/1-X as referred to elsewhere in these Minutes (Minute DC.285 refers).  The debate for this application is recorded in that Minute.

The Committee recalled that it had previously been resolved that application ABG/19731 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally  endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee.  The report set out suggested reasons based on the concerns identified by Members.

One Member commented that he had thought that a response was awaited from the Environment Agency in relation to flooding.  However, the Officers advised that further flood risk assessment needed to be carried out and that the reasons in the report reflected the information currently available and identified that there was a potential for flooding.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19731 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

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

Further to the report, the Officers explained that the block plan had been amended and the Parish Council’s comments on the amended application had now been received details of which were read out at the meeting.  The Parish Council appreciated that the re-positioning of the garage was and improvement but raised concerns regarding the adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours; the height of the house and its steeply pitched roof; bulk; the unsuitable access; a potential hazard to road users and pedestrians; the narrowness of the footpath; lack of visibility; pedestrian safety; traffic speed due to the gradient of the site; and over development.  It was suggested that access via Edward Road should be considered.  Furthermore, it was requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application an independent traffic engineer be commissions to test the safety of the proposed access into Rowles Close.  Finally, the Parish Council urged Members of the Committee to visit the site.

The Officers reported that there had been a further three letters of objection reiterating similar objections, in particular that the access would be inadequate; the proposal amounted to overdevelopment and that a window would be closer to the rear of the neighbouring property than shown of the plans.

It was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal in safety in highway terms.

Reference was made to the plans and it was explained that on one the distance shown was 22 metres and on another 20 metres.  It was clarified that the minimum distance was 21 metres and it was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director to enable him to verify the discrepancies in the plans.

Peter Biggs made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council referring to the concerns already reported.  He particularly referred to the size of the proposal commenting that the Parish Council had been so concerned that it had held a site meeting.  It had been unanimously agreed that the proposed size of the dwelling would adversely impact on the surrounding properties. He commented that the plans were misleading in that the ground levels were not referred to.  He explained that although the size and height of the dwelling were shown as less than the neighbouring property, it was not highlighted that the neighbour was down hill.  He reported that the house would be enormous and would adversely impact on the neighbour.  Finally, he commented that the Parish Council would not object to a bungalow on this site.

Con Kellecher, a neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He advised that he had measured the boundaries and there were discrepancies in the measurements given.  He explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 287.

One of the local Members whilst not objecting to the  application expressed some concerns regarding the design which he considered unimaginative commenting that the appearance of the cladding was inappropriate on this building.

However, other Members welcomed the proposal considering that it complimented the existing dwelling.

By 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention and 2 of the voting Members not being present during the consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/19874 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.