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 Cox, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby and Anthony Hayward.  

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 11 June 2007.

The minutes of the Committee meeting held on 11 June 2007 were adopted and signed as a correct record, subject to the reason for Councillor Jerry Patterson's declaration of a personal interest being amended to read "He was a member of the South East England Regional Assembly and was a member of its Scrutiny Committee which oversaw the South East" (minute DC.23 refers). 

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.

Interests were declared in report 42/07 - 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 reminded Councillors and members of the public that their mobile phones should be switched off during the meeting.

The Chair announced that the Council had been provisionally awarded a Planning Delivery Grant of £389,104.  Although this figure might change, it was worthy of congratulations to all staff and Members involved in the planning process. 

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 eighteen members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statements at the meeting. 

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

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

RESOLVED

(a)       that the following bricks for the development at 61 Mill Street, Wantage (WAN/7226/3) be refused:

Ellistown Arden Dark Weathered

Ibstock Arden Red

IbstockLaybrook BerkshireOrange Stock

Antique Ibstock

IbstockLaybrook Parham Red Stock

(b)       that the following materials be approved in respect of 26 Coxwell Road, Faringdon (GFA/19425/1): -

Main brick – Ibstock South Holmwood Surrey Red Multi

Detail Brick – Ibstock Dorking Red

Tiles – RedlandRosemaryPlain Clay Tiles

Render – Cream

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mrs A Humphreys against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the extension of a garage to form self-contained ancillary accommodation to Pennyhooks Farmhouse, Pennyhooks Lane, Shrivenham (SHR/5532/7).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director under the Scheme of Delegation. A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 1).

(ii)        Appeal by Hannick Homes against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a development of 4 No.3 bedroom semi-detached cottages at 17 Highworth road, Shrivenham (SHR/19619). The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director under the Scheme of Delegation. A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 2).

(iii)       Appeal by Mr and Mrs Michael Rayson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of existing garage to form a one bedroom dwelling with parking at 32 High Street, Cumnor (CUM/480/6). The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director under the Scheme of Delegation. A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 3).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered details of three appeals which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate as follows:

Dismissed

(i)         Appeal by Mrs A Humphreys against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the extension of a garage to form self-contained ancillary accommodation to Pennyhooks Farmhouse, Pennyhooks Lane, Shrivenham (SHR/5532/7).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under the Scheme of Delegation.

(ii)        Appeal by Hannick Homes against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a development of 4 no.3 bedroom semi-detached cottages at 17 Highworth Road, Shrivenham (SHR/19619). The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under the Scheme of Delegation.

(iii)       Appeal by Mr and Mrs Michael Rayson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of existing garage to form a one bedroom dwelling with parking at 32 High Street, Cumnor (CUM/480/6). The decision to refuse planning permission was made under powers delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under the Scheme of Delegation. 

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 schedule setting out details of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.  

The Committee received and considered report 42/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), regarding various planning applications, the decisions of which are recorded below.

Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first. 

(CouncillorAngela Lawrence declared a personal interest in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, she remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

Mr Boston made a statement on behalf of the Abingdon Marina Residents' Association.  He objected to the application, raising matters already covered in the report but highlighted: the inaccuracy of the plans; the number of moorings being exceeded; the size of the boats exceeding that permitted; the increase in the size of the marina taking into account all the changes; waste discharge causing deterioration of the marina environment and its water quality; the harm the application would cause neighbours; the need for an environmental impact assessment; and the failure to install marker buoys to protect the bank and plants. 

Mr Broughton-Smith, on behalf of the applicant, reported that there were 100 berths at the marina, some of which were 70 feet long and could take 3 small boats.  The longest boat at the marina was estimated to be 60 feet long.  The application would increase the number of berths to 113.  The additional berths would be around 200m from the nearest house.  He wanted to see wildlife thrive at the marina and did not propose anything to harm it. 

The Local Member suggested that to allay residents' concerns additional conditions should be added to restrict the length of boats able to use the new mooring berths and to require buoys to be first installed in order to protect the bank and wildlife.  These conditions should be clearly stated.  She suggested that the number of boats at the marina should be limited to 120.  The proposal to improve the road surface of South Quay to County Council standards was welcomed. 

The officers reported that investigations were ongoing into the alleged breaches of planning conditions from previous applications.  Any breaches would be dealt with separately.  The Committee had to concentrate on the application in hand and determine it on its own merits.  The Chair reminded the Committee that although the objector had raised concerns about waste being discharged to the marina and the marina environment being damaged, the Environment Agency had not raised any concerns or objection to the application.  This was confirmed in an e-mail to the Planning Officer on 1 August 2007.  However, the Environment Agency had called for buoys to be in position. 

The Committee agreed that buoys should be installed to protect the bank.  It was considered that the Environment Agency's view was needed on the location of the buoys and to support any planning conditions on this and the suggestion to restrict boat lengths for the new moorings to protect the bank. 

It had been suggested that the number of boats at the marina should be limited to 120 but allowing more during times of high water emergency.  However, while the number of mooring berths could be limited and was enforceable, limiting the number of boats might not be enforceable and therefore this suggestion was discounted. 

Members supported the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

(CouncillorRoger Cox declared a personal interest in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, he remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

Mr R Taylor made a statement objecting to the application.  He considered the proposed development to be too large, an overdevelopment of the site, and out of keeping with the surrounding area. 

The Committee could find no reason to refuse the application, considering it to be unobtrusive. 

RESOLVED  (by 15 votes to nil)

that application GFA/1139/1 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Mr M Neil made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of himself and Mr Webber, and covered matters referred to in the report.  He believed that the proposed development would be unduly dominant and the increase in car parking would reduce security in the locality.  He expressed concerns at the hardstanding proposed in the garden to provide car parking.  This would reduce the capacity of the land to absorb rain water.  The amenity space of the properties would also be insufficient.  He also considered that small housing units were not needed in the area. 

In answer to a question from the Local Member, it was reported that the drainage engineer had not raised any concerns about the application. 

Some concern was expressed at the loss of the hedgerow, the effect on neighbouring properties and the lack of parking provision on site.  However, other Members considered that there were no grounds for refusal.  They considered that it was an improvement on the previous submission and the gardens at the site were of sufficient size for this development.  Members asked that an additional condition was attached, requiring a permeable parking surface. 

RESOLVED  (by 14 votes to 1)

that application NHI/2790/2 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition requiring a permeable car parking surface. 

Mr H Venners, the applicants' agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He believed that the development was sustainable and complied with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 regarding the re-use of buildings in the countryside.  He disagreed that the site was isolated--it was close to Grove and a regular bus service passed along the A338.  The proposal would mean less vehicle trips to and from the site and would remove poor quality buildings and would provide an economic benefit in local employment opportunities for the people of Grove.  It would also provide an environmental benefit through the provision of a wetland area. 

The Local Member agreed with the speaker, supporting the application for the same reasons.  Other Members agreed but some expressed concern at the principle of land owners letting buildings deteriorate and then seek planning permission for new uses.  It was suggested that the Committee needed to be consistent and refuse the application as it had done with similar applications.  

The Chair asked the Committee to vote on the officers' recommendation to refuse the application.  This was lost by 5 votes to 10. 

It was then proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber and seconded by Councillor Roger Cox and

RESOLVED  (by 10 votes to 5)

(a)       that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesmanof the Development Control Committee and Local Members, to approve application GRO/3429/10 as the site was in a sustainable location and would provide local employment opportunities; and

(b)       that the County Engineer's suggested conditions and those conditions suggested by the applicant be used as the basis of conditions to be attached to the permission. 

The Planning Officer reported that a late submission had been received from the applicants, in support of the application.  The Officer summarised these comments, which clarified the intention behind the application. 

RESOLVED  (by 15 votes to nil)

that application BOU/5703/22 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Dr P Horton made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application on matters referred to in the report.  He also reported that the Parish Council did not object to the property's sub-division but did object to this application and its timing following recent flooding problems.  Every time it rained heavily, sewage overflowed due to the poor drain capacity.  Before this application was approved, he considered Thames Water needed to rectify this problem.  He also expressed concerns at the potential for parking on the narrow road and across the pavement in front of the property.  He urged the Committee to listen to the local residents and refuse the application. 

Mr F Corti made a statement objecting to the application, on behalf of residents of Queen's Close, raising matters set out in the report.  He was concerned that the pavement would be blocked by parked cars.  There would be more cars with the number of flats proposed.  He also expressed concern for users of the footpath and highway as the fence adjacent to the property obscured the vision of drivers leaving the site. 

Mrs S Hardy, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application.  She believed the proposal would not harm the area and there would only be one car per flat.  This would cause no more problems than any other nearby property.  Bicycle racks would also be provided to reduce the number of cars.  There was a need for small housing units for young people in the area.  However, she believed that this would put no more strain on the sewage system. 

The Local Member was content with the application, finding no grounds for refusal. 

Some concern was expressed at the inevitability of parking problems at the site and the risk of cars blocking the pavement.  However, the CountyEngineer was content with the application. 

Members asked that, due to concerns of drainage problems in the area, an additional condition should be attached requiring a permeable surface for the parking areas and access drive.  It was also suggested that discussions should be held with the County Engineer over the possibility of relocating the pavement at the applicant's expense to avoid the pavement being blocked by parked cars. 

RESOLVED  (by 14 votes to 1)

that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, to approve application CUM/11330/4, subject to:

(i)         the conditions set out in the report;

(ii)        an additional condition requiring a permeable surface for the parking areas and access drive; and

(iii)       discussions being held with the CountyEngineer over the possibility of relocating the pavement at the applicant's expense to avoid the pavement being blocked by parked cars. 

(CouncillorAngela Lawrence declared a personal interest in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, she remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

Councillor Martin Smith made a statement, on behalf of the Town Council, objecting to the application.  The Town Council believed that the application was contrary to policies DC9(1 and 2) and H24 of the adopted Local Plan and was contrary to the Council's House Design Guide.  The extension would be too close to the boundary and would cast a heavy shadow over the neighbouring property, causing unacceptable harm. 

Charlotte Riggs made a statement objecting to the application.  She believed that the combined effect of the proposed extension and the single storey extension already built under permitted development rights, was the same as the application previously refused by the Committee.  She believed that the extension should be at least one metre from the boundary.  She also believed that the single storey extension was longer than that allowed under permitted development rights.  The combined effect with the proposed extension would be loss of light to her property, no.7 Norman Avenue. 

The Local Member agreed with the two speakers, considering that the occupiers of no.7 would be deprived of sunlight.  Other Members agreed that unacceptable harm would be caused to the neighbouring property. 

However, attention was drawn to the Planning Inspector's decision to refuse application ABG/19058, where he had commented that the proposed two-storey side extension to no.5 was not set back nor had a lower roof line than the existing house.  He had considered that this would cause a terracing effect which would harm the character and appearance of the existing house and the street scene.  The Planning Officer believed that the current application had addressed this concern by setting the proposed extension further back and the roof line was lower down.  The Inspector had also objected to the proposed single storey extension, which had since been built separately under permitted development rights.  The Planning Officer believed that the Inspector's concerns had now been overcome and negated. 

Some Members were still concerned at the effect on the neighbour's property and requested that consideration of the application was deferred so that an organised site visit could be made by the Committee. 

RESOLVED  (by 14 votes to nil)

that consideration of application ABG/19058/4 be deferred, pending a site visit being made by the Committee. 

(CouncillorAngela Lawrence declared a personal interest in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, she remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

RESOLVED  (by 15 votes to nil)

that application ABG/19181/4 be approved, subject to the condition set out in the report. 

(Councillors Matthew Barber and Angela Lawrence both declared personal interests in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.)  

The Planning Officer reported that 14 additional letters of objection had been received since the agenda had been published.  These reiterated objections covered in the report.  The Town Council had not formally responded to the application but it was understood that an objection was to be raised.  The Officer also suggested an additional condition, requiring a contaminated land survey (ref. MC34). 

Councillor Martin Smith made a statement, on behalf of the Town Council, objecting to the application believing that the proposed development was even larger than the previous application.  The grass verge would be destroyed to provide car parking and the application was contrary to policy DC1 of the adopted Local Plan. 

Mr Haggett made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of the residents of Galley Field and Norman Avenue.  He raised matters covered in the report but highlighted: that the development would be totally alien to other properties in Galley Field and would be incongruous and out of keeping with the area; the attractive design of the area would be destroyed by this proposal; it would be contrary to the restrictions set out in the deeds of the Galley Field properties; it would be disproportionate to other houses in the area, overpowering neighbouring bungalows and causing a sandwich effect; and the access to the proposed development was in a dangerous location. 

Mrs S Watkins, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application, pointing out that there was room on the site for the development and most of the properties in Galley Field were houses.  The development would provide a home for her family.  The design had been changed to fit in with the area and was consistent with no.5 Galley Field.  The effect on no.3 had been reduced and the proposal was in line with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 and Local Plan policy D3 by being in a sustainable location. 

The Committee's Legal Advisor reported that the objection relating to the title deeds was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account. 

The Local Member supported applications that provided affordable housing but did not consider that this one was in a suitable location.  She considered that it would be overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the surrounding area. 

The Committee noted that no objection had been received from the County Engineer over parking matters or the loss of the highway verge to provide vehicular access.  Therefore, Members found no reason to refuse the application but asked that an additional condition was attached requiring a permeable surface for the driveway. 

RESOLVED  (by 8 votes to 7)

that application ABG/20044/1 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional conditions:

(i)         to survey the site for contamination (ref. MC34); and

(ii)        to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The Planning Officer recommended that an additional condition was attached, requiring a method of protection for the trees, to be approved by the Council's Arboricultural Officer. 

Mrs V Urso-cale made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of her son, who lived opposite the site.  She believed that the extension would reduce light to her son's flat.  The proposed replacement of the fence with a wall was not in keeping with the area and there were concerns about flooding with less ground to absorb rainfall.  She urged the Committee not to allow the extension to protrude beyond the end of the existing house. 

Mr Braithwaite, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application.  The proposal would not encroach on any neighbours and the fence would be replaced by a wall as the fence was deteriorating badly.  He promised to replace any trees damaged during the construction period.  He believed the extension would not detract light from anyone else.  Most local residents were in support. 

The Local Member agreed with the Parish Council's objections to the application, that it would be out of keeping with its surroundings.  However, the Committee could find no reason to refuse the application but asked for matching materials and windows to be used. 

RESOLVED  (by 14 votes to 1)

that application GRO/20111 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional conditions:

(i)         to require a method of protection for the trees to be approved by the Council's Arboricultural Officer; and

(ii)        to require matching materials and windows. 

The Local Member supported this application and the Committee agreed also.  

RESOLVED  (by 15 votes to nil)

that application GRO/20120 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The Local Member spoke in favour of this application and the Committee supported it also. 

RESOLVED  (by 15 votes to nil)

that application GRO/20132 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

None