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.

None as all Members of the Committee were present.

To adopt and sign as correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 26 November and 17 December 2007 (attached).

The Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 26 November and 17 December 2007 were adopted and signed as correct records subject to the page numbers being amended to run consecutively with the previous set of minutes.

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Any Member with a personal interest or a personal and prejudicial interest in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct, in any matter to be considered at a meeting, must declare the existence and nature of that interest as soon as the interest becomes apparent in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

When a Member declares a personal and prejudicial interest he shall also state if he has a dispensation from the Standards Committee entitling him/her to speak, or speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Where any Member has declared a personal and prejudicial interest he shall withdraw from the room while the matter is under consideration unless

(a)    His/her disability to speak, or speak and vote on the matter has been removed by a dispensation granted by the Standards Committee, or

(b)    members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter by statutory right or otherwise.  If that is the case, the Member can also attend the meeting for that purpose.  However, the Member must immediately leave the room once he/she has finished; or when the meeting decides he/she has finished whichever is the earlier and in any event the Member must leave the room for the duration of the debate on the item in which he/she has a personal and prejudicial interest.

Declarations of interest were made in respect of report 136/07 – 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 announced the location of the emergency exits and advised that in the event of the alarms sounding everyone was asked to leave the building immediately and in an orderly fashion.

The Chair asked all Councillors and members of the public to ensure that their mobile telephones were switch off during the meeting.

For the benefit of members of the public, the Chair advised that Ward Members were able to attend the Development Control Committee to speak to an application in their Ward.  He explained that only Members of the Development Control Committee could vote on any matters under consideration at the meeting and that Ward Members were not entitled to vote unless they were also a member of the Committee.  Furthermore, he explained that Officers were present at the meeting to present the reports and give advice.

Finally, the Chair drew Members’ attention to the number of applications before the Committee for determination and he asked Councillors to be succinct in expressing their comments and views and that these should be restricted to points of new information rather than repeating points already raised.

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.

At the time of compiling this agenda notice had been received from Les Clyne, a resident of Abingdon of the following question to Councillor Richard Farrell as Executive Member with responsibility for Planning: -

“The progress in over two and a half years activity in developing the 2126 units given in the Local Plan is rubbish (only 405 permitted). What steps will you now take to bring forward the 3 major developments listed (Faringdon - 400, Grove - 500 and Didcot - 500) so that over 2000 units are completed by 2011?”

Mr Les Clyne asked the following question for response in writing within 10 working days  of Councillor Richard Farrell in his capacity at the Executive Member with responsibility for planning: -

“The progress in over two and a half years activity in developing the 2126 units given in the Local Plan is rubbish (only 405 permitted). What steps will you now take to bring forward the 3 major developments listed (Faringdon - 400, Grove - 500 and Didcot - 500) so that over 2000 units are completed by 2011?”

Councillor Richard Farrell read out a detailed response as follows and advised that he would send the information to Mr Les Clyne in writing: -

“The straight, unvarnished answer to your question is that neither I individually, nor this Council collectively, have any power to ensure that that the houses mentioned in your question are brought forward any faster than they are already proceeding through the planning system.  We are, therefore, unable to guarantee that they will be built by 2011.  Further, and with the greatest respect and only since you raised the matter, the pejorative thrust of your question - describing the progress towards meeting the Local Plan target as rubbish - and the comments that you made at the Strategic Review Committee last week reveal, not only a clear lack of understanding of the Council’s role in the development process, but a determination to attack this Council and its Executive unjustifiably and in a way that, frankly, wastes public resources.

In considering whether to grant planning permission a council is a reactive body.  It has to wait for the owners of a property to come forward to apply for permission and has no powers to compel them to do so.  This is not to suggest that developers have been tardy in applying for permission, as a lot of complex work is necessary between the adoption of a Local Plan and their being in a position to submit an application.  Major applications invariably require a mass of supporting work to be done by the applicant, both before and after application, such as archaeological, environmental, transport and other assessments.  Again, let me stress, the speed at which this work is completed is outside the Vale’s control. 

A good example is the development at Grove.  A major objection to the allocation of this land for development related to concerns about flooding and drainage.  As a consequence our Local Plan requires that before any development can start the Environment Agency, and this Council, must be satisfied that satisfactory attenuation measures are in place.  The planning, design, examination by both this Council and the Environment Agency, and the implementation of such measures are both extremely time consuming and, importantly, mostly outside the control of this Council. 

The Inspectors who examined our Local Plan identified the fact that development of the Grove site might be delayed and, in order to strengthen the Council’s ability to meet its housing numbers, recommended the inclusion of land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 239.

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.

The Committee noted that 23 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement as the meeting.  However, 4 members 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.

CUM/19859/2-D - Land rear of 173 – 175 Cumnor Hill and adjacent to Timbmet head office, Chorley Farm, Cumnor

The Committee received and consider materials in respect of the above application.

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Brick – warm golden buff

Roof covering – black Marley Eternit Slate

Glazing frames and fascia PPc aluminium Mid Grey (RAL 7037)

Dismissed

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

Appeal by Mr C Swinbank against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to an existing ménage at Sandy Lane House, Sandy Lane, Boars Hill (WTT/12227/1).  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 as an Appendix.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered details of an appeal which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Sandy Lane House, Sandy Lane, Boars Hill (WTT/12227/1).

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee is asked to receive a list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings which is attached.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered a list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

One Member highlighted the Inspector’s decision to allow the erection of a 12m high telecommunications mast with associated equipment and cabinets at Allens Carpets, 171 Radley Road Industrial Estate, Abingdon commenting on her disappointment with the decision.  In response to a question raised the Officers explained that each application  received in the future for telecommunication masts in the area would need to be considered on its merits and that regard might need to be given to this decision.

RESOLVED

that the list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings be received.

Further to the report the Committee was advised of the receipt of an amended site layout plan.  Reference was made to the comments of the Parish Council and it was clarified that the Parish Council had objected to the application stating that the proposal was contrary to H17 and H4 of the Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 regarding affordable housing. 

The Officers reported the amendments to the layout plan explaining that some of the plots had changed around.  It was reported that there was a footpath link within the site to the bus stop on Cumnor Hill; the design changes to the houses were described; the design of the surrounding blocks had been amended; there were amenity spaces to break up the car parking; there were more houses over looking the public open space area; windows had been added; a footpath link had been added to the public open space; proposed elevations compared with those previously refused were described; there were better proportioned gables; chimneys had been repositioned; a focal point had now been included with a subordinate extension; more variation had been added to break up the massing; the style was more akin to Arts and Crafts style with more steeply sloping roofs; roof massing had been brought down; block B had been completely redesigned; the Consultant Architect’s comments had been taken on board with the doorway altered; the level of car parking had been increased; water butts would be included; there would be some solar panelling; and there was a more even spread of affordable properties across the development. 

It was explained that drainage was covered by condition 12 of the original planning permission.  The Officers suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an informative should be added advising the applicants that they must comply with the conditions on the original application.

It was reported that it was considered that the concerns of BBOWT and Natural England had now been addressed.

Dr P Hawtin made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that: -

·                    dwellings on the site were needed but he urged refusal of this application as the improvements necessary had not been included;

·                    the proposal needed to be sympathetic to its surroundings and in accordance with the Local Plan;

·                    the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan in that development was proposed outside of the site’s boundaries which formed a comprehensive development boundary;

·                    the proposal amounted to off site development with a large balancing pond and a car park in the Green Belt;

·                    failure of the Police to comment on the application did not amount to its support;

·                    the Officers’ report was biased;

·                    there were no significant changes in detail or in principle to the previous refused proposal;

·                    the affordable housing was clustered across the middle of the site and readily distinguishable from the rest of the housing, contrary to policy;

·                    he clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 244.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

Report and appendices to follow.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

Councillor Matthew Barber had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Terry Cox and Roger Cox 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’s attention was drawn to the Appendix to the report which outlined the reasons for the application.

The Committee was advised that LakeE was due to be filled but as it contained a significant amount of sand and gravel it was intended that this should be extracted first.  It was noted that Radley Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal questioning the extraction in the past and querying what would happen to the plant. 

It was reported that two letters had been submitted by local residents, one to the County Council and one to this authority raising concerns regarding the accuracy of the extraction figures; the use of the plant and equipment on site; whether the equipment was being used as stand alone equipment rather than ancillary; impact on the environment; traffic; breach of conditions; loss of trees; areas to be worked and impact on areas outside of the site.

It was noted that Officers shared some concerns to apparent discrepancies in the case made by the applicant. It was considered that the application should be supported in principle subject to the proposal meeting the terms of the batching plan; the permission being for a 3 year period and the County Council investigating the batching plant and whether it was stand alone or was still ancillary.  There was concern regarding the use of the batching plant without the benefit of planning permission.

Jenny Standen made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She advised that the Parish Council was dismayed that this application had been received on 18 December when the existing batching plan expired at the end of December and she wondered if this was an attempt to slip an application through quickly.  She reported that the Parish Council and the Thrupp Lane Residents Association had asked for an extension of the consultation period.  She particularly raised concerns regarding Thrupp Lane being unsuitable for traffic particularly HGVs; highway safety; traffic problems; lack of passing places; use of residents drives; poor access; the desire to return the land back to Green Belt; the availability of sand and gravel which should have now run out according to the Tuckwells application in 2002; the requirement to construct bunds and the prevention of the site being sold on.

Mike Wilson made a statement on behalf of the Thrupp Lane Residents Association raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He commented that in 2002 extraction for an extra 5 years had been sought and he referred to the tonnage to be removed amounting to 35,000 tonnes per year.  He explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 248.

The Committee was advised that the Conservation Officer had asked for details of materials to be used. Furthermore it was noted that there had been one letter of support commenting that the proposed garage would be an improvement to the existing garage.

Mr D Hignell made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concern relating to matter already covered in the report.  He commented that the Parish Council welcomed the applicant’s intention to improve the quality of the building but thought that it would be too intrusive.  He explained that the Parish Council did not advocate protection of the Conservation Area at all cost but because of the height and location, this proposal was considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area adjacent to a listed building.

Mr Pennicot made a statement in support of the application stating that the proposal would be an improvement in visual terms to the existing garage.  Furthermore, he commented that an earlier application had been withdrawn and the current proposal had been put forward following extensive discussions with the Officers.

Some Members spoke in support of the application and considered that there would be no adverse impact.  However, reference was made to railings on the flat roof and concern regarding this is terms of visual harm.  The Officers advised that it was not the applicant’s intention that railings would be provided.  One Member referred to the ability for a flat roof to be used as a sitting out area.  The Officers advised that the main concern in this regard was over-looking.  It was suggested that a condition should be added to address this.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/7137/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report together with an additional condition to prevent the roof looking like a sitting out area.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

Mr G Carson a neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding the proximity of the proposal; over-looking; un-neighbourliness; height; dominance; adverse impact and visual harm.  He commented that there would be a 14 ft high wall at the end of his garden which he considered would adversely impact the enjoyment of his amenity through over dominance and visual impact.  He commented that he would have the feeling of imprisonment and that the proposal was unacceptable.  He referred to conditions attached to the original planning permission in particular retention of trees and expressed concern at the Officers’ comments now in this regard and the lack of necessity now to keep the trees. He reported that to date in carrying out works permitted by the early permission there had been a fractured gas main; for two months and excavator had been parked near his property; there had been anti social behaviour; dust and noise. He commented that the current proposal was harmful in terms of causing him physical and mental damage.  Finally, he commented on his health problems which he considered were as a direct result from the stress caused by the current situation with regard to the development at the site and he urged the Committee to do the right thing and refuse the application.

Mr R Coulson made a statement in support of the proposal commenting that the approved scheme had included the demolition of the garage.  He explained that this proposal was to allow the erection of a garage for plot 4. He commented that the design would be in keeping with locality and the proposal would utilise a flank wall.  He considered that the proposal was visually acceptable.  He referred to the comments made regarding the removal of trees and explained that this had been covered by condition attached to the earlier permission.  He advised that the Maple tree on site would be retained.  Finally, he reported that in terms of design, half hipped gables and a lower pitch were proposed; there would be no issues of overlooking and no undue harm caused.

One Member expressed his sympathy for the health problems of the objector but commented that he could see no material planning reason to refuse the application.  He explained that the proposal was only slightly higher than a structure which could be built under permitted development rights and that in his view the proposal set out an acceptable building which would be better in terms of visual appearance and roof pitch.

One Member referred to the plans set out in the report, to which the Officers explained that one plan showed the roof which included an overhang and therefore looked as if it occupied a bigger area of the site.

By 14  ...  view the full minutes text for item 252.

Carole Nicholl, Head of Democratic Services had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 she left the meeting during its consideration.

Mr W Parr made a statement objecting to the application raising concern regarding the trees at the edge of the site and the need for their lopping / maintenance.  he explained that the trees had been of concern to neighbouring residents for years and caused adverse impact of the amenity of the neighbouring properties.  He explained that he could not see how development of this site could proceed until the trees were cut and that this should be carried out prior to development in view of the difficulty in carrying out the necessary maintenance of the trees once the houses were built, given the size of the trees and the number of them.  He commented that the Mews Management Company which was responsible for the amenity area of the neighbouring site had contacted the developer concerning the trees and their adverse impact but no response had been received. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application and whilst noting the comments of the objector considered that concerns regarding the trees could be dealt with under different legislation regarding high hedges and was not a material planning consideration in this case.  however, it was considered that an informative should be added to any permission advising the applicant of his need to comply with the requirements of the High Hedges legislation.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WAT/13873/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report together with an informative advising the applicant of the need for compliance with relevant legislation in respect of high hedges.

This application was considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

Councillor Angela Lawrence 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 of an amendment in that a third roof light was proposed.

It was noted that the Town Council had objected to the application and that there had been four letters of objection, the details of which were set out in the report.

Mrs J Knight, Mr Knight and Mr M Cunningham had all given notice that they wished to make a statement objecting to the application, but they declined to do so.

Mrs R Scott, a resident of Shelley Close speaking on behalf of neighbours, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly referred to the shortcomings of the planning procedure in this case and the uncertainties about whether the building complied fully with building regulations.  She expressed concern regarding lack of neighbour notification and therefore an inability of some neighbours to make timely comments; the visual impact of the proposal; the Planning Officers not having visited the neighbouring property at 60 Shelley Close to assess the impact of a 6 metre high building within less than 6 metres of their property; the lack of inspection of the footings which would have shown that the builder had departed from the approved plan; the necessity for neighbours to alert Officers of the situation; the delay in an Officer visiting the site when the builder had been told to cease work but had failed to do so; the submission of an application for retrospective planning permission; the non-compliance with Building Regulations; whether the relevant inspections had been carried out at the appropriate time and why the footings outside the approved plans had not been noticed; whether the depth of the footings had been checked to ensure that they complied with Building Regulations, particularly those a metre away from the conifer trees; the pitch of the roof exceeding the permitted 45 degree rule; the validity of the soakaways, particularly on the northern side of the building in view of requirements for distances away from neighbouring properties to avoid seepage; the need for strengthening piers along the brick wall; and the lack of response on these matters by the Officers. 

One of the local Members commented that she had no objection to the application noting that there would be no over looking and the design was acceptable.

In response to a comment made, the Officer advised that the application being retrospective was not a material planning consideration.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1824/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

These applications were considered in the reconvened part of the meeting.

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Roger Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Sue Marchant, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Margaret Turner and John Woodford 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 recalled that consideration of this application had been deferred pending a report from an Independent Traffic Consultant.  It was noted that the Independent Traffic Consultant had concluded that the proposal was acceptable in highway terms.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of an additional letter from the applicant making a recommendation regarding an additional condition to provide for the widening of the footway.

Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of the Town Council. He explained that the widening of the footway was welcomed but there were concerns regarding the inadequate parking provisions.  He explained that at the meeting of this Committee held on 26 November 2007, he had highlighted the discrepancies in the plans in terms of the parking provision and no regard had been taken of this. He commented that there would be displaced parking and that the application should be refused.

Mr J Rawling, speaking as Governor of John Mason School welcomed the widening of the footway commenting that this was essential.  He advised that boundary treatments should be dealt with at the outline stage of any application and as such he asked that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an additional condition be added to address boundary treatment.

Mr J Flawn made a statement on behalf of the applicant advising that further to the report a letter had been submitted making a recommendation regarding an additional condition regarding the widening of the footway and he asked the Committee to note this.

One Member welcomed an additional condition to widen the footway and he agreed with one of the speakers that a condition to address boundary treatment was needed.  However, he commented that some residents of Godwins Close had expressed concerns regarding overlooking and he asked that the applicant should have regard to the need to avoid overlooking.

Reference was made to the report of the Independent Traffic Consultant and it was suggested that this should be forwarded to the County Engineer for reference.  It was noted that the report might be beneficial in prompting the CountyEngineer to consider making suggestions when considering planning applications, such as widening footpaths.

One Member expressed concern regarding the design.  In response reference was made to a comment made at the last meeting regarding the need for an informative regarding design to advise that a building of quality should occupy the site.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 257.

Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Angela Lawrence, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner and John Woodford each declared a personal interest and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that an additional plan had been received today showing amended access and parking.  It was commented that the CountyEngineer had seen the proposal and had not raised any objection although additional comments had been received which were read out at the meeting.  The County Engineer had made reference to the Government’s recently published guidance on highway matters, “Manual for Streets”.

The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, conditions should be included to provide for appropriate drainage and to require development in accordance with the amended access/parking plan.

Mr Morris made a statement objecting to the application advising that his principle objection was overdevelopment. He commented that due to the small scale of this site it could not accommodate more than a two bedroom house.  He stated that the land had been recently separated off from Eastcourt, a small cottage and therefore was not part of a large Victorian property but comprised of the original garden of that cottage. He advised that the plot was small and narrow in a prominent position in the central street of Chilton.  He advised that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy H12 in that the dwelling was overly large.  He considered that the Officers had overlooked this policy, which had been included in the Local Plan with just such infill sites in mind. He commented that even a 3 bedroom house would be too large on this site having regard to its size, location and level of land.  He considered that there would be inadequate amenity space and that a set back location was necessary as the land was in an area of groundwater flooding.  He also raised concern regarding access, visibility splays; parking, the narrow frontage and hedge constraining visibility; removal of the neighbours hedge; the Officer’s comments that the hedge would provide screening yet there was an intention for its removal; and the need to protect boundaries in view of the removal of a neighbour’s tree.  Finally, he concluded that the small size and the constrained setting of this infill site was such that it was only able to take a further 2 bedroom property.

Mr K Howard made a statement objecting to the application commenting that his home was adjacent to the site.  He raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding the small size of the site; parking; cars reversing in and out of the access; and safety.  He raised concern regarding the dimensions of the parking area; damage to hedge roots from construction; the pending comments of the County Engineer; drainage; lack of details of the necessary soak way and its location; the need to retain boundaries which were not in the ownership  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258.

The Committee received and considered report 135/07 of the Strategic Director which sought approval to take enforcement action in three cases.  It was noted that the Committee had agreed to refuse an application for decking across a stream at Bumble Barn, Harwell but had yet to agree the reasons for refusal.  As such the Committee was asked to defer consideration of that part of the report.

By 14 votes to nil (with one of the voting Members having already left the meeting prior to th consideration of this item) it was

RESOLVED

(a)               that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to take enforcement action in the following cases if he considers it expedient to do so: -

(1)                    against Mr Allmond of 5 Orchids, Chilton to remove the unauthorised elements of the development in breach of condition 4 of Notice of Permission CHI/17313/2; and

(2)                    against Mr and Mrs Peacock of 8 Wordsworth Road, Abingdon to remove within 3 months the unauthorised 2.2m high fence and shed adjacent to the highway.

(a)               that consideration of whether to take enforcement action in respect of decking across a stream at Bumble Barn, Harwell be considered in the reconvened part of the meeting after consideration of the reasons to refuse an application in this regard.

Carole Nicholl, the Head of Democratic Services had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application raising concerns regarding access, flooding and rights of way.  Furthermore, it was noted that there had been 8 letters of objection regarding access issues, tarmacing the drive and the adverse impact on the area.

Further to the report it was noted that one additional letter had been received objecting to the application and advising that the access was shared and was not in the sole ownership of the applicant.

The Officers explained that this application was similar to the refused application but there were some differences as set out in the report.  It was explained that the applicant had demonstrated that the access could be widened and that the County Engineer had no objection to the access subject to conditions and also to the parking and manoeuvring proposals.  It was reported that the previous reason for refusal was now overcome.

The Officers reported that they had been informed that Land Registry had been unable to determine the ownership of the access. In view of this the Committee was asked that if it should be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to allow him to serve the relevant notices.

Mike Brown speaking on behalf of residents made a statement objecting to the application.  He stated that two previous applications for development of this garden plot had been rejected by residents, the Parish Council and the District Council. He advised that this application was virtually identical to a previously refused proposal. He commented that the Land Registry and legal documents stated that the residents all shared common rights over the historic stone furrow track way which formed the access to the row of period cottages. He stated that the applicant wished to build over this track, which would require the agreement of other residents, which was not forthcoming. He raised concern over drivers having to make multi-point turns to be able to leave the parking bays in order to be in a forward gear. He felt it was likely that drivers would simply reverse out of the access way, impairing their line of sight. He further added that the applicant wished to build over a right of way, which the neighbouring residents would not agree to. He raised further concern that the residents of the existing cottage would have access to their gardens significantly impaired by the development. He added that objectors were concerned that the development’s provision for surface water drainage in times of flood or storm was inadequate. He considered that the development would place strain on the village infrastructure, the lane, the village school and the village sewerage plant. He was further commented that the additional visitor parking at the development would lead  ...  view the full minutes text for item 260.

It was proposed by the Chair and

RESOLVED

that the meeting of the Committee do adjourn until Wednesday 30 January 2008 at 2.00pm in the Guildhall, Abingdon.

None.