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.

In accordance with Standing Order 17 (1) the attendance of Substitute Members were recorded as referred to above with apologies for absence received from Councillors Sue Marchant, Terry Cox and Jenny Hannaby.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Monday 7^th January 2008 (attached).

The minutes of a meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 7^th January 2008 were adopted and signed as a correct record with the following amendment:-

Minute DC.232, Amended bullet point number 8 to read: - “there had been instances when refuse vehicles had encountered parked vehicles obstructing the highway but this had been in the side roads and not along the spine road”

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 declared in respect of report 142/07 – 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 asked everyone present to switch off their mobile telephones during the meeting. The Chair explained, for the benefit of the public that the Officers were present to give advice to the Committee and furthermore he reminded everyone present to remain silent during the debate and presentations.

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.

Les Clyne, a resident of Abingdon asked Councillor Jerry Patterson, Leader of the Council the following question:-

“Please can I have a breakdown of the figure of 5750 homes that was quoted in Councillor Farrell’s answer to me which I received on 29 January, into individual sites and numbers (the sites with 20 or less units can be accumulated into one set of figures so as not to produce too large a table), and the likely number of affordable homes at each site (again the sites with 20 or less units can be accumulated in to one set of figures so as not to produce too large a table) in the figure of 5750, if known.”

In response Councillor Patterson undertook to reply to Mr Clyne in writing within 10 working days of the meeting.

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

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the following development:

 24-28 Newbury Street, Wantage (application no.WAN/20119). 

RESOLVED

the following materials be approved:

Blocks 1-3:  Baggeridge G10765 Blended Red Multi Stock Bricks

Redland Plain Tile – Breckland Brown

Blocks 4-6:  Baggeridge G10765 Blended Red Multi Stock Bricks

Plain Clay Weathered Tile VDS (Val de Sienne by Phalempin)

Blocks 7-9:  Charnwood Forest Brick Ltd Handmade Sussex Red Multi

Plain Clay Weathered Tile VDS (Val de Sienne by Phalempin)

Blocks 11-14 Refurbishment:     Tile hanging from building re-used where possible and re-claimed matching tiles where required 

Allowed

The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

Appeal by Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of 9 two bedroom cottages and 6 three bedroom cottages with associated access road, garaging and parking at Christ Church, Hobbyhorse Lane, Sutton Courtenay (SUT/193841/1).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) 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.

Dismissed

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

Appeal by JDC Construction Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit change of use from agriculture to storage of construction plant with two 24 foot containers with hard-standing area, road in and a future storage shed at 3 Elms Farm, Hanney Road, Steventon (STE/19957).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Deputy Director under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of two appeals 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.

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

RESOLVED

that the report be received

The Committee received and considered report 142/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing 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.

(Councillors Tony de Vere and Angela Lawrence had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration)

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the application was a resubmission of a previous scheme with an amendment proposed to the height of the roof.

MrPeterHarbour made a statement to the Committee objecting to the proposed application. He raised concerns that the increased height of the ridge would lead to the loss of light to his property, be overbearing and would dominate the street scene. He expressed his regret that gardens were being lost to overdevelopment. He advised the Committee that he had intended to install solar panels to the roof of his property, however he felt that this was no longer possible due to the shadow that would be cast by the increased height of the roof on the neighbouring property. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

One Member commented that he did not consider that the increased height of the ridge would cause excessive darkness.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1187/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee was asked to consider three applications covering two sites north and south of Ormond Road. A new footpath was proposed along the south eastern edge of the site to provide a safer access for children attending the Primary School. The path would require the transfer of some land from Wantage Town Council to the developers and would result in the loss of three mature Lime trees. The footpath would not be an adopted path but would be maintained by the new development’s management company.

An additional condition was suggested by the Planning Officer to gate off some undercroft parking areas for security purposes. Some internal fireplaces would be retained in the blocks to be refurbished. There had been no response from English Heritage to consultation on the amended plans for Block B1.

At this point in the meeting it was proposed by the Chair and

RESOLVED ( nem com)

that the meeting of the Committee do adjourn for 10 minutes to allow Members an opportunity to view a model of the proposal.

The meeting adjourned at 7.30pm and reconvened at 7.40pm

Further to the report the Officers advised the Committee of some of the issues surrounding this application. It was confirmed that the District Council’s Arboriculture Officer was opposed to the removal of three mature lime trees to accommodate the proposed footpath along the south eastern boundary of the site. She read out a statement from the Arboriculture Officer which advised that the removal of these trees sent out a negative message in respect of the environment and he was of the opinion that the path could run alongside the trees and therefore they could be retained.

It was noted that in line with the Local Plan policy, 40% of the development would be affordable housing, consisting of 71% rental accommodation and 29% shared ownership. The Officers confirmed that the proposed breakdown and location of the affordable housing units were satisfactory and it was added that the affordable housing units would be indistinguishable from the rest of the development, indeed some of the affordable units forming part of the focal buildings on the site.

In respect of the Art, Music and Drama block, the Officers confirmed that 29 letters of objection had been received and Wantage Arts Campaign had lodged a petition with the District Council which had 2500 signatures opposing the loss of the block. It was advised that a letter had recently been received from the Wantage Arts Campaign which requested a section 106 agreement to offer the music and drama block for sale to the group at a reasonable price as it was the Wantage Arts Campaign’s intention to raise the funds to purchase the centre. It argued that only 8 units would be lost as a result of the retention of the block, having minimal impact on the development.

The Officers stated that it was not reasonable to seek to central the sale of the block through the planning process. Furthermore the nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

(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)

The Committee considered the Officer’s report. Miss Charlotte Riggs, who owned the neighbouring property made a statement objecting to the application. Miss Riggs raised concerns that this application was contrary to planning policies DC9 and H24(iii). She advised that the room in which the window was to be placed had been changed and that the extension in its entirety was overbearing.

WanaFois, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application explaining that she wished to install the window to allow light into the darker end of the bathroom. She confirmed that the window would be obscure glazed and that it would not be opened.

One Member commented that she understood why the objector was concerned in that the window looked directly into her property. Another Member questioned whether it could be a condition could be added that the window be non-opening. Another Member stated the applicant had confirmed that the window was to allow light into the room and therefore requiring that the window was non opening was not onerous.

By 13 votes to nil with 1 abstention (one member having left the meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/15219/4 be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.           TL1 Time Limit – Full Application

2.           MC10 Obscure glazing, non opening; no Permitted Development rights for other windows to the end of the wall. 

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that five further letters of objection had been received reiterating concerns relating to matters already covered by the report.

Mr Mark Rowley made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of local residents. He raised concerns regarding the potential health and safety issues arising from the use of cesspools. He advised that he entirely agreed with the Officer’s recommendations for refusal and commented that this application should be considered when investigations into the sewage network capacity were complete. He considered that any development should be postponed until the drainage system was upgraded and urged the Committee to refuse permission for the application.

Mr Paul McCann made a statement in support of the application. He reminded the Committee that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the use of temporary cesspools and that the use of cesspools in this application was strictly on a temporary basis until the foul drainage system was upgraded. He stated that the Committee had resolved to approve a development of 150 dwellings at Tilbury Lane, Cumnor, where a negatively worded Grampian Condition had been used to ensure that the dwellings were unoccupied until improvements were made to the local sewerage system, which was effectively what this application was seeking.

The Committee considered the comments of both Mr McCann and Mr Rowley. The Officers commented that the use of the Grampian Condition had been acceptable in the Tilbury Lane application because Officers were satisfied that should the remedial works to the drainage system not be completed within the required time limits it was reasonable to expect a development of that size to fund the works, which was not the case in this relatively small application. Officers advised that this made the condition unenforceable.

One Member commented that he was in support of the Officer’s recommendations. Other Members shared this view.

By 14 votes to nil (one Member having left the meeting)

RESOLVED

that planning permission in respect of application CUM/19875/1 be refused for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report.

The Committee was reminded that the application for Phase 2 of the proposed works to Bury Street Precinct had been delegated for approval to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Committee Chair subject to negotiations to secure a financial contribution towards the Abingdon Integrated Transport Strategy and to the further conditions outlined in the report.

It was reported that negotiations had ceased as Oxfordshire County Council had withdrawn its request for a contribution to ABITS further to the applicant’s representations that the amount required was not reasonably related to the scale or nature of the proposed retail floor space.

Mr Perry had given notice that he wished to make a statement objecting to the application, however he was not in attendance at the meeting.

Local Members expressed regret that no contribution was to be offered by the developer. They considered that there were several projects in Abingdon which would benefit from a contribution, including the Britain in Bloom project, the provision of Christmas lights and the refurbishment of the Market Place. Another Member suggested that Local Members should be involved in any further discussions in respect of seeking contributions from the Developer.

By 14 votes to nil (one of the voting Members having left the meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that the authority be delegated to the Deputy Director in consultation with the Committee Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Developmental Control and Local Members subject to the following conditions:

1.                 TL2 Time Limit

2.                 OL1 Standard Outline Application

3.                 MC2 Submission of Materials (Samples)

4.                 HY25 Car Park Layout (Building)

The Committee was reminded that at its meeting held on 5 November 2007 it was resolved that a Section 106 agreement be sought to secure 4 car parking spaces for the development.

The Committee was advised that it had not been possible to secure this agreement as the land owner had refused to agree to its terms. The Officers confirmed that car parking provision was not a requirement of the development, and that the applicant had offered to include them to benefit the area.

Mr Andrew Raven spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He confirmed that the land owner had decided to retain two car parking spaces for himself and therefore the proposed spaces would not be possible.

Officers commented that the Committee should ask itself whether the car parking spaces were required as part of the development.

By 11 votes to nil with 3 abstentions (one voting Member having left the meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that application HAR/19966/1 should be approved subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report.

The Committee received and considered the Planning Officer’s report and noted that concerns had been raised by Sutton Courtney Parish Council and Councillor Gervase Duffield relating to matters already covered in the report.

William Hanks of Sutton Courtney Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application. He raised several concerns, including; fears that the design was too modern and out of keeping with the Conservation Area, glare from the proposed glass building, the safety of the driveway, problems with traffic, and sewerage and drainage issues.

The Committee considered that this was an exceptional piece of architecture. Members considered that the driveway was acceptable as it was already in use by the other properties. Furthermore it was in agreement that this was of excellent design and would sit well in the plot.

By 14 votes in favour (one voting Member having left the meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in the Planning Officer’s report.

(Councillors Margaret Turner and Richard Farrell had each declared personal interests in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that Officers were awaiting recommended conditions from the Environment Agency.

William Hanks made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of the Parish Council. He raised concerns with regard to the increased level of traffic; particularly heavy goods vehicles and level of noise which would be caused by the development. He was concerned that not all goods vehicles would follow the routing agreement and use the A34 resulting in an adverse impact on the village.

Mr O’Donovan made a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He reminded the Committee that this development was set back from the road and the visual impact was minimal. He confirmed that there would be fewer HGVs as a result of a restructure in the warehouse network as vehicle movements would be spread throughout the day. He added that traffic, landscape and drainage issues had all been addressed.

One Member questioned whether the Committee could require a sign to be placed in the village advising HGVs to turn left onto the A34. The Officers confirmed that this would be a matter for the Highways authority.

Another Member suggested that the local Members should be consulted by the Officer determining this application.

By 14 votes to nil, (one voting Member having left the meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy)to approve application SUT/20330 in consultation with the Committee Chair and/or vice Chair of the Development Control Committee and Local Member, and subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report and subject to:

(1)              a Section 106 Agreement to secure limitations on the movements of HGV, control worker’s shift patterns to avoid peak periods and to provide a financial contribution to the local highway network; and

(2)              further  conditions which are awaited from the Environment Agency and

(3)               amendments to the wording of the Highways Authority Conditions set out the in Agenda.

Further to the Officer’s report it was confirmed that in response to the Parish Council’s concerns, the County Engineer had raised no objections to the proposed route of access.

The Officers stated that there should be a further condition added to ensure that the sill heights were to be determined on the west facing windows and rooflights.

One Member questioned whether the Committee could restrict cars from parking in front of the neighbouring property’s kitchen window. The Officers confirmed that it could not.

By 14 votes to nil (one voting Member having left the Meeting) it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/20349/1 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the  report and a further condition to determine sill heights of the west facing windows and roof heights.

None.