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 Anthony Hayward.  An apology for absence was received from Councillor Terry Cox.

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.

Members declared interest in report 178/07 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 Councillors and all members of the public to switch off their mobile telephones during the meeting.

The Chair highlighted the emergency exits which should be used in the event of needing to evacuate the building.

For the benefit of members of the public, the Chair explained that only Members of the Committee were able to vote on any matters and that local Members, whilst able to address the Committee, were not able to make propositions or vote.  He reported that Officers were present at the meeting to present reports and give advice.

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 6 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, 3 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.

None.

Lodged

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

(i)      Appeal by Mr L Wells against the service of Enforcement Notices relating to the unauthorised building operations and engineering operations involving constriction of a tarmac access road and construction of a hardstanding surrounded by an earth bund on land at Greensands, East Hendred.

Dismissed

The following appeal has been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal Oxford Development Group against the decision to refuse planning permission for the change of use D2 to eight individual one bedroom flats in respect of the first and second floors, 1 Newbury Street, Wantage, Oxon OX12 5BU.  The decision letter is attached.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of one appeal which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination and one which had been dismissed.

One of the local Members referred to the dismissed appeal in respect of a decision to refuse planning permission for the change of use from D2 to eight individual one bedroom flats on the first and second floors at 1 Newbury Street, Wantage (WAN/1960/16).  She commented that she was pleased with the decision to dismiss the appeal explaining that many residents in Wantage would be happy with this outcome and she hoped that a cinema would be reinstated.  She referred to a well attended public meeting explaining that local people supported retaining a cinema facility in the Town and many had been opposed to this application.

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 inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 178/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below. 

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

Further to the report, the Committee received and considered advice from the Head of Legal Services in that it was considered that the question to be put to Members was whether the reasons drafted by the Officers accurately reflected the reasons specified at the meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2007 when the decision to refuse the application had been agreed with the reasons to be formally endorsed.

Members were advised that they were being asked to agree that the reasons reflected the sentiments of the earlier meeting.  It was explained that seeking to revoke an earlier decision might be challenged on the basis of irrationality in that nothing had changed.  The circumstances were the same and there was no new information.

One Member commented that the decision had been made in principle and that the Officers had failed to come back with adequate reasons.  He expressed surprise that the Committee was being advised not to reconsider the application.  He referred to the “six month rule” and questioned whether it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the application for reconsideration at a later date.

In response the Officers advised that the applicant could make an appeal for non determination and the Council might be liable for costs.

One Member commented that occasionally the Committee had decided against the Officers’ recommendations to approve applications.  In these instances the Committee agreed the reasons for refusal but asked that the Officers draft those reasons in a way which reflected the view of the Committee but were in robust wording which would stand up at appeal.  To his knowledge, on considering the reasons coming back the Committee had never re-debated the merits or otherwise of an application but had agreed that the wording of the reasons reflected the views of the Committee.  He drew Members’ attention to the suggested reason commenting that in his view the wording of the reason reflected the concerns of Members.  He reminded Members that they had been concerned regarding the possible inhibited access and the consequential flooding implications. He commented that if replicated this could be awful and cumulatively the impact of this and other similar proposals could be significant.  Furthermore, he commented that as this application was retrospective, it could be seen that the built development was not what was being sought in this application in that the decking was across the whole of the stream. 

For the avoidance of doubt the Officers read out the revised wording of the proposed reason for refusal.

One Member disagreed with the comments made regarding the Officers failing to come up with reasons.  He advised that when the Committee decided to refuse this application and any other application Members know of the sort of reasons that they would use as the basis for refusal.

One Member whilst not supporting refusal of the application, agreed that the proposed wording of the reasons for refusal of the application did reflect the sentiments of the Committee.  Other Members agreed with this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

Neil Armstrong the applicant’s agent had been due to make a statement in support of the application, but he declined to do so.

One Member sought clarification of planning guidance and policy in terms of new development in the open countryside outside of defined settlements.  The Officers responded that such development were not uncommon, particularly when proposals were put forward relating to sites within an existing residential curtilege.  It was explained that in this case the proposed building on the site was not dissimilar to the existing building in terms of scale and size.  Therefore, the proposal was considered reasonable.

It was further explained that the proposal was for an ancillary building which could be controlled to prevent its use as a separate dwelling. The building was not for a two storey building which had been refused at appeal.  That proposal had the character of a separate building whereas this proposal was of a scale which could reasonably be regarded as a scale which would be ancillary to the main house.

One Member commented that he had concerns regarding the footpath near the proposal and notwithstanding the merits of the application in terms of scale and size he considered that the views from the footpath should be safeguarded.  The Officers responded that the plans did not show a footpath and that they would need to look into the matter.  However, it was explained that the footprint of the proposed building was the same as the existing building.  Furthermore, it was noted that the rear wall of the existing building was to be retained and therefore it was possible that the existing views from the footpath would not be different. 

One Member commented that on visiting the site it appeared to him that what appeared to be a scaffolding rental business was carrying on and he requested that this be drawn to the attention of the Enforcement Officer for investigation.  Furthermore, he expressed concern regarding the extent of building materials on site but he presumed these were in connection with this proposal.  The Member went on to express concern regarding the proposal in terms of its intended use.  He referred to an application in Kennington where a garage had been constructed with cavity walls and after a couple of years permission for a dwelling was sought which was refused but subsequently allowed on appeal.  He raised concern regarding a similar situation on this site, commenting that he was uncertain that the building would be used for a chicken house and he noted with concern that cavity walls were proposed.

The Officers advised this was a site in the countryside and the circumstances were probably different to the built up area of Kennington. It was explained that the proposal was much reduced in scale and size and that buildings within a curtilege were allowed.

By 13 vote to 1 it was

RESOLVED

(a)      that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority to approve application SHR/5532/8 subject to: -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 318.

(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 Officer explained the amended design.

One of the local Members commented that he had no objection to the proposal.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/8053/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Councillors Matthew Barber 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 Officers displayed the latest plan advising that the consultation period had not yet expired and therefore should the Committee be minded to approve the application it was asked to delegate authority to the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee subject to the expiry of the consultation period and to the receipt of no new matters.

Further to the report the Officers: -

-                outlined the financial contributions;

-                reported that there would be 40% affordable housing which equated to 13 units;

-                advised of the receipt of massing drawings which were displayed at meeting;

-                explained the amendments to plots 2 - 10, 20 - 25, and 31 - 35 which included reductions in height to plots and amendments to elevations and gables;

-                explained the objections received notably objections to the rear passageway; The Officers commented that the Crime Prevention Officer had advised that he did not consider that the rear passageways would create a security risk and that there was less of a security hazard in this location than if the site was close to the town centre.

-                outlined the changes to plot 30 in respect of the gable wall and repositioning of a bedroom window to a side wall in response the comments of the Consultant Architect; The Officers commented that the window to the dressing area on plot 30 could be made obscure glazing.

-                described the amendments to plot 31 and advised that an additional plot had been included reflecting the Consultant Architect’s comments;

-                described in detailed the heights to ridge of the plots it being noted that concerns had been expressed locally in this regard; and

-                Explained that the tall fir trees were all to be removed which it was noted the Inspector had supported.

Members were advised that concern had been expressed in terms adverse impact on neighbours.  However the Officers asked Members to consider the likely harm having regard to there being no windows overlooking the neighbours which were detached dwellings some distance away. 

The Committee noted that local residents had been concerned about the density of the development and height of the proposed buildings.  However, Members were informed that the applicant had argued that the proposal was a traditional high density development reflecting the local distinct architecture in the Town.  It was specifically commented that there were high houses on the edge of the Town in Church Street and the applicant had argued that the proposal was an improvement on existing development elsewhere in the Town in that the development was open. 

Furthermore, the Officers reported that there was some concern regarding the road type and in particular a shared surface.  This meant that there was shared use of the road way and footway by vehicles and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 320.

The Committee noted that all matters were reserved although information submitted referred to a pair of dwellings on the site.

The Committee noted that there had been 11 letters of objection raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  It was highlighted that the principle concern was the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of on-street car parking in that a new access would be created to the site which would take away an area of the road side resulting in less on street car parking being available. The Committee was advised that the CountyEngineer had looked at this issue in detail and had advised that this matter did not give rise to a reason for refusal.  It was explained that there was no right to park on the highway. 

The Committee noted that based on the information submitted and the illustrative plans the Officers recommended approval of the application.

Lesley Tyler and Mrs Bennett had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting objecting to the application but they declined to do so.

Members supported the application.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/20432 – X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Dr Sivia, the applicant made a statement in support of the application noting that the Parish Council had objected.  He explained that he wished to cover his front door and provide an area for storage of coats and shoes.  Furthermore, the porch would provide a small sitting area where he could enjoy the sunshine.  He commented that in his view the proposal would have no adverse impact, would not affect the environment and would not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

In response to a question raised regarding what was the difference between a porch and extension, the Officer responded that Members needed to consider whether the design was acceptable and also whether there was any harm caused.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/20350/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

To receive and consider report 179/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy). 

The Committee received and considered report 179/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which advised that at the meeting of the Council held on 4 December 2007, Members had considered a revised draft of the Planning Code of Conduct.  Concerns had been expressed about a new provision in the draft Code which would establish the principle that local Members would be invited to observe and take part in pre-application discussions, in cases where a formal officers’ Development Team had been set up to take forward discussions in response to large, proposed developments in the Vale.   It was explained that a decision to set up a Development Team was taken by the Deputy Director in consultation with the Planning Service’s Management Team where it was considered that this would promote and assist the efficient handling of applications for major development proposals prior to their submission.

It was noted that the Council had resolved that the draft Code be referred back to the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group for the new provision to be given further consideration and following its reconsideration by that Group, for the Code to be recommended back to the Council via the this Committee, the Executive and the Standards Committee. 

The report set out the background to the proposed new provision and suggested an alternative wording for the relevant section of the draft Code, to clarify the arrangements governing Member involvement.  A copy of the relevant paragraph of the original draft Code was also appended to the report for comparison purposes.  It was noted that the recommendations set out in the report had been considered and endorsed by the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group.

One Member raised some apprehension regarding Members being involved at pre-application discussions commenting that concerns and issues regarding proposals should be discussed in an open forum.  Furthermore, he expressed concern that Members might be compromised in some way.

The Officers responded that it was for the local Member to choose to attend such discussions. It was explained that the membership of a Development Team included a wide range of officers such as housing, planning and county engineering officers as well as the developer.  The intention was to provide an opportunity for local Members to understand the issues that might arise and that it was not intended that the Development Team meeting would be a forum for discussion or seeking amendment and redesign.  The intention was for the local Members to be kept informed.

One Member noted that Members needed to be asked to be invited and he suggested local Members ought to be involved as a matter of right.  He referred to representing the community and commented that he felt uncomfortable that discretion for attendance rested with the Officers.  He referred to discussions he had been involved in for his Ward commenting that they had been invaluable in assisting him to understand the application and the issues involved.

One Member referred to the benefits of discussion with applicants in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 323.

Recommendation

that a Special Meeting of the Development Control Committee be held on Wednesday 14 May 2008 at 6.30pm at Wantage Civic Hall to consider recommendations from the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group on the Local Development Framework. 

Members were advised that a special meeting of the Development Control Committee would be needed to consider recommendations from the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group on the Local Development Framework.  It had been attended that this meeting would take place on Wednesday 14 May 2008.  However, the time scales for consideration of the Core Strategy had now been amended and therefore a special meeting would not be required until later in the year.

RESOLVED

that the situation be noted.

None.