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 Matthew Barber and Sue Marchant.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 10 and 31 March 2008 (attached).

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Monday 10 March 2008 were adopted and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

Minute DC.300 CUM/80/29-D – the deletion of the following sentence in the 12^th Bullet point of paragraph 17 “Members had not stated at that time a completely new scheme” and the substitution thereof with the words “Members had not anticipated at that time a completely new scheme.”

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.

Councillors declared interests in report 07/08 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 welcomed members of the public to the meeting and reminded everyone to switch off their mobile telephones.

He requested that members of the public listen to the debate in silence and advised of the emergency exit routes.

The Chair advised that application DRA/20481 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

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.

Four members of the public had given notice that they each 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.

None.

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 inquires and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 07/08 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.

CouncillorRoger Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 remained in the room during its consideration.

Officers reported that these applications returned to Committee following a referral from the 21 April meeting to the County Engineer in respect of parking concerns raised by Faringdon Town Council.

Officers stated that the County Engineer had submitted further comments which had been received on the 2 May. Officers advised that no objections had been raised to the application by the CountyEngineer, who had commented that given the town centre location of the development it was unlikely that the substandard parking provision was not a sustainable reason for refusal.

One Member commented that he understood the concerns of Faringdon Town Council but noted that in light of the County Engineer’s comments and the Officer recommendations he would be in favour of approval.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)               that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA/12807/10, subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement for highways contributions and subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(b)               that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA12807/10-11LB subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement for highway contributions.

The Officers advised that the original application had been submitted for 5 stables and that this application was for 4 stables. The Committee was shown photographs of the previous structure which had occupied the site. Officers advised that an objection had been received from the Parish Meeting raising concerns relating to matters already covered by the report.  Officers explained that it was not considered that a precedent would be set for future development in the area. The Officers referred the Committee to the concerns of residents, which were contained within the report. Officers were satisfied that the application related to stables which would be used for personal purposes, not as a commercial concern and highlighted the proposed conditions attached to the recommendation.

Mr Spink spoke on behalf of Woolstone Parish Meeting in objection to the application. He advised that he had been a resident for 32 years. He stated that he was under the impression that this was a site which had never and would never be developed. He commented that the photograph of the structure on the site had been given temporary planning permission for Ostrich sheds and it had taken great effort to get the structures removed when they had ceased to be functional. He highlighted the special location of the site in that it looked up to White Horse Hill. He raised concerns in respect of the lack of parking, lighting issues and the lack of adequate drainage in the village. He commented that the motivation of the occupier was in question, and advised that the application had been made by a person who was not the owner of the land.

Members were advised by the Officers that it was acceptable for a tenant to make an application. Officers stated that the question of ownership was not relevant and that the Committee should only consider the nature of the use of land.

One Member commented that he had been to visit the site and had found that it was well screened. He questioned what would amount to personal use versus a commercial concern.  Officers commented that whether the stables were considered a commercial concern would depend on the scale of the proposal and use. Officers further commented that they had no objection to the proposal. 

One Member commented that an application for stables was acceptable in the Green Belt. He advised that he considered the building to be modest and functional.

One Member questioned how many horses could be placed in a stable. It was confirmed that this application allowed for one stable, one horse.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WLS/20026/1 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.

Councillors John Woodford and Richard Gibson had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 remained in the meeting room.

The Committee noted that the application was for 13 repeater signs, rather than the 11 referred to in the report.

Officers explained that the material considerations of this application were narrowly focussed as it was an application under the Advertisement Regulations and therefore the Committee could only consider the visual impact of the proposed signage on the amenity of the area and the potential harm to highway safety as a result of the signage.

The Committee was shown photographs of mock-up signs which had been attached to sign posts in order to demonstrate their impact. Officers advised that no objections had been raised by the County Engineer on highways grounds.

Officers stated that several letters of objection had been received from worshippers of Trinity Church and St Michael’s Church, who were concerned with how the scheme would operate. Officers advised that this was a matter for Christ’s Hospital, not for the Development Control Committee.

Officers advised that the reason that there would be such a number of signs, repeated frequently was to ensure that the scheme was workable. It was commented that it was necessary for motorists to be aware that the scheme was in operation in order to facilitate the prosecution of offenders.

Officers commented that Abingdon Town Council had raised no objections, subject to the approval of the District Council’s Conservation Officer. It was confirmed that the Conservation Officer had raised no concerns.

Mr Robin Smith made a statement, objecting to the application. He argued that by its very nature the signs would have visual impact in order to make them noticeable enough to ensure prosecutions were successful. He commented that at no point would someone be out of sight of a sign. He considered that the yellow clamp in the centre of the sign was unattractive and not in keeping with the Conservation Area. He stated that the signs would be distracting to motorists and therefore would have an impact on highway safety. He commented that the crossroads of Victoria Road and Park Road was very busy and narrow and drivers would be distracted by additional signs informing them of the parking scheme. He advised that this must be the case because it was the intention of the signs to attract the attention of drivers informing them of the scheme.

Mr Geoffrey Morris made a statement in support of the application. He advised that he was a Master of Christ’s Hospital. He stated that the road and park were the property of the charity and had not been made to modern specifications. He commented that parked cars were affecting highway safety and this scheme aimed to resolve this issue. Furthermore he stated that the charity could not afford to keep up with the maintenance of the grass verges which were being damaged by vehicles. He commented that the Charity had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Officer’s reminded Members that this item returned to Committee in order that the reasons for refusal be formally endorsed

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/20447 be refused for the reason set out in the report.

Officers presented the report to the Committee and advised that Abingdon Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of the impact that the development would have in respect of loss of parking spaces. Officers advised that it was not considered that the development would have a harmful impact on the street scene or on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Officers commented that they were satisfied with the provision for parking outlined in the plans and therefore the recommendation was for approval of the application.

Mr Robin Mann made a statement objecting to the application. He advised that the development would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in that it would be over dominant and he raised concern in respect of the applicant’s failure to include details of the height the development would be and any measurements. He advised that the applicant had failed to include any precise measurements. He raised concerns over the issue of parking space and commented that the applicant currently has a caravan parked on the driveway permanently which he believed the applicant used for storage. He commented that the applicant would lose more storage with the demolition of the garage and that the purpose of the car parking spaces were to park cars, not provide storage.

One Member commented that the position of the caravan should not be considered. He advised that he had noted a gravelled area in front of the house, which could be used as an extra parking space. Another Member commented that two spaces should be available for parking at all times. He added that he was concerned that there were no dimensions in the plans to demonstrate how far the wall was from the boundary line.

Officers confirmed that this was a three bedroom property and as such it was standard that two parking spaces be allocated. Officers commented that should the householder choose to use one of these spaces for a caravan this could not be controlled by the Council. It was further reported that the development would effectively be on the boundary with the neighbouring property.

One Member commented that looking at the photographs it was difficult to imagine that there was adequate room for a car to be parked. Officers advised that the space was 2.5 metres, which was acceptable for car parking.

One Member complained about the quality of the drawings which had been submitted.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20476 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

This item was not considered at the meeting as it had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Officers advised the Committee that this application was retrospective seeking permission for the conversion of the garage into living accommodation. The Committee noted that Abingdon Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient off road parking. Officers confirmed that there had been no objections from the County Engineer and there was adequate off street parking provision for two vehicles within the curtilage of the property and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

One Member commented that the Town Council was mistaken to object on these grounds in light of the comments of the County Engineer.  One Member wondered whether in these circumstances the Town Council could have been invited to withdraw it objections. Officers confirmed that efforts had been made but it was difficult to get Town Councils to withdraw objections.

RESOLVED (nem com)

that application ABG/20508 be approved.

To receive and consider report number 08/08.

The Committee received and considered report 08/08 of the Strategic Director and the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy)           which sought approval to take enforcement action in respect of land adjacent to 7 Nash Road, Abingdon. The Committee noted Planning Permission ABG/265/1 granted in 1974 required the land at 7 Nash Drive to be kept as open amenity “play space”.

The Committee was shown photographs of the fence which had been erected around the land adjacent to 7 Nash Road, Abingdon.

RESOLVED (nem com)

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 take enforcement action against Mr G McIntyre of 7 Nash Drive, Abingdon to remove the unauthorised fence and gates and cease the unauthorised use of the land as residential curtilage if he considers it expedient to do so.

None.