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 Mary de Vere.

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 interests in report 84/08 – 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 introduced himself and welcomed everyone present to the meeting, explaining that the meeting was not being held in Abingdon as was usually the case due to the Fair.

For the benefit of members of the public the Chair pointed out the Officers who were present to give advice and to minute the proceedings and he explained that only elected Members of the Committee could vote on the items on the agenda. He commented that local Members could address the Committee but could not vote on any applications unless they were a Member of the Committee.

In the unlikely event of having to leave the meeting room, the Chair pointed out the emergency exits.

The Chair asked everyone present to ensure that their mobile telephones were switched off during the meeting.  He also asked everyone to listen to the debate in silence and allow anyone speaking to make their comments without interruption.  Furthermore, he asked that members of the public refrained from approaching Officers and Members sitting around the table.

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 11 members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak at the meeting although 4 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.

The Committee received and considered materials as follows: -

WAN/2186/14 - St Mary’s, Wantage

RESOLVED

(a)               that the use of the following materials be approved: Freshfield Lane selected dark facings (to be used as contrasting headers in the Flemish Bond brickwork)

Allowed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mr Rogers and Mr Butterton against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a three bedroom chalet house with garage at land to the rear of Lakeside, All Saints Lane, Sutton Courtney, Abingdon OX14 9AG (SUT/5168/10)

(ii)               Appeal by Mr S Horsey against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the development of stables and associated feed barn at Priory Park, Fernham, SN7 7PP (FER/19260/1)

(iii)             Appeal by Mr Groves against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of an extension and brick boundary wall at 59 Kennet Road, Radley Green, OX14 3SU (ABG/20285)

(iv)              Appeal by Mr and Mrs Goodman against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to the first floor to form bedroom and bathroom accommodation at The Barn House, Garford, OX13 5PF (GAR/7203/11)

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mr and Mrs Goodman against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to form a dwelling at 26 Ashmole Drive, Abingdon OX14 5LH (ABG/5276/2)

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item detailing four appeals which had been allowed and one which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

One Member suggested that it would be useful for the Committee to be advised at a future meeting on what could be learnt from the appeal decisions both those dismissed and allowed and how this might help guide Members in determining applications in the future.  He suggested that training in this area would be beneficial and the Officers undertook to consider the suggestion.

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 details of forthcoming inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 84/08 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.

The Officers reminded Members of the drainage issues in this particular locality reporting that to attempt to overcome this problem, the applicant had been in correspondence with Thames Water, which had agreed in principle that the same level of foul sewage could be discharged from the site to the public sewer as was discharged in respect on the previous timber yard use, which had been calculated to equate to 31 dwellings.

The applicant has suggested that condition 12 be amended as set out in paragraph 1.5 of the report.  However, for the reasons given in the report, Officers did not consider this would be acceptable and had therefore suggested the wording at paragraph 5.6 of the report.

It was reported that the plan attached to the report was an amended plan to that which had been originally submitted.  However, it had been received too late for the text of the report to be amended to reflect this.  It was explained that the plan highlighted a different allocation of the 31 units.  The differences between the 2 plans was explained it being noted that the original scheme had proposed 31 units across the front of the site and had included 5 affordable units.  The revised plan now provided for 22 affordable units and notwithstanding the comments made at paragraph 5.15 of the report, therefore addressed concerns expressed on the requirement of affordable units being provided at a greater level within the allocated 31 dwellings.

Further to the report, it was commented that the Parish Council had raised a further objection on the basis that this plan had not been subject to consultation.  The Parish Council had commented that the plan was an amendment to the planning application and that it should have been notified and given time for consultation. The Parish Council understood that there was to be little/no landscaping associated with the development of 31 dwellings and as there was nothing in the report regarding landscaping, it had concluded that the dwellings would be in an area resembling a flattened bomb site.  The Parish Council was not content that it had been given no time to consider the implications of the 31 dwellings being built in the proposed area along the NE boundary whereas it had been aware of the proposed position of the 31 dwellings in the plan included in the Glanville report for CUM/80/35 (Option D).  It was reported that the Parish Council wished the Committee to be made aware that Cumnor Parish Council considered the inclusion of Appendix 1 as an amendment to CUM/80/32 and that it should have been notified and given time for consultation.

However, the Officers reported that they did not believe that the change in the specified units was so material as to warrant further consultation.  It was explained that the plan had been submitted by the applicant in an attempt to address concerns raised over the affordable housing provision, even though there was no requirement under the existing permission for them to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Further to the report the Officers reported the receipt of an additional letter from the neighbour reiterating the concerns previously raised.

One Member expressed concern regarding the wooden decking in a smoking area presenting a fire hazard and he questioned whether a maintenance schedule should be required.  The Officers responded that such matters which came under Environmental Health legislation could not be reasonably controlled by conditions on a planning permission.

One Member noted that there would be a loss of car parking spaces but it was commented that this was marginal.

Another member whilst supporting the proposal commented that the decking should be an appropriate colour such as green to be in keeping with the property.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/1167/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Yvonne Constance had declared a personal interest in these applications.

Further to the report, Officers reported that an additional 9 letters had been received from local residents all but one of which had responded previously to the planning application. An additional letter had also been submitted by DPDS Consulting Group on behalf of a local resident.   It was explained that whilst 6 of the letters received made reference to the Conservation Area Consent application only, the comments received in all of the new letters concern matters to be considered as part of the planning application and not the merits of the loss of the garage.  It was reported that the majority of comments received reiterated previous concerns as summarised in the report. However Officers explained the new comments as follows: -

·                    The water table was extremely high for much of the year because the land lay immediately below White Horse Hill and therefore drained a huge area;

·                    The kitchen of the White Horse Public House which was downstream had flooded four times this year already;

·                    As there was no mains drainage there could not be an acceptable drainage solution;

·                    Beechtree Cottage had been flooded in July last year and again earlier this year. Due to the slope of the plot and its position in the village relative to the Ridgeway this resulted in Beechtree Cottage being severely impacted by run-off. Another property on this plot would exacerbate the problem;

·                    The Council needed to take into consideration the Council’s Flood Management Policy and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. A number of comments had been made relating to the requirements of these documents;

·                    The statutory test  as stated within the Planning – ListedBuilding and Conservation Area Act 1990 meant that considerable weight should be given against proposals that harmed the setting of listed buildings.  The test was also whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area;

·                    There was uncertainty whether the Conservation Area application and the planning application having been submitted on separate forms satisfied the 2008 Order and regulations,  (having sought advice Officers were of the opinion that the applications did comply with these regulations);

·                    Comments had also been raised regarding the contents of the Design and Access Statement, (in this regard Officers were of the opinion that sufficient information had been submitted in order to allow the merits of the proposal to be properly assessed).

The Officers reported that additional comments had also been received from the Parish Council raising objection to the Conservation Area Consent application stating that its comments had already been outlined in the previous correspondence and by several members of the village.

Officers reported that in light of the additional comments which had been received from neighbouring residents relating to flooding, drainage and surface run-off these new comments had been passed to the Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer for further consideration. Further to his previous comments as set out in the report, in respect to objections raised on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Further to the report the Officers advised that revised comments had been received from the County Engineer following clarification from the applicant on the need for a financial contribution towards the Abingdon Integrated Transport Study (ABITS). The Officer read from the County Engineer’s response which stated that looking at the number of daily trips in and out of the site (or parked in front in the case of the previous HGV visits), there used to be approximately 26 trips (assuming 2 trips for each HGV visit – one to the site and one leaving the site having been parked out in front). The proposed number of daily trips for the 8 flats would be 16 to 32 trips. Whilst this might have represented an intensified use of the site entrance from previously, the County Engineer acknowledged (1) the replacement of LGV/HGV trips with private car trips to and from the site and (2) the removal of staff cars parked in the vicinity both of which offered an improvement to the traffic in the area.  The CountyEngineer had therefore confirmed that she had revised her previous comments and would not be seeking contributions towards ABiTS.

The Officers reported that having regard to these additional comments the Committee was now recommended to approve the applications subject to conditions.

Furthermore, the Committee’s attention was drawn to an objector’s comments in paragraph 4.12 of the report in that the objector had been unable to attend the meeting to address Members personally and had specifically requested that the comments be highlighted.

Finally the Officers noted that the Town Council had objected on the grounds of access and highway safety.  However, it was considered that the proposed parking and access arrangements were acceptable for the reasons given in the report and the County Engineer had raised no objections to the proposal.  However, Officers wished to add to condition 7 a requirement that the vehicle turntable should be maintained and retained in good mechanical working order at all times and be free from obstruction to such use.

The application is recommended to the committee for approval subject to the conditions in the report with those changes outlined.

Some Members spoke in support of the application but expressed concern regarding the ability to enforce the use of the turntable. It was explained that this was not a matter which could be enforced but given the length of the access drive, it was expected that residents would use it as the only possible way of entering and leaving the site. 

One Member drew attention to the comments of the Consultant Architect and expressed his support for the proposal.  Other Members agreed commenting that the design was exciting and would be suitable for this location.  In terms on access it was noted that the access had previously been used by transit vans and therefore large cars should be able to access the site.  It was reported that the access was 2.8 metres.

By 14 votes to nil with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Further to the report the Officers explained that there would be the addition of two dormers also which were not referred to in the report.

The Committee was advised of a further letter from the applicant’s agent.  The agent had responded to the comments of the Parish Council and had stated the existing property was a conversion and that there had been other extensions. 

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CHD/10168/13 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Terry Cox had declared a personal interest in this item.

It was noted that the stables which were on skids did not require planning permission.  It was commented that the test was the permanency of the structure.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CHD/13082/11 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Terry Cox had declared a personal interest in this item.

Further to the report, the Officers suggested that an informative be added to any permission regarding the need for single storey dwelling of modest height.

In response to a concern raised regarding the size of the dwelling for the scale of the business on site, it was explained that if the nature of the business changed to such an extent that there was no longer a business, the applicant would have to prove that was the case.   It was emphasised that an independent consultant had agreed that there was sufficient need to justify a dwelling and that the detailed application would address the size.

It was clarified that the removal of the mobile home would be included in the Section 106 obligation

One Member, whilst supporting the informative, commented that this was a clever way to obtain a dwelling in the open countryside. In response, the Officers referred members to the report, which explained the matter in detail.  It was explained that evidence would be needed before any tie would be relaxed.  Furthermore, the applicant could not seek to relax a Section 106 within 5 years.  The Legal Officer pointed out that there was a wide ambit of equestrian uses and not just the applicant’s type of business.

The member reiterated that he was concerned that the applicant would wind up the business and then sell the house.  The Officers responded that if the business failed the applicant would have to try to sell at a reasonable price and sell to other people with similar businesses.

By 8 votes to 7 it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority to approve application CHD/13082/13 – X in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee subject to: -

(1)       the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to tie the equestrian dwelling to the business on the site and the holding within the applicant’s ownership, and to ensure that the dwelling is occupied by a person employed in the business on the site;

(2)       the conditions set out in the report; and

(3)       an informative regarding the need for single storey dwelling of modest height on this site.

Councillors Bob Johnston and Anthony Hayward had each declared a personal interest in this application.

Mike Rothery was due to make a statement on behalf of the Parish Council but he declined to do so.

Adrian James the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that he endorsed the Officer’s comments as set out in the report. He explained that the proposal was very modest and that the building was of no great merit, it being noted that there were a variety of styles in the area.

Michael Marshall, the applicant’s agent had given notice that he also wished to speak but he declined to do so.

One of the local Members expressed support for the proposal noting that the area was well screened.

One Member commented that the parish Council had been concerned that the proposal was too contemporary and he agreed stating that the design would be out of keeping.

Other Members supported that application agreeing with the views of the Consultant Architects.

By 13 votes to nil with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application SUN/14567/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Officers advised that the drawings were not accurate and therefore authority was sought to delegate approval to the Officers subject to the receipt of accurate drawings.

Some Members objected to the proposal in terms of design and harmful impact on the street scene. However, other Members supported the proposal.

In response to a concern raised the Officers confirmed that the minimum standard for the set back of gates from the highway was 5 metres.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority to approve application CUM/19155/4 subject to the receipt of accurate drawings. 

On being put, this was lost by 6 votes to 9.

By 9 votes to 6 it was then

RESOLVED

that Application CUM/19155/4 be refused with reasons for refusal to come back to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee.

Councillor Richard Farrell voted against refusal of the application and in accordance with Standing Order 29(4) asked that this be so recorded in the Minutes.

Further to the report the Officers advised of the County Engineer’s comments which were read out at the meeting stating that whilst the proposed access did not meet 'standards' in this case, the benefit from ensuring vehicles parked off-street would in his opinion warrant a departure. Not only did the proposal provide opportunity to reduce the risk of the 'dumping' of vehicles in the vicinity of the adjacent junction, it also provided opportunity for an adjacent cottage to park so that the highway could be accessed in a forward gear, something that at present was probably carried out with little, if any, vision from the existing vehicular access.  Furthermore, in the County Engineer’s opinion, the geometry of the adjacent highway, by way of alignment and width, could only constrain vehicle speeds approaching the proposed new access, hence the reduced vision splay to the right hand side at egress was acceptable.

The Committee noted that the application could therefore not be refused on the basis of highway concerns.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application EHE/19314/2 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Officers highlighted that concern had been expressed regarding traffic, traffic congestion and on street parking. However, the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal. In addition it was highlighted that this site was outside the flood plain.  Officers had consulted the Environment Agency on the application, which had responded stating that there was a low environmental risk and that it was not prepared to comment any further.  Finally, it was commented that the Officers considered the proposal acceptable for the reasons explained in the report.

Helen Wigginton made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the proposed development had been rejected by Abingdon Town Council; she represented 26 householders in the surrounding area; the Committee should take into account the strength of local feeling against the application; a petition signed by 16 residents against the proposal was handed in; there was the risk of flooding to new and existing houses; it was likely to flood again; the buildings would increase the chance of flooding; the area for absorption of rainwater could be reduced by 44%; the proposal was within metres of the flood zone; she questions the suitability of building on this site; how drainage and sewage water would be dealt with had not been detailed; the sewer and storm drainage needed modernising; there would be an increase in traffic; she had concern for pedestrian safety particularly school children; the access and traffic would be dangerous; there would be on street parking; Members should visit the site prior to determining the application; the noise from traffic would be considerable; there would be an adverse impact on wildlife; there had already been a loss of trees; it was agreed that there was a need for more affordable housing but not on this site; there was a need to maintain the character and integrity of the area; the proposal amounted to over development of the site; and the proposal was set a precedent for similar development elsewhere.

Wendy Harrison had given notice that she wished to speak objecting to the application but she declined to do so.

Victoria Butterworth the applicant’s agent had given notice that she wished to speak but she declined to do so.

One of the local Members spoke against the application raising concerns regarding the potential flood risk and concern that three additional dwellings would increase the risk of flooding due to increases surface water run off. It was noted that although the site was outside the flood zone it was located near the area most affected by flooding. He expressed surprise at the Environment Agency’s comments and suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable further clarification to be sought.

Another local Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding highway safety and increased traffic. She stated that she had concerns regarding pedestrian safety in particular and noted that this was a busy area in terms of parked vehicles, traffic and traffic congestion.  She referred to the number of school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Councillors Bob Johnston and Jerry Patterson had each declared a personal interest in this application.

Mr Pope, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal accorded with planning policies and that there was a requirement for small dwellings in mixed communities. He explained that there were no objections from neighbours or the County Engineer it being highlighted that the car parking on the site was acceptable.  He noted that the Parish Council was concerned regarding family dwellings being split but commented that the Government found this acceptable. 

Members supported the proposal

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/20638 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.