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), were recorded as referred to above with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Terry Cox and Richard Gibson.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 23 June and 14 July 2008 (attached).

The minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 23 June and 14 July 2008 were adopted and signed as correct records subject to the following amendments: -

Development Control 14 July 2008

(1)        Minute DC.37 – Minutes

The deletion of the paragraph and the Substitution thereof with the following: -

“The minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 12 May and 2 June 2008 were adopted and signed as correct records.”

(2)        Minute DC.38 – Declarations of Interest

The deletion of the second declaration of interest made by Councillor Jerry Patterson and the substitution thereof with the following: -

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 60/08 – Planning Applications and report 61/08 – Enforcement report 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 everyone present to the meeting and explained where the emergency exits were in the unlikely event of having to leave the meeting room.

The Chair asked everyone present to ensure that their mobile telephones were switched off during the meeting.  He asked everyone to listen to the debate in silence and allow anyone speaking to make their comments without interuption.

Finally, the Chair announced that agenda item 13 – WLS/5900/5 and WLS/5900/6-LB 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.

It was noted that six members of the public had given notice that they wished to make a statement under this Standing Order.

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 developments and agreed materials as set out: -

(1)       WAN/2186/14 - St Mary’s School, Wantage

One of the local Members commented that care should be taken with regard to the materials on this site.  She commented that Terca Baggeridge Maplehurst Light Multi Stock bricks and artificial blue slate would not be appropriate and the latter recommendation was supported by the Committee. 

The Officers undertook to seek details of the proposed brick detailing, including the use of Flemish Bond with Blue/Black Brick Headers for Phase 1 to be reported to the next meeting, together with a roofing plan showing the proposed roofing materials for the whole site.

RESOLVED

(a)       that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Walling

Ibstock Lambourn Orange Multi Stock

Winchester Multi Stock

TercaBaggeridge Maplehurst Light Multi Stock
Acme Natural Orange (Tile Hanging)

Rendered paneling

TercaBaggeridge Blended Orange Gilt Stock.

Roofing

Acme Natural Orange Clay Tile
Acme Smooth Brindle (agreed by 10 votes to 5)

Barco Standard Natural Blue Slate

Redland Plain Concrete Terracota

(b)       that the use of the Eternit and Artificial Blue Slate and the Redland Plain Concrete Farmhouse Red be not approved.

(2)       SUT/19470/4-D - Ameys Works Site, Sutton Courtney

RESOLVED

(a)       that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Hanson Madehurst Red Multi Stock Bricks

Hanson Salisbury Multi Stock Bricks

Marley Acme Farmhouse Brown Clay Tiles

Trulock Natural Slate

(b)       that the use of the additional tile submitted (Marley Acme Vintage Brown) be not approved and therefore it be agreed that the Farmhouse Brown be used on its own.

(3)       CHI/19897 - New ComputerBuilding – Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

External Walls

Staffordshire Blue Brindle Smooth Bricks - Plinth

White Monocouche render

Kingspan KS1000 FL composite wall panels (Colour HPS200 Sirius)

KingspanThermatile ceramic rainscreen cladding (Colour Flame)

Roof

Rigidal Micro-Matt Stucco Embossed metal standing seam roof

Polyester powder coated aluminium fascias, soffits and rainwater down pipes (Colour RAL 7011)

Windows and Curtain Walling

Polyester powder coated aluminium double glazed windows and doors (Colour RAL 7011)

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mr R Illes against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the siting of a mobile home as a Granny Annex at The Crest, Sower Hill, Uffington, Oxon SN7 7QH (UFF/4131/2);

(ii)               Appeal by Mr and Mrs Munday against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the development of a conservatory at 169 Whitecross, Abingdon OX14 6BP (ABG/15277/1).

(iii)             Appeal by Mr and Mrs Helby against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the development of a bungalow at Walnut Tree Cottage, Appleford (APF/7149/2)

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of three appeals which had been dismissed by 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.

One Member referred to the challenge of the Inspector’s appeal in respect of the enforcement appeal against the building operations and erection of a new building on land east of Coxwell Road, Faringdon.  He was concerned at the lack of progress with this case.  In response to the concern raised the Officers undertook to pursue a response from the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 60/08 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 was advised that the applicant had provided correspondence between the former owner and Bloor homes regarding the upgrading and connection to the drainage system.  It was noted that a condition was recommended to require details of the proposed drainage to be approved.

The Committee had regard to a model of the proposal which was available at the meeting and noted that a condition was proposed to require a Juliet type balcony in place of a projecting balcony on Plot 1.

One Member reported that he disagreed with the comments of the Parish Council in that he considered that the plans were good and easy to read.

In response to a comment made the Officers clarified the position regarding enforcement action on an adjacent site, explaining that the enforcement action related to materials stored on the site which had now been removed and to the bridge which had been there for more than 10 years and therefore was immune from enforcement action.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/445/31 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

The Officers reported that since writing the report, two further letters of objection had been received from neighbours which raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  In addition it was commented that Members had also received a statement in support of the proposal sent to them separately by the applicant’s  agent.

Eric Batts speaking on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application.  Whilst welcoming a dentist surgery in the parish, the Parish Council had concerns regarding the use of a private house in a residential area for business purposes in terms of impact on character of the area; the size of the proposal which was considered over large for the site; the adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours; car parking; the comments of the County Highways Authority regarding car parking being within 200 metres of the site in that this was limited to 3 hours stay; on road parking and the likelihood that customers of the surgery would park in the nearby lay-by and on roads nearby for long periods; traffic movements and overdevelopment.

Mr H Venners, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application referring to the letter sent to Members of the Committee. He commented that less than 10% of the surgery’s existing customers visited by car and staff would use the park and ride; customers would not require 3 hours parking and customers who traveled by car would be encouraged to park at West Way; there would be no adverse impact on neighbours or the character of the area; there was an adequate separation distance of between 8 and 10 metres to the neighbouring property; this area was not a quiet residential area; a dentist surgery was a quiet business use and would not be out of keeping; there was a need for a dentist in this area and there was local support for a local surgery.

One of the local Members expressed concern regarding the lack of parking commenting that just because car parks were nearby it could not be assumed that they were easily and readily available.  He noted that only 10% of existing customers drove to the surgery now, but he was of the view that this was because the existing surgery was in the centre of Oxford.  He considered that customers would travel by car and would park around the area and not necessarily in the car parks.  He commented that this was a residential area, quiet or not, and that in his view the proposal was unacceptable and unneighbourly

One Member commented that dental surgeries were normal in residential areas and he referred to a number across the District.  He noted the comments of the County Highways Authority and stated that there were no grounds to refuse the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

As referred to elsewhere in these minutes, this item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Councillor Pat Lonergan had declared a personal interest in this item.

The Committee noted that amended plans had been received reducing the depth of the front extension.  It was reported that Abingdon Town Council had now withdrawn its objection to the proposal.

One Member commented that the pair of semis would look odd but this was not considered so harmful as to warrant refusal.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/9747/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee noted that the access was proposed to be altered as shown on an amended plan.  It was explained that the trees to the front of the site were to be retained and that only one tree and some shrubs would be lost.  It was reported that the Council’s arboricultural officer had considered the tree and had determined that it was not worthy of protection and therefore he had no objection to its removal but had recommended more planting.

Further to the report, it was noted that the applicant’s had submitted a letter expressing thanks for the opportunity to address the Committee but explaining that they had considered the comments of the Parish Council and had amended the proposal in the light of those.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that the Conservation officer had not submitted any comments on the application. Furthermore, it was explained that the side extension would be fully glazed up to the ridge height but that this was a single storey elevation and it faced the car parking area and garage of the neighbouring property.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application LRE/10340/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

It was reported that amended plans had been received to show the wall located adjacent to the site.

The Committee was asked to consider adding an additional condition to address slab levels.

Mr G Jones made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically commented that whilst he welcomed the amended plans showing the wall he had concerns regarding traffic; vehicle maneuverability in that his garage had already been damaged by a small delivery van and the proposal would make vehicle manoeuvring more difficult; the proposal being cramped and un-neighbourly; access for emergency and service vehicles being difficult; the 1.8 metre high fence being unwelcome; fenestration; the adverse living amenity for the residents of No.6 and potential water and sewage drainage and disposal problems.

One of the local Members spoke in support of the application disagreeing with comments regarding emergency and service vehicles.  He noted that the proposal was modest.  Another local Member expressed some concern regarding traffic movement and parking but considered that these were not sufficiently problematic to warrant refusal of the application.

One Member referred to the comment made regarding an extra condition to address slab levels and suggested that the condition should require that “ there should be no construction above slab level until Officers have agreed that it has been built as agreed”.

One Member referred to the slope of the garden referring to the 1.8metre fence.  The Officers advised that in their view this was acceptable as the owners of the application site were also the owners No.6.  It was explained that any future occupant of the dwelling would be aware of the situation between the two properties and would see the relationship between the two dwellings.  Furthermore, it was noted that the fencing would be most effective in screening the main amenity area closest to the dwelling but that in going further down the garden there would be more overlooking.

By 13 votes to nil with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/20309/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to require that there should be no construction above slab level until Officers have agreed that the slab has been built at the level agreed.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the request for compliance with conditions for application SAH/20358/1 be approved.

Councillor Val Shaw had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she left the meeting immediately after having made a statement. She was not present during consideration of this application.

The Committee noted that one further letter in support of the scheme had been received.

Mr David Mostyn representing some of the neighbours made a statement objecting to the application.  He raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and particularly commented that this was a site on one of the prominent corners of the cross roads in the middle of Boars Hill; there was a Grade II listed building within 100 metres of this site; a fence near to this property had had to be removed and replaced with a stone wall as the fence had been considered harmful to the setting of the listed building; if this was the case for a small fence then the proposal would similarly adversely affect the setting of the listed building and should be refused; this was an exposed and sensitive position; the proposal disregarded Local Plan policy DC1 in terms of requiring high quality, inclusive design, scale, height, mass, materials and an appropriate relationship with adjoining buildings and also contrary to policy DC9 in terms of loss of light, dominance and visual intrusion.  He commented that the proposal was not visually comparable to any other property in the area; the design was out of keeping; and there was an issue with proximity to a party wall and the vulnerability of the neighbouring wall.

Mr Bevan, the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that he had purchased the property in October 2007 and that he had taken some time to consider its improvement.  He explained that the property would be slightly lower than the existing house; the size would not be increased; the unattractive dormer element was to be removed; timber cladding was being considered but he would welcome suggestions on appropriate materials; there was a huge variety of styles of houses on Boars Hill and therefore the design would not be out of keeping;  the terrace on the garage had been moved back; the garage would be piled and he was unaware of a dispute concerning the party wall; the distances to neighbouring properties were the same as at present and he could not see that Yew Cottage would be adversely affected.

Councillor Val Shaw made a statement commenting that the prospect of re-modelling this property was welcomed as it was currently unattractive and had been neglected.  However, she considered that the design did not reflect the roof line of the house opposite; the design was very modern which did not reflect any other property locally; the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy G3 in terms of siting, design and scale which she reported were contentious.  She noted that the overall height had not been increased but explained that the height was now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Councillor Anthony Hayward had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Members supported the application.

By 14 votes to nil (with 1 of the voting Members not being present) it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/20580 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the applicant had responded to the concerns of the Parish Council giving examples of many properties in the locality with gables and as such the proposal would not be out of keeping.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/20571-LB be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

To receive and consider report 61/08 of the Deputy Director.

Councillor Val Shaw had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in part of this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee received and considered report 61/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought approval to take enforcement action in three new cases.  Members considered each case.

In respect of the need to reduce the height of the unauthorised walling adjacent to a recently created access in Orchard Lane, Boars Hill, the Officers explained that the owner did not have planning permission and there were concerns regarding the height of the wall in terms of highway safety.

In respect of the removal of unauthorised engineering works, including motorcycle track, jumps and banked corners, and to restrict the use of the land for ‘motor sports’ to no more than 14 days per year at Bradfield Farm, Grove the Committee noted that Councillor Terry Cox had expressed support for the proposed enforcement action particularly having regard to the extent of the unauthorised activity on the site and noise nuisance being caused, which it was noted would be dealt with under Environmental Health legislation.  It was noted that Councillor Cox had asked to be included in the delegation as Opposition Spokesman and this was supported.

RESOLVED

(a)       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 Olive & Ms O’Donovan at Collyers House, Orchard Lane, Boars Hill, to reduce the height of unauthorised walling adjacent to a recently created access, if he considers it expedient to do so (agreed by 14 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members having left the meeting during consideration of this case;

(b)       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 & Mrs Day & Partners at Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre, Chinham House, Stanford in the Vale, to secure the removal of an unauthorised agricultural shelter and the cessation of the parking and storage of vehicles on agricultural land, if he considers it expedient to do so (agreed by 15 votes to nil); and

(c)        that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee to take enforcement action against Mr Alan Cottrell, land adjoining, and to the north of, sewage works at Bradfield Farm, Grove, to remove unauthorised engineering works, including motorcycle track, jumps and banked corners, and to restrict the use of the land for ‘motor sports’ to no more than 14 days per year (as permitted by Class B, Part 4, schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995),  if he considers it expedient to do so (agreed by 15 votes to nil).

None.