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 Standing Order 17(1) was recorded as referred to above with apologies having been received from Councillors Tony de Vere, Sue Marchant and Terry Quinlan.

Apologies for absence were also recorded for the reconvened part of the meeting from Councillors Roger Cox, Richard Gibson, Anthony Hayward, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner and Chris Wise

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 188/07 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.

For the benefit of members of the public the Chair explained that it had been necessary to adjourn the meeting of the Committee and reconvene this evening in view of the lateness of the hour and the unreasonableness to continue the meeting on Monday evening.

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.

Eight members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak at the meeting.  However, one member of the public declined to do so.

The Committee received and considered the remainder of report 190/07 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.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item but was not present during consideration of the application.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the County Highways Authority had estimated that it could be 24 months before a pedestrian crossing was provided.  It was clarified that the applicant had already made the financial contribution towards the crossing.

One Member whilst raising no objection to the application expressed strong concerns regarding the delay by the County Council in providing a pedestrian crossing.  He considered that a two year wait was unacceptable and he suggested that the Officers should write to the County Council expressing this Committee’s concerns, in particular the unsatisfactory situation which would result whereby this development would occupied without the safety issues being properly addressed.  It was commented that refusal of this application would be unreasonable and that the applicant should not be penalised due to the lack of progress in providing a crossing by the County Council.

By 8 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/10044/3 be approved.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this item.  However, he was not present during consideration of this item.

One of the local Members commented that parking was a problem and that there was no evidence that this concern had been addressed.  He explained that there was a limited public transport network; there was a known parking problem in Faringdon generally and the County Engineer had reservations. As such he considered that the application should be refused.

Other Members agreed with the comments of the local Member and considered that further advice should be sought.  However, one Member disagreed noting that concerns regarding parking associated with other development in Faringdon had been unfounded.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber, seconded by Councillor Angela Lawrence and by 7 votes to 1 with 1 of the voting Members having already left the meeting,

RESOLVED

that consideration of applications GFA/12807/10 and GFA/12807/11- LB be deferred to enable clarification to be sought from the CountyEngineer on his comments in respect of this application.

The Committee was advised that the Town Council had objected to the amended plans also.

It was noted that the Drainage Engineer was now content having regard to the additional information received as referred to in the report.

The Committee noted the concerns of the objector which were outlined. It was highlighted that the density which had been raised as a concern was in accordance with planning policy and was therefore acceptable.

The Committee noted that comments had been received from Councillor Joyce Hutchinson, one of the local Members which were read out at the meeting.  She had raised concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site; the access; increased traffic; pedestrian safety; loss of garden area and harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Mrs M Buzzard, speaking on behalf of residents made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly raised concerns regarding the number of houses; heights of buildings; layout; adverse impact of the proposal; dominance; the height of the dwelling on plot 7; proximity; overlooking from windows; loss of privacy; distances being less 9 metres; the height of the car ports; the span across the window; the car ports being the same height as bungalows; overshadowing; overlooking of other properties; pollution in terms of noise and smell from traffic; heavy traffic; narrow roads; exits and egresses; density; the access road being narrow; the site being cramped; the heavy soil; loss of trees and soil; parking; the need for screening and adverse impact on wildlife.

Mr Stevenson, speaking for the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that the land was surplus to requirements and that there was a desire to get the best value and ensure the maintenance of this land.  It was explained that the applicant had liaised with the Council Officers and the County Engineer to produce an acceptable scheme.  He explained that the previous scheme for 7 houses had been withdrawn and that a number of changes had been made.  The car ports height had been reduced and car ports had been set back with roofs sloping away; the proposal would not be overbearing or harm the amenity of the area.  There would be no overshadowing given the roof slope away from the gardens and that the car port would provide a buffer to the parking area and bungalows. A garage was to be removed and there were other changes to other plots.  The highway concerns had now been addressed and the proposal would provide 5 new houses on a brown field site which accorded with local plan policies and guidance.

The other local Member who was present at the meeting agreed with the comments made by Councillor Joyce Hutchinson commenting that the houses at the entrance to the site appeared cramped and there were concerns regarding the car port.  She considered that there would be an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring bungalows and she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 359.

Councillor Chris Wise had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

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

Mr Peter Thrippleton speaking on behalf of other families made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding approval setting a precedent for similar development which cumulatively would have a harmful impact in terms of overdevelopment and adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; increased traffic; safety of children; noise in this quiet cul-de-sac; parking; the proposed parking condition and the inability to see how this could be met; loss of privacy; over looking; loss of gardens; traffic; traffic safety; sewage and drainage; the inability to sell houses and access and egress to the site

Mr Mark Olive, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the material could be matching; the proposal would not affect the character and appearance of the area; there were similar extension; there had been pre-application discussions so issues of overlooking and overshadowing had already been addressed; parking had also now been addressed; permeable materials could be used; £1,000 had been paid toward local transport services and the proposal would not amount to over development.

Members spoke in support of the application considering that there were no grounds to refuse the application.

One Member commented that should the Committee be minded to approve the application another condition should be added to require permeable surfaces.

By 7 votes to nil with 2 of the voting members having left the meeting it was

RESOLVED

that application WTT/20222/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report, the Officers explained that an amended plan had been received showing a new siting of the mobile home.

It was reported that the Parish Council had commented on the amended plan reiterating its previous objections, notably concerns regarding the access from the site and traffic.

The Officers reported that comments had been received from Chris Boreham which were reported at the meeting.  Mr Boreham had commented that the site had been purchased with the benefit of planning permission and that no condition had been imposed regarding access.  He considered that there would be no increase in traffic and that the application should be approved.

The Committee was advised that the objection from the neighbouring occupier had now been withdrawn.

The Committee noted that additional plans had been received which were acceptable to the County Engineer.

One Member referred to a letter from Hatford Parish Council and asked whether the Parish Council could be reassured that a permanent home would not be located on this site.  The Officers clarified that the planning permission was for a three year period and that the temporary permission was to allow time to determine whether the business would become viable.

By 8 votes to nil, with 1 of the voting Members having already left the meeting it was

RESOLVED

that application HAT/20322 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the comments of the consultant architect were incorrect and that the correct comments had been circulated to Members outside of the meeting.

The Committee noted that the proposed turning area / driveway had been moved away from the back windows of West Field.

The Officers clarified that there had been discussions as to whether the site was within the built up part of the village or not.  It was noted that the County Engineer had indicated that there should be no more intensification of the access and that three dwellings, but no more might be acceptable.

It was explained that the Officers considered the proposal acceptable and that it was considered to be within the village.  It was considered that the impact was acceptable and it was noted that the windows had been amended to reduce overlooking.

The Officers advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application two additional conditions should be added to provide for amended plans and bin storage on the site.

Mr Peter Uzzell, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that it had been intended that development would be limited to the previous domestic curtilege. He explained that the number of dwellings proposed had been influenced by the views of the County Engineer who was supportive of a maximum of three dwellings only as a greater number of dwellings would increase the number of vehicle movements which could have a detrimental impact.

The local Member welcomed the removal of the windows and drive away from West Field.

By 8 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members having already left the meeting it was

RESOLVED

That application KBA/20349 be approved subject to: -

(1)          the resolution of the outstanding matters concerning the detailed design of the proposal;

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

(3)          two additional conditions should be added to provide for amended plans and bin storage on the site.

Mr David Hignell on behalf of the Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly expressed concern regarding harm caused to the character and appearance of the area; the houses already being built and the need to protect residential amenities; annoyance at the application being retrospective; the large size of the building and it adverse effect on the Conservation Area; loss of outlook; size; dominance; height; overshadowing; the report understating these matters; the report being misleading regarding height and slab levels.  Finally, he suggested that this retrospective application should be refused.

Mr Peter Foley, the applicant made a statement in support of the proposal.  He apologised for the application being retrospective which he explained had been due to wrong advice from the agent in that it had been thought that the proposal would be allowed under permitted development rights.  He noted the Parish Councils concerns but commented that the house had been designed by the same architect as the neighbours.  He explained that the architect had had regard to all matters.  He commented that there would be no overlooking, no loss of open aspect and that the wall with the neighbour had been increased in height.

One Member expressed concern regarding the increased height of the wall questioning whether this would require planning consent.  The Officers confirmed that a wall higher than 2 metres in this location would need planning permission.

By 8 votes with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/20422 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.

The Committee received and considered report 188/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought authority to take enforcement action in respect of two cases.

The Committee considered both cases as follows: -

(1)       Mr G Wright and Mrs J Wright - unauthorised development, including two steel shipping containers on land to the west of the George and Dragon Public House, Upton

Further to the report the Committee noted that a letter had been received from Mrs Wright in respect of the unauthorised development at the George and Dragon Public House in Upton which was read out in full at the meeting.  Mrs Wright had claimed that she was of the opinion that the land was being used for its intended purpose which was grazing animals.  Mrs Wright had advised of the rare breed of sows kept and she had referred to the geese, ducks and chickens being bred and the horses being looked after.  She had reported that she was tidying up the site and that much debris including a scrap car had been removed.  Mrs Wright had noted concerns regarding bonfires on the site but had suggested that the concerns raised might relate to the bonfires started on the railway embankment.  With reference to the caravan, she had explained that this was used for taking breaks and sleepovers on the odd occasion when animals were ill or there was a fear of trespassers.  With regard to the shipping containers Mrs Wright had explained that these were used for secure storage and were barely visible.

The local Member whilst noting the comments of Mrs Wright supported taking enforcement action.  He commented that one of the shipping contained had been on site for more than two years.  He commented that he had visited the site and that there was concern regarding the increased height of the chicken enclosure.  He noted that the land was sub let to Mr and Mrs Wright for what they described as “hobby farming”. He reported that the activity upset local people and he questioned whether a professional view as to whether this activity was sustainable farming could be sought and whether there was a justification for anything remaining on the site.

The Officers responded that the issue to consider was the nature and structures of holdings it being noted that chuttles did not require planning permission.

It was commented that the Officers would look at all matters including the nature of the activity, the size of the site and the legal differences regarding what could be done under permitted development rights if it was an agricultural undertaking as opposed to those for “hobby farming”.

The local Member also asked that other aspects of the activity on the site and the comments of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be looked into and he requested that he and the Parish Council be advised of any responses and information.

One Member commented that this was a clear case of where enforcement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 364.

None.