Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chairman.

The chairman gave housekeeping announcements, outlined the procedure and explained the remit of the committee.

To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent.

None.

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.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby sent her apologies and Councillor Ron Mansfield attended as a substitute.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 28 March 2012 (to follow). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2012 were agreed subject to a textual amendment to item Pl188 giving detail of Councillor Woodford’s concerns about the proposal.

To receive any declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

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.

A list of speakers was tabled at the meeting.

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

None.

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

Any materials submitted will be on display prior to the meeting.

None.

Recommended: to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning services, in consultation with the chairman and vice chairman and subject to both the completion of a planning obligation to secure a financial contribution to public transport and conditions.

The officer introduced his report.

Robert Treadgold, from Garford village parish meeting spoke in objection to the application. He felt that there should be an adjournment to look in more detail at the application; he said that he had the overwhelming support of Garford residents. He summarised the arguments put forward by the parish meeting in objection to the application.

Catherine Petts, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) spoke in objection to the application. She felt that this area was an historic landscape which should be protected from development and suburbanisation, and that an alternative site should be found nearer to a town.

Howard Hodgson, chairman of Memoria, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He summarised his company’s written submissions and argued that the company would not be making the financial investment if it did not believe that there was enough of a need to justify the return on the investment.

Matthew Barber, ward councillor, was unable to be present, but a written statement from him was read out by the chairman of the planning committee. His concerns were about the potential increase in traffic to the area; whether the “need” for the crematorium had been adequately demonstrated; the fact that this application is contrary to the local plan and whether there were more suitable sites.

A lengthy debate ensued; it was also explained to the Garford residents the role and remit of the committee as a quasi-judicial committee and the matters which could and could not be taken into consideration for planning purposes.

The committee considered traffic issues with regard to the fact that there will be significant population growth, particularly around Grove, over the next few years. It was acknowledged that the county highways engineer had factored in the population growth and that the expected traffic increase is still within acceptable limits. One of the attractions of this site is the good visibility at the access onto the public highway.

Concerns were raised about the potential for flooding as the site had flooded in 2007 and was a possible flood risk. The Environment Agency had not objected to the site as it is not considered to be a 1 in 100 year flood risk.

The committee accepted the potential availability of other sites available does not need to be considered if this site is acceptable on its own merits. It also accepted that the application meets the criteria for being considered as an exception to local plan policies.

Concerns were raised about the adequacy of car parking and this will need to be monitored.

RESOLVED (For 13; Against 2; Abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

i) The completion of a planning obligation to secure a financial contribution to public transport

ii) Conditions to include external materials, landscaping, boundary treatments, slab and site levels, access and road widening, bus stops, footways, parking, lighting, ecology, archaeology, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

Recommended: to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, subject to a s106 agreement with both the county council and district council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing, and also subject to conditions.

The officer introduced her report. Since the report was produced there had been further s106 discussions and there was a requirement for further contribution of £2550 to pay for waste bins for the new residents. The officer acknowledged that the proposal was contrary to policies in the local plan but had been bought forward because the council were unable to demonstrate an adequate five year housing supply.  The council had recently lost an appeal and costs on this basis at the Broadwater site on the edge of Wantage. This development could be delivered quickly and would supply 40 percent affordable housing. This development would deliver 15 units.

The council’s landscape officer has raised no objections. The site is located in a flood zone 2. The applicants had carried out a flood risk assessment and confirmed that the hard surface areas would be water permeable. Both the Environment Agency and the council’s drainage engineer now raised no objections on flooding grounds. The county highways engineer is satisfied with highways and parking.

An additional condition needs to be imposed on the permission giving a time limit to implement the permission of one year.

There was no further update from the housing officer on the tenure mix for the affordable housing.

Mr Brian Cooper, who lives at no 8 Alfred’s Place, spoke in objection to the application. He said that the site is a green field site and that it has flooded in both 2007 and 2008. The undeveloped nature of the application site had prevented flooding on the Alfred’s Place site and was, therefore, important to prevent flooding of neighbouring dwellings.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. He noted that flooding was an issue in the Hanneys and that a lot of work had been done to address the issue.

The chairman of the committee read out a statement from the ward councillor, Matthew Barber, who raised concerns about the potential for flooding of the site and sought assurances from officers that they would continue to monitor the situation. He also wanted to be included in the discussions about conditions and the s106 agreements.

RESOLVED (For 15; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, and the ward member, to grant planning permission. This subject to a S106 agreement with both the county council and district council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing and to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 – Time Limit – one year

2. MC2 – Material Samples – (panels on site)
3. MC9 – Building details – windows, doors, rainwater goods, etc
4. Restriction on PD (plots 1-9 only)
5. MC24 – Drainage details
6. Communal satellite dish for plots 1 - 6

Recommended: to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

The officer introduced her report.

The committee discussed the report and the relevant policy and guidance.

RESOLVED: (For 13; Against 2; Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 – Time Limit

2. MC2 – Material Samples
3. MC9 – Building details – windows, doors, rainwater goods, etc
4. Restriction on PD
5. MC24 – Drainage details
6. LS1 – Landscaping Scheme (Submission)
7. LS2 – Landscaping Scheme (Implementation)
8. LS4 – Tree Protection

Recommended: to delegate authority to remove the planning obligation to the head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman.

The officer introduced his report.

The committee discussed the report.

RESOLVED (For 15; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman, to remove the planning obligation.

Recommended: to grant planning permission subject to conditions

The officer introduced his report.

RESOLVED (For 15; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. TL1 – time limit – full application
2. Planning condition listing the approved drawings
3. MC1 – materials (details)

Recommended: To confirm Tree Preservation Order 10-2011.

The officer introduced his report.

Mrs Bennett, spoke in objection to this order on the basis of her written submissions.

Councillor Sandy Lovatt, standing in for ward councillor Peter Jones who is unwell, spoke in objection to the order and supported Mrs Bennett’s concerns.

There followed a discussion which concluded that the trees had a high public amenity value and that the risk of damage to the garages was a matter of conjecture. It was also considered that the current problems created by the trees did not outweigh their amenity value. It was acknowledged that the trees could be managed to reduce the problems, as long as the council’s arboriculturalist was consulted first.

RESOLVED (For 13; Against 2; Abstentions 0)

To confirm Tree Preservation Order 10-2011.

Certificate of lawful development

At its meeting on 1 March 2012 the committee considered an application for a lawful development certificate for an existing use of the access and parking area at a property in Wantage. A number of councillors expressed concern that the committee was asked to consider such a legal matter without sight of all the evidence. Furthermore, some councillors expressed the view that officers had previously determined these applications.

This case highlighted that the delegated powers to the head of planning in the constitution require clarification to ensure that there is no doubt that they cover applications for certificates of lawful development. This matter will be addressed as part of the next constitution review. However, to avoid applications coming to committee prior to this review the committee is invited to delegate authority to the head of planning to deal with applications.

RECOMMENDATION: to authorise the head of planning to determine applications for certificates of lawful development. 

RESOLVED (For 15; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman and the vice-chairman, to determine all future applications for certificates of lawful development.