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 Briony Newport.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 6 June 2005.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 June 2005 were adopted and signed as a correct record.

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

In accordance with Part 2 of the Local Code of Conduct and the provisions of Standing Order 34, any Member with a personal interest must disclose the existence and nature of that interest to the meeting prior to the matter being debated.  Where that personal interest is also a prejudicial interest, then the Member must withdraw from the room in which the meeting is being held and not seek improperly to influence any decision about the matter unless he/she has obtained a dispensation from the Standards Committee.

Members had declared interests in report 34/05 – 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 reminded Councillors and members of the public that all mobile telephones should be switched off during the meeting.

The Chair reported that following advice received, the appendix to report 34/05 concerning application CUM/11898/1 – 13 Nobles Close, Botley could now be considered in the open part of the agenda as it was considered that the information contained therein was not exempt information.

The Chair reminded Members that there would be a training session on the Scheme of Delegation for all Members on Monday 11 July 2005, at 7.00pm in the Guildhall, Abingdon.

Finally, the Chair invited the Democratic Services Officer to address the Committee.  The Officer referred Members to the revised agenda layout explaining that the Democratic Services Officers were currently in the process of implementing a new computer system, known as “Issue Manager”.  This system which would facilitate the generation of agendas, reports and minutes in an electronic form which would enable their publication on the Council’s website.  The Officer explained that the layout of agendas, reports and minutes would therefore be different because of the parameters of the new computer system.

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 20 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting, however, 1 member of the public 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.

There were no materials for consideration.

Lodged

The following appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

(i)                  Appeal by Mr Mijrat Terzi against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a retrospective application for an arbour and additional pontoons on land at 20 South Quay, Abingdon. (ABG/17715/1);

(ii)                Appeal by Builders Ede Limited against the Council’s decision to refurse to permit the erection of 18 one bed apartments, 21 two bed apartments and 23 houses on land adjacent the Police Headquarters, off Collwell Drive, Abingdon (ABG/17140/1).

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Esmail Babaahmady against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the creation of a first floor on an existing bungalow at 61 Hurst Rise Road, North Hinksey (NHI/9096/3).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.

            The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case, were the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.63 Hurst Rise Road with special regard to visual impact; and whether the submitted plans provided a sufficiently accurate basis on which planning permission might be granted.

            The Inspector considered that the proposed development, given its notable proximity to the boundary with No.63 would be sufficiently beyond guideline figures as to be over dominant and intrusive when seen from this property.  Added weight was given to this view in that No.63 had a lower lying element abutting the boundary with the appeal property.  The proposed property would loom above this area in a domineering fashion and appear greater than single storey in height.  Whilst the effect of this might currently be limited by existing garden screening, there was no guarantee that this would remain in place in perpetuity.  The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposed development would detract from the living conditions of No.63 with special reference to visual impact and would be in conflict with relevant planning policies.

            With regard to the accuracy of the plans, the Inspector noted that there were several instances where measurements on the application plans and elevations varied from one drawing to another.  The Inspector considered that cumulatively these did not provide a sufficiently accurate basis upon which planning permission might be granted.

            The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.  No reference to cost was made with the decision letter.

(ii)        Appeal by Mr and Mrs Earl against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a first floor extension over existing garage to provide a studio at 1 St James Road, Radley (RAD/15667/1). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.

The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the building and thus on the area on which it stood.

The proposal would add a first floor under a pitched roof with a wide dormer window extending virtually the entire width  ...  view the full agenda text for item 9.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of two appeals which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination and four appeals which had been dismissed.

One Member welcomed the Inspector’s decisions concerning the dismissed appeals.  He particularly referred to the appeal in respect of 61 Hurst Rise Road, North Hinksey and asked Members to note the Inspector’s comments regarding the accuracy of plans, namely that cumulatively small inaccuracies in the plans had resulted in the plans not providing a sufficiently accurate basis upon which planning permission might be granted.

In respect of the appeal concerning the totem sign at Buckland Service Station, Oxford Road, Buckland, the Committee noted an amendment to the report in that the Inspector had considered that the proposal would substantially increase the surface area of the sign.

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 public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

(Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration).

Mr J Elston made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding development in the Green Belt; the proposal being contrary to planning policy; access and future development intentions.

Mr E Thomas, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that a B! use was acceptable in the Green Belt.

The Committee considered the proposal acceptable.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SAH/741/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Councillor Matthew Barber had declared a Personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

(Councillor Roger Cox had declared a Personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of two additional documents received from the neighbouring resident, one being an acoustic consultant’s report which criticised the findings of the applicant’s acoustic report and an independent highway consultant’s report.  The Officers explained that in view of these documents only just having been received, it had not been possible to assess the information contained in them.

A representative of the Town Council made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting the application raising concerns regarding the access being too narrow; noise; pollutions; disturbance and the proposal being contrary to planning policy.

Mr D Janata, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to the two additional documents sent to Members of the Committee and emphasised the adverse impact the proposal would have on his property.  He referred to noise levels and explained that it would not be possible for the acoustic barrier to be built.  Finally he explained that Coxwell |Road was very busy and that the junction was not acceptable.

Mr J Bird was due to make a statement in support of the application, but he declined to do so.

Mr A Miles, the applicant’s representative made a statement in support of the application advising that an appeal had been lodged against the Council’s decision to refuse the previous application on this site and that should planning permission be granted that appeal would be withdrawn.  He explained that the noise levels would be below the specified threshold and that conditions should be imposed on any permission to address concerns raised rather than refusal of the application.

Mr D Reynolds made a statement in support of the application commenting that access to the site via Coxwell Road was preferable to any other access and that in approving this application, less properties would be constructed than might otherwise be the case.

One of the local Members commented that the principle of development of this site had already been established.  She explained that the width of the access was similar to others and that emergency and service vehicles would be able to access the site.  She commented that she could see no reason to refuse the application.

Another local Member highlighted that there had been no objection raised by the County Engineer and that the only issue of concern now seems to be noise, which would be addressed by appropriate acoustic measures in terms of a barrier.  He referred to the two additional documents received and commented that it was difficult to make a balanced judgment when presented with convincing, but contradictory evidence.

Other Members spoke in support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Committee was advised that contrary to the plans, the property was set away from the boundary. Furthermore the Committee noted that five additional letters of objecting had been received raising concerns to matters previously raised.

Mr Griffiths made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding the high density; inadequate parking; the adverse impact on the environment; the proposal being out of keeping; the contemporary design being inappropriate; the setting a precedent and size.  He commented that single storey only extensions had been permitted nearby and suggested that the current proposal should be refused.

Mr M Strutt made a statement objecting to the application.  Speaking on behalf of 36 residents of Yarnells Hill, he raised concern regarding the proposal being out of keeping; having a harmful impact on neighbouring properties and design.  He explained that the area had a distinctive character, with houses having large plots with gardens to the front and rear.  He considered that the proposal undermined the established character of the area.  He commented on the harmful impact to neighbours in that the two storey rear extension was set too far back and would be intrusive.  He referred to noise and pollution from increased traffic. In terms of design he commented that the flat roof element was out of keeping and the proposal included too much fenestration.  

Mr Gould the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application commenting on the objections raised, which he considered were insufficient to warrant refusal.  He reported that the proposal accorded with planning policy and PPG3 in terms of design and density.  He referred to the level of negotiations with the Officers on the proposal and referred Members to the report and to the views of the consultant architect.  He commented that the design was aimed at complementing neighbouring properties and the parking levels were sufficient.

One of the local Members expressed some concern that the proposal would not sit well with other nearby properties and would change the character of the area.

Some Members spoke in support of the application noting the comments of the consultant architect regarding design.

However, other Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding height, mass and dominance.

It was proposed by the Chair that application NHI/7093/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, but this was lost by 12 votes to 5.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Terry Quinlan, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 11 votes to 5 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/7093/1 be refused, with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to included massing, dominance, adverse impact of the amenities of neighbours and over development.

(Councillors Jerry Patterson and Sylvia Patterson had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

One of the local Members raised no objection to the application.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/8988/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Mr G Rose made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding the proposal in terms of its impact; urbanised appearance and lack of screening.  He referred to discussions between himself and the applicant explaining that an agreement as to either repositioning the fence or planting could not be reached.

One Member questioned whether a condition could be imposed to re-site the fence.  However, it was reported that this was not appropriate as the application was for the fence and the application should be considered on its merit.  To require the fence’s repositioning would be tantamount to refusing the application.

In terms of the disagreement between the objector and the applicant concerning planting to screen the fence, the Committee noted that this was a private matter.

One Member questioned the distance of the rail fence from the neighbouring property, although this information was unknown, it being explained that there were no guidelines on deer fencing.

One Member considered that the posts were intrusive.  However, this was not supported by other Members who considered the proposal acceptable.

By 15 votes to nil, with 2 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED

that application APT/10011/22 be approved.

By xx votes to xx it was

RESOLVED

that application APT/10011/22 be approved.

As referred to elsewhere in these Minutes, the Committee considered an appendix to the report setting out the circumstances surrounding this case.

Ms I Wilson made a statement in support of the application.  In doing so she read out in full the letter from Marianne Glen to the District Council which was appended to the report.

Whilst speaking in support of the application, one Member questioned whether the access could be resurfaced by grass-crete.  However, on being put to the meeting the proposal was not supported, there voting 5 for and 11 against the suggestion.

One Member noted that the Council had not, as land owner, granted an easement across the land and it was suggested that an Informative should be added to any permission advising the applicant of the need to secure this.

By 16 votes to 1, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/11898/1 be approved subject to: -

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

(ii)        an informative to advise the applicant that notwithstanding this planning permission, which is granted by the Council as the Planning Authority, it was also necessary for the applicant to obtain an easement to cross the land from the Council as landowner.

By 13 votes to 1, with 2 abstention it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application RAD/15714/7 be refused for the reason set out in the report; and

(b)        that application RAD/15714/8-LB be refused for the reason set out in the report.

Mr S Norris the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application explaining the reasons for the proposal.  He commented that the design was in keeping and was similar in terms of form and scale to other extensions.  He reported that there would be no overlooking; no loss of light and no loss of privacy.  Finally, he emphasised that there would be no harm and there was no reason to refuse the application.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUN/17133/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Peter Jones, Monica Lovatt, Terry Quinlan, Margaret Turner, Pam Westwood and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report the Committee noted that additional correspondence has been received from the neighbour raising concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans and the proximity of the dwelling and garage to his property.

The Officers advised that there remained some doubt that the latest submitted plans were accurate in respect of the relationship of the house and garage to the neighbour at Hillside Cottage and as such it was suggested that it would appropriate in this case to seek an independent surveyor’s opinion to resolve the matter.

Mr Goodhead made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding the house being built in the wrong location; the volume increase which exceeded 35%; height; proximity to his boundary; mass; incorrect plans; lack of support from the Planning Authority in addressing his concerns; dominance; adverse impact and loss of amenity.  He reported that it would be unreasonable to take any action regarding the position of the house which he accepted, but considered that the Council should address the height of the garage and its siting.  Finally, he requested that all permitted development rights should be removed.

Mr I Bedford, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application advising that it had never been the intention to build the house in the wrong location.  He explained that he had taken the original survey to be accurate which had not been the case.  He reported that the house and garage were the same size as those approved and had been built in the only location possible on the site.

One of the local Members expressed sympathy with the views of the objector but considered that there were no grounds to refuse the application, but agreed that permitted development rights should be removed and that a condition to address slab levels should be added. The other local Member concurred with this view.

Other Members agreed with the views of the local Members.  In being minded to approve the application, consideration was given to whether the view of an independent surveyor on the accuracy of the plans was necessary.  The Committee came to the conclusion that such a survey was not warranted in this case as Members were able to assess the proposal in view of the application being retrospective and construction already having taken place.

By 15 votes to nil with 2 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the other local Member be delegated authority to approve application SHI/17672/5 subject to: -

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

(ii)        further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that one of the Local Members had expressed concern at the proposal in terms of inadequate parking and density.

Mr Griffiths made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding parking; increased on street parking; access; draining and inadequate public transport.

Dr Paul Potter made a statement objecting to the application. He referred to a previous appeal decision on this site raising concerns regarding the proposal in terms of it being unsustainable; over development of the site; the proposal being out of keeping with the character of the area; boundary treatment and inadequate screening. He requested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a close boarded fence should be provided along the boundary with his property.

Mr N Lyzba, the applicant’ agent made a statement in support of the application advising that the proposal sought the reuse of the site and accorded with planning policy.  He explained that the density was appropriate; the visibility at the access was similar to that of the existing permission at the site; there would be no overlooking; the design was in keeping with properties nearby and the parking levels were in accordance with standards.

One of the Local Members present at the meeting raised no objection to the application.

Other Members spoke in support of the application.  However, one Member referred to the noise from the A34, although given that there was already a dwelling on the site the Officers did not consider that this was a reason to refuse permission.  Notwithstanding this, it was suggested that appropriate noise attenuation measures, such as additional glazing, should be made to some properties.

It was proposed by Councillor Richard Farrell, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 16 votes to 1, it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/18135/1 be approved subject to: -

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

(ii)        a further condition requiring acoustic treatment to those properties where the Chief Executive considers such treatment appropriate.

Further to the report the Committee noted an amendment in that a total of over 200 objections had been made to the Vale’s policy on affordable housing.

Members supported the application, expressing a preference for stone instead of brick and asked that materials be reported back to Committee for approval.

By 16 votes to nil, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application MAR/18842 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, with materials being reported back to Committee for approval; and

(b)        that application MAR/18842/-CA be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Councillors Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere and Julie Mayhew-Archer had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they left the meeting during its consideration).

(Councillor John  Woodford had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report the Committee was advised of one additional letter objecting to the proposal in term of the proposed use of the extension.  Also, five identical letters of support had been received from neighbouring residents and two identical letters of support from residents elsewhere.

The Committee noted that one of the local Members had objected to the application in terms of its over bearing and dominant appearance and impact; loss of privacy and over looking.

Mr M Smith made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal’s size, impact and mass; harm to the character and appearance of the area; harm to local amenities; proximity to the neighbouring boundary; a possible terracing effect; the garage being separate to the dwelling; design and the proposal being contrary to Planning Policies H24 and H29.

Mr M Brown made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding design; the setting of a precedent; loss of amenity; over looking; over shadowing; loss of privacy; impact; loss of outlook and the proposal being contrary to planning policies.

One Member referred to the comments of the objector and questioned whether the garage was attached to the house.  However, the Officers advised this was not a material consideration in determining the application.  She referred to the fenestration in the side elevation, which it was noted would result in less overlooking than the existing windows.

By 13 votes to nil, with 1 abstention, with 3 of the voting Members having left the room during consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19083 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.