Agenda and minutes

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 receive any announcements from the chairman, and general housekeeping matters.

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

He stated that the agenda would be heard in the order of the speakers’ list.

He advised the committee that items 10 to 13 would be heard, and that items 9 and 14 to 19 would be adjourned to Monday 17 September at 6.30.

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 Margaret Turner had sent her apologies and Councillor Mike Badcock attended as her substitute.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 15 August (circulated separately). 

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 15 August were approved as an accurate record and the chairman signed them.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

Declarations of pecuniary interest

None

Other declarations by councillors

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.

The speakers’ list 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.

Proposed mixed use development comprising 50 dwellings, sports pavilion, pitches, café and new public footpath and cycleway link. (As amended by DRG no: P01a received 10.08.2012).

Recommended: To refuse planning application. Detailed reasons contained within the attached report.

Agenda item 10

The officer introduced his report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. Since the report had been published, a further 32 letters had been received reiterating comments made in support of the application in earlier letters. A 50 signature petition had also been received in support of the proposal.

Brian Forster, Chairman of Kingston Bagpuize Parish Council, spoke in favour of the application.

John Ashton, West Waddy ADP, spoke in objection to the application.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The letter from Matthew Barber, one of the ward councillors, was read in support of the application.

Melinda Tilley, one of the ward councillors, spoke in favour of the application.

The committee discussed the application. They considered the issues raised in the officer’s report, and those raised by the speakers.

RESOLVED:(For 9; Against 4; Abstentions 1)

To refuse to grant planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed residential development of 47 dwelling units is contrary to the Council's general planning policy which requires:

i)      that so far as possible future development should in the main be concentrated in established settlements as this is considered in the best interests of the public from the point of view of economy in the provision of services of all kinds and in land use, the preservation of rural amenities and the conservation of agricultural land and because it is only in this way that balanced communities can be achieved.

ii)     that in rural areas development is only likely to be permitted within the approved limits of development of specified villages and within the village envelope of other villages where such envelope is limited and well defined and where there is no valid planning objection.

iii)  no overriding local need or special circumstances exist, including the present shortfall in housing land allocation provision, to warrant any departure from the planning policies of the Local Planning Authority.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GS1, GS2, H11, H13, DC1, of the local plan and paragraphs 14, 34, 37, 47, 49, 50, 60, 61 and 111 of the NPPF.

2.    The site lies within a countryside area and having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal would lead to a progressive detraction in the rural character of the area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, the rural landscape and to amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GS1, GS2, H11, NE4, and NE7 of the local plan and paragraphs 57, 60, 61, 109, 111 and 115 of the NPPF.

3.    The site and the existing cricket pavilion roof void have been identified as a roosting area for soprano pipistrelle bats. The application has not provided suitable survey work or a mitigation methodology or strategy to address the change to the protected species habitat as would be necessary as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Change of use of former water treatment works to boat hire business, including creation of 17 new moorings, use of former chlorinator building for visitor reception, use of former pump house and garage building for storage, maintenance and repair of boats, minor external alterations to former pump house, laying out of parking and boat manoeuvring area, creation of ecological restoration area and associated works.

Recommended: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

Agenda item 11

The officer introduced her report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

She made the following amendments to the original report, which relate to paragraph 2.3:

• There would be 10 seasonal private moorings and seven hire holiday moorings.
• There would be 14 landing platforms in total.
• There would be a small scale platform for fishing by people with disabilities.
• Visits to the site would be by appointment only.
• The applicant had requested that evening closure should be at 19:00, not 18:00, to fit in with the lock-keeper’s hours.

The following updates had been received since the report was published:

• Council ecologist requested a further condition in relation to water voles which may be present on the site

• Receipt of a further letter of support from the council’s economic development officer.
• Receipt of a petition of 169 signatures objecting the commercial development of this area (also known as “BrandyIsland”).

Additional letters had been sent to members of the committee, by objectors, including a copy of counsel’s opinion raising alleged failures in the committee report. The concerns related largely to highway safety and to comments from the county engineer: particularly with regard to the established use of the site. The officer’s report in paragraph 6.12 refers to the site having an established use which could be re-instated at any time. The officers agreed that, given the time that had lapsed since the works closure and the loss of associated equipment, it is unlikely that the site’s use as a pumping station would be re-instated. Clarification on this issue had been sought from the county highway engineer who had confirmed that the acceptability of the scheme in highway terms was not dependant on re-instating the pumping station, but that the low level of traffic movements proposed was considered on its own merits.

Additional clarification from officers on the use of the building was provided as follows:  whilst it may be argued that it is highly unlikely that the use may be reinstated, this could not be considered a certainty. Abandonment can be deemed to occur in certain circumstances, but a distinction should be drawn between a use being dormant and a use being abandoned: for the latter to apply there would more usually be a change in the planning unit, the grant of an inconsistent planning permission, or a major change in the identity of the site. It is by no means certain that any of these apply in this instance, and so it cannot be said that the site now has a "nil use".

The county highways engineer’s report was updated as follows:

The number of people already visiting the village and the speed limit on the A417, amongst other factors, was taken into account in assessing the acceptability of the proposal. A view was taken that, whilst the sight lines at the A417 junction are below  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Demolition of existing industrial buildings.Proposed residential development comprising 71 new dwellings, new landscaped open space and access. Refurbishment of the existing listed office building.

Recommended:It is recommended that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman subject s106 agreements and conditions.

Agenda item 12

The officer introduced his report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report. Andrew Crawford, the ward councillor, had written his concerns in a letter which formed part of the agenda pack.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of this application. In particular, he requested a 24 month time limit in order to decontaminate the site and to introduce traffic calming measures.

The committee discussed this item, and in particular:

• It provides affordable housing units.
• This should be an s106 exception site with social housing priority going to those with a local parish connection and in housing need.
• The two year time limit would be acceptable as long as the applicant signs the s106 agreement quickly.

RESOLVED (For 10; Against 3; Abstentions 1)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman, vice chairman, opposition spokesman and the ward member to grant planning permission subject to:

1.    The prior completion of a section 106 agreement within a deadline of three months to complete for on-site affordable housing provision, and refurbishment of the listed building Old Canal Building as well as contributions toward off-site facilities and services including highway works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, village recreational and community facility improvements; 

2.    The following conditions, including the requirement to commence development within 24 months to help address the immediate housing land shortfall;

3.    Receipt of additional plans to adequately show the relationship of the listed building to Main Street, the junction and access road into the site in respect of final land levels together with amended plans relating to the external setting within the site surrounding the listed building. 

1.    TL1 - Time limit (24 months)

2.    Listing the approved drawings

3.    MC2 - Materials (Samples)

4.    MC9 - Building Details

5.    RE6 - Boundary Details

6.    Protection of the ecological bund to the noether edges of the site

7.    RE17 - Slab levels and dwelling heights

8.    LS1 - Landscaping Scheme implementation and maintenance

9.    LS4 trees

10. Drainage details including SUDS

11. Flood risk assessment

12. Contamination survey remediation scheme

13. Contamination verification report

14. HY2 Access according with specified plan

15. Communal TV and satellite dishes on flats and terraced buildings

16. HY8 car parking spaces

17. HY12 new estate roads

18. HY13 estate roads prior to occupation of dwellings

19. HY20 bicycle parking

20. MC29 sustainable drainage scheme

21. MC32 construction method statement

22. UNI refuse bin storage

23. Travel info packs

24. Listed building works trigger

25. Canal re-alignment

26. s106 exception site, priority given to people in housing need with a local parish connection

Proposed residential development comprising of 120 units and associated parking, landscaping, amenity space and engineering works.

Recommended:It is recommended that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman subject to s106 agreements and conditions.

Agenda item 13

The officer introduced his report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

Kenton Bush spoke in objection to this application. He was particularly concerned about the potential flood and drainage issues in connection with this site and the safety of the proposed SUDS basin.

The officer referred the committee to conditions 9 and 10 which address the drainage issues and the responses from professional officers (drainage engineer, Environment Agency) contained within the report.

Nick Groves of Boyer Planning, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The committee discussed the item, including those issues raised by the objector.

RESOLVED (For 14; Against 0; Abstentions01)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman, vice chairman and opposition spokesman, to grant planning permission subject to the following:

1.    The prior completion of a section 106 agreement within a deadline of three months to complete for on-site affordable housing provision, contributions toward off-site facilities and services including highway works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, village recreational and community facility improvements; 

2.    The following conditions, including the requirement to commence development within 12 months to help address the immediate housing land shortfall:

1.    TL1 - Time limit (12 months)

2.    Listing the approved drawings

3.    MC2 - Materials (Samples)

4.    MC9 - Building Details

5.    RE6 - Boundary Details

6.    RE17 - Slab levels and dwelling heights

7.    LS1 - Landscaping Scheme implementation and maintenance

8.    LS4 trees

9.    Drainage details including SUDS

10. Flood risk assessment

11. Contamination survey remediation scheme

12. Contamination verification report

13. HY2 Access according with specified plan

14. HY17 closure of exisitng access

15. HY8 car parking spaces

16. HY12 new estate roads

17. HY13 estate roads prior to occupation of dwellings

18. HY20 bicycle parking

19. MC29 sustainable drainage scheme

20. MC32 construction method statement

21. UNI refuse bin storage

22. Travel info packs

The meeting was adjourned at 10.00 pm

Councillor Kate Precious left the meeting.

The meeting was reconvened. At 6.30 on Monday 17 September 2012

Outline Application for erection of 50 dwellings, new public open space and new vehicular access.

Recommended: to delegate the decision to grant planning permission to head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman subject to s106 agreements and conditions.

Agenda item 9

The officer introduced his report: he explained that it had come to committee for outline consent. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

• The applicant had indicated that adjacent land would be made available to the south of the site for informal recreational use, as well as the formal open space which formed part of the application site. The applicant had also suggested that they could provide a further recreational area further away from the site as part of s106 discussions, but that this did not form part of the planning application.
• The planning officer had now received nine letters of support for this application.
• Appendix 3a of the report was incorrect and should be disregarded.
• Paragraph 3.10. The Thames Valley Police liaison officer has no objections, subject to an informative to ensure that the new dwellings achieve “secured by design” accreditation.

Councillor Brian Forster, chairman of Kingston Bagpuize Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

David Hancox and Kevin Hadley spoke in objection to the application.

John Ashton (West Waddy ADP), the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. He stressed that he, and the applicant, wished to work with local villagers to provide leisure facilities.

The committee debated this item; inter alia

• This is an outline application for 50 houses and it is expected that no more than 50 houses would be built on the site.
• There was, unfortunately, little evidence of dialogue between the developer and the villagers.

RESOLVED (For 11; Against 1; Abstentions 1)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman, vice chairman, ward member and opposition spokesman, to grant planning permission subject to the following:

The prior completion of a section 106 agreement within a deadline of three months to complete for on-site affordable housing provision, as well as contributions toward off-site facilities and services including highway works, education improvements, waste management and collection, street names signs, public art, library and museum service, social and health care, fire and rescue, police equipment, village recreational and community facility improvements, as well as securing access to and the use for informal recreational purposes of the field to the south of the site (edged in blue) 

The following conditions including, the requirements for receipt of a reserved matters application or a detailed scheme within three months and that scheme to be available for implementation within 12 months from the date of the outline permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall:

1.         TL2 altered outline timing (12 months) reserved matters within 3 month

2.         UNI  plot curtilage boundaries

3.         MC2 materials

4.         UNI landscape

5.         LS4 trees

6.         UNI boundaries

7.         MC24 drainage

8.         UNI plot restriction to southern boundary

9.         UNI ecology

10.      UNI access visibility

11.      UNI parking

12.      UNI construction traffic

13.      UNI travel info packs

14.      UNI refuse bin storage

15.      UNI footpath routes

16.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Demolition of existing bungalow and replacement with three new dwellings.

Recommended: to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Agenda item 16

The officer introduced her report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

Patricia Newman spoke in objection to the application. She highlighted the concerns of the neighbours and the potential impact of the proposed development on them.

Colin McAndrew, McAndrew Associates Ltd, the applicant’s agent spoke in favour of the application.

The committee discussed this application.

RECOMMENDED (For 10; Against 3: Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.       TL1 - Time limit

2.       Planning condition listing the approved drawings

3.       HY1 - Access

4.       HY8 - Car parking spaces

5.       HY10 - Turning space

6.       HY19 - No draininage to highway

7.       LS4 - Tree protection

8.       MC3 - Materials in accordance with application

9.       RE6 – Boundary details

10.    RE29 - Refuse storage

11.    Slab height

Conversion to existing squash court to form a four bedroom family home and farm office (re-submission of withdrawn application P12/V0181).

Recommended: To refuse planning permission for reasons outlined in detail in the attached report.

Agenda item 15

The officer introduced the report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

Sarah Lloyd, from West Hendred Parish Council, spoke in favour of the application.

Richard Pill, the applicant spoke in favour of the application.

The committee discussed the item.

RECOMMENDED (For 8; Against 5; Abstentions 1)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The site lies outside the settlement of Ginge and the village of West Hendred and the proposal does not constitute infilling development. In addition, there is no overriding essential need to warrant any departure from the planning policies of the Local Planning Authority. The proposal, therefore, is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area and contrary to policies GS2, GS6, GS7, DC1 and NE6 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan.

2.    The site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and having regard to:

a   the unsatisfactory nature of the additional proposed residential use, and

b   the size, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling

the proposal would harm the rural character and natural beauty of the area. The proposal, therefore, is contrary to policies GS7 NE6 of the vale of White Horse Local Plan and the aims and intend of the NPPF as covered in paragraph 57, 60 and 61.

3.    Due to the isolated rural location of the application site beyond the confines of an existing settlement, the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development which is remote from public transport, local services and facilities and, therefore, is contrary to established sustainability policy and national advice which seeks to locate development where the need to travel by private car can be minimised. The proposal, therefore, is contrary to policies GS2 and GS6 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan and the aims and intend of the NPPF as covered in paragraph 34 and 37.

4.    That the proposal lacks adequate sight lines at its junction with Ginge Road. Furthermore the proposed development would result in the potential detriment to the safety and convenience of users of the public footpath (public right of way) located along the western boundary of the site. The proposal, therefore, is contrary to policy DC5 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan.

Erection of four dwellings.

Recommended: to grant Planning permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Kate Precious, re-entered the meeting.

Agenda item 14.

The officer introduced her report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There had been one additional letter of support raising concerns over drainage, but Thames Water, the Environment Agency and the county drainage engineer are content.

June Stock, from Grove Parish Council, spoke to the application. The parish council’s concerns about the application were with the ingress and egress from the site and visitor parking.

Kate Precious, a ward member, spoke to the application. She shared the concerns of the parish council.

Sue Marchant, a ward member, spoke to the application. She also shared the concerns of the parish council.

The committee discussed this application. In order to counteract potential problems with visitor parking and road safety in an area near a school, it was agreed to request the county council to consider double yellow lines as the parish council had requested:

“Double yellow lines would be required in front of the properties facing Main Street and on both sides of School Lane to prohibit car parking on already busy and congested roads”.

RECOMMENDED (For 13; Against 0; Abstentions 1)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit

2.    Planning condition listing the approved drawings

3.    MC2 - Materials (samples)

4.    MC9 - Building details

5.    RE4 - PD restriction on single dwelling (extensions only)

6.    HY6 - Access, parking & turning in accordance with plan

7.    HY17 - Closure of existing access

8.    LS1 - Landscaping scheme (submission)

9.    LS2 - Landscaping scheme (implement)

10. LS4 - Tree protection

11. MC24 - Drainage details (surface and foul)

12. MC29 - Sustainable drainage scheme

13. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment carried out by MJA consulting reference 11/0098/4536.

14.RE6 - Boundary details.

15.Remove permitted development rights for garage conversions.

Alterations and raising of roof to facilitate first floor accommodation. Side extension and new pitched roof over existing rear extension.

Recommended: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

Agenda item 17.

The officer introduced her report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

John Woodford, a ward councillor, spoke to this application

RECOMMENDED (For 14; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit

2.    Planning condition listing the approved drawings

3.    MC3 - Materials in accordance with the application

4.    RE11 - Garage Accommodation

Installation of one externally illuminated fascia sign, one internally illuminated internal “Now Cooking” sign and one externally illuminated projecting sign.

Recommended: to grant consent to display advertisements subject to conditions.  

Agenda item 18.

The officer introduced the report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

John Woodford, a ward councillor, spoke in favour of the application.

RECOMMENDED (For 14; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To grant advertisement consent, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Condition listing the approved drawings.

2.    AD1 - Intensity of Illumination.

3.    AD2 - Period of illumination: only during hours of business.

4.    Nothwithstanding the ‘Standard Sign Colours’ text shown on approved drawing number 4759-SF13 (Adverts 1) rev.D, the materials used in the fascia sign shall be as stated under the ‘Externally Illuminated Fascia Sign’ details, and the materials used in the projecting sign shall be as stated under the ‘Projecting Sign – Double Sided’ details on this plan.

Proposed two storey extension which will replace an existing garden room. The ground floor will allow the existing kitchen to be extended, and the first floor of the extension will create a fourth bedroom.

Recommended: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

Agenda item 19.

The officer introduced her report. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which formed  part of the agenda pack for this meeting. There were no updates to the original report.

The committee discussed this item.

RECOMMENDED (For 14; Against 0; Abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the followingconditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit

2.    Planning condition listing the approved drawings

3.    MC3 - Materials in accordance with application