Agenda and minutes

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. The business would be heard in the order presented on the speakers’ list.

Agenda item 11: Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site, Didcot, P12/V1807/FUL had been withdrawn earlier in the day, by the applicant.

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.

An item of urgent business was bought to the committee under Standing Order 21 (4) of the council’s constitution.

The report deals with a procedural matter which potentially affects other recent major housing applications, including an application under consideration later in the meeting. The matter relates to the implementation time period for the commencement of development. The report deals with legal agreements linked to the application for land at Stockham Farm (P12/V1240/FUL) which have been finalised, with the decision prepared for issue, subject to the clarification which the urgent business had raised.

The chairman was satisfied as to the special circumstances which made the matter urgent.

To consider the urgent report on the above application.

Recommended:that the resolution, as made, is altered in respect of the implementation condition so that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman subject to:

1.    The prior completion of a section 106 agreement, as previously detailed

2.    Conditions, including the requirement to commence development within 12 months of the date of grant of permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall

And also that a similar approach is taken on implementation conditions for resolutions issued by the planning committee for major housing application submitted to address the housing allocation shortfall where a 12 month period for implementation has been worded in terms of the date of the committee consideration rather than on the grant of permission.

The officer presented the report.

The committee considered this application and sought clarification from the officers on the implications of agreeing this item.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 0; abstentions 0)

That the resolution, as made, is altered in respect of the implementation condition so that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman subject to:

1.    The prior completion of a section 106 agreement as previously detailed

2.    Conditions, including the requirement to commence development within 12 months of the date of grant of permission to help address the immediate housing land shortfall.

And that a similar approach is taken on implementation conditions for resolutions issued by the planning committee for major housing application submitted to address the housing allocation shortfall where a 12 month period for implementation has been worded in terms of the date of the committee consideration rather than on the grant of permission.

To receive an up date of housing figures relating to commitments for major housing schemes to address the councils housing land shortfall.

These were attached to the agenda and received by the committee.

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.

Apologies were received by councillors: Eric Batts, Bill Jones, Sandy Lovatt, Aidan Melville, John Morgan and Helen Pighills.

The following councillors attended as substitutes: Gervase Duffield (for John Morgan); Jenny Hannaby (for Helen Pighills); Fiona Roper (for Eric Batts), and Janet Shelley (for Sandy Lovatt).

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 28 February 2013 (circulated separately). 

The minutes of the meeting on 28 February 2013 were approved, and it was agreed that the chairman sign them.

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

Councillor Jenny Hannaby is on Wantage Town Council planning committee and had voted against item 10: Land at Chain Hill Wantage (P12/V2316/O). She would make a statement on this item, but not take part in the debate or the vote.

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.

Outline application for residential development (up to 85 dwellings), access to Chain Hill, internal estate roads, parking, landscaping and open space.

Recommended: to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, subject to completing a section 106 agreement with both the county council and the district council to secure contributions towards strategic highway improvements, local infrastructure, and the affordable housing, and also subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Councillor Gervase Duffield entered the meeting.

The officer presented her report on outline application for residential development (up to 85 dwellings), access onto Chain Hill, internal estate roads, parking, landscaping and open space. 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.

Updates from the report

·        Two further letters of objection had been received, which raised similar concerns as previous letters;

·        The resolution and conditions had been amended to take account of the time limits for permission, as agreed under urgent business, earlier in the meeting.

Councillor D Jackson from Wantage Town Council, spoke, objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·        Increase of traffic on Chain Hill;

·        Suitability of pedestrian access by widening the pavement which will, in turn, narrow the road and reduce traffic access. There is already a significant amount of affordable housing in Wantage;

·        The open landscaped area of the application site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and could be used as a dumping site.

Ben Rendell and Julie Mabberley, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·        Impact on the landscape as the application site is partially in the AONB;

·        The application is not sustainable as there are insufficient community facilities, schools, jobs, carp spaces, bus stops etc.

Tony Charles of Porchester Planning Consultancy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. He raised the following points:

·        All of the housing would be outside of the AONB;

·        The open space would be informal meadowland and would either be conveyanced to the town or district council or managed by a management company;

·        Section 106 agreements would provide infrastructure money, including schooling.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby made a statement before withdrawing to the public gallery. She did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item. The concerns she raised were as follows:

·        The application site was good agricultural land;

·        The application site was partially in, and bordered on, the AONB;

·        Road safety, congestion and access;

·        Lack of school places.

Councillor Fiona Roper, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee considered this application in detail. In particular, it was considered in the context of:

·        The size of the application site;

·        The need for a 5 year housing land supply;

·        The National Planning Policy Framework;

·        The need for additional school places which the chairman would raise under delegated powers when discussing the Section 106 agreements;

·        The need to re-consult the county highways engineer on the adequacy of the footpath width. 

RESOLVED (for 7; against 3; abstentions 1)

To authorise the head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman, vice-chairman and local ward members, to grant planning permission, subject to the completion a section 106 agreement with both the county council and the district council within 4 months of resolution, to secure contributions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

Proposed development and operation of an anaerobic digestion facility on land at Sutton Courtenay landfill site (re-submission of withdrawn application P12/V0174).

Recommended: to refuse planning permission for reasons outlined in the report.

This item was withdrawn by the applicant.

Proposed extension - amended design from application P12/V2043/HH.

Recommended: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented her report on an application for a proposed extension – (amended design from application P12/V2043/HH). 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.

Updates from the report

None.

David Hignell from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, spoke, objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Potential flood risk;

·           The possibility of the extension being used as a separate dwelling.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, said that he was concerned about the possibility of the extension being used as a separate dwelling.

The committee considered this application. The majority of members of the committee (8 in favour, 4 against) were in favour of adding an ancillary accommodation condition.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         TL1 – Time limit.

2.         Approved plans.

3.         RE1 – Matching materials.

4.         Slab Levels.

5.         Ancillary accommodation.

Replacement advertisements comprising 1 fascia sign, 1 projecting sign, 2 hoarding signs, 1 plaque sign, 2 car park disclaimers and 1 poster frame.

Recommended: to grant advertisement consent and also to grant listed building consent, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application for replacement advertisements comprising 1 fascia sign, 1 freestanding hanging sign, 2 hoarding signs, 1 plaque sign, 2 car park disclaimers and 1 poster frame. 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.

Updates from the report

None.

Councillor Mike Badcock, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the lack of traditional pictorial content on the freestanding hanging sign.

The committee considered this application. It concluded that the proposed freestanding hanging sign was poorly designed and not in keeping with the local culture and history of Abingdon and that it had a negative impact on the setting of the listed building to which it related.

RESOLVED (for 6; against 6; abstentions 0: decided on chairman’s casting vote)

To delegate the decision to refuse advertisement consent to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman. The reason for refusal to relate to the poor design of the freestanding hanging sign and its harmful impact on amenity, in particular the character and setting of the grade II listed building, the White Horse Pub.

RESOLVED (For 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant listed building consent, subject to the following conditions:

·           TL4.

·           Listing approved plans.

1 x non-illuminated wall mounted sign and 2 x illuminated signs (re-submission of application P12/V2291/A).

Recommended: to grant advertisement consent, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application for 1 x non-illuminated wall mounted sign and 2 x illuminated signs (re-submission of application P12/V2291/A). 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.

Updates from the report

None.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant advertisement consent, subject to the following conditions:

Standard advertisments conditions 1 – 5

6. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

7. The intensity levels of the new illumination shall not exceed 20 lux.

Replacement of a free standing totem sign.

Recommended: to grant advertisement consent, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application on the replacement of a free standing totem sign. 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.

Updates from the report

None.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 0)

Grant advertisement consent subject to

·       standard conditions 1 – 6, and

·       7 : Approved plans