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. (The minutes reflect the order in which business was heard to provide a continuous narrative of the meeting, rather than the agenda order.)

Item 11: Land off Beggars Lane, Southmoor, P13/V0788/FUL had been deferred to the next meeting due to an administrative error.

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 notified.

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

The latest figures were attached to the agenda and noted by the committee.

The final status column requires further updating, and all members were asked to contact the planning department with any updates of which they were aware.

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 from councillors Bob Johnston, Sue Marchant and Janet Shelley.

Councillor Gervase Duffield substituted for Janet Shelley and Councillor Ron Mansfield substituted for Bob Johnston.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 8 May 2013 (to be circulated separately). 

There were no minutes available at this meeting.

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

Disclosable pecuniary interests

None declared.

Other declarations

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.

Demolition of no. 44 Milton Road to create access, residential development of site for up to 70 dwellings, including vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle links, public open space, landscaping and drainage. 

Recommendation:It is recommended that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman subject to:

1. Completion within the agreed planning performance agreement period of section 106 agreements for on-site affordable housing provision, on site open space provision, contributions towards off-site facilities and services including highways 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, local and area hub recreational and community facility improvements. 
2. Conditions as outlined in the officer’s report. 

The officer presented his report on an application to demolish no. 44 Milton Road to create access, residential development of site for up to 70 dwellings, including vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle links, public open space, landscaping and drainage. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·       Further letters of objection have been received, reiterating points already covered in the report.

·       Councillors have received direct representation from Pye Homes who are applying to develop the neighbouring site.

The following contributions have been requested:

Vale

·       Waste bin provision – £11,900

·       Art – £17,000

·       Street naming – £332

·       Recreation – £133,509

·       Abingdon shop mobility – 2,315

County

·       Transport (Science Vale UK) – £191,590

·       Education (towards expansion of the village primary school) – £244,486

·       Education (secondary) – £213,768

·       Education (sixth form) – £42,754

·       Education (Special Educational Needs Schools) – £13,351

·       Property (Libraries, waste management, museum resource centre, social / health care) – £46,849

Other contributions

·       Police (bicycles) – £1,600

·       Police (APNR) – £11,000

·       Primary Care Trust – £11,779

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

·       This is not a sustainable location for development.

·       Infrastructure is inadequate.

·       Foul and surface water drainage is inadequate.

·       Overloaded minor road network.

·       In combination with previous planning permissions in the village, this represents a cumulative development of 27 percent growth.

Pauline Wilson, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·       The draft local plan should be used to make decision, development should not be developer led.

·       Effect of cumulative development.

Chris Doel, from Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       The village will increase by 27 percent as a result of all development.

·       Highways not sustainable.

·       Primary schools already full.

David Burbridge (Bidwells), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       Local consultation had taken place.

·       The plan was for deliverable, sustainable development.

·       The applicant intended to build sustainable homes.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       Traffic issues.

·       Sutton Courtenay losing its greenfield sites.

·       Potentially becoming a suburb of Didcot.

·       The Boundary Commission report that by 2018 Sutton Courtenay and Appleford will have 28 percent more electors (plus children and others not eligible to vote).

The committee considered this application. During the discussion, clarification was sought from officers, and the following points were raised and responded to:

·       Affordable housing is spread throughout the sites.

·       It is for the County Council to meet the need for school places.

·       Little weight can be given to the local plan as it is in the early stages of development.

·       The s106 monies for schools would go to expand primary places in Sutton Courtenay and secondary places in Abingdon and Didcot. The cumulative affect on the size of the village  ...  view the full minutes text for item 300.

Erection of four detached dwelling houses with associated access. 

Recommendation: Permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report. 

This item was deferred to the next meeting for technical reasons.

Construction of new hard tennis/netball courts complete with fencing and lighting.  Removal of existing hard courts and fencing: to be returned to grass. 

Recommendation: Permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report. 

The officer presented his report on an application to construct new hard tennis/netball courts complete with fencing and lighting. Removal of existing hard courts and fencing: to be returned to grass. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·       None.

John Turnbull, a neighbour, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       Intensity of flood lights.

·       Lights pointing towards neighbouring houses.

·       Lux levels and lighting columns same as the previous withdrawn application.

·       Potential impact of noise from the courts.

·       Lateness of hours of operation and 365 days per year.

David Ely, the bursar from the applicant school, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       Moving the courts will improve the noise levels for neighbours.

·       The plans are environmentally friendly.

·       Proposed site so far away from local residencies that lighting should not impact on them.

·       The hours of operation refer to potential opening times, to cover all eventualities.

·       There are no other local facilities for netball hire.

Councillor Jim Halliday, the ward councillors spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       The school should prepare a long term plan, rather than making successive applications which the local residents find distressing.

·       The lights facing the houses are not shielded.

·       Late use to 22.00 and potential commercial use could increase noise and lighting impact.

The committee considered this application.

·       The school has made concessions to its neighbours.

·       The technical information showed that the light pool is confined to the playing courts.

·       The relocation of the courts should reduce noise levels over those currently experienced.

·       Any noise nuisance would be dealt with by the environmental health department.

·       The committee hoped that this application would provide wider community benefit.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 1)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - time limit - full application (full).

2.    Approved plans.

3.    MC3 - materials in accordance with application (full).

4.    MC30 - floodlights installation (full).

5.    The floodlights hereby approved shall be switched off between the hours of 10pm and 9am Mondays to Saturdays, and between 9.30pm and 9am Sundays and Bank Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

6.    LS4 - tree protection (full).

Erection of 2x3 bed chalet bungalows with detached garages and vehicular access (Re-submission of withdrawn application P12/02649/FUL). 

Recommendation: that authority to grant planning permission is delegated to the head of planning in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman subject to completing a section 106 agreement with the county council to secure contributions towards highway improvements, and to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.  

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 2 x 3 bed chalet bungalows with detached garages and vehicular access (re-submission of withdrawn application P12/V2649/FUL). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

The officer confirmed that suggested condition 9 would include the removal of permitted development rights for boundary fencing to protect the rural character and appearance of the area.

Brian Forster, from Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Contrary to the village plan according to which, there should be no development on this side of the village.

·           Traffic issues: combined with existing problems and other agreed developments.

·           The parish council want some positive s106 contributions for the village.

·           The parish council supports the views of the villagers’ who object.

Christopher Belk, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           This application had been refused previously and is not significantly changed.

·           Road safety issues.

·           The public view of the adjacent listed cottage would be harmed.

Peter Uzzell, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           This was a modest housing scheme and the villagers objections had been addressed.

The committee considered this application, with further advice from officers, where requested.

·           The parish plan is not in accordance with our draft local plan and so cannot be afforded any weight.

·           The scheme is different from that previously rejected because the conservation officer had changed her advice since the proposed buildings had been resited closer to the front of the plot.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 2; abstentions 0)

To delegate the authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, subject to:

1.         TL1 - time limit - full application (full).

2.         Approved plans.

3.         MC2 - materials (samples) (full).

4.         HY6[I] - access, parking and turning in accordance with plan.

5.         LS1 - landscaping scheme (submission) (full).

1.         LS2[I] - landscaping scheme (implement) (full).

2.         LS5[I] - retain existing hedgerow/trees bound(full).

3.         MC24 - drainage details (surface and foul(full)).

4.         RE2 - PD restriction on dwellings extensions/outbuildings.(full).

5.         RE6 - boundary details (detsild not shown)(full).

6.         RE17 - slab levels (dwellings) (full).