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. He reminded the public not to approach councillors or officers during the course of business.

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

Councillor Bill Jones had been appointed to the committee after a brief absence, and the chairman welcomed him to the meeting.

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 cumulative housing figures were 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 and substitutions.

Since the agenda had been issued, there had been a change of membership to the committee. Councillor Fiona Roper had resigned from the committee and Councillor Bill Jones had been appointed.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meetings held on 8 May, 22 May and 5 June (circulated separately). 

The minutes of the meeting of 8 May 2013 were approved and signed by the chairman.

The minutes of the meeting of 22 May 2013 were approved and would be signed by the chairman, subject to the abstention numbers on the last item being amended from 0 to 4.

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 committee noted the list of public speakers that 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.

The officer presented the report on an application to demolish 110 Milton Road and erect 34 dwelling houses with associated access. 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.

Sutton Courtenay scores fourth of approximately 80 villages in the Vale on grounds of sustainability and is therefore considered suitable for applications to be considered which fall outside of the Vale’s policy on development in order to meet its five year housing land supply shortfall.

The application came back to committee as it had been deferred by the committee from the meeting on 8 May 2013. The grounds for deferral were for the following reasons:

1.    A redesign of the layout to ensure that the affordable housing provision is better distributed through the site.

2.    Additional information was requested by the planning committee as to the highway works that had been considered acceptable by the Oxfordshire County Council Highways Office to address the identified highway and access issues that this proposed development generates. Committee also wished to see an assessment of the locally sponsored traffic survey on behalf of the Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural action group.

3.    Additional information relating to land drainage of the site. The planning committee wished to be advised of the details of solutions being considered by the appropriate drainage authorities to address the identified ground water drainage, and the foul water drainage infrastructure considered necessary for this proposal to take place.

4.    Education provision requirements linked to this development proposal. The planning committee wished to be advised of the detailed solutions being considered by the county council education authority to address the identified lack of school places that would result should this development take place.

Additional information provided by the officer

• There had been over 100 local objections to this application.
• Design changes had been made to the layout of social housing and public space to meet concerns raised at 8 May committee meeting.
• Slab levels had been raised by 30 centimetres in response to drainage concerns.
• The drainage objections had been removed.
• Foul sewage: two possible solutions had been proposed by Thames Water, and officers were now satisfied on this issue.
• £250,000 had been put forward under s106 agreements for education, and this was considered satisfactory by the local education authority.
• The speed reduction measures proposed were acceptable to the county highways officer.

Michael Jenkins from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Cumulative growth from 1007 households to 1281 households with the agreed and proposed applications, representing a 27 percent increase in growth.

·           This site previously considered unsuitable for development.

·           Housing not adequately pepper potted throughout the site.

·           Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural’s independent highways survey had not yet been presented to the Vale.

·           Flooding measures had not, in his opinion, been adequately addressed.

·           Foul drainage works should be completed before commencement of building.

Dr Nicholas Richardson from Keep  ...  view the full minutes text for item 313.

The officer presented the report on an application for a residential development consisting of 31 houses (19 open market houses and 12 affordable) and public open space. 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

Councillors had received further letters of objection to the scheme from local residents.

Robert Green, from Steventon Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Highways and traffic safety.

·           The cumulative impact of all recent applications on the capacity of the village school.

·           Flooding risk

·           This application, together with the one at Barnett Road, represented a 13 percent increase in the size of the village.

·           The developer’s traffic survey was undertaken in July when the school was closed and is not therefore a true representation of the traffic problems.

·           This is not a suitable or sustainable site for new homes.

Sue Rees spoke on behalf of local residents, objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·           Potential flooding and drainage problems.

·           High water table.

·           Proposals not sufficient to be effective.

·           Run off water likely to affect existing houses.

·           Open public area: no one is willing to manage it and it will be subject to high risk flooding, creating a particular risk to children playing on it.

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

·           A management company owned by residents would be responsible for the open space.

·           Technical solutions to the drainage problems could be provided and the drainage engineer was content.

·           There would be minimal changes to the Causeway.

·           Trenches had been dug to check archaeological concerns.

·           The local education authority was content with the education plans.

Councillor Bill Jones, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·           Councillor Murray, the other ward councillor had outlined his concerns in a letter which was on pp 53-54 of the agenda pack.

·           There would likely be traffic chaos at school run times.

·           If the school expands, due to increased numbers created by this and other proposed developments, the playing fields will have to expand too. However, the application site is on land adjacent to the existing playing field and therefore there will be nowhere to expand if the proposed development goes ahead.

The committee considered this application.

During the course of the discussion the committee considered the issues raised by the speakers including the potential impact on education provision, potential flooding risks and traffic and highways problems created by this and other developments.

RESOLVED (for 8; against 1; abstentions 5)

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

Completion within the agreed planning performance agreement (PPA) period of section 106 agreements for on-site affordable housing provision, on site open space provision, contributions towards off-site facilities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 314.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect 4 detached dwelling houses with associated access. 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 Mottram, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Outside of the village curtilage.

·           In a 40 mph speed zone.

·           Not sustainable, not within walking distance of the village.

·           Access hazardous

·           Cumulative impact: increase in Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor is already 27 percent.

·           No facilities in the village, eg health services.

·           School already at capacity.

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

·           The density of this scheme would be 6.4 dwellings per hectare, as this is at the edge of the village.

·           The parish council supports the application.

·           Oxfordshire County Council has no highways concerns.

·           The site is well screened.

The committee considered this application.

·           Some members of the committee expressed disappointment that there were only four proposed dwellings for the site as the trigger point for affordable housing is five dwellings.

·           Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor ranked highly on the council’s assessment of sustainable villages.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 3; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         Commencement 3 years.

2.         Submission of details – plot one, garden paths, wall and fence treatments.

3.         Approved plans (in accordance).

4.         Surface water – drainage.

5.         Landscaping – scheme and details.

6.         Surface water drainage works.

7.         Foul drainage works.

8.         Visibility splays.

9.         Access, parking and turning in accordance with plan

10.      No Drainage to highway.

11.      Garage accommodation.

12.      Works within the highway.

The officer presented the report on an application to develop 18 dwellings with garages, access road, associated works and public open space and a detention basin.  (Re-submission of withdrawn application P12/V2447/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 county highways engineer had withdrawn his holding objection due to improvements made to the application.

·           There had been one further letter of objection in response to amendments made to plot 8: this objection had come from the neighbour.

·           This will lead to a 16 percent increase in the population size in village, including this site and the two already given approval.

David Walton, from Marcham Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Dangerous road access to site.

·           Increased flooding risk to several existing properties.

·           Proposed materials not suitable to site.

·           Damage to “rural feel” of south side of the village.

·           If approved, the zebra crossing by The Crown should be upgraded to a pelican crossing with s106 monies.

·           Loss of amenity.

·           Overshadowing of existing buildings.

Stuart Capel, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           The A145 road is already very busy and the application, if granted, could make the highways more dangerous.

·           Facilities are all north of the A415 road, whereas this development would be south of the road.

·           Potential sewage problems.

Huw Mellor (Kemp & Kemp), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           The previous scheme had been withdrawn due to objections from the conservation officer, who was content with this new scheme.

·           The scheme is deliverable within the time frame.

Councillor Catherine Webber, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points she raised included the following:

·           She supported the parish council’s objections.

·           Traffic issues: the S bend on the A415 in Marcham is dangerous.

·           There are air quality issues in Marcham which will be made worse by increased traffic.

The committee considered this application.

The area around the A415 in Marcham is not in an Air Quality Management Area.

·           The committee was concerned about access to and from the site, but accepted the highways officer’s advice that it would be adequate.

·           The local member should be included in the delegation.

·           There should be a materials panel on site. Materials to be determined by the committee and the local member.

RESOLVED (for 8; against 4; abstentions 2)

To delegate the authority to grant planning permission to the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman, vice-chairman and the local member, subject to the following:

Completion within the planning performance agreement (PPA) target 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, local and area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 316.

Councillor Robert Sharp left the meeting and Councillor Sandy Lovatt took the chair.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect a new four bed, two storey dwelling and double garage on land adjacent to 67 High Street. 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

·           Paragraph 6.8 of the report: the minimum distance from 3 and 4 Salop Close is 18 metres, not 24.5 metres.

·           There have been two further letters of objection raising the above distance point, and other issues covered in the report.

·           The windows will not look towards the nearest properties.

Peter Saunders, the applicant’s supporter, spoke in favour of the application.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 13; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         TL1 – Time limit.

2.         List of approved plans.

3.          MC2 - Materials (samples).

4.         Prior to the occupation of the new dwelling the grade II listed pound at the north side of the site shall be restored in accordance with a scheme of restoration which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The shceme should include a schedule of repairs and a method statement, and incorporate details of removal of ivy, stonework repairs and reinstatement of a gate which originally existed.

5.         Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the materials to be used in the construction of the dividing boundary wall between the new dwelling and no.67 High Street, shown on drawing number A126/PO2 rev.A, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The boundary wall shall only be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

6.          HY1 – Access (details not shown).

7.         HY7 – Car parking.

8.         HY11[I] - Turn. Space in accor. Spec. Plan

9.         HY19 – No drainage to highway.

10.      HY16 – No access from specified road.

11.      RE11 - Garage Accommodation.

12.      LS1 - Landscaping scheme (submission).

13.      LS2 – Landscaping scheme (implementation).

14.      Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, the new first-floor windows on the east and west elevations shall be glazed with obscured glass and shall be fixed shut, apart from a top-hung opening vent only. Thereafter, the windows shall remain obscure glazed with top-hung opening vents only. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or the equivalent provisions of any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no additional first-floor windows shall be inserted in the east and west elevations of the dwelling without the prior grant of planning permission.

15.      RE3 - PD Restriction Single Dwell Ext/Outblds.

16.      RE18 – Slab levels (single dwellings).