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 Substitute Members who had been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) were recorded, as referred to above, with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Roger Cox, Richard Farrell, Jenny Hannaby, and Pam Westwood. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 4 July 2005 attached.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 July 2005 were adopted and signed as a correct record. 

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 phones should be switched off during the meeting. 

The Chair announced that item 20, an application relating to 75-77 Northcourt Road, Abingdon (ABG/17389/1) had been withdrawn from the agenda.  

The Chair also announced that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on Monday 15 August 2005 had been cancelled due to the lack of planning applications requiring Members' attention for the South area. 

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 five members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, one member of the public had withdrawn their request to speak. 

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

ANY MATERIALS SUBMITTED WILL BE ON DISPLAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

The Committee considered materials for two developments. 

By 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED   

(a)        that in relation to application ABG/17298/3 at Marcham Road, Abingdon materials be

(i)                  Refused as follows: -

Bricks              -   WDF Marlow Red and Colville Red

Render            -  Pewter Grey K-Rend with black or anthracite mastic

Glazing            -  Kalwall Panel

(ii)        Approved as follows: -

Glazing            -  Pilkington Planar Glazing or Kalwall Panel

(b)        that the following materials be refused in relation to application KEN/16245/1-D At Cranbrook House, Kennington:

Bricks - Consolidated Broadlands Fallow Blend and Consolidated Berkeley Orange Grove Multi

Tile - Russell Double Roman in peat brown

Lodged

The following appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

Appeal by Mr and Mrs Wilson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a first floor extension at Struan Faringdon Road, Frilford Heath (FRI/11397/2);

Allowed

The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

Appeal by Mr Chris Brotherton against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of roof space to provide a two bedroom apartment at 10 Cumnor Hill, Oxford (NHI/3243/13).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.

The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was whether the proposed development made adequate provision for car parking. 

The Inspector noted that the Council had revised its parking standards in response to the guidance in PPG3 and PPG13.  These were now expressed as a maximum of one car parking space for each one-bedroomed unit and two car parking spaces for each two-bedroomed unit.  These standards equated to a requirement of 11 on-site car parking spaces to serve the existing and proposed development on the site.  12 car parking spaces existed.  The standard did not define any ratio between resident and visitor parking.

The Inspector considered that the appeal site lay within a highly sustainable location within reasonable walking distance of shops, school, health and other community facilities.  The site lay on the route of a frequent bus service to Oxford and Abingdon.  The Inspector was satisfied that the development would not result in additional danger to road uses or interference with the free flow of traffic by encouraging parking on Cumnor Hill.  The Inspector therefore considered that the proposal accorded with Local Plan Policies D3 and TR9 and relevant national policy guidance in PPG3 and PPG13.  The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal.  No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Tapecrown Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the cessation of the existing lorry park use, the construction of a new building for business use (648m squared) and the formation of new turning area and operational parking to serve the proposed development at Chowle Farm, Great Coxwell (GCO/2087/18).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.

            The Inspector considered that there were two main issues in this case, namely the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the impact of the scheme on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the A420.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed new building was designed for its purose, and although taller than the existing building, the Inspector considered that with the use of dark colours it could be rendered acceptable within the landscape.  The Inspector considered that it would hide much of the clutter which was clearly visible which would be a particular benefit of the scheme.  Subject to an  ...  view the full agenda text for item 76.

The Committee received and considered an agenda report which advised of one appeal which had been lodged, one which had been allowed and four which had been dismissed.  A further three appeals had been withdrawn. 

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 an agenda report, which advised of four forthcoming Public Inquiries and eleven Hearings. 

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received. 

To receive and consider report 56/05 of the landscape Officer (Arboriculture) attached.

The Committee received and considered report 56/05 of the Landscape Officer (Arboriculture) regarding a proposed Tree Preservation Order at Longworth.  During the latter part of last year the officer had been contacted by local residents who were concerned about the potential loss of trees in fields adjacent to the A420 and Pine Woods Road, Longworth due to the possibility of sand being extracted from the land.  In January 2005, the officer visited the site and identified several hedgerows containing a number of visually significant trees.  A Tree Preservation Order was made to protect these trees.  Objections to the Order had been received from Hanson Aggregates of Lechlade.  The officer sought confirmation from the Committee that if permission was given to extract sand from the fields adjacent to the trees, consideration was given to the trees during the process so that they remained in good health and would continue to provide a visual amenity for many years to come.  The Committee considered that the Order should be confirmed to secure the trees' protection. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED   

that the Tree Preservation Order (Longworth) No.4 2005 be confirmed and that a slightly modified plan be made to correct the plotting error. 

The Committee received and consider report 55/05 of the Assistant Director (Planning) detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are recorded below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

Mr Churchman, the applicant's agent, had indicated that he wished to make a statement to the meeting but had later withdrawn his request to do so. 

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the Town Council had raised no objection to the application but requested that a limit was placed on noise emanating from the refrigeration unit.  It was also reported that the CountyEngineer had raised no objection to the application. 

The Committee considered that the application was acceptable and would cause less noise disturbance than the previous use of a woodworking facility. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/361/14 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Further to the report, it was confirmed that the officer's recommendation was to delegate approval of the application, subject to conditions. 

The Committee supported the application, subject to the conditions to control the site and the details of the car parking and access treatment and landscaping. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that authority to approve application FRI/2207/52 be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Committee, subject to conditions including details of the access drive and car park, the landscaping of the car park, the design of the information boards, the extended pedestrian route to the site, and any surfacing work to the circular path. 

Further to the report, the officer suggested an additional condition regarding the internal lighting of the link and external lighting in the grounds. 

Mr Russell, the applicant's agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to changes that had been made to take on board the comments raised by English Heritage and the Parish Council.  The application was largely to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.  Careful consideration had been given to the design, bearing in mind the property was Listed and in a Conservation Area.  He pointed to there being no objections from local residents or the highways authority. 

Members suggested that care should be taken in the choice of materials and suggested oak was used on the external details rather than plastic.  Also, it was requested that care should be taken over boundary treatment, i.e. that no larch-lap fencing should be used.  It was noted that oak and clear glass would be used for the link building. 

With regard to the Listed Building application, it was noted that because the building was Grade II Star Listed this would require the Secretary of State's approval before final approval by the officers in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair under delegated authority. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application CUM/4340/18 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with additional conditions regarding the internal lighting of the link and external lighting in the grounds, and boundary treatment; and

(b)        that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Committee to approve application CUM/4340/19-LB, subject to:

(i)         the referral of the application to the Secretary of State; and 

(ii)        the conditions as set out in the report. 

Further to the report, it was noted that the applicant had appealed against the Council's non-determination of the application within the eight week period.  Therefore, the Committee was recommended to approve the suggested reason for refusal set out in the report as the reason for refusal to defend the appeal.  

Members supported the reason for refusal as accurately reflecting the Committee's debate at the meeting when the application was previously considered.  

By 11 votes to 4 it was

RESOLVED

that the reason for refusal set out in the report be used to defend the appeal into application NHI/7093/1.  

Mr Pitt-Pulford made a statement objecting to the application.  He was not opposed to his neighbours extending their house but he did object to the design of the proposed extension.  He considered that it would be too close to his property at the rear of the two houses and the proposed use of hanging facia tiles could pose a danger in high winds.  He also objected to overlooking from the bedroom window of the proposed extension and requested that this contained frosted glass. 

Although some Members had sympathy with the objector, they noted that the proposed extension met the Council's design guide.  On the advice of the officers, Members also considered that the funnelling effect of the two properties was not a material planning consideration and Members considered that frosted glass in the bedroom window would be an unreasonable condition. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/10495/3 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Mr Organ, on behalf of Garford Parish Meeting, made a statement objecting to the application, reinforcing concerns already set out in the report.  He emphasised the problems further traffic would cause if traffic using this site was not diverted away from the village.  He believed that a further traffic increase was unsustainable on the standard of roads through the village.  Problems already existed with large, heavy lorries on the narrow roads where there were few passing places and poor junctions. 

Mr Cardy, of the business occupying the application site, made a statement in support of the application.  He reported that the applicants understood their responsibilities to the local community and asked for deliveries to be routed away from the village to reduce traffic disturbance.  He reported on the success of the business and stated that it employed local people, all of whom lived in the District. 

The Local Member reported that, although no local residents had formally objected to the application, he had attended three Parish Meetings where there was considerable concern over this application adding to the traffic problems in Garford village.  He believed that the problems were partly caused by heavy lorries visiting nearby Cobweb Farm.  The County Council's imposition of a weight limit on the village roads had little impact.  Although the business at Chadwicks Farm was doing its best to re-route traffic away from the village, he recognised that this did not always work.  He expressed concern at the possible growth of the business at this site.  He believed that this was the wrong location for an expanding use requiring further heavy goods traffic.  He expressed concern that a routing agreement would be enforceable. 

Other Members also considered that a routing agreement would not work.  However, it was noted that the County Engineer had not objected to the application, subject to conditions.  Members considered the possibility of obtaining a second opinion but noted that any independent consultant was likely to use the same baseline information on previous traffic generation from the site as was used by the County Engineer.  This suggestion was therefore not pursued. 

By 9 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application GAR/13326/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The Committee noted that the application had resulted in no objections but was brought before Members as the applicant was a member of staff. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/17389/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

Some concern was expressed by one of the Local Members that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment of the site but on the advice of the officers she found no reason to refuse the application. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/18957/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

It was noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda. 

None.