Agenda and minutes

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed and advised on emergency evacuation arrangements and expected behaviour of the public.

None.

There were no declarations of interest for any item, except where the member was the ward councillor and would be stepping down for that item.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 17 August 2016. 

The committee received the minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2016 and adopted them as a correct record. The chairman signed the minutes.

There were no items of urgent business.

The speakers list was tabled at the meeting and the speakers would be heard with the relevant application.

Julie Mabberley, from the Wantage and Grove Campaign Group made a statement.

She raised concern about the following issues:

·         Errors in the linking of documents to planning applications.

·         Lack of documents available for a planning appeal.

·         Notification of the approval to speak at the meeting this evening.

Ms Mabberley sought reassurance that procedures were in place to ensure that documentation is checked according to published guidelines.

The chairman undertook that a written response would be provided to Ms Mabberley within 10 working days. He apologised for not responding to an email about speaking at the committee.

Erection of a two storey and single storey side and rear extension with parking and sub-division to form an attached two-bedroom dwelling.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V1468/FUL for the erection of a two storey and single storey side and rear extension with parking and sub-division to form an attached two-bedroom dwelling at 11 Frilsham Street, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon, OX14 4AZ

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

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

·           Harmful to the character and appearance of the proposed development.

·           Overshadowing, dominance and over-looking.

·           Number of accesses close to the junction.

·           Unacceptable sub-division of a plot.

·           Inconsistent with recommendations and refusals elsewhere in the village.

Members of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Hignell.

Peter Quainton, the neighbour, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included the following:

·           Amended plans were not circulated to the neighbours and therefore they were unable to submit concerns to the council.

·           Significant adverse impact on neighbours.

·           Will significantly impact on the street scene.

·           Overshadowing, dominance and over-looking.

Members of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Quainton.

Jake Collinge, applicant’s agent spoke in favour of the application, and responded to earlier comments.

·           Scale and form of proposed development almost identical in scale to one which had already been approved.

·           A terrace would not be out of character with the wider character of the area.

·           Sufficient amenity would be provided for the scale of the development.

·           No objections from highways officers.

Member of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Collinge.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the officers.

·           Size of amenity space: this was consistent with the Design Guide

·           Suggestion to remove permitted development rights from the existing property as well as the subsidiary property: this was acceptable if committee was so minded.

·           Bins would be retained in the rear garden.

·           The extant permission for an extension means that officers did not consider it reasonable to impose different size conditions on this property on the basis of harm to a neighbouring property.

A motion, proposed and seconded, to reject the officer’s recommendation based on the visual amenity and adverse impact on the neighbours, and also the amenity space, was put and debated by the committee.

For 2, Against 9

A motion, proposed and seconded, to accept the officer’s recommendation, was put and debated by the committee

RESOLVED (9 For, 1 Against, 1 Abstention)

Reserved matters application for the construction of 37 residential units pursuant to application P14/V1976/O (as varied by application P16/V644/O).

Councillor Webber stepped down from the committee as she is the ward member.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0992/RM, reserved matters application for the construction of 37 residential units pursuant to application P14/V1976/O as varied and amended at Land off Packhorse Lane, Marcham, Abingdon, OX13 6NU.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Ruth Mander from Marcham Parish Council spoke raising concerns about the application which included the following:

·           Roof height of the proposed properties and impact on the other historical buildings nearby: sought reassurance that these are genuinely single story buildings.

·           Impact on access and on the air quality of the local area.

·           Concerns about the collection of bins.

·           Pedestrian routes.

The committee asked questions of clarification of Ms Mander.

Matthew Driver, from Thrive Architects, the applicants’ agent, spoke in favour of the application.

·           The mix of properties on the site, including 40 percent affordable housing, open space and parking met the needs of the local community, including requests from the parish council.

The committee asked questions of clarification of Mr Driver.

Councillor Catherine Webber, the ward member, spoke objecting to the application. She raised the following points.

·           Highway safety, including access on and off the site, buts residents of the village at risk.

·           Heritage assets, given proximity to Marcham Priory: the density of housing is too high.

·           Visual impact.

·           Air quality issue: the area is outside the AQMA, but the traffic must exit onto the AQMA area.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the officers.

A motion was proposed and seconded to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

RESOLVED (unanimous)

Full application for planning permission for conversion of the Anson Institute building to 3x apartments (2x 2 bed, 1x 1bed) and erection of 5x new dwelling houses (4x 3 bed, 1x 4 bed), and for the erection of 5x 4 bedroom dwellings along with new community building, MUGA and rearranged sports pitches on Anson Field.  Outline application for the erection of nursery building on Anson Field with all matters reserved.

Councillor Webber stepped down from the committee as she was the ward member for this application.

The officer presented the report and the addendum on application P15/V3042/O a hybrid application for the full application for planning permission for conversion of the Anson Institute building to 3 x apartments (2 x 2 bed, 1 x 1 bed) and erection of 5 x new dwelling houses (4 x3 bed, 1 x 4 bed), and for the erection of 5 x 4 bedroom dwellings, along with new community building. MUGA and rearranged sports pitches on Anson Field. Outline application for the erection of nursery building on Anson Field with all matters reserved at Marcham Village Institute and Anson Field, Marcham.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Ruth Mander spoke on behalf of Marcham Parish Council, supporting the application:

·           It provided benefits and amenities to the village

·           The parish council expects to be included in all consultations relating to the development of this application.

The committee asked questions of clarification to Ms Mander.

Jeremy Collins spoke in objection to the application.

·           Believes that this application is a desecration of the memory of the Anson sisters in their gift to the village.

·           Concerns about parking, air quality and traffic movement.

·           The application is in the conservation area.

The committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Collins.

Jim Asher, Chair of Marcham Community Facilities Steering Group, spoke in support of the application.

·           The village is in need of a new village hall, particularly given the increase in the population in the village of Marcham.

·           The application is not housing led. It uses the limited housing build to allow for the redevelopment of the facilities.

·           It aligns with the community led plan. It is a community led solution to a community problem.

The committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Asher.

Catherine Webber, the ward member spoke in favour of this application.

·           It was a much needed facility in the village and had significant support within the village.

The committee asked questions of clarification to Councillor Webber.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the officers

There is an overage clause: if profits go above the industry benchmark then the parish council will claim some profits back as part of a s106 agreement.

A motion was proposed and seconded to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The committee debated this motion.

To erect a two-storey two-bedroom detached dwelling.

Councillor Bob Johnston stepped down from the committee as he was the ward member for this item.

The officer presented the report on this application, for outline planning permission for the construction of a two storey, two bedroom detached dwelling at 20 Meadow View Road Kennington.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Martin Feather, from Kennington Parish Council, objected to the application. His objections included the following:

·           He was not comfortable that the report from the traffic consultant was sufficiently independent to be taken at face value and he considered that there was potential harm in terms of traffic impact.

The committee had no questions of clarification for Mr Feather.

Mr Bob Banks, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

·           The traffic report was fair and independent.

·           He did not believe that traffic would speed at this location, where there were a lot of parked cars in the street.

·           The application provided off-street parking for both dwellings.

The committee asked questions of clarification of Mr Banks.

Bob Johnston, the ward member, spoke in favour of this application.

He agreed that the amount of on street parking meant it unlikely that vehicles would travel at speed at this location and that most vehicles drove significantly below the 30 mph speed limit.

The committee asked questions of clarification of Councillor Johnston.

The committee asked question of clarification of the officers.

A motion was proposed and seconded to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The committee debated this motion.