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.

There were no apologies for absence as all Members of the Committee were present.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 24 October 2005.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 24 October 2005 were adopted and signed as a correct record.

With reference to Minute DC.155 – WAN/3417/27 and 28-LB it was noted that 13.8% of households in the Vale did not have a car compared to 20% of households in Oxfordshire.

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

In accordance with Part 2 of the Local Code of Conduct and the provisions of Standing Order 34, any Member with a personal interest must disclose the existence and nature of that interest to the meeting prior to the matter being debated.  Where that personal interest is also a prejudicial interest, then the Member must withdraw from the room in which the meeting is being held and not seek improperly to influence any decision about the matter unless he/she has obtained a dispensation from the Standards Committee.

Councillors declared interests in report 177/05 – Planning Applications as follows:-

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 announced that application LWO/13682/4-X – the erection of a dwelling Wayside House, Beggars Lane, Longworth had been withdrawn from the agenda, (Minute DC.191 refers).

The Chair asked members of the public and Councillors to switch their mobile telephones off during the meeting.

Finally, the Chair reminded Members that at the last meeting, on consideration of application WAN/13040/1 – demolition of workshop, erection of three storey and single storey rear extensions and conversion of property to form three flats at 33 Wallingford Street, Wantage, it had been agreed that consideration of the application be deferred pending an organised site visit.  The Chair announced that arrangements had now been made and the site visit would take place on Wednesday 30 November 2005 at 11.00am.  The Chair suggested that any Members unable to attend the next meeting of the Committee when the application would be considered, should arrange for their Substitute Member to attend the site visit.

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

None.

Any questions from members of the public under Standing Order 32 will be asked at the meeting.

None.

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.

Four members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.

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

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

None.

Lodged

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

Appeals by Mr and Mrs J Kay against the Council’s decisions to refuse to permit the extension of a single storey rear extension to Barn, Ickleton House, London Road, Blewbury (BLE/15593/3 and BLE/15593/4-LB).

Dismissed

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

Appeals by Abingdon Bowling Club against the Council’s decisions to refuse to permit the construction of new all weather bowling green with associated fencing, hedging and external work and removal of existing leylandii and fir hedging at Abingdon Bowling Club, Albert Road, Park Crescent, Abingdon (ABG/7375/6 and ABG/7375/7).  Both decisions were made by the Development Control Committee on 15 March 2004 and 27 September 2004 respectively.  The decision letter is attached at Appendix 1.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda report which advised of one appeal which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination and one which had been dismissed.

One Member referred to the appeal decision in respect of the Abingdon Bowling Club welcoming the Inspector’s decision.

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 item which advised of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 177/05 detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

Councillor Briony Newport had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the Committee noted that the Parish Council had expressed concern regarding the financial motives of the applicant which might lead to the prevention of the sale of the existing shop to the Cat Clinic.  However, the Committee was advised that sales and financial gain were not material planning considerations.

Mr A Griffiths made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that the Parish Council had been particularly concerned regarding access, parking, noise, inaccurate plans and the proposals being misleading.

Two of the local Members raised no objection to the application.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/1136/4 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillors Jerry Patterson and Sylvia Patterson had each declared personal interests in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Both of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal but questioned the surface material for the drive, commenting that because of concerns regarding noise, an alternative to gravel surface treatment for the access should be used.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/1525/1-X be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report, with an additional condition to require that the surface treatment of the access be first agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the Committee noted that the comments of the Town Council on the amended proposal were still awaited.  In addition, it was noted that only two additional car parking spaces were required off Magnet Close and the Consultant Architect now supported the proposal.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the application but sought clarification as to the parking arrangements.  In response, the Officers advised that the parking spaces had not been narrowed but had been regimented differently.  Another local Member raised no objection to the application and in response to a question raised by him, it was clarified that the roof vents on Block C added interest to the design and might be used as extraction ducts.

By 16 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, be delegated authority to approve application ABG/3516/11 subject to:-

(i)         the expiry of the consultation period and no new objections being received;

(ii)        the completion of an amended Section 106 obligation with respect to the affordable dwellings;

(iii)       appropriate conditions, including conditions to address materials, architectural details, landscaping, hard surfacing and parking.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of one further letter of support reiterating comments previously raised as set out in the report.

The Committee noted that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of four dwellings with all matters reserved.  The applicant was seeking to relocate the timber business to an unspecified location with the reason for the move being to relocate what was deemed to be a bad neighbour use, due to the amount of traffic generated from that use which flowed to and from the site through the village.

It was noted that the application for four dwellings was a departure from the Development Plan and therefore Members needed to assess whether there was a special justification to set aside policy in favour of the proposal.  The applicants had suggested that the removal of the bad neighbour use was a special justification and to this end had provided details of vehicle movements during two weeks in May and June 2005, which had been calculated to be 634 and 638 respectively.  Judging by the level of support for the application, this level of traffic could be considered significant and material in supporting the proposal.  However, there had been no independent verification of these movements and no details had been recorded of the type of vehicles involved. 

Notwithstanding the likely movements stated, there was a need for the Committee to balance the relocation of the timber use against established planning policy, in particular the principle of providing new development in a sustainable manner.  In this respect, the applicants had indicated that the site was previously developed land.

The Committee was asked to bear in mind that just because the whole site could be claimed as previously developed, this did not mean that the whole area of the site should therefore be redeveloped.  Again, Members’ attention was drawn to relevant planning policy and the need for any development to be sustainable. 

Councillor M Durham, the Chairman of Great Coxwell Parish Council, made a statement in support of the application commenting that prior to the submission of the application, the applicant had sought to negotiate with members of the village via the Parish Council to ascertain whether there would be support for a small development in the village, with the existing timber business being relocated.  He advised that a large number of people had attended the Parish Council meeting and had felt that not enough consideration was being given to noise and safety issues associated with traffic.  The Parish Council and the village had considered that four dwellings with complete relocation of the timber business would be acceptable.  Details of proximity of many of the houses to the highway were explained and concerns were expressed regarding damage to property, noise and pedestrian safety.

Mr T Coss, on behalf of the applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

As referred to elsewhere in these minutes, this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Miss K Earl made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly raised concerns regarding the construction of the garage, access, the obstruction of site lines, off-street parking, traffic congestion, alteration to the open plan aspect of the area, unneighbourliness, visual impact and noise.

One of the local Members spoke against the application, raising concerns regarding adverse impact in terms of loss of light into the neighbour’s lounge window, visual impact, off-street parking and the fence destroying the open aspect of the estate.  Another local Member also raised concern regarding the close boarded fence, suggesting that this might set a precedent for similar fences in the area.  In response to the concerns raised, the Committee was advised that the fence could be constructed as permitted development without the benefit of planning permission.

Some Members spoke in support of the application, noting that the lapsed planning permission needed to be taken into account.  It was noted that there had been no objections from the County Engineer and the parking standards were met. 

One Member questioned whether it would be reasonable to require a landscaping scheme to lessen the visual impact of the close boarded fence.  However, the Officers expressed concern at this, commenting that a landscape scheme would probably result in the breach of vision requirements.  It was therefore suggested that some form of planting which would not breach the vision requirements should be requested.

By 15 votes to nil, with 2 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/16150/2 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and an informative to ask the applicant to provide some form of planting to screen the fence without obscuring the vision requirements.

None.

The meeting rose at 7.50pm.