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) was recorded as referred to above, with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Matthew Barber and Jenny Hannaby.  

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 7 November 2005 attached.

The minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 7 November 2005 were adopted and signed as a correct record. 

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 195/05 – 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 asked members of the public and Councillors to switch their mobile telephones off during the meeting. 

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.

Eight members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, three members of the public declined to do so. 

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 appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

(i)         Appeal by R and F Dudley against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a single dwelling on land adjacent to Priory House, Snuggs Lane, East Hanney (EHA/18392).

(ii)        Appeal byWicklesham Commercial Properties Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the removal of existing agricultural building/farm office and erection of replacement buildings for use class B1(a) office purpose, car parking, Wicklesham Lodge Farm, Faringdon.

(iii)       Appeal by Mr C Pugh against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a part retrospective application for alterations, extension and new vehicular access at 10 Hids Copse Road, Cumnor Hill.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

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 195/05 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 Joyce Hutchinson had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

Further to the report the Planning Officer reported that the developer intended to provide 9 affordable homes on the site with a commuted payment for a further 16 affordable dwellings in another location.  However, the Council's Housing Officer had been consulted and had asked for 18 affordable homes on this site with commuted payments for a further 7 homes elsewhere.  The Planning Officer therefore considered that an additional reason for refusing the application should be included regarding insufficient affordable housing. 

The Officer reported that new information on services at the site had been received and would have to be the subject of further consultation.  As the applicants had appealed against the Council's non-determination of the application within the eight week period, the recommendation from the officers was amended to 'minded to refuse'. 

The comments of the Letcombe Brook Officer were reported to the meeting.  The officer believed that the application would have a negative impact on protected species and their habitats along the Letcombe Brook, both immediately adjacent to the development site and elsewhere.  The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Officer had objected to the impact on the character of the AONB.  It was suggested that this could be added to reason no.3 in the report.  The Planning Officer also considered that reason no.6 in the report should be deleted and replaced by the affordable housing reason. 

Jo Langdon, a Planning Consultant to the Parish Council, spoke on that Parish's behalf objecting to the application.  She believed the new owners of the site had been insensitive to the village and had not considered the impact on the Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She supported the Planning Officers' recommendations for the main application but disagreed with the recommendation for the demolition of buildings on the site.  She believed that these buildings should be retained as they contributed to the character of the Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She pointed to Planning Policy Guidance in this respect.  She urged the Committee to refuse both applications. 

Mr Priest made a statement objecting to the application.  He believed the application showed contempt for this small downland village, which was blighted by the proposed development.  He questioned why the buildings should be demolished if there was no application approved.  There would be no link to history if the site was cleared.  He pointed out that the village was built on Greensand, which required deeper building foundations.  The application provided no detail of precautions to be taken during demolition, which was likely to cause damage to the village environment and wildlife at the site.  He urged the Committee to refuse both applications. 

The Local Member believed that the buildings proposed for demolition would be visible and there would be an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area if they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

In answer to a question from a Member regarding the materials for the proposed conservatory, it was reported that materials would require the approval as recommended in condition 2 in the officer’s report. 

Members supported the application but suggested that no further development should take place on the site. 

RESOLVED    (by 17 votes to nil)

that application WAN/11215/7 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the materials being submitted to a future meeting of the Committee for approval. 

(Councillors Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Joyce Hutchinson, Julie Mayhew-Archer, Briony Newport, Jerry Patterson, Sylvia Patterson, Terry Quinlan and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.  Councillor Pam Westwood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she left the meeting during its consideration.) 

Members welcomed the opportunity to visit the site and assess the impact the proposed development was likely to have on the adjoining properties.  Some concern was expressed at the potential bulk of the three storey extension and potential for overlooking and loss of light to neighbouring properties.  However, opinions were split over whether there would be a detrimental impact on the neighbouring dwellings and the residents’ enjoyment of their gardens.  Some Members considered the application should be refused for these reasons.  While it was recognised there would be some overlooking, it was considered that this was likely to be common in such town centre locations with adjoining houses on sometimes narrow plots.  Members considered the impact on No.29-31 was less than on No.33a, the property immediately to the west of the application site, where there would be more loss of light and some overlooking.  However, as the rear garden of No.33a extended some distance and had a more secluded area at the farthest end, the impact of the proposed extension was not considered to override the applications’ merits. 

RESOLVED    (by 8 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions)

that applications WAN/13040/1 and/2-CA be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Parish Councillor Bill Temple made a statement objecting to the application particularly the design and bulk of the proposed dwellings.  He believed that access to the site would have an adverse affect on the water voles in the stream and he reported that no evidence had been found of rights of access across The Green along a private road.  He also questioned why the car ports had been designed with cavity walls.  He concluded that the development would be out of keeping with the village and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the village Green. 

Mr Lyzba made a statement objecting to the application, believing that the principle of granting planning permission was not acceptable.  He considered the officer’s report to be flawed in that the proposed development would impact on the Conservation Area and it was insufficient to say it would not have any impact because the site was behind other dwellings and therefore not visible.  The site formed a transition between the village and the open countryside and it was the openness of the site which contributed to the Conservation Area.  He also considered that the design was poor and the proposal did not comply with Local Plan housing policies. 

Mr Stevens, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.  He believed the proposed development made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and was partially screened by houses nearer the Green.  The site was also surrounded on three sides by existing development.  Finally, he pointed to the design of the proposed dwellings being supported by the Consultant Architect. 

Some Members disagreed with the objections, believing that the proposal would not adversely impact on the Conservation Area and the Green.  Other Members had a contrary view, believing that the openness of this part of the Conservation Area must be protected.  It was suggested that the design of the dwellings could be improved by including higher chimneys to match those of adjacent properties; the Committee supported this. 

RESOLVED    (by 9 votes to 7 with 1 abstention)

(a)               that authority to approve application STE/15208/4 be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to the conditions set out in the report and to an additional requirement regarding the height of the chimneys; and

(b)        that application STE/15208/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The Committee supported the proposal without comment. 

RESOLVED    (by 17 votes to nil)

that application DRA/18719/2 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

None

The meeting rose at 8.12pm.