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 Peter Jones and Jerry Patterson.

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.

Councillor Briony Newport declared a personal interest in report 250/05 – CUM/19444 in so far as she had been acquainted with the applicant years previously (Minute DC.308 refers).

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 explained that Non-Members of the Committee and Ex-Officio Members were able to address the Committee but were not permitted to vote.

The Chair reminded Councillors and members of the public to switch off their mobile telephones 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. 

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 Mr C Robbins against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of golf course club house into golf course related guest accommodation and ancillary works, Faringdon Golf Club, Great Coxwell, (GCO/17377/3);

(ii)        Appeal by Mr C Robbins against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a dwelling (amended plans), Faringdon Golf Club, Great Coxwell, (GCO/17377/4);

(iii)       Appeal by Mr C Robbins against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit new golf reception room, toilets, workshop, car parking and landscaping, Faringdon Golf Club, Great Coxwell, (GCO/17377/5);

(iv)       Appeal by Mr C Pugh against the Council’s decision to take enforcement action relating to without planning permission the insertion of two unauthorised windows on the south west elevation of the dwelling house and the unauthorised extension to the garage, 10 Hids Copse Road, Cumnor Hill, (CUM/18082/3-E);

(v)        Appeal by Letcombe Manor Estate against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of all buildings except The Lodge, Letcombe Laboratory, Letcombe Regis;

(vi)       Appeal by J L S Lonsdale against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of redundant farm buildings and the erection of 5 houses, Home Farm, West Street, Sparsholt, Wantage.

Allowed

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

Appeal by Mr and Mrs J Kay against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a single storey rear extension, Ickleton House, London Road, Blewbury  (BLE/15593/3 and BLE/15593/4-LB).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 1. No reference to costs was made.

Dismissed

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

Appeal by Mr Drewett against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a two storey side and rear extensions (ABG/19058). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation.  A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 2.  No reference to costs was made.

Allowed/Dismissed

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

Appeal by A Myrat Terzi against an enforcement notice against without planning permission, building operations involving the erection of decking and arbours.  The decision to take enforcement action was made by the Development Control Committee.  A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 3.  No reference to costs was made.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of six appeals which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination, one which had been dismissed, one which had been allowed and one which had been part allowed and part dismissed.

In respect of the part allowed and part dismissed appeal, one Member commented that it might be helpful to applicants if the Council was able to give an opinion on part of an application.  However, it was noted that each application needed to be considered on its merits.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered details of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 250/05 of the Deputy Director detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to make a statement were considered first.

The Committee was reminded that a revised report had been circulated prior to the meeting which set out proposed conditions.

The Committee noted that amended plans had been received omitting the garage from the site plan and omitting the roof lights from the front elevation.

It was reported that the County Engineer had no objection to the proposal but had suggested conditions requiring that the existing access be closed off; the new access be constructed to Oxfordshire County Council specifications; vision splays should be provided in accordance with the drawings and there should be no additional gates other than those shown on the plans.

Finally, the Committee was advised of an amendment to the report in that Thames water had not been consulted.  However, the Council’s engineer had been consulted, details of which were included in the amended report.

Mr D Hignall made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding further development in Sutton Courtenay regardless of whether there were material planning considerations.  He commented on the poor quality of the report which it was considered lacked balanced arguments and reference to Planning Policy Guidance, in particular PPG3.  He drew attention to the policies referred to in the report, suggesting that the proposal was in conflict with all of them.  He advised that the site was not within the built up area of the village; it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, in particular through loss of openness; would appear cramped in that the development was being “shoe horned” into the site; and would set a precedent.   Finally, he referred to an appeal on a site elsewhere in the village which had been dismissed by a Planning Inspector highlighting similarities with this application.

Mrs Buchanan the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  She referred to the consultation with Officers and the amendments made to the proposal to address the comments received.  She reported that she had been informed that the principle of an infill dwelling in this site would be in accordance with policy.  She reported that the design had been amended twice; the access revised and there were no highway objections.

The Local Member expressed his objection to the proposal, concurring with the views of the Parish Council.  He raised concern regarding the amount of traffic along Abingdon Road; the inadequacy of the screening; the “shoe horning” in of a large house into a very small area; development in the northern part of the village; the need to preserve the area; the proposal being out of character; the three storey element being out of keeping; and the need to protect the beauty of the northern part of Sutton Courtney.

One Member suggested that a bungalow might have been more appropriate as infill in this location commenting that the house would be very large.  However, it was noted that the merits of the application as presented needed to be considered.

One Member referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 305.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the Arboricultural Officer had now advised that he had no objection to the application subject to a condition to protect a number of trees on the frontage of the site.

Mr P Uzzell made a statement in support of the application explaining that he had been asked by the applicant to carry out an assessment of the proposal and address the Committee on his findings.  He reported that the scale and design of the proposal were consistent with other frontages along Faringdon Road, which consisted of a wide variety of designs and sizes.  He commented that any impact that might result would be mitigated by existing trees and landscaping.  He considered that overlooking was not relevant in this case due to the hedging and fencing which would provide screening.  He commented that the access from the rear and the single storey design were acceptable.  He clarified that all the distances were in excess of the Council’s minimum standards and the proposal accorded with emerging Local Plan Policy H14 in terms of density.  Finally, he commented that one concern might be that plots 4 and 1 had side facing windows which might result in overlooking. However, to avoid this continuing the relevant windows could be omitted from the scheme or could be provided at a higher level.

The Local Member spoke against the application agreeing with the views expressed by the Parish Council in terms of highway safety, noting that the road speed restriction had been amended. She referred to an application for a single dwelling in the village which had been refused recently partly of the grounds of highway safety, commenting that the Committee should be consistent in its decision making and refuse this application for the same reason. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application noting the views of the County Engineer raising no objection to the proposal.  Reference was made to the concerns of the Parish Council that the buildings would be well forward of the building line.  However, this was considered to be insignificant and certainly not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.   In response to a question raised regarding building lines, the Officers explained that in terms of planning there was no real concept of building lines.  Instead in determining an application consideration needed to be given as to how harmful a proposal was in terms of the character and the street scene.  In this case there was a wide range of properties in the street and the proposal would not be harmful in that respect.

Reference was made to backland development generally and it was commented that it was necessary to demonstrate that specific harm would be caused.  It was considered that insufficient harm would be caused in this case to warrant refusal of the application.

One Member raised concern regarding the need to retain the boundary treatment at the end of the rear gardens of plots 5 and 6.  It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 306.

The Committee was advised of an amendment to the report in that reference should be made to Foxcombe Lodge Hotel and not Lincombe Lodge Hotel.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had reported that the volume increase was 29.7% and that the Consultant Architect and the Architect’s Panel had no objection to the proposal.

Furthermore, the Committee was informed that Wootton Parish Council had no objection to the application, but Sunningwell Parish Council had objected raising concerns regarding the volume increase which it suggested was more than stated by the applicant; the way in which the volume increase had been calculated it being considered that on average each flat would increase by 60%; size; height; precedent; the re-siting of the building further into the site; the amount of traffic on the road and traffic generation.  The Parish Council had commented that it would welcome a meeting with the developers for them to explain how they had calculated the volume increase.

The Officers explained that the volume percentage was calculated based on the external volume of the building which was the requirement in the Local Plan.  It was noted that a slight increase in an external volume could lead to a considerable increase in the internal volume of habitable space within a dwelling.

The Committee was advised on two representations received objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the access and vision splays in terms of safety; the increase in volume; breach of the building line (although it was noted that the building was to be pushed back further into the site); loss of amenity; increased traffic; car parking; harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and the lawful use of the building for flats.

The Committee noted that an application on this site had previously been refused because the proposal would have resulted in a volume increase in excess of 40%, contrary to Green Belt Policy.

The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Committee subject to the conditions set out in the report together with conditions to address parking and access, vision splays, landscaping boundary treatment and an archaeological watching brief.

Mr Nichol on behalf of Sunningwell Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters reported earlier in the meeting.  He reiterated concerns regarding the volume increase which it was considered would be 60%; height; loss of amenity; breach of the building line; overlooking; the location of the car parking; traffic generation; and the setting of a precedent.  He commented that other homes on Boars Hill had been subdivided and that approval of this application would lead to other applications in the area.

Mr I Fletcher the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application reminding the Committee that the previous application had been refused because of the volume increase and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 307.

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 it was noted that the County Engineer had no objection in principle subject to some issues being addressed such as the applicant entering into a private road agreement.

It was clarified that the measurement from the nearest proposed gable wall to the nearest neighbour’s front wall was 40 metres and from window to window was 60 metres.

Dr P Hawtin made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the development would extend to the rear of No.111 Eynsham Road and that as there was additional land behind No.s 113 and 115 it was likely that a proposal for further development would be received for that area.  He raised concerns regarding this in terms of density and increased traffic using the access.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the affect of the proposal on the residents of No.s 117 and 111 Eynsham Road in terms of noise and disturbance from vehicles and pedestrians along the access which would be immediately adjacent to their properties.  He commented that a gated access would only increase noise and disturbance.   He commented that there were bungalows to the rear of the site, occupied mostly by old age pensioners who were not in a position to object to the proposal but probably would have done.  Finally, he asked that consideration be given to reducing the density which he considered would lessen the impact and would result in less traffic.

Mrs Weston made a statement objecting to the application.  Speaking on behalf of her parents who were the neighbours she raised concerns regarding maintenance of the existing boundary wall; the width of the access in terms of its sufficiency to accommodate a road and a footpath; use and siting of foul water waste pipes; sewage connections, it being noted that there was already a problem with the sewage system in the area; consultation and negotiation on the application; property ownership and sales and the possibility of further backland development in this area; increased traffic; and refuse collection in terms of HGV access.  Finally she commented that there was a covenant on the land restricting development.

Malcolm Jux the architect made a statement in support of the application commending the recommendation set out in the report.  He commented that the site was sustainable in terms of its proximity to shops and facilities and there were public transport connections.  He reported that the proposal accorded with PPG3 in respect of previously developed land and that the proposed density of 36 dwellings per hectare was acceptable.  He commented that the scheme would make efficient use of the site and would contribute to meeting local housing needs.  He explained that there would be no adverse impact on neighbouring properties in view of the distances involved.  He reported that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 308.

None.

The meeting rose at 8.30pm.