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 Standing Order 17(1) was recorded as referred to above, with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Jenny Hannaby and John Woodford.

To adopt and sign as correct records the Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 13 and 27 February and 13 March 2006 attached.

The Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 13 and 27 February and 13 March 2006 were adopted and signed as correct records.

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.

Members declared interests in report 275/05 – 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 Councillors and members of the public to switch off their mobile telephones during the meeting.

The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Development Control Committee scheduled to take place on 24 April 2006 had been cancelled.

The Chair announced for the benefit of members of the public that local Members were permitted to address the Committee to speak on applications in their wards, but were not allowed to vote unless they were Members of the Committee.

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.

Fourteen members of the public had given notice that they each wished to make a statement at the meeting, however one member 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.

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the following developments: -

(1)        Former Bus Depot Site, Grove Street, Wantage, (WAN/906/6)

            By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that the use of the following materials be approved: -

EternitThrustone blue/black slate

Eternit E3000 Heather Brown slate

Michelmersh Hampshire stock grey brown brick

Michelmersh Hampshire stock ATR brick

(b)        that the use of the following materials be refused it being considered that the use of render on this block or an alternative brick would be preferable:-

Blockleys Kensington brick

(2)        Land at GroveTechnology Park, Downsview Road, Wantage, (ECH/18153/1)

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Roof cladding – Trapezoidal Goosewing Grey

Walling –  Mini-rib profile cladding in Sirius and Orion (both metallic) and Arcline cladding in Orion (metallic)

(3)        Demolition of dwelling and construction of 5 dwellings, 3 and 5 Mill Road, Marcham (MAR/18842) 

            By 6 votes to 5 with 3 abstentions it was

            RESOLVED

            that the use of the following materials be approved: -

            Natural Stone – Cotswold natural stone in natural grey

            Brick – Michelmersh Hampshire Orange /red brick

Lodged

The following appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

(i)         Appeal by Mr and Mrs Arnold against the decision to refuse to permit the demolition of existing dwelling and garage and the erection of three detached chalet style dwellings at Maslina, Reading Road, Upton.

(ii)        Appeal by O2 (UK) Ltd against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a 17.5m streetworks column telecom mast together with ground based equipment cabinets and associated ancillary equipment on highway land adjoining Abingdon United Football Club, Oxford Road, Abingdon.

(iii)       Appeal by Debbie Rees against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a dwelling at Wayside House, Beggars Lane, Longworth.

(iv)       Appeal by David Crossley-Cooke against the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to the change of use of land from use for agriculture to use for the storage of non-agricultural items, materials and equipment on land south of Coxwell House, Coxwell Road, Great Coxwell (GCO/18275/6-E).

(v)        Appeal by Mr F R Fallon-Norris against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a retrospective application for a garden fence at Westview House, Tirrole Way, Wantage.

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mr F Cox against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to include bathroom, new bedroom and dining room (BLE/19051).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation. A copy of the Appeal Decision is set out at Appendix 1.

(ii)        Appeal by Mr and Mrs 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/18392/1-X).  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Development Control Committee.  A copy of the Appeal Decision is set out at Appendix 2.

(iii)       Appeal by Mrs J Ray against the Council’s decision to refuse the erection of 3 detached houses with garages and parking spaces at land at East Paddocks, Drayton Mill, Milton Road, Drayton (DRA/445/25-X).  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 set out at Appendix 3.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

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.

Mr R Carr made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the loss of light to his family bathroom.  He compared the proposal to neighbouring houses where there was limited light to some windows explaining that these situations had been created at the original build stage and had resulted in loss of light to ensuite bathroom windows and not main family bathroom windows.  He commented that the applicant had been advised that planning permission existed although this was not the case and he questioned why this had not become apparent to the applicant when he had purchased the property.   He expressed concern that the extension was not set back and recommended refusal.

Mr Richard Patterson, the applicant made a statement in support of the application explaining that he had purchased the property which had been advertised as benefiting from planning permission.  He commented that the lack of planning permission had not been highlighted during his purchase of the property and prior to the commencement of works he had informed the Council of his intention to do so.  The Council had carried out inspections during construction and a building regulations certificate had been received.  He expressed his support for the proposal commenting that the window affected was to a non habitable room and that daylight factors did not apply.  He referred to the terracing affect, reporting that the proposal complied with the relevant policy.  He explained that there would be little difference in terms of impact if the extension was set back half a metre.  Finally, he referred to the significant amount of time this matter had been ongoing commenting that there was no reason to refuse permission.

One of the local Members referred to the confusion regarding whether there was planning permission and the difference between that and a Building Regulations Certificate.  She asked Members to consider the proposal regardless of this commenting that whilst she had no concerns regarding the terracing affect, she was concerned regarding the serious adverse impact on the neighbour through loss of light to his bathroom window, which was about 1 metre away from the extension.  However, she commented that it was difficult to determine whether pulling back the extension by a metre would improve the situation.   She reported that the Town Council had suggested that the side wall facing the neighbour should be painted white, but again she was unsure whether that would improve the situation. 

Another local Member expressed his concern regarding the history of this application and suggested that consideration of the proposal should be deferred to the next meeting when details of the history could be explained in full. 

In response the Officers explained that the history of how the application had been processed was irrelevant and that Members should have regard to the planning merits of the proposal.  Also the fact that the application was retrospective was not a material planning consideration. 

One Member spoke in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 326.

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

Councillors Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Peter Jones, Julie Mayhew-Archer and Laurel Symons had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.  It was reported that the Section 106 obligation was not completed and therefore the Committee was asked that should it be minded to approve the application, to consider adding a Grampian condition.  Furthermore, Members were asked to add an additional condition removing permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in the side facing walls of the dwellings on plots 1, 2 and 10.

Mr A Bryden speaking on behalf of the Town Council made a statement objecting to the application.  He raised concern regarding traffic, expressing surprise that the CountyEngineer had raised no objections.  He referred to concerns regarding safety of pedestrians and cyclists along this busy road.  He reported that there were two schools in the area resulting in about 500 children of primary school age travelling along this road. He commented on the severe traffic congestion at peak times and emphasised that the proposal would result in an increase in traffic.  He advised that there were also secondary schools nearby resulting in excess of a further 900 children most of which walked or cycled in this area.  He commented that it was difficult for pedestrians to walk against the flow of children at peak times. He commented that the proposal would result in the loss of a green area which would be detrimental to the character of the area.  He advised that this was quoted as a reason for refusal of an application in Oxford Road where car parking at the front was considered harmful to the street scene. He considered that the circumstances were similar in this case.  Furthermore, he argued that approval of the application would set a precedent for other similar developments.

Mr Carne made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding increased traffic.  He reported that peaks times were between 8.00am and 9.00am and 3.00pm and 4.00pm during school terms times.  There were three schools, and the majority of children used the footpath.  He commented that the proposal would result in vehicles being required to cross the footpath to access Northcourt Road which would be extremely dangerous given the high number of pedestrians.  He argued that there would be a large increase in vehicle movements.  Finally, he reported that there had been two fatal accidents along Northcourt Road and he expressed real concerns regarding safety.

Gareth Williams also made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the affect of the proposal on the environment.  He expressed regret at the loss of green space and commented that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 327.

Mr A Gardiner the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the two main issues were whether the principle of development was acceptable and whether the land had been previously developed.   He referred to PPG3 advising that local authorities were required to maximise the use of previously developed land and that areas where there had been permanent structures fell within that definition.  He explained that green houses, a potting shed and boiler house had been permanent structures on this site since Victorian times and therefore the land had been previously developed.  He explained that he disagreed with the Council’s argument that the growing of produce for Ardington House amounted to an agricultural use.  He claimed that this argument would therefore need to be applied to all gardens, which was clearly unreasonable.  He reiterated that the land was not agricultural land.  He referred to Planning Policies H5, H10 and H11 and reported that the house was within the village. He commented that the proposal would not add to the structure and form of the area; there would be no loss of facilities and there would be improved parking.  Finally, he reported that the site had been identified as suitable for development in the Parish’s 10 year plan and that there had been no objections.

The local Member expressed his support for the proposal commenting that the area had been previously developed in that it had been the garden for Ardington House.  He reported that the produce grown had been used for consumption at the house which he believed did not amount to an agricultural use.  He considered that the site was within the village which he believed was spread over a wide area.

The Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the notes attached to PPG3 referring to the curtilage of a dwelling, advising that it was not necessarily the case that all the land surrounding a house standing in substantial grounds could be considered appropriate to be redeveloped.

Some Members spoke against the application commenting that the site was outside the village envelope and that the land was not previously developed land.  It was considered that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Local Plan policies and that approval would set a precedent for other similar applications in the open countryside

One Member spoke in support of the application disagreeing that one dwelling would have an urbanising affect.

By 10 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application ARD/17904/2 be refused for reason set out in the report.

Mr R Wilson made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council objected to the application raising concerns regarding adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.  He considered that the proposal would harm the street scene.  He commented that the building would be larger than any other in the road, except for a hotel and as such would be out of keeping. Finally, he reported that raising the roof would enable a further 5 bedrooms to be added resulting in 13 bedrooms in total which he considered would be overdevelopment and detrimental to the street scene.

Mr R Pope, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that he agreed with the views of the Council’s Officer in that there would be no adverse affect on either the character and appearance of the area or on the street scene.  He explained that there would be no impact on neighbours and there had been no neighbour objections.  He reported that the building would be lower than one house elsewhere in the road and that in view of the distances of the dwelling from the houses opposite there would no adverse impact on the living conditions of the residents.  Finally, he reported that the raised roof would remove a hidden valley and that there was no intention to provide further bedrooms as suggested.

Two Members spoke in support of the application commenting that the dwelling would be set back in a large substantial garden and there would be no impact on the amenity of neighbours.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/1225/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Parish Councillor A Harker had given notice that he wished to make a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, but he was not present at the meeting.

Mr C Collias the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that the main concern raised was the issue of noise.  He explained that the type of turbine proposed was designed to be on a house. He referred to the levels of background noise commenting that the turbine would not be heard against it.  He referred to the report highlighting that the LAeq 52.0 dB noise profile referred to had been achieved through an over-speed model.  He asked that the correct facts concerning noise be established.  He commented that there had been no complaint about noise with this model.  He reiterated that it would not be heard.  He referred to property values reminding Members that this was not a material planning consideration.  Finally, he reported that ways to provide renewable energy would be part of Permitted Development Orders in the future.

One of the local Members whilst supporting efforts to use renewable sources of energy questioned whether the cumulative effect of many of these turbines would have an adverse impact in terms of noise and disturbance in high density residential areas. 

One Member commented that it would be unreasonable of the Committee to approve the application against the advice of Officers.  However, it was commented that the reasons set out in the report should be firmer and that evidence from an acoustic expert that there would be loss of residential amenity should be demonstrated. 

It was proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber and by 14 votes to 3 it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application GRO/16525/1 be deferred to

(1)        ask the Environmental Health Officer to consider further the noise implications in the light of the evidence from the applicant in relation to this specific model of turbine;

(2)        ask the Environmental Health Officer to verify the typical noise profile of LAeq 52.0 dB referred to in the Technical Specification and give further advice on that to Members; and

(3)        ask the Environmental Health Officer to find out if there are any other sites where this model of turbine has been installed and if possible make an inspection of the same when the turbine is in situ  and working and report thereon to Members.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application GRO/19436 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that amended plans had been received showing the reintroduction of the chimney on the east elevation.

Dr Potter made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that he had lived in the neighbouring property for 40 years and considered that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment of the site and he would be adversely affected by the development.  He considered that there would be too many houses and suggested that a condition to provide a physical boundary between the application site and his property should be added to any permission. 

Mr Simkins the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application which he explained was for a minor amendment to the consent granted in 2005.   He commented that the applicant wished to use the roof space to provide increased headroom.  He advised the Committee to consider the impact of the proposed changes, commenting that they were small and would not dilute the quality of the earlier scheme.  He considered that the amendment would improve outlook.  In terms of impact on the neighbours he explained that the ridge heights to be increased were on the element of the building furthest away from the neighbour and therefore there would be no impact. Finally, he commented that the vision at the access would be improved; the County Engineer had raised no objections and the proposal was supported by the Consultant Architect and the Architect’s Panel. 

The local Members raised no objection to the proposal but considered that there should be some boundary treatment and that this should be provided prior to the commencement of development.

The Officers explained that there would be a close boarded fence and retention of planting with more planting along the boundary with 108 Westminster Way.  Existing cypress trees would be removed to enable the fence to be erected and there were some trees which required lopping.  It was commented that to secure that boundary by condition was considered acceptable, but a fence along that part of the boundary to the front of the neighbouring property would be visually harmful.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/18135/2 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        a condition to provide for the receipt of amended plans; and

(3)               a condition to provide that prior to the commencement of development a fence shall be provided along the rear garden and side wall only of 108 Westminster Way with planting provided to the front along the boundary.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Briony Newport, Jerry Patterson and  Pam Westwood had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mr I Brown explained that he was speaking in a private capacity and not as a County Councillor.  He made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the intended use of the pond.  He referred to an incident in March when shooting had taken place on the site and lead shot had fallen on a stable roof located on neighbouring land.  There was concern that the purpose of the pond was to attract wildlife for shooting and that the site was not large enough to accommodate this use and that there was a real concern for the safety of neighbours.

The local Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding the use of the pond for shooting and the safety of local residents.  She explained that the shot from previous shootings had travelled some 150 metres across neighbouring land and that there was a real concern that someone would be injured.  She considered that the application site was unsuitable for shooting and she urged that permission be refused.

The Committee was advised that whilst there might be sympathy with the issues raised, Members needed to consider the planning merits of the application and that danger arising from shooting activities was not a relevant consideration, but a Police matter.  It was commented that it was not possible to refuse permission on the basis of an alleged use. However, it was reported that there were restrictions on the number of organised shoots in any year which could be carried out without the need for planning permission.

One Member spoke in support of the application commenting that there were no material planning reasons to refuse permission.

Another Member suggested that an informative should be added to any permission advising the applicant that if shooting on the land went beyond the authorised level then planning permission would be required for a change of use.

In response to a question raised it was noted that it would be unreasonable to impose a condition requiring that shot from shooting on this site did not fall on any other land. It was explained that this was a civil matter.

In response to a further comment made, it was considered that an informative should be added advising that consent from the Environment Agency was required before work commenced.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SPA/5718/10 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        an informative advising the applicant that if shooting on the land goes beyond 28 days in a calendar year  then planning permission will be required for a change of use; and

(3)        an informative advising that consent from the Environment Agency is required before work commences.

None.

The meeting ended at 9.43pm.