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 Councillor Briony Newport and Jerry Patterson.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 20 March 2006 and 10 April 2006 attached.

The Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 20 March and 10 April 2006 were adopted and signed as correct records subject to the following amendment: -

Development Control – 10 April 2006

Minute DC.327

The deletion of the tenth paragraph starting with the words “The local Member commented” and the replacement thereof with the following paragraph: -

“The local Member commented that should the Committee be minded to approve the application he had concerns regarding the car parking being sited to the front of the plot. He feared that at some point in the future, perhaps many years hence, consideration would be given  to the removal of the hedge to improve visibility at the access, although he would wish the hedge to be permanently retained. Finally, he expressed his regret that there was no affordable housing and he asked whether it would be possible for the Officers to explore this aspect with the applicant.”

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 R T Johnston declared a personal and prejudicial interest in report 288/05 – ABG/1615/51 is so far as he was a share holder in Tesco’s the applicant (Minute DC.344 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 reminded Councillors and members of the public that their mobile telephones should be switched off during the meeting.

The Chair asked members of the public to listen to the debate in silence.

The Chair announced that immediately prior to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee there would be a presentation to Members of the Committee on an application for a continuing care retirement village, Letcombe Laboratory, Letcombe Regis (LER/957/65–X) at 6.00pm.

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.

It was noted that 13 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, it was noted that one member of the public had 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 as follows: -

1.         CaldicottSchool, Abingdon ABG/ 16935/1

            RESOLVED

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

Ibstock Leicester Red and Baggeridge Red Blend bricks, render and Redland plain concrete roof tiles in Autumn Red, Brown and Slate Grey.

(b)        that the use of Worcester Buff brick and colour of the detailed brick be not supported.

2.         Barton Garage, Drayton –DRA/14149/5 and DRA/14149/6

RESOLVED

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

·         Orange Terca Winchester Multi Bricks

·         Eternit Farmhouse Brown Tiles – preferred over the Eternit Natural Orange tiles

(b)        that the applicant be advised that a darker coloured mortar other than that shown on the panel would be preferable.

Lodged

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

(i)         Appeal by OSG Co-op against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an application to modify the parking arrangements of application SRE/11488/4 at 55 The Causeway, Steventon.

(ii)        Appeal by J S Hartley against the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to without permission building operations which have taken place involving the erection of a dwelling on land at 6 Swinburne Road, Abingdon (ABG/19305-E).

Allowed

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

Appeal by Mr and Mrs J Flawn against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit deletion of condition 5 of planning permission GFA/2796/4 to allow conversion of garage to part dinging room/part study.  The decision to refuse permission was made by the Strategic Director in consultation with the Chair / Vice Chair of the Committee under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation (GFA/19052).  The decision notice is attached at APPENDIX 1, no reference to costs was made.

Withdrawn

The following appeal has been withdrawn: -

Appeal by Mr L Wells against an Enforcement Notice in respect of without planning permission the storage of building materials and the provision of hardstanding and a bridge at the site at East Paddocks, Drayton Mill, Milton Road (DRA/445/27-E).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

In respect of the appeal in relation to GFA/2796/4 the Committee noted an amendment to the report in that the application had been to allow the conversion of a garage into a part dining room/study.

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 a list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the list be received.

The Committee received and considered report 288/05 of the Deputy Director detailing planning applications, the decision of which are set out below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

Councillor RT Johnston had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that further to the report a plan showing amended elevations; a reduced amount of parking and a reorganisation of the car park had been received.

The Committee was advised of the details of the flood mitigation plan which set out level for level reductions in flood storage capacity and how the replacement of that loss would be provided. It was noted that subject to the measures proposed in the mitigation plan being carried out, the Environment Agency had no objection to the application.

Further to paragraph 4.1 of the report, it was noted that the Town Council had objected to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal being out of keeping and its adverse affect on the vitality of the town. 

Finally, the Committee was advised that the County Planning Authority had recommended that this Council should object to the application, although it recognised that the District Council was better placed to determine whether there were material reasons to outweigh refusal.  It was also suggested that South Oxfordshire District should be consulted namely because of the impact of the proposal on Didcot (although it was noted that this had been taken account of by the Council’s Consultant) and that the Environment Agency should be consulted (which it was noted had been undertaken).  Further concerns were raised regarding traffic, the creation of an out of town market centre, contributions towards highway improvements and the need to advertise the application as a departure from the Development Plan (which it was noted had been done).

The Committee was advised of an amendment to the recommendation in the report in that it was not necessary to include a condition regarding reduced parking as this had been covered by the revised plans.

Mr B Hedley, Vice-Chairman of the South Abingdon Flood Plain Action Group made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to a letter dated 12 February 2005 to the Council.   He particularly raised concern regarding the increased effect of incipient and immediate run off rain water including run off from the increased roof area; surface material absorption; any new hard-standing should be permeable blocks over gravel; flooding; the need for foundation work; the speed at which water would penetrate the area and the diminished ability of the flood plain to cope with it; the proposed ancillary works and the need for details and advice on those; the need for consideration of other measures such permeable blocks on the ground for car parks and underground storage tanks; the impact on rescue services; the conditions required by the Environment Agency; and quantities of run off from nearby farm land.

Mr M Buxton the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He advised that the aim of the proposal was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 344.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/9138/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee noted that letters of objecting had been received raising concerns that the special delivery methods which were aimed at ensuring that noise was kept to a minimum were not being adhered to.   The Officers had reviewed the evidence and had concluded that provided the practices were followed noise would be minimal.

Further to the report, it was reported that County Councillor Lesley legge had objected to the application raising concern that the proposal would cause harm in terms of noise.

Mrs Boswell and Fay Walker, representing local residents each made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  It was explained that the residential houses had been built prior to the extension of the store and that the existing special delivery practices in place were not being complied with.  It was commented that deliveries at night necessitated late night staffing and the area was being used as a “rat run” with vehicles speeding through the area causing noise and disturbance to the residents.  It was reported that youths gathered in the evening resulting in anti social behaviour and calls to the Police. It was commented that this supermarket was unnecessary in the town centre and consideration should be given to its re-siting away from residential properties.  In addition reference was made to the residents of Penlon Place and concerns were raised regarding adverse impact on them in terms of noise at the access; the proximity of large lorries to windows of habitable rooms causing noise disturbance to families with very young children; noise from vehicles over the road hump; noise from reversing beepers and noise from sounding horns.

Emma Langmaid, the applicant’s agent had given notice that she wished to make a statement at the meeting in support of the application, but she declined to do so.

One of the local Members expressed concern regarding the proposal in terms of the noise disturbances already mention including those from vehicle engines being left running.  It was commented that much of the new housing had yet to be occupied and she considered that the application, if approved should be for a temporary period to enable monitoring that the special delivery practices were adhered to.

The other local Member referred to the report which advised that the Environmental Health Officer had no objection.  He questioned whether a night time inspection had been carried out as the report referred only to an inspection in the afternoon.  He suggested that a view on this would be beneficial to the Committee in determining the application. He agreed that many of the new residential units had yet to be occupied and explained that this had been one of the concerns raised by the Inspector and a reason why permission for late night deliveries had been temporary in the first instance.  He suggested that permission should be granted on a temporary basis which would allow the impact to be assessed as new residents moved into the new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 346.

Mr Tony Bovey the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He explained the ownership of the land and advised of the need for the access to be retained to enable maintenance of the area.   He referred to the comments of the Parish Council and reported that it was intended that the land would be transferred to the Parish Council and therefore it would be responsible for allowing access.

The local Member commented that the Parish Council had been concerned regarding the width of the access and the intention that it might be used by large vehicles and lorries for other purposes.  It was explained that the site was close to the Millennium Green which was a quiet area. 

In response the Officer commented that the proposed access was to be 3 metres wide which was a standard width.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application LRE/154330/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Mr J Collinge, the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He commented that he endorsed the comments made in the report and emphasised that the proposal was for a moderation of a previously approved scheme.  He explained that heights would remain the same and that the design would fit comfortably with the properties in the vicinity.  He considered that the visual qualities of the approved scheme would be retained and there would be no visual impact; no over looking and there was adequate car parking.  Finally, he reminded Members that there had been no objections raised by the County Engineer.

One of the local Members spoke against the application and in so doing referred also to the comments of the Parish Council.  He reiterated concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and referred to an Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal for development on this site.  He commented that the Inspector had been specific about the type of dwellings which would be permitted.  He suggested that the developer had misinterpreted the Inspector’s intention in this regard. He commented that the site was overcrowded and that the proposal would adversely impact on the adjoining Green Belt.  Finally, he advised that the Inspector had stipulated that the development should not commence until details of the siting, design and external appearance had been agreed although he had noted that building work was progressing.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/17023/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Jeremy Snell made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding development in this beautiful area.  He advised that a recent survey had shown that 75% of brown field sites were garden and their development was known as “garden grabbing”.  He raised concern regarding this proposal in terms of its adverse impact on Symonds Farm House.  He suggested that the proposal did nothing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  He commented that the plans were incorrect in that there was a further extension to the neighbouring house which was not shown.  He commented on the refusal of an application for a dwelling on a neighbouring site and suggested that weight should be given to this.  He reported that he disagreed with the conclusions reached by Officers in terms of public views and suggested that the proposal was contrary to Policy H6 of the Local Pan.  He further expressed concern regarding impact on the boundary explaining that a 2.4 metre wall in this rural area would be detrimental resulting in loss of views and outlook.  He commented that there would be overlooking and that the neighbour would be unwilling to reduce the height of their hedge.

Martin Smith the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the planning policy framework in terms of design of the building and its setting and commented that the proposal was acceptable.  He reported that the site benefited from its own access and Childrey had been identified as a village which could accommodate infill.  He referred to the extent of consultation on the Local Plan when support for some infill and small scale development had been supported. He commented that the proposal contributed towards the aim of providing additional housing.  He advised that the existence of a listed building in the Conservation Area did not preclude development. He commented that previous applications on this site had been withdrawn and the scheme now put forward had been redesigned having regard to the comments received.   He suggested that the simple design was appropriate and the size of the dwelling would mean that the property would be subservient to Symonds Farm House.  Finally, he reported that there would be no over looking.

In response to a comment made the Officers clarified that the County Engineer had agreed that the measures needed to meet his requirements were within the control of the applicant and not reliant on the lowering or removal of a hedge by a neighbour.

Members supported the application but considered that care should be taken to protect the trees along the access; the surface material of the access should be appropriate in this location and be retained and that a roof light which should be removed because of its appearance.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CHI/19225/1 be approved subject to the following: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report with conditions 6 and 7 amended as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 349.

Further to the report the Officer advised that the appeal decision in respect of application ABG/19358 refused in December 2005 had now been received.  The Inspector had dismissed the appeal on design grounds.  In view of this information, the Committee was asked to delegate authority to refuse the application to the Chief Executive for similar reasons based on design and the impact of the proposal on the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity and the setting of the Conservation Area.

Mrs Greaney made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding overshadowing; loss of light; the proposed materials being out of keeping; adverse visual impact; design and the proposal being out of keeping.  It was commented that flat roofs and timber cladding were inappropriate in this location.  Finally she raised concerns regarding overlooking and the need to protect trees during construction.

The local Members spoke against the application agreeing that the design was inappropriate in this location.

By 16 votes to 1 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 refuse application ABG/19358/1 for reasons including design grounds and the impact of the proposal on the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity and the setting of the Conservation Area.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/19464 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the County Engineer had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding the visibility at the access with Naldertown.

Furthermore, an additional letter of objection had been received raising concerns regarding impact of development on the foundations of neighbouring dwellings; impact of the character and appearance of the area; traffic; density; design and appearance; loss of open space and visibility at the access.

Also a further submission had been received from the applicant advising that the density accorded with Local Plan policies and with PPG3; the design of the hips and roof detailing related to neighbouring properties and were in keeping with existing features.

Finally, the Committee was advised a one letter of support had been received.

Mr B Tapscott and Dr James Broughton each made a statement objecting to the application raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report.  They specifically raised concern regarding traffic calming measures at the access and the ability for vehicles to pass namely the vehicle and trailer used by St John’s Ambulance; increased traffic; displaced car parking and impact on traffic speed.  It was explained that the residents had maintained the area of open space for years and the area had been used for recreation.  It was commented that the unique character of the open space was more desirable than parking.  Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding distances; density; proximity to neighbouring properties; height; loss of light and outlook; visual impact; drainage and flooding.

Neil Boddington the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the considerable amount of negotiations and reported that the proposal had been redesigned having regard to the comments raised.  He suggested that the altered road layout would improve road safety; off street parking would be removed; the St John’s Ambulance would be able to manoeuvre its vehicles due to parked cars being removed along Naldertown; there would be a better flow of traffic; there would be no damage to the foundations of existing houses; there would be no loss of light and the surface of the parking area would be in keeping.

One of the local Members referred to the level of local objection to this proposal and commented that it was contrary to Local Plan Policy H9 in that it would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.  She explained that originally the area had been intended for the elderly.  She raised concerns regarding the proposal in terms of its height; overlooking; dominance; loss of the open space; the proposal being out of keeping in terms of design; lack of infrastructure for additional residents; the inability of vehicles to manoeuvre at the access road; visibility at the access; parking; proximity of the parking to habitable rooms of existing houses; size; drainage including concerns regarding damage to pipes during construction; over development and unneighbourliness.  She referred to the slide explaining that there were a number of bungalows nearby.  Finally,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 352.

None.