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.

None

To adopt and sign as correct records the minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 12 June and 3 July 2006. 

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 12 June and 3 July 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.

The Committee Chair, Councillor Terry Quinlan, declared a personal interest in item 11 (a planning application at 23 Fairfield Place, Abingdon - minute DC.67 refers) and in item 24 (an application at 9 Curtis Avenue, Shrivenham - minute DC.81 refers) as he knew the applicants, as did every other Member of the Committee.  One applicant was a fellow District Councillor, the other was an officer.  It was accepted that this declaration covered every Member of the Committee.  However, CouncillorRichard Gibson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 11 as the District Councillor was his fellow Ward Member also (minute DC.67 refers). 

CouncillorRoger Cox declared a personal interest in item 13 (an application at Pear Tree Farm, Great Coxwell, as he had been present at the Parish Council meeting when the application was discussed but he had not taken part (minute DC.69 refers). 

CouncillorJerry Patterson declared a personal interest in item 23 (an application at 179 Kennington Road, Kennington) as he was a member of the Parish Council but was not a member of its planning sub-committee (minute DC.79 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 asked that all those present ensured their mobile phones were switched 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.

It was noted that eleven 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.

The Committee received materials in respect of two permissions.  The first was the re-submission of materials for a revised application at Limborough Road in Wantage.  The second was for a reception building at the accommodation block to serve the new Synchotron at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Harwell. 

RESOLVED

(a)        that the materials approved for application WAN/12562/16 for the development at Limborough Road, Wantage, also be approved for application WAN/12562/21, subject to the following additions/amendments:

·         Unit 3 to include Copper sheet to feature balcony roofs

·         Unit 4 to include Michelmersh Hampshire stock facing brick instead of Sto render

·         Unit 6 to include new materials - natural slate, Michelmersh Hampshire stock brick, and Sto render to the link over Angel Walk

·         Unit 7 to also include Sto render to the link over Angel Walk

(b)        that the following materials be used for the reception building at the accommodation block at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (HAR/19094):

·         Ibstock Leicester Red stock brick instead of the wood and render previously approved

Lodged

The following appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:

Appeal by Mr MacDonald against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a single storey extension to front; demolish existing single storey extension and replace with a new two storey extension at 106 Kennington Road, Kennington.

Allowed

The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate:

Appeals by Builders Ede Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit 18 no.1 bedroom apartments, 21 no.2 bedroom apartments and 23 no. houses (phase 6) on land adjacent to the Police Station, Colwell Drive Abingdon (ABG/17140/1).

The decision to refuse permission was made by the Development Control Committee.  A copy of the decision notice together with details of costs awarded is attached at Appendix 1.

Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeals by Builders Ede Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit 18 no.1 bedroom apartments, 18 no.2 bedroom apartments and 23 no. houses (phase 6) on land adjacent to the Police Station, Colwell Drive Abingdon (ABG/17140/2).

            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 together with details of costs awarded is attached at Appendix 1.

(ii)        Appeal by Infill Land Consultants Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of 12 dwellings and creation of a new access following demolition of 185 Poplar Grove, Kennington (KEN/17076/1-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 attached at Appendix 2.

(iii)       Appeal by DEPI Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of 3 outbuildings and removal of one ash tree and erection of 2 two storey dwellings at 81 Ock Street Abingdon (ABG/19358).

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 at Appendix 3.

(iv)       Appeal by J Lonsdale against the Council's decision to refure to permit the demolition of redundant farm buildings and the erection of five family houses with change to residential use at Home Farm, Sparsholt (SPA/15623/3). 

The decision to refuse was made by the Committee at its meeting on 3 January 2005.  A copy of the decision notice together with details of costs is attached at Appendix 4.

Withdrawn

The following appeal has been withdrawn:

Appeal by Mr L Wells in respect of East paddocks, Milton Road, Drayton (DRA/445/29).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of one appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, one which had been allowed, and four which had been dismissed.

Members noted that there had been two awards of costs against the Council.  It had been several years since the previous occurrence.  In both of the recent cases, the Committee had decided against the officers' recommendations. 

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 inquiries and hearings.  

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received. 

The Committee received and considered report 47/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), which detailed fifteen planning applications, the decision of which are recorded below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first. 

(All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration, with the exception of Councillor Richard Gibson who also declared a prejudicial interest and therefore left the room during consideration of this item.) 

RESOLVED    (by fourteen votes to nil)

that application ABG/4208/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

Further to the report it was recommended that condition no.2 should be amended to read "prior to the first use of the takeaway the flue shall be installed in strict accordance with the design statement that has been submitted as part of this application".  

Mr Pope, the applicant's agent, made a statement in support of the application, believing that it was in accordance with planning and environmental health requirements. 

The Committee considered that this was an improvement over the previous application. 

RESOLVED    (by fourteen votes to nil with one abstention)

that application CUM/4397/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, with condition no.2 being amended to read "prior to the first use of the takeaway the flue shall be installed in strict accordance with the design statement that has been submitted as part of this application". 

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

Mr Durham made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council in support of the application.  He believed that it would solve the traffic problems caused by the existing use of the site. 

Mr Webb, the applicant, reported that the application was intended to remove the unneighbourly use of the site and replace it with some housing and return part of the site to countryside.  The existing timber yard needed to be relocated to a better site. 

Terry Coss, the applicant's agent, reported that the application site had been reduced by one third and the number of houses reduced from four to three.  The six-metre wide access had been provided to prevent the site being landlocked.  He urged the Committee to approve the application and thereby allow the business to be relocated. 

The Local Member spoke in support of the application, believing that dwellings were preferable to a timber yard.  The application would enhance the Conservation Area and was supported by local residents. 

Some concern was expressed at the principle of development extending into the countryside and development to remove unneighbourly businesses.  The application was also contrary to the newly adopted Local Plan.  Other Members suggested seeking clarification of the design and scale of the development.  It was moved by CouncillorTerry Cox and seconded by Councillor Roger Cox that the application should be deferred to allow the applicant to consider the detail of the dwellings or to consider reducing the application site further.  This was lost by six votes to nine. 

It was moved by the Chair and

RESOLVED    (by nine votes to six)

that application GCO/8308/12-X be refused for the reasons set out in the report. 

Some Members considered the extended house would be too large on this plot and expressed concern at the cumulative effect this might have in the street scene.  Others Members supported the application. 

RESOLVED    (by ten votes to five)

that application KBA/10130/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Further to the report, it was noted that the applicants were willing to move the gates back into the site to allow better visibility at the access onto Mortree Close. 

Mr Gentleman, on behalf of the residents of Mortree Close, made a statement objecting to the application.  He believed that there was a risk of the applicant parking on the narrow access road, causing an obstruction.  He was also concerned that the development would adversely affect the highway safety of young children that lived in the Close.  He considered the applicant's employment of agents to be unnecessary on this application and queried future intentions. 

Mr Whitfield, the applicant's agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He considered the road width was ample and only a small difference would be made to traffic in Mortree Close as a result of this application.  The local residents' concerns were mostly immaterial planning considerations.  He queried why there needed to be a visibility splay in both directions and asked that this was amended in the planning conditions to one direction only. 

The Local Member spoke in favour of the application.  He considered the traffic would be very slow in the vicinity and the application would not cause any problem. 

Members queried whether a two-way visibility splay was needed, as suggested in condition 2.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the County Highways Engineer was only concerned about a visibility splay towards Fairthorne Way and agreed that condition 2 could be amended.  To assist the safe egress from the site onto Mortree Close, it was suggested that an additional condition should be attached to require a turning space within the site. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application SHR/11277/2 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report, with condition 2 being amended to require only one visibility splay towards Fairthorne Way and for an additional condition to require a turning space on the site. 

RESOLVED    (by fourteen votes to nil)

that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application ABG/11345/13 subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the Class A1 use of nos. 18/19 Market Place, Abingdon, and subject to the condition set out in the report. 

Terry Gashe, the applicant's agent, spoke in favour of the application, pointing out how it had been designed to minimize the impact on neighbouring properties and it had adequate parking and an attractive frontage.  The gap between the front and rear properties was considered acceptable also.  There would be no overlooking to the north and a two-metre high wall would be built to the south.  He reminded Members that the housing design standards were guidance not policy and therefore did not need to be strictly adhered to.  However, the application followed Government advice in making the best use of this previously developed site. 

The Committee considered that the proposal would result in over-development of the site.  The distance between the houses at the front and rear of the site was too small and the rear gardens in places were too small, at one point being only six metres long and backing onto neighbouring gardens.  Members also considered that the neighbouring property 'The Maples' would be adversely affected. 

RESOLVED    (by fourteen votes to nil with one abstention)

that application GRO/13271/4 be refused for the reasons set out in the report. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application APT/14417/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Further to the report it was noted that:

• The County Highways Engineer had no objection to the application
• The Architects' Panel had asked for one of the dormer windows on unit 3 to be changed to a roof light to vary the roofscape
• Amended plans had been received
• The Consultant Architect now supported the design as his comments had been taken into account by the applicant
• Hogging would be used as the parking base rather than tarmac

Mrs Rawcliffe, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement in support of the application.  She believed it was a sympathetic use of the site and existing buildings.  However, she asked that a condition was attached requiring a check for ground contamination as the site had been used as a scrap yard in the past. 

It was noted that a condition regarding contaminated land was recommended to be imposed on the permission. 

The Local Member supported the re-use of the existing buildings but objected to the proposed new building as the site was in the Green Belt.  However, he later withdrew this objection when it was confirmed that the Local Plan allowed for one or two dwellings to be built in such village locations in the Green Belt. 

Members supported the application but suggested an additional condition regarding ground levels, as suggested by the Environment Agency. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application SHI/17151/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with additional condition (MC20) regarding amended plans and a condition regarding ground levels, as suggested by the Environment Agency. 

Further to the report it was noted that:

• The bat survey had found no significant evidence of bat roosts
• One e-mail had been received suggesting that the bat survey did not comply with guidance on ecological surveys
• The County Council's Ecological Officer recommended that a further bat survey was carried out prior to the development "in full accordance with the recommendations set out in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Daytime Bat Assessment of trees on land at Watchfield by Ecosulis Ltd. dated July 2006"
• It was suggested that an additional condition should be attached to the permission requiring the access to be built in accordance with the submitted plans

Mrs Reynolds made a statement objecting to the application as it would have an overbearing impact on her property and neighbouring gardens.  She believed that the character and amenity of the locality would be adversely affected.  There would also be a loss of a rural view and the proposal was adjacent to a Listed Building.  She reported that previously, the Planning Officer had objected to the application due to the size and bulk of the proposal but had since changed her mind.  She believed that the occupants of 6 Squires Road had not been consulted. 

Mr Whitfield, the applicant's agent, welcomed the recommendation for approval.  He considered that the application would cause no overlooking, had no overbearing impact on the surrounding properties and had been sensitively designed to reduce the impact on neighbours, including the Listed Building. 

In response to comments made, the Planning Officer reported that her earlier objections related to the previous application, not the current proposal.  Her objections had been overcome in the revised application. 

The Local Member expressed concern at the proposal to remove a mature hedgerow and tree screen to allow access to the site.  He believed this was inappropriate adjacent to a ListedBuilding.  However, it was noted that the Council's Arboricultural Officer had not objected to the application and found no reason to protect the hedge and tree screen. 

Some Members believed that the amenities of the higher properties in Squires Road would be affected by the development, and that the new houses could be adversely affected by existing properties in Squires Road.  Others believed that the development was acceptable as long as an additional condition was attached to the permission requiring slab levels to be checked by the Council before development continued. 

RESOLVED    (by twelve votes to three)

that application WAT/19373/2 be approved subject to:

(i)         the conditions set out in the report;

(ii)        an additional condition to read "the development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations set out in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Daytime Bat Assessment of trees on land at Watchfield by Ecosulis Ltd. dated July 2006"; and

(iii)       an additional condition requiring slab levels to be inspected and approved by the local planning authority before development continued. 

Further to the report it was noted that the Environment Agency had not objected to the application, subject to two informatives being attached to the permission regarding the need to culvert the watercourse and the need to discharge sewage and surface water into the controlled disposal systems. 

Members supported the outline application but asked that an additional informative was attached to the permission requiring the property to be sensitively designed, given the history of the plot and its proximity to a ListedBuilding. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application LON/19452/1-X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report together with informatives regarding:

• The need to culvert the watercourse
• Discharge of sewage and surface water into the controlled disposal systems
• A sensitive design given the history of the plot and its proximity to a Listed Building
• The siting of the dwelling on the site

Further to the report it was noted that the applicant was willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement to reduce the number of existing masts.  Therefore it was recommended that authority to approve the application was delegated subject to the prior completion of the agreement.  The Committee did not like the visual effect of the masts but given the proposed legal agreement, considered there were no grounds to refuse the application. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair to approve application STA/19491/1 subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement to reduce the number of existing masts. 

(Councillor Jerry Patterson declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34, he remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application KEN/19562 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

(All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application SHR/19596 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

Mr Weaver, on behalf of Littleworth Parish Meeting, made a statement in support of the application.  At the recent Parish Meeting, some concerns had been raised by local residents but he did not support these and the majority of the village was in favour of permission being granted. 

Members considered that an additional condition should be added requiring landscaping to integrate the development into the landscape and that the planting should be carried out in the next planting season. 

RESOLVED    (by fifteen votes to nil)

that application LIT/19602 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition requiring a landscaping scheme to integrate the development into its surroundings and to carry out this planting in the next planting season. 

None