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 Terry Cox, and Richard Farrell. 

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

In accordance with Part 2 of the Local Code of Conduct and the provisions of Standing Order 34, any Member with a personal interest must disclose the existence and nature of that interest to the meeting prior to the matter being debated.  Where that personal interest is also a prejudicial interest, then the Member must withdraw from the room in which the meeting is being held and not seek improperly to influence any decision about the matter unless he/she has obtained a dispensation from the Standards Committee.

Councillors Roger Cox, Tony de Vere, Terry Fraser, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Peter Jones, Monica Lovatt, Jim Moley, Briony Newport, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Peter Saunders, Margaret Turner, Pam Westwood and John Woodford each declared a personal interest in planning application ABG/577/4 – Erection of a single storey extension at 7 Warwick Close, Abingdon, insofar as the applicant was a fellow Member of the Council.

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.

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 given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting. However, two 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:-

Plot 11.3 North of Fermi Avenue, Harwell International Business Centre, Didcot (HAR/CHI/18071)

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved:-

Terracotta tile – light grey 703

Insulated metal wall panel with celestia colour Sirius (metallic silver) finish

Blue brindled facing brick – plynth

Single ply roof felt material – grey (samafil) G410-15EL felt.

Lodged

The following appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Mr and Mrs Wakefield against the Council's decision to refuse to permit the demolition of an existing house and garage and the erection of a dwelling and garage on land at Rose Cottage, Gainfield, Buckland. 

(ii)        Appeal by Miss A Bennett and Nr G Busby against the Council's decision to refuse to permit an application for the installation of french doors and the construction of an external staircase to allow access to the garden on land at Deerhurst Park, Besselsleigh Road, Wootton.

Allowed

The following appeals have been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Mr A Miah against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of a detached dwelling house and the erection of a two-storey building containing four two-bed flats and three one-bed flats, with parking for eleven cars, landscaping and ancillary work on land at 116 Oxford Road, Abingdon (ABG/1781/3);

(ii)        Appeal by Mr J and Mrs N C Dagnell against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a two-storey side extension and the sub-division of the proposed extended property to form two two-bed flats and two one-bed flats together with provision for four car parking spaces, cycle and bin stores on land at 186 Wootton Road, Abingdon (ABG/9504/2).

Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Mr P Jewson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to an existing office suite on land at Lane Barn, Eynsham Road, Farmoor, Cumnor (CUM/11471/2);

(ii)        Appeals by Mr G Robins against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of a clubhouse into guest accommodation and ancillary works (GCO/17377/3); revisions to design, siting and extension to approved dwelling (HCO/17377/4); and a kiosk building to form new reception room, toilets and workshop (GCO/17377/5).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

In respect of application ABG/1781/3 – 116 Oxford Road, Abingdon, Members noted that the Inspector had been critical of the reasons for refusing the application and had awarded costs against the Council.  It was agreed that further training be organised open to all members of the Council on lessons to be learned.  The Development Control Manager confirmed that where appellants had considered to have acted unreasonably the Council did apply for an award of costs.

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 a list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the list be received.

Mr R Beauchamp, the applicant had indicated that he wished to make a statement at the meeting but declined to do so.

The Committee noted that the proposed development had the support of the Consultant Architect and was located well within the College grounds.  In respect of the Parish Council’s comments regarding the development intruding into the Green Belt, one member enquired as to whether it had been made clear to the Parish Council that the Major Developed Site boundary had been amended in the adopted Local Plan 2011 and therefore invited to withdraw its objection.  The Development Control Manager confirmed that where a Parish Council based an objection on an incorrect interpretation of the submitted plans it was given an opportunity to withdraw the objection.  However, this opportunity was rarely taken up.

It was noted that materials in respect of the proposed development would come back to the Committee.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that applications RAD/237/101 and RAD/237/102-LB be approved  subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Councillors Roger Cox, Tony de Vere, Terry Fraser, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Peter Jones, Monica Lovatt, Jim Moley, Briony Newport, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Peter Saunders, Margaret Turner, Pam Westwood and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/577/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

It was reported that the Parish Council had raised no objection to the conversion of the existing building into 4 x 1 bed flats and asked that the following issues be taken into account in respect of the proposed erection of a new dwelling:-

• Not allowing the new dwelling to have a dominant effect on the primary school to the rear and side
• Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) to be placed on three trees to the rear of the site and that the hedgerow bordering the primary school drive should be retained.
• Concerns regarding the safety of schoolchildren when the vehicular access was being used, especially at peak times.

Furthermore the Parish Council recommended that in order to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties a dwelling with a relatively low profile, such as a chalet bungalow, would be more appropriate than a two storey house.  It also suggested that permitted development rights be removed and that the views of the neighbours be taken into account.

In response the Area Planning Officer reported that the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had advised that the trees were not suitable for a TPO and that the hedgerow was not worthy of retention.  Furthermore, the County Engineer had raised no objection regarding road and pedestrian safety.  The Area Planning Officer also reported receipt of an additional neighbour letter reiterating the objections raised by other local residents and advising of a Bill currently going through Parliament removing garden land from the definition of previously developed land.

Mr R Newball, on behalf of the residents of Sands Close, made a statement objection to the application raising concerns already covered in the report.  He claimed that the Officer report had not addressed the highway safety concerns raised.  Finally, he referred to paragraph 8.2 of the adopted Local Plan 2011, which in respect of new housing provision set out its aim “to maintain and improve the quality of life for all members of the local community”.

Members of the Committee did not consider a two storey dwelling to be out of keeping as long as it was sensitively designed so as to avoid overlooking of neighbouring properties.  In this regard it was suggested that an informative was added to any permission.  Furthermore it was suggested that a slab level condition be added to any permission in view of the land to the rear of the site was higher.  It was noted that the Bill currently going through Parliament was a Private Members Bill.

The Chair reported that one of the local Members had contacted him and expressed a preference for a bungalow instead of a two storey dwelling.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)                     that application CUM/1429/9-X be approved subject to:-

(1)                     the conditions as set out in the report;

(2)                     the addition of a slab level condition;

(3)                     the addition of an informative “that the dwelling is sensitively designed to avoid overlooking of neighbouring properties”;

(b)        that application CUM/1429/10 be approved subject to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

One Member expressed concern that the additional parking spaces to be provided in the underground car park appeared to be very tight and he enquired how the disabled parking provision would be allocated across the site.  He also sought clarification as to why the recommendation required the Section 106 Agreement to be amended.

In response the Area Planning Officer advised that disabled parking provision would be distributed across the site by way of a ratio compared to the provision for able bodied parking provision.  The Section 106 Agreement needed to be amended to control the additional two units of affordable housing that would be provided as part of the proposal.  Furthermore, he confirmed that the parking on the site would be allocated to specified dwellings.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that authority to grant planning permission in respect of application ABG/6394/29 be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee and the local Members subject to:-

(1)               the amendment of the Section 106 Obligations regarding affordable housing and contributions; and

(2)        conditions regarding parking and amended plans.

Dr P Collins, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement in respect of the application reiterating the views expressed in the Parish Council letter attached at Appendix 3 to the report.

Mr K Trotter, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application.  He claimed that the proposal had been amended to overcome many of the concerns raised initially by the Parish Council.  Furthermore, there had been no adverse comments on the proposal as part of a parish plan questionnaire distributed around the village.

Ms D Reeves also made a statement in support of the application reiterating the comments made in the letters of support detailed in the report.

Members considered the proposed development to be an improvement on the existing facility.  One Member suggested that proposed condition number 3 should be amended to be more explicit in that the buildings to be removed were the existing pavilion and store.

The Development Control Manager confirmed that any permission granted would not set a precedent for further residential dwellings on the edge of the village, as the proposed development was directly related to the recreational uses of the site.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application LRE/8663/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, with condition number 3 being more explicit that the removal of specified buildings relates to the existing pavilion and store.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/14060/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

It was reported that following the adoption of the Local Plan 2011, all references to Policy H12 in the report should be amended to Policy H13.

Mr R Bramwell made a statement objecting to the application raising concern about matters already covered in the report. He urged the Committee to refuse the application both on policy grounds and failing to preserve or enhance the character of the village.

Mr S Whitfield, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He welcomed the Officer recommendation of approval and claimed that the objection raised by the Parish Council and local residents that two dwellings would harm the character of the village had been addressed and dealt with by the Planning Inspector at the recent appeal.  In respect of drainage concerns he noted that the Inspector had not commented on this at the appeal hearing, considering it not an issue.  Finally he considered that the proposed development complied both with Local Plan policies and national guidelines on housing.

In respect of Policy H13, the Development Control Manager advised that the lower text of the Local Plan stated the infilling development should be restricted to one or two small dwellings.  However, the development proposed in the application could not be refused on policy grounds alone as the Council would need to have regard to the Inspector’s comments in the recent appeal that the two proposed dwellings fronting Watery Lane were acceptable.

The Committee having regard to the Inspector’s comments, considered the proposed development to be well designed and, as such would enhance the character of the village.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

That application SPA/15623/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

One Member asked whether the applicant had been invited to reduce the length of the proposed extension by one metre, to bring it in line with that recommended in the Design Guide.  In response, the Development Control Manager explained that the Guide was guidance and that each application should be considered on its merits.  In this case, as the neighbouring property already had a single-storey rear extension, the proposal was considered acceptable.

By 14 votes to 1, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/18789/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

AFP Developments, the applicant had indicated that it wished to make a statement at the meeting but declined to do so.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/19204/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

To receive and consider report 57/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy). 

The Committee received and considered report 57/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought approval to take enforcement action in respect of 5 Norman Avenue, Abingdon; 2-4 Ock Street, Abingdon and the Blue Boar Public House, Longworth.

In respect of the Blue Boar Public House, it was reported that the local Member had expressed support for the retention of the gravel car park.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the  Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to take enforcement action in the following cases, if in their judgement it is considered expedient to do so:-

(1)        to secure the removal of the unauthorised development (summer house/games   room) in the rear garden of 5 Norman Avenue, Abingdon, (ABG/19058/1);

(2)        (a)        to secure the removal of the unauthorised; UPVC windows, railings

and hand rails, and their replacement with traditional, white painted, timber joinery, at 2-4 Ock Street, Abingdon, (ABG/8129/10 & 11-LB);

(b)        to commence legal proceedings, under Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, against those persons responsible for the removal of the traditional timber windows and their replacement with UPVC windows at 2-4 Ock Street, Abingdon, (ABG/8129/10 & 11-LB);

(3)        to secure compliance with conditions 6,7,8 & 9 of Notice of Permission LWO/18809, and the removal of all unauthorised development including the temporary (Porta Cabin) building and two sheds, at the Blue Boar Public House, Tucks Lane, Longworth, Abingdon, (LWO/18809).

None.