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 Roger Cox, Jerry Patterson, Peter Saunders and Pam Westwood.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 25 September 2006 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 25 September 2006 were adopted and signed as a correct record.

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 94/06- 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 reminded Councillors and advised members of the public to switch of their mobile telephones during the proceedings.

The Chair explained that in accordance with paragraph 9.2 of the Local Code of Good Conduct  for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters 2003, he had allowed the distribution of a verbatim record of Mr N Murrin’s statement in respect of application GFA/19649.

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, 4 members 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.

None.

Allowed

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

Appeal by Barry Royston Caisbrook against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a triple garage at St Hilarion, Harcourt Hill, Botley (NHI/6289/3).  The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee 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 with the appeal decision.

Dismissed

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

Appeal by Mr and Mrs T Anderson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a two storey extension and alterations at 31 Rookery Close, Shippon, Abingdon (SHI/19303).  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 decision notice is attached as Appendix 2. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.

Withdrawn

The following appeals have been withdrawn: -

(i)         Appeal by Wicklesham Commercial Properties Ltd against the decision to refuse to permit the removal of existing agricultural building/farm office and erection of replacement buildings for use class B1(a) office purpose. Car parking.  Wicklesham Lodge Farm, Faringdon (GFA/16696/2).

(ii)        Appeal by Debbie Rees against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a dwelling at Wayside House, Beggars Lane, Longworth (LWO/13882/4-X).

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of one appeal which had been allowed, one which had been dismissed and two which had been withdrawn.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings was presented.

RESOLVED

that the list be received.

To receive and consider report 96/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

Introduction and Report Summary

This report seeks the approval of Committee to take enforcement action, at 15 Bertie Road, Cumnor, Oxon, OX29PS to secure compliance with Condition 3, of CUM/18270/1.

The Contact Officer for this report is Paul Yaxley, Enforcement Officer (01235 540352), direct line.

Recommendation

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 respect of 15 Bertie Road, Cumnor to secure compliance with Condition 3, of CUM/18270/1, if he considers it expedient to do so.

The Committee received and considered report 96/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought approval to take enforcement action in respect of 15 Bertie Road, Cumnor to secure compliance with Condition 3, of planning permission CUM/18270/1.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal.

By 14 votes to nil, with 1 abstention, 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 respect of 15 Bertie Road, Cumnor to secure compliance with Condition 3, of planning permission reference CUM/18270/1, if he considers it expedient to do so.

The Committee received and considered report 94/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below.

Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application a further condition should be added to require acoustic treatment of the plant.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal.  It was noted that the impact on local air quality would be acceptable and that the objectives of the Air Quality Management Area would not be compromised.  

Other Members welcomed the revised scheme commenting that it would complement the street scene. 

By 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention, 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 approve application ABG/1145/10 subject to: -

(1)        the completion of a Section 106 obligation to secure a financial contribution towards the Abingdon Integrated Transport Strategy;

(2)        the removal of the residents of the new flats from the Residents Parking Scheme;

(3)        conditions, including materials, architectural details, landscaping, parking,  servicing and acoustic treatment of the plant.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/10378/8 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report, it was highlighted that the proposal would result in the loss of two trees which were not worthy of Tree Preservation Orders. 

Furthermore, the new access location was explained.

Finally, it was clarified that a sill height condition was proposed to the first floor window of the new dwelling facing Swan Acre lying to the east of the application site.

Mr Hignall, made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding the principle of development; the proposal being dominant and intrusive; harmful impact on the Conservation Area; adverse impact on the setting of a nearby Listed Building; and adverse impact on the character of the area.  He commented that the Parish Council had objected to a substantial dwelling on the adjacent site and suggested that it was not necessary to fill every gap in the Conservation Area.  He referred to the vulnerability of the area and expressed concern regarding adverse impact.  Finally, he suggested that consents for development locally should not be regarded as precedents for development on this site.

Mr A Woodfield, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the previous scheme which had proposed a dwelling closer to Bekynton House had been withdrawn.  He commented that this scheme provided for development in the corner of the application site and in this new position, the dwelling positively addressed the public lane; the existing high timber fence would be removed opening up the area which would be a visual improvement; and the double access had been removed from the proposal and the proposed shared access had been welcomed by the County Engineer.  Finally, he explained that the proposal was for a small scale cottage of a traditional vernacular design which respected the Conservation Area and materials to be used would be appropriate for such a proposal. 

One member commented that he disagreed with the views of the parish Council and in his opinion the proposal would enhance the Conservation Area.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/15716/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee was advised that it had not been possible to demonstrate the noise levels of this type of micro wind turbine and therefore it was suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, permission should be granted for a temporary period of one year to enable monitoring of the wind turbine in terms of noise.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that the turbine was now to be set back in line with the end of the garage and therefore the Officers considered that there would be no visual impact.

The Environmental Health Officer who was present at the meeting explained that there was limited noise data available in respect of these wind turbines.  He reported that the Council had to rely on information from other local authorities.  He commented that it had not been possible to identify this type of turbine in an urban setting anywhere, although there were other models where advice could be given based on actual noise data.  He reported that he had been contacted by the manufacturer of the proposed turbines and had been informed that they would be carrying out an assessment of noise for this model but that this would take some time and that in his opinion it was unreasonable to defer consideration of this application pending that research.

Mr C Colliass the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that the Committee should grant planning permission without a temporary condition attached.  He commented that the Council had had significant time to obtain evidence that the proposed turbine would cause a nuisance in terms of noise.  He commented that the Council had been informed where this type of turbine was sited but relevant information had not been obtained and there was no proof that harm would be caused.  He suggested that permission should be granted particularly having regard to a precedent established through the granting of permission for a similar application in Abingdon. Finally, he referred to no objections being raised in terms of visual impact and advised that this type of turbine was being sold in local DIY stores and that there would be many applications for their siting.

In response to a question raised, the Environmental Health Officer advised that if permission was granted for a temporary period he would plan with applicant and local residents some regular monitoring and measurements having regard to different winds and directions.

One Member questioned why the turbine in Abingdon had been considered acceptable.  The Environmental Health Officer explained that every model produced a different noise signature and consequently not all turbines were the same.  It was reiterated that noise data for this type was scarce and therefore the Council had to rely on data from other authorities. However, it had been possible to identify where some types of turbines had been successfully installed without complaints.

Some Members spoke against the application considering that the turbine would be unsightly and there was uncertainty regarding noise.  However, other Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Councillor Jim Moley advised that he had ceased to be the Council’s representative on the North Wessex Downs AONB Council of Partners and therefore no longer had a declarable interest in this regard.

Councillor Bob Johnston had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance withstanding Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the following was reported: -

·                     The Committee was reminded that all matters of details were reserved except access.

·                     9.1 hectares of the allocated 14.8 hectares of land were to be developed which equated to 30 dwellings per hectare.

·                     The applicant had clarified that no trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders would be lost.

·                     The history of the site going back over many years was explained – this included details of the planning permission for 275 houses subject to a section 106 obligation on the neighbouring area; allocations in the former and current adopted Local Plan and the nearby Synchrotron development).

·                     The Officers considered that the new site had a feel of being in the open countryside and that it was a sensitive site and therefore a high quality design was needed.

·                     The County Council had accepted an offer of £750,000 towards secondary school education.

·                     Contributions required by the County Council totalled approximately £1,600,000.

·                     The applicant had agreed a further contribution of £71,500 for transport.

·                     A firm costing for upgrading the surfacing and lighting of the underpass  to be carried out prior to the occupation of any of the units on the site had yet to be agreed and therefore a Grampian condition was proposed to address this.

The Committee was specifically asked to consider the following points: -

(1)        Affordable Housing - In the report reference was made to a 25% provision for affordable housing.  However, the new Local Plan specified a provision of up to 40% affordable housing and the Committee was asked to consider this.

(2)        Art - Reference was made to a percentage for art in the application file. However, this matter had not been included in the application discussions as it had not been taken up as part of the previous proposal.

(3)        Open space and community buildings – Options being discussed included one cricket pitch and one football pitch; changing rooms in a pavilion; a community room; a play area for under 10’s; and a shop shell which would be marketed and if it was not taken up, it would become residential.  Maintenance of these facilities needed to be discussed. It was commented that either the District Council or the Parish Council could take on maintenance although the willingness to do so was unclear.  It was explained that there would be a commuted sum for maintenance for an agreed period (most likely 10 years).   However, there was also the option of a management company.

Further to the despatch of the agenda the Committee had regard to additional papers which had been circulated prior to the meeting setting out amendments to Head of Terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal. 

Members had regard to the Officer’s comments and considered that it would be reasonable in this case to omit the rear window and provide a roof light to prevent overlooking.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19609/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The difference between the original plan and the amended plan was explained.  In respect of some objections that had been made it was clarified that ownership of land was not a material planning issue.

Mr C Davis had given notice that he wished to make a statement objecting to the application, but he declined to do so.

Mr N Murrin made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding density; vehicle movements and traffic; access; visibility; vision splay; vehicle and pedestrian safety; land ownership; traffic speed; the traffic survey being inadequate; lack of public transport; lack of infrastructure and on street parking.

One member spoke in support of the application commenting that the site was an allocation site in the adopted local plan and that the provision of an access was necessary.  The proposed access met the requirements of the County Engineer and there were no grounds to refuse the application.

By 14 votes to nil, 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 approve application GFA/19649 subject to:-

(1)        the completion of the consultation period on the amended drawings; and

(2)        conditions including vision splays, construction of the access, movement of the main carriageway, landscaping and the provision of a bus shelter.

Mr Hignell made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns regarding the bulk of the garage; its relationship to the adjacent properties; size; unneighbourliness; overlooking; loss of open outlook; and vehicle movements causing noise and disturbance.  He emphasised that the external staircase was inappropriate in this location and the neighbour would suffer loss of privacy.  Finally, he referred to the “fall back” position commenting that development with a lower ridge height would prevent the conversion of the roof space.

Mr R McGovern the neighbour, made a statement objecting to the application explaining that he had no objection to a garage in principle but that the current proposal should be reduced in size.  He explained that the proposal was very large and would be dominant.  Whilst similar proposals had been approved nearby, he explained that these were in the part of the road which had a mix of houses and the land dropped away reducing impact and bulk.  He explained that on this site the land rose to the back and there were mostly bungalows in the area.  He commented that the top of the garage would be clearly visible on the landscape.  He also expressed concerns regarding overlooking explaining that it would be possible for people to stand in the doorway at the top of the external staircase and overlook his garden.  This was not the case for the other neighbouring garages where the staircases were internal.

Some Members expressed concern regarding the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy and considered that the eternal staircase was unneighbourly.

In response to a comment made, the Officers explained that siting the staircase internally had not been discussed with the applicant as the garage was to be sited far down the plot. It was suggested that given the length of the garden the external stairs were not so harmful as to warrant refusal.

The higher ground at the end of the garden was highlighted and it was suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to allow negotiations with the applicant to relocate the staircase internally.

One Member commented that should the Committee consider that the application should be approved, a slab level condition should be added to any permission.

It was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Councillor Monica Lovatt and by 11 votes to 4 it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application SUT/19729/1 be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant seeking the relocation of the staircase inside the garage.

None.