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 a Substitute Member 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 Richard Farrell and Briony Newport. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 18 December 2006 and 8 January 2007 (attached).

The minutes of the Committee meetings held on 18 December 2006 and 8 January 2007 were signed and adopted 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 155/06 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 everyone present to switch off their mobile phones during the course of the meeting. 

The Chair reported that two Members were in attendance as Local Members to speak on applications within their electoral Wards.  However, Local Members were not Members of the Committee and therefore did not have a vote. 

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

(1)        Terry Gashe made a statement to the Committee on behalf of the Betjeman Memorial Park Trustees.  He sought the Committee's agreement to allow the terms of a Section 106 Agreement to be reconsidered to allow a financial contribution to be made to the Betjeman Memorial Park which provided necessary open space for the Pegasus development adjacent to the Park.  He argued that it was therefore appropriate for the Park to benefit from the agreement.  The Section 106 Agreement had not yet been completed and signed.  The developers were required to provide some public amenity space and public art.  The Betjeman Memorial Park would provide these facilities but in return should receive some financial contribution.  However, he accepted that the majority of the Section 106 funds should be targeted at affordable housing, although the Grove Airfield development would provide much affordable housing for the area. 

The Chair thanked Mr Gashe for his statement and reported that his comments would be taken into account before the Section 106 Agreement was finalised, although affordable housing was a top priority. 

(2)        Mr Peter Scatchard presented a petition to the Committee Chair.  The petition contained 56 signatures objecting to the application for development at Penn House, High Street, Childrey, which objectors believed was unsympathetic to the Conservation Area.  The Chair read out the terms of the petition and reported that it would be taken into consideration by the Committee when it discussed the application later in the meeting. 

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 ten 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.

None.

Lodged

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

(i)         Appeal by Tape Crown Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the cessation of an existing lorry park use.  Erection of new building for business use (648sq.m) with new parking and turning area.  New access to A420 and closure of two existing accesses on land at Lorry Park, Chowle Farm Industrial Estate, A420, Great Coxwell, Faringdon.

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal by Mr D Crossley-Cooke against the enforcement notice issued by the Council for the alleged change of use of land from use for agriculture to use for the storage of non-agricultural items, materials and equipment (GCO/18275/6-E).  A copy of the decision notice is attached at Appendix 1.  No reference to costs was made with the notice.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings was presented.  

RESOLVED

that the list be received.  

The Committee received and considered report 155/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing six 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. 

All Members of the Committee declared personal interests in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the officer drew the Committee's attention to the consultant architect's reply to the consultation and to the comments of the Ancient Monuments' Society, both of which had been circulated after the agenda despatch.  The officer also reported that a letter of objection had been received expressing concerns at the modern approach taken by the architect.  The Environment Agency had not submitted any comments prior to the meeting.  However, it was noted that it had not objected to the previous application on this site.  The County Council as highway authority had not submitted its formal comments also.  In relation to an earlier application, the County Council had asked for the access road to the site to be improved.  However, the previous application had been for three dwellings rather than one. 

Mike Jenkins spoke on behalf of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, raising concerns that the proposed development was situated very close to the historic park and gardens of the Manor House and close to Listed barns in the historic centre of the village.  He believed the proposed dwelling was not in keeping with the area by virtue of its design and materials, which would be incongruous and inappropriate.  The development would also be against policies in the County Structure Plan and the Local Plan.  The design also challenged the dovecote.  He considered that the modern design would be able to be seen from the village green in winter.  He urged the Committee to preserve the heart of the village and refuse the application. 

Mr A Warne, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application.  He suggested that the development would secure the future of the dovecote, preserving its interior and exterior.  The site was sufficiently far from the Manor House and was surrounded by trees, so it would be invisible from the road and the village green.  The development would also remove a derelict tennis court.  The design had not attracted any objections from English Heritage or the Environment Agency. 

The Local Member spoke against the application, disliking the design of the glass elements of the house.  He asked that it be referred back for further consideration.  Two storeys would not be objectionable as long as the design blended in.  He urged caution in designing new build adjacent to historic buildings, believing that a lasting design was needed.  He reported that further applications were in the pipeline in this area and urged that these were considered along with the application from the Abbey. 

The Chair reported that each application had to be determined on its own merits and not in conjunction with others. 

The Committee was largely in support of the application, noting that no objections had been received from English Heritage and that the consultant architect had supported the design.  The Listed dovecote would be preserved as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

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

The Committee noted the earlier receipt of a petition containing 56 signatures objecting to the proposed development at Penn House. 

Further to the report the Committee noted that the proposed development of a single garage had been omitted from the scheme.  Its removal had caused concern to the neighbour as it would no longer screen the extension to Penn House, in particular, the glazed first floor extension from their property. 

Peter Scatchard made a statement on behalf of all those that wrote objecting to the application.  He believed that there were two major problems: there were gross inaccuracies and there had been improper consultation.  He believed the barn should not be increased in height and commented that the catslide roof could be seen from several properties.  He objected to the last minute alteration of the plans.  The garage would have provided screening to the neighbouring property but had now been omitted.  The huge increase in glazed area was unnecessary, inappropriate development that would result in overlooking of neighbouring property.  Given the inaccuracies and changes, he urged the Committee to refuse the application and seek a new application with accurate plans and proper consultation.  He believed that objectors were being prejudiced and their right to object to the amended plans had been removed.

Ken Dijksman spoke as a supporter on behalf of the applicant.  He understood the local objections but reminded the Committee that change was permitted in Conservation Areas.  Discussions on this application had taken approximately one year to get to this stage.  It had been a constructive process; the design had changed to reduce the impact on the Conservation Area and on neighbouring residents.  The requirement to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance had been met and the objectors had commented on the amendment to the plans, removing the garage.  Accurate drawings were now before the Committee. 

The Local Member believed that the heart of Childrey's Conservation Area and Penn House needed conserving.  He was concerned at the details in the application and process.  Two applications had been withdrawn but the new application had not been consulted upon.  The garage had been removed and there was no re-consultation.  There was much local concern at the potential for overlooking and the loss of privacy for the neighbours, especially from the proposed glazed wall on the first floor.  He urged the Committee to defer the application and ask for amended plans with proper consultation. 

Members of the Committee also expressed concern at the glazed wall proposed on the first floor of Penn House and the potential this had to cause overlooking of adjacent properties.  Concerns were also expressed at the Juliet window proposed and it was suggested that the two dormers windows on the west elevation should be roof lights to avoid overlooking.  Members were also concerned at the proposed increase in height  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.

The Committee supported the proposed development but asked that the Parish Council was informed that the plans had been amended from those originally submitted. 

By 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED   

that application MAR/6783/5 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The Committee supported the application and welcomed the design.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application UPT/7108/2 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

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

Further to the report it was noted that a small strip of the site was within the Conservation Area as this covered the area where greenhouses used to be.  These had long since been removed but the Conservation Area boundary remained.  This was an outline application with all matters reserved.  An additional floodplain report would be required regarding the River Stert.  A further letter had been received expressing concern at the loss of parking. 

Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the loss of car parking that would result from this application.  This would be contrary to policy TR6 in the Local Plan and could adversely affect the businesses in the town centre.  Visitors to the Council's offices also used the car park, as did users of the Abbey Grounds and Meadows.  He urged the Committee to reject the application and retain the site for car parking. 

Brian Hooton made a statement opposing the proposed development and objecting to the proposal for the Council to delegate authority to itself to approve the application.  He reported that the car park was often full.  If its capacity was reduced this would frustrate drivers.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application and retain the site for car parking. 

Mrs Terry Boswell, a nearby resident, also made a statement objecting to the application as residents of Burgess Close relied on the car park for overflow parking for visitors.  There was demand to retain the car park. 

One of the Local Members reported that the car park was not being used to capacity but growth of the town centre might mean demand for spaces would increase.  The Council had agreed to undertake a long term review of parking provision.  He considered that a cautious approach should be adopted and the car park retained until the review had been completed. 

Other Members of the Committee expressed concern at the proposed development and the resulting loss of car parking.  There was also concern at the impact the development would have on the setting of the Abbey Grounds in the adjacent Conservation Area.  It was suggested that this was not the right site for housing but part of the site could be redeveloped for this purpose. 

The Chair put the recommendation contained in the report to the meeting and this was lost by 15 votes to nil.  The Chair then proposed that the application be refused with the reasons for refusal to come back to the Committee, the reasons to include the development being contrary to policy TR6 of the Local Plan, the undesirable impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and the absence of sufficient information on flood risk at the site. 

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19731 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.

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

Mike Jenkins made a statement on behalf of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, objecting to the application, as it would reduce the feeling of openness in this part of Tullis Close.  The character of the Close had been changed following the construction of new development adjacent to the application site.  He considered the first floor extension unneighbourly, and that the application was contrary to the Local Plan policy DC1.  He also expressed concern at additional development on the capacity of the sewage system.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

James Eastwood made a statement on behalf of local residents objecting to the application.  He believed the proposed development would not enhance the character or amenity of the neighbourhood.  The application should be viewed together with the application for the adjoining site.  He urged the Committee to defer the application until it could be seen in the context of the two new houses being developed beside it, when the overall effect would be seen. 

Neil Perry, the applicant's agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He believed that the subservient extension would not dominate the street scene and this application should not be confused with the application for the adjacent site.  He believed the application responded to character of the property and the street. 

The Local Member objected to the proposed development, in particular at the changing character of the Close.  One green area had already been lost on the adjoining site and the collective applications were spoiling the character of the area which had already seen the loss of several shrubs and small trees. 

Members of the Committee understood the views of local residents but could find no reason to refuse the application on material planning grounds.  However, the Officers were asked to check that the neighbouring development was being built in accordance with the approved plans. 

By 14 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/19873 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

None.