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 an apology for absence having been received from Councillor Pam Westwood.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 19 February 2007.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 February 2007 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.

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 everyone present to switch off their mobile phones during the course of the meeting.  He also advised that planning training had been organised for Thursday 17 May 2007 and would be open to all Members of the new Council.

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 eight members of the public had given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, one member 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.

 ?Harwell Hotel (HAR/??)

Geraldine to complete

To consider report 187/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) (attached).

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration).

The Committee received and considered report 187/06 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought the approval of the Committee to take enforcement action in respect of 146 a,b, c and d High Street, Sutton Courtenay; land to the rear of 28-32 Castle Street, Steventon; and 16 Linden Crescent, Grove.  The report also sought authority to remove two resolved enforcement cases, relating to 15 Bertie Road, Cumnor and 6 Swinburne Road, Abingdon from the active enforcement list and updated Members on progress with the ongoing enforcement action in respect of Greensands, Reading Road, East Hendred.

In respect of 16 Linden Crescent, Grove it was reported that the ‘tent’ structure had now been removed and therefore no further action was required and the case could be removed from the active enforcement list.  Furthermore, in respect of the resolved case relating to 6 Swinburne Road, Abingdon it was noted that the application site was in the Abingdon Northcourt Ward not Fitzharris as stated on the report.

The Committee noted that Oxfordshire County Council had refused the application for the open storage and screening of top soils from other wastes, associated access road and storage/vehicle parking area in July 2006. Furthermore, it was confirmed that a requisition for information, to ascertain the owners of all property on the site, would be a prerequisite for any future enforcement action taken in respect of this site.

RESOLVED

(a)        that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, to take enforcement action in the following cases if in his judgement it is considered expedient to do so: -

(1)           146a, b, c, & d High Street, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon - Alleged non compliance with a condition to require that prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, the car parking area shown on the approved plan reference (04/0204/BP21) shall be constructed, drained, laid and marked out in accordance with the specification of the Oxfordshire County Council for such works. Thereafter the area shall be kept permanently free from obstruction to such use. 

(2)           Land to the rear of 28-32 Castle Street, Steventon – Alleged construction of a new brick pigeon loft without the benefit of planning permission.

(b)                that the following cases be removed from the active enforcement list: -

(1)        15 Bertie Road, Cumnor – To comply with Condition 3, of CUM/18270/1;

            (2)        6 Swinburne Road, Abingdon – To cease any residential use, and

                        secure the removal of, an unauthorised dwelling;

(3)        16 Linden Crescent, Grove – Alleged construction of a ‘tent’ structure without the benefit of planning permission.

(c)                that the progress report on development on a site in which enforcement action is ongoing at Greensands, Reading Road, EastHendred be noted.

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.

(Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.  Councillors Terry Cox, Roger Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Eddy Goldsmith, Jenny Hannaby, Monica Lovatt, Jim Moley, Briony Newport, Terry Quinlan, Peter Saunders, Melinda Tilley, Margaret Turner 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).

Mr G Ivanov made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He claimed that roof ridge on the north elevation of the proposed extension would extend above the existing boundary wall by 10cm and not 5 cm as stated on the plans and thereby increase the amount of shadow into his garden by a further one metre.

The Area Planning Officer reminded the Committee that all plans had a degree of tolerance regarding accuracy and that it was for the Committee to make a judgement as to whether an increase of 10cm was detrimental to the amenities of the neighbour.  It was suggested that slab level condition be added to any permission.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WTT/19927 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition relating to slab levels.

(Councillor Richard Gibson had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

The Chair advised that Councillor Laurel Symons, who had requested that the application be referred to the Committee, was unable to attend the meeting due to a hospital appointment.   He explained that Councillor Symons had asked that the application be referred to allow objectors an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding this retrospective application.

Mr J Burren made a statement on behalf of himself and his neighbour Elizabeth Hastings, objecting to the application and raising concerns already covered in the report.  In addition to concerns regarding the decorative ridge tiles being out of keeping with the style of the house, the raising of the eaves height, over dominance and over looking of the neighbouring property, he considered the grey cladding around the bay windows to be out of keeping and visually intrusive.

Mr A Melton, the applicant’s agent expressed surprise that the application had been brought to the Committee but he understood the reason put forward by the local Member and explained earlier in the meeting.  He explained that there had been some minor changes to the design of the extension during construction but that the eaves height of the main dwelling was 140mm and not 300mm as stated in the report.  He advised that the size, bulk and orientation of the new dwelling followed the shape of the original bungalow on the site and that the windows inserted in the bay at first floor level were over 12 metres from the neighbouring property and orientated towards the road.  He explained that the roof tiles and brick used replicated the materials used on the original dwelling and that the ridge tiles were a personal choice, the use of which didn’t require planning permission.

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the decorative ridge tiles were permitted development.  He further advised that in the event that planning permission was granted, a condition be added removing permitted development rights for any additional windows in the side elevation.

The Committee noted that the development site was not within a conservation area, the dwelling was not a listed building and the other properties within the locality were all different in their design, including some with decorative ridge tiles.  It was considered also that the materials, once weathered, would be acceptable.

By 13 votes to nil, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1877/3 be approved subject to a condition removing permitted development rights for any additional windows in the side elevation.

Mrs L Burns made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She explained that she had been unaware that the proposal included a single storey rear extension.  Furthermore, works had already commenced on site without the benefit of planning permission.  In the event that planning permission was granted she stressed the need for a high quality fence to be erected on her boundary and the application site.

The Committee considered that the drawings accompanying the application were difficult to interpret and uninspiring.  The accuracy of the plans was questioned. It was felt that in design terms the proposed gable end was unacceptable and that it should he hipped.  It was noted that works had commenced on site, resulting in the removal of the hedge and that the quality of the boundary treatment in this prominent location was paramount.

In response, the Area Planning Officer advised that the removal of the hedge in its entirety would improve visibility at the junction with The Hyde and that an informative could be added to any permission advising that the boundary treatment should be of a high standard.

It was proposed by the Chair and by 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that authority to approve application ABG/19912 be delegated to the Chair, Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Committee and the local Members subject to :-

(1)               the receipt of corrected accurate drawings;

(2)               the re-design of the roofline of the existing dwelling and proposed extension;

(3)               an informative advising that the proposed boundary treatment should be of a high standard.

Mr D Fisher, the applicants agent made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that there had been extensive dialogue with the Planning Officers regarding the scheme and he accepted that the site was located in a prominent position in the village.  He considered that the development as proposed would have little impact on neighbouring properties and that the proposed footprint was sympathetic to the overall size of the site.  Finally, the location of the property would utilise an area currently occupied by a row of prefabricated garages and therefore minimise any effect on the surrounding roads.

The Principle Planning Officer advised that the layout of the site was a reserved matter and would be dealt with at the detailed planning stage. 

It was suggested that an informative be added to any permission granted advising that the Committee would expect a design and materials of the highest quality for this prominent village centre site and that, although it reserves its position regarding the location of the dwelling on the site until the submission of a full application, that location should be set back from the road to lessen the impact on the street scene.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application HIN/19721/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an informative advising that the Committee will expect the design and materials to be of the highest quality for this prominent village centre site and that, although it reserves its position regarding the location of the dwelling on the site until the submission of a full application, the dwelling should be set back from the road to lessen its  impact on the street scene.

(Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

The Principle Planning Officer reported that in response to concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans submitted, the applicant had undertaken a full site survey and confirmed that the measurements accorded with those set out on the Block Plan.   He also reported that Oxfordshire County Council had received the required financial contribution towards enhancements to the bus route and that the Officer recommendation was now one of approval subject to conditions.

Dr G Counsell made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He claimed that the plans and drawings provided with application failed to meet the standards of accuracy required by Policy DC1 of the Local Plan 2011, in that:-

(1)               the scale used in the site layout plan was in error, to the favour of the applicant by 9.2%.  The line representing 12m on the layout, corresponded to a distance of only 10.9m, as acknowledged by the Planning Officer in his report;

(2)               the site layout plan failed to indicate the extension at the rear of 3 Blenheim Way, which was an integral part of the house.

In respect of plot 3, Dr Counsell advised that the proposed development had a 2.5 storey, 9.1m high side elevation at a distance of just 9.3m from the main window to the rear extension to 3 Blenheim Way.  The Council’s Planning Advisory Note clearly stated that a main window facing a flank wall should be kept 12m away from it.  The Advisory Note made no mention that this requirement only applied to parallel distances, as suggested by the Planning Officer in his report.  He referred to the 26 multi-storey dwellings built in the village in the last 18 months, none of which were suitable for the aging population or those with impaired mobility, contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 and claimed that the application before the Committee would do nothing to redress this.  In summary, Dr Counsell considered that the Planning Officer in his assessment had failed to apply the criteria set out in the Council’s own design guidelines and advice and he urged the Committee to reject the application and instruct the developer to enter into dialogue with local residents to achieve a mutually acceptable development.

Victor Brown the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that this was a revised application which had taken on board the concerns raised with the original application.  He referred to the size of the site, which could accommodate the development proposed without giving the impression of over development and intrusion to neighbouring properties.  He confirmed that the plans submitted were accurate and stressed that the distance of the nearest property to the proposed dwellings was in excess of the Council’s design guidelines.  In respect of the 2.5  ...  view the full minutes text for item 303.

(Councillor Peter Saunders had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

One of the local Members present at the meeting spoke in support of the application, considering that the proposed development would have limited impact on neighbouring properties.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application SHR/6795/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

It was noted that the provision of low walls around properties was a feature of the original layout of the estate.  Members supported the erection of a fence to provide privacy to the rear garden of the property but stressed the need for it to be maintained in good order.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application STA/19973 be approved subject to the conditions se out in the report.

None.