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 Richard Farrell.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 30 January 2006 attached.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 30 January 2006 were adopted and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendments: -

(i)         Minute DC.256 – the deletion of the duplicate words “she remained in the meeting” in the first paragraph.

(ii)        Minute DC.260 – the addition of the word “permitted” before the words “development rights” in resolution (2).

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 235/05 – 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.

For the benefit of members of the public, the Chair announced that Councillor Peter Saunders was present as a local Member and was unable to vote.

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.

Ten members of the public had each 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.

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the following: -

(a)        Plot 9, Land west of Didcot Power Station (HAR/12063/22-D)

Members recalled that at the last meeting concerns regarding the possible reflective nature of the proposed walling material had been expressed and it was agreed that a larger sample be provided on site so that it could be viewed in context, together with a second choice of walling material in case the former was found unacceptable.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

            that the use of the following wall materials be approved: -

 (b)       New accommodation block, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Fermi Avenue, Chilton (HAR/19094)

RESOLVED

            that the use of the following materials be approved: -

(1)        Walls - Ibstock Leicester Red Stock 4930 and Kingspan insulated walling panels HDX in Granite Silver

(2)        Roof - profile metal in silver grey ref: RAL9006

Lodged

The following appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-

Appeal by Mr Jewson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension at Lane barn, Eynsham Road, Farmoor (CUM/11471/2).

Dismissed

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

Appeal by Tapecrown Limited against the an enforcement notice in respect of the alleged change of use of the land, without planning permission, from the use for agriculture to use of the land for the design and manufacture of shop fittings, Chowle Farm Estate, Great Coxwell (GCO/2087/13E).   The decision to take enforcement action was made by the Development Control Committee.  A copy of the decision notice is attached.  No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda report which set out details of one appeal which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination 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.

The Committee received and considered an agenda report which set out details of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 235/05 of the Assistant Director (Planning) 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.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of two further representations received from Penny Hooks Farm.  The first raised concerns that the information which would become available from the meteorological mast should be available already and that there was no need for the mast on site; it was not the role of the Committee to consider contractual arrangements; there would be a substantial increase in visual intrusion; there were questions as to why the proposal had not formed part of the original scheme and that if it had, the decision made to allow the turbines might have been different; there were concerns that experienced turbine operators had not given thought to the need for a meteorological mast initially and there were questions regarding the justification for a mast at this stage.  The second raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the mast and wires and the adverse impact of this on the students at Penny Hooks Farm who had autism; concerns that the information regarding the need for the mast was questionable; concern regarding the possibility that the applicant was requesting another structure in order to challenge the manufacturer’s data; the proposal being contrary to policies SF8 in terms of justification and CF10 in terms of the requirements for renewable energy not harming the local landscape, which it was considered that this proposal would.

The Officers clarified that the principal consultee had been North Devon District Council which had a designated officer to process these types of applications.  It had commented that in its knowledge temporary masts of this type were normally applied for.  Members were therefore asked to have regard to the applicant’s arguments for a permanent mast on site.

Terry Gashe the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application explaining the reasons for an independent mast on site.  He reported that the manufacturers of the turbines had guaranteed a maximum output of electricity for a given wind speed and this was critical to ensure the level of return for the turbines.  He advised that it was essential to have an independent measure of wind speed.  He explained that some wind farms, where they were owned and operated by a commercial venture and not a co-operative were able to use an anemometer fixed on the turbines.  He reported that this was not possible in this case as the manufacturer retained control over the turbines (in order to offer the guarantee) and calibration was carried our by the manufacturer.  Also the airflow at the hub was affected by the blades and did not give as accurate a reading as would be provided by a free standing anemometer.  He explained that the proposal was for a thin mast with thin guide wires and that meteorological masts of this type were completely insignificant.  He emphasised that in this location it would be barely visible from a distance of more than 400 metres and was acceptable particularly in the context of the turbines.  Finally, he clarified that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 290.

Councillors Mathew Barber, Terry Cox, Mary de Vere and Tony de Vere had each declared a personal interest in this items and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Jim Moley had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.  However, in accordance with paragraph 5.2.6 of the Local Code of Good Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters he refrained from voting on the application.

The Officers clarified that there had been 27 letters of representations including a letter from one of the local Member.

Mr M Holt made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding detrimental impact;  the proposal changing the character and appearance of the area which was predominantly Edwardian and Victorian; other proposals coming forward for development in this area as some residents of larger plots had been approached by developers; traffic movement and pedestrian safety (a concern shared by many including the Head Teacher of King Alfred’s School); size; scale; density; the extent f the footprint; narrowness of the plot and the resultant necessity to squeeze the apartments to the back of the site; removal of trees to allow for parking; the second floor being unnecessary. Finally, he suggested that six apartments might be acceptable.

Mr F Dixon on behalf of the applicant made a statement in support of the application referring Member’s attention to the report commenting that the proposal complied with PPG3, PPS1, the Local Plan and Emerging Local Plan.  He referred to a similar application opposite and suggested that the objections raised did not refer to material planning considerations. He commented that in terms of traffic, the County Engineer had no objection; the vision splay would be improved and a passing bay would be provided.  Furthermore, whilst he agreed that the character of an area could change as was the case with all development, such a change would not be harmful in this case.

One of the local Members raised concerns regarding the cumulative affect of this type of development; design and density.  He suggested that mock Tudor was not the predominant design in this road.

One Member commented that there was a diversity of house styles and designs in this area which were predominantly Victorian.  She suggested that the proposal could have been more imaginative although she raised no objection to the scheme as presented.

Another Member referred to Coopers Lane which was a narrow un-adopted road. She commented on the need to retain such accesses which she suggested encouraged people to walk or cycle rather than use their cars.

Other Members supported the application welcoming the retention of open space and considering that there were no reasons to refuse the application.

By 16 votes to nil, with Councillor Jim Moley abstaining it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 291.

The Committee was asked to disregard Appendix 6 attached to the report which had inadvertently been included and did not relate to this application.

The Committee noted that the Parish Council had raised concerns regarding increased traffic movements.   However, the CountyEngineer had no objection to the application subject to a contribution towards highway improvement works.

In response to a question raised, the Committee was advised that there would be an overall increase in traffic movements but this would be relatively insignificant and therefore a routing agreement had not been requested by the County Engineer in this case.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and /or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application SUT/6343/21 subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the contributions towards highway improvement works.

The Committee was advised that the comments of the County Engineer were still awaited and therefore should the Committee be minded to approved the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Chief Executive pending receipt of those comments.  Furthermore, the Committee was advised that condition 7 set out in the report should be amended to refer to units 1 to 4.

Mr C Whatmore made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council commenting that this development should not be seen in isolation.  He referred to other applications in the locality and expressed concern regarding the loss of this business use which he considered was truly local and reduced the need for travel to work.  He expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its Impact on the street scene; adverse impact on the local water sys in that the existing water pressure was unreliable; on street parking which would adverse impact on the walking bus and on the movements of agricultural vehicles; and car parking.  He welcomed the restrictions on alterations and extensions to the dwellings questioning whether these were the same as the removal of permitted development rights.  He commented that additional car parking spaces were proposed to the rear but details were unclear. He asked that should the Committee be minded to approve the application the court yard car parking space should be retained for the lifetime of the development and that no plans should be approved which did not show the car parking space to the rear.  Finally, he requested that the works should be carried out in their entirety and not piecemeal as and when tenants vacated premises.

Mr I Hope made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  In particular he expressed concern regarding on street car parking; uncertainty regarding the number of car parking spaces to the rear of the office building; the agreed allocation of those spaces; lack of a footpath in the main road and pedestrian safety should there be further on street parking.  He suggested that consideration of the applications should be deferred until a plan was produced showing the car parking layout.

Mr S Barratt, the beneficial owner of the site and landlord made a statement in support of the applications commenting that the proposal would address concerns raised regarding car parking.  He suggested that the need for parking associated with the proposal would be less that the current use.  He advised that the site benefited from a water storage system and therefore concerns raised regarding wter pressure were not relevant.  He referred to comments made regarding allocated aprking stating that there was a right of way on foot only and no allocated parking. Finally, he emphasised that parking to the rear was not an issue.

The Committee was advised of the views of the local Member who had suggested that given that the commercial units had been empty he could see no reasons to resist  ...  view the full minutes text for item 293.

Mr Galliver the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the applications explaining details of the original building and commenting that there been many extensions which were of a poor quality with inadequate roof pitches for slate tiles.  He reported that the current proposal would be an improvement on the existing structures and that it would provided improved living amenity.    He clarified the increased floor area which he advocated was minimal and commented that the proposal would improve this neglected listed building.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application EHE/19393 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(b)        that application EHE/19393/1-LB be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Julie Mayhew Archer had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration. 

It was clarified that the Committee was being asked to consider the replacement of the wood cladding with brick on the sides of the new school hall and the addition of three wind-catcher structures on the roof.  It was commented that the height and footprint of the building were identical to the permitted scheme.

Reference was made to the representations received and it was noted that some of the objections raised related to the principle of development of the school hall which had already been established.  Reference was made to the proximity of the new school hall to the neighbouring properties.  Details of the distances to the rear of the houses being at least 25 metres and to the rear garden boundaries being 5 metres were explained.  It was commented that these were considered acceptable in relation to the detailed changes now proposed. 

Mr J Laister speaker on behalf of nine neighbours made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He set out his concerns at the current application being put forward at this stage noting that the reason for the replacement of the cladding related to the costs involved.  He clarified that he had not objected to the original application as he had considered the cladding appropriate.  He explained that he considered that the use of bricks would be visually intrusive especially having regard to the distances of the hall to the neighbouring properties commenting that it was a mere 5 metres from the rear gardens which were used by the residents.  He questioned why the wind-catchers had not been included in the original application and raised concern regarding their visual impact.  He suggested that they would be seen and would detract from the beautiful appearance of the Victorian terraces.  He also raised concerns regarding possible noise.  Finally he advised that the plans showed trees in place along the boundary.  He explained that these had been attractive trees which had formed an effectual noise and visual barrier.  However, it had been agreed that three of the tree should now be removed and he questioned why.

Mr Hehir referred to correspondence he had sent to Members of the Committee asking Councillors to have regard to his comments in determining this application.  He particularly raised concerns regarding how this and previous applications had been processed.

Mr J Spurgeon had given notice that he wished to make a statement at the meeting but he declined to do so.

One of the local Members commented that she preferred the wood cladding to the brick, although she noted that the Committee had to consider the application before it.  However, she considered that the brick would be visually intrusive and suggested that trees should be planted to provide some screening.

The Officers explained that it doubtful whether requesting trees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 295.

None.

The meeting rose at 9.20pm.