Agenda and minutes

Prior to the formal business of the Committee for the benefit of members of the public, it was announced that in the absence of Councillor Terry Quinlan the Chair of the Development Control Committee, the Vice-Chair, Councillor John Woodford, would be chairing the meeting.  It was reported that Councillor Woodford wished it to be known that he had a slight speech impediment as a result of a stroke suffered in 2002 and he therefore occasionally found it difficult to find his words.

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 Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Terry Quinlan and Peter Saunders.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 23 April and 21 May 2007 (attached).

The Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 23 April and 21 May 2007 were adopted and signed 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.

Declarations were made in report 28/07 – 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 members of the public that they should switch their mobile telephones off during the meeting.

The Chair announced that application GRO/19162 – Provision of a new Railway Station north of Grove, on land adjacent to the A338, the former railway station at Grove, had been withdrawn from the agenda.  In response to a question raised, it was reported that this was at the request of the County Council, who was the applicant.

Finally, the Chair announced that application SHR/20042 – Erection of 14 dwellings and new access, land adjacent to 31 Stainswick Lane, Shrivenham, would be considered first.

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 twelve 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.

Allowed

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

Appeal by S J Alden against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a dwelling and garage, 2 Abingdon Road, Sutton Courtenay (SUT/4647/1 - 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 by the Planning Inspectorate as follows:-

Appeal by S J Alden against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a dwelling and garage at 2 Abingdon Road, Sutton Courtenay (SUT/4647/1-X).

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 report be received.

To receive and consider report 27/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) attached.

The Committee received and considered report 27/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which sought approval to take enforcement action at 29 Park Road, Abingdon to secure the removal of an unauthorised fence.  However, further to the report Members were advised that the owner of the property had since reduced the height of the fence to 1 metre. In addition, a hedge had been planted and a new fence of 1.8 metres high had been erected beyond this.  The Officers explained that both fences were now deemed to be permitted development and as such no further action could be taken.

RESOLVED

that no further action be taken with regard to pursuing enforcement action and that this item be removed from the active enforcement list.

The Committee received and considered report 28/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) regarding various planning applications, the decisions of which are recorded below.

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

Councillors Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Jim Moley, Zoe Patrick, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner, Val Shaw, Chris Wise and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, an additional condition, standard condition LS10 regarding landscaping, should be added to require the maintenance of the landscaping at a specified height.

Dr H Dickinson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, objecting to the proposed development, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding its bulk, design, density, size, parking and proximity to the Green Belt.  He explained that this site was too small for the development proposed and as such would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.  Finally, he referred to the rumble strips, suggesting that they could result in a noise nuisance to residents and neighbours and that other forms of traffic calming should be used.

Mr P Blake, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application, advising that the objections raised concerning bulk, overlooking and parking had been addressed in the Officer’s report.  He explained that there would be six dwellings and not seven as stated by the Parish Council and that the Highways Authority had suggested that only one rumble strip should be provided but the applicant was willing to consider other traffic calming measures.  He explained that the footprint was similar to the footprint already approved, there would be parking to the rear and that the landscape scheme he submitted would provide screening for the car parking area.

The local Member raised no objection to the application, commenting that it was very similar in appearance to the development already approved.  However, he commented that alternative methods of traffic calming should be considered as rumble strips could result in a noise nuisance.

Some Members spoke in support of the application, agreeing that an alternative scheme of traffic calming should be considered; the proposal was not so significantly different to that approved to warrant refusal and providing appropriate materials were used, such as brick and render, the development would have the appearance of a large house which would not be out of keeping in this location.  It was commented that the proposal was not in the Green Belt and that although being adjacent to the Green Belt was a material planning issue, in this case the site was separated from the Green Belt boundary by existing new dwellings.

One Member referred to waste collection, questioning whether a condition could be added requiring the developer to provide waste bins.  In response, the Officers advised that it would not be appropriate to put a condition requiring the provision of waste bins.  It was explained that this sort of requirement would normally be secured through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The Committee recalled that at its meeting held on 21 May 2007 it had been resolved that this application be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee.

By 8 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions, and it being recorded in the Minutes that those Members who had abstained had not been present at the meeting when the application was considered, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1615/51 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillors Roger Cox, Terry Cox and Angela Lawrence had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mr D Hutchinson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, commenting that whilst no objection would be raised to a sympathetic and appropriate development of the site, there were concerns regarding this proposal in terms of its scale, mass and design.  He commented that there were too many houses proposed and that this would be too high, especially as there was an incline on the site resulting in even higher building.  He referred to the access, commenting that the road was already an over busy route through the village.  He expressed surprise that there had been no consultation with appropriate authorities and he referred to the listed building next to the development site.  He reiterated concerns regarding height and explained that at the eastern gateway to the village properties were low level and previous applications for two storey properties had been refused.  Finally, he suggested that a single storey development of no more than two units might be acceptable and that the application should be deferred to enable consideration of this.

Mr J Martin made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that four large dwellings on this site were not acceptable in view of their proximity to the highway, their adverse visual impact on this main approach into the village, density, inadequate screening and height.  As a result the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.  He referred to a previous decision to refuse planning permission which he considered had not been taken into account and commented that planning policy statement 3 provided that villages should not be dealt with in the same way as urban areas and that Members should have regard to the rural character of this site.  Finally, he commented that the proposal was contrary to Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Council’s Local Plan and that Members should be consistent in their decision making and refuse this application.

Mr N Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application, commenting that the proposal was in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 3 in terms of density; it was a good development and made a good use of the land.  He reported that the site was currently occupied by an undistinguished bungalow and that the development proposed would be more traditional in design.  He explained that the bedrooms were to be in the roof space so the proposal was not two storey; access was adequate, height was acceptable and there had been no objections from the Highways Authority.  He explained that the density was low in view of the sewer across the site which needed to be safeguarded and retained.  He commented that a bungalow would be out of keeping and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

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

Mr Darter made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of his mother who had lived nearby for some 30 years.  He raised concerns regarding size, proximity, continuous development and extension, parking, increased traffic, noise, proximity of the driveway to neighbouring properties and the adverse impact as a result of the laundry room in terms of noise and smell.  He referred to previous problems in the past where the Environmental Health Officer had had to intervene and whilst recognising the need for the Care Home, he considered that the proposed extension was out of keeping and inappropriate in this residential area.

One of the local Members raised no objection to the proposal and considered that there were no grounds for refusal.

Another Member commented that having regard to the concerns raised regarding the potential noise from the laundry room, a condition should be imposed restricting its hours of use.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/8524/9 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to restrict the hours of use of the laundry room between  7.00am to 10.00pm daily.

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

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

By 13 votes to 2 it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/8757/7-A be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Carole Nicholl, Head of Democratic Services had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 she withdrew from the meeting.

Some Members expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its height and to this end it was considered that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a slab level conditions be added.  One Member expressed concern that the proposal was too large and over dominant and it was noted that the access might require other consents in addition to planning permission although it was accepted that this was not a material planning consideration.

By 12 votes to 3it was

RESOLVED

that application WAT/13873/3 be approved, subject to:-

(1)       the conditions set out in the report;

(2)       a further condition to require slab levels; and

(3)       the informative set out in the report.

As referred to elsewhere in these Minutes this application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Rodger Hood, Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to one of the requirements of the exception site policy, which was that the scheme should be supported in principle by the local community and represented by the Parish Council.  Officers had been concerned by the level of local objection.  However, the Parish Council fully supported the scheme which was vital.  Officers acknowledged that the proposal would have an impact on the character of the rural edge of the village.  However, exception sites were usually proposed on edge of village locations due to the very nature of the policy.  It was emphasised that as stated in the report, the majority of the housing was set back from the road frontage and most of the hedging would be retained.  A Section 106 Agreement would be required to restrict occupation and the County Engineer had no objection in terms of access and parking.

The Committee was advised that the applicants had agreed to amend the plans in accordance with the requirements of the Consultant Architect’s suggestions.

The Committee was advised that two further letters reiterating objections previously raised had been received, and an additional email stating that the Defence Academy was undertaking an internal establishment development plan review as a result of which some sites, perhaps including the telephone exchange site might be considered for other uses.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had raised no objection to the proposal, commenting that no major trees would be harmed as the substantial oaks were far enough away from the development.  However, he had suggested that there should be a fence round the development.

Furthermore, it was noted that Natural England had commented that trees and hedgerows both provided important roosting and foraging habitats for bats and providing that no current dwellings, trees or hedgerows would be lost to the development, no reasons could be seen why bats would be affected.

Furthermore, the Officers explained that the applicant had submitted an email received from its consultant relating to the surveys undertaken as part of the eco home accreditation.  It was explained that the applicant wished to provide eco homes seeking to maximise the credits available in respect of the ecology of the site and as such ecological assessments should be undertaken before any major development.  The statement received from the applicant in this regard was read out in full at the meeting.

The Committee was advised that a statement had been received from Councillor Peter Saunders, one of the local Members, which was also read out in full.  The local Member expressed support for the proposal, referring to the need for affordable housing which would benefit local people;  the results of the housing needs survey conducted in 2004 and the comments to the Parish Council from the District Council’s Deputy Director (Housing),  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

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

Another local Member, whilst noting the comments of the Town Council, expressed no objection to the proposal.

By 10 votes to 4, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/200/61 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to provide for the receipt of amended plans.

David Calvert made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council, advising that whilst the Parish Council had no objection to some extensions which complemented the design of the area, the Parish Council had concerns regarding the side extension which would be located right up to the boundary of the neighbouring house.  He raised concern regarding proximity and the overhang gutters.  He commented that virtually all houses in the area had a passageway and the Parish Council would wish to see the front of the side extension set in by half a metre with the corner taken from the front.  Finally, he advised that the Parish Council had no objection to the bringing forward of the garage.

Steven Coates, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application advising that he had lived in the area for some 30 years and was concerned to ensure the visual appearance and character of the area would be maintained.  He explained that there was no difference between his proposal and similar extensions elsewhere in the road which he outlined.  He commented that there was no difference in proximity and that the proposed extension was to be sited where a garage had previously been erected.  Finally, he commented that the proposal did not amount to terracing and that there would be no adverse impact.

The local Member raised no objection.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SAH/20100 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.