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, Jenny Hannaby, Terry Quinlan, Val Shaw and Margaret Turner.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 2 July and 1 August 2007 (attached).

The Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 2 July and 1 August 2007 were adopted and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:-

1 August 2007 - Minute DC.79 – ABG/20044/1, 1 Galley Field, Abingdon

Substitute “16” for “14” in the second paragraph of the preamble.

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 all those present that their mobile telephones should be switched off during the meeting.

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 speak at the meeting.  In the event only nine members of the public made statements.  Furthermore, the Chair advised that he had agreed to an additional speaker in respect of application ECH/19891/1.

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

ANY MATERIALS SUBMITTED WILL BE ON DISPLAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

RESOLVED

The materials approved at Committee for the following applications: MIL/59/137(A), MIL/59/137 (B) and MIL/59/137 (C)-D are:

Rainscreen Cladding by Markey Eternit, colour Anthracite 7024

Aluminium Frame Curtain Walling colour RAL7021

Timber Cladding by Composites Gurea, colour Boak

Timber Cladding Panel Frame – finish brushed stainless steel

Brick plinth by Blockley’s Brick Ltd, colour Windermere Grey

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.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Counsel’s Opinion on whether the demolition works already undertaken at the site were lawful, was still awaited.  In this regard, she advised that in the event that planning permission was granted, such approval would need to be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) subject to receipt of the opinion.  She further reported that a late representation had been received from the owner of a neighbouring property raising concerns over the longevity of the gable end and the choice of materials to be used.  The neighbour was concerned that although the roof tiles remained on site, the bricks had been removed.

Mr H Marsh, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement in respect of the application raising issues relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that the Parish Council had accepted that the conditions attached to the previous consent were sufficient to protect the general layout of Penn House in its historic form.  However, the resulting difference in interpretation of that consent had caused unprecedented communication from local people to the Parish Council.  It had not been made clear to the Parish Council that it was a retrospective application, despite the virtual disappearance of the building and the assertion in the application that the original building had been built after 1948 was not the case.  He commented that had the Council been aware that the application had been made for the total demolition of the building in the heart of the village conservation area, leaving only one wall standing, it would have been robustly opposed.  In this regard, the Parish Council objected to the process leading to the granting of the consent.  However, in the circumstances, the Parish Council did not object to the rebuilding of a house closely resembling the one previously given consent.  He requested that the public pavement in Dog lane was fully reinstated to its original state on completion of the works.  Finally, he hoped that the matter would be resolved as soon as possible.

One member asked that the white metal railings, that previously enclosed the front garden, be reinstated.  Furthermore he sympathised with the Parish Council views regarding the window design, use of reclaimed tiles and the reinstatement of the public pavement.   Finally, he asked what action the Council could take if Counsel’s Opinion was that the demolition works were unlawful.   In response, the Area Planning Officer advised that if Counsel’s Opinion was that the demolition works were unlawful, the application would come back to the Committee.  The retention of the railings had been conditioned on the previous consent and should have been included in the recommendation before the Committee.  Finally, a materials condition could be included to require a sample panel to be erected on the site.

Another Member reminded the Committee that Conservation Area consent implied that the development proposed should improve and enhance the area and therefore it was important that extreme care was taken with the choice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

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

Mr A Gregson made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to past legal challenges regarding access along footpaths and confirmed that vehicular access along footpath No 6 could be proven prior to 1930.  In this regard he was doubtful as to whether access rights could be passed to both the dwellings proposed as part of the new development.  Finally, he referred to a statement previously made that the repair of Park View House was uneconomic and claimed that this was untrue and had not been substantiated by any estimate from a qualified Quantity Surveyor or builder.

The Council’s Solicitor advised that issues regarding vehicular access along the footpath and the economic viability of the existing dwelling were not material planning considerations.

One Member referred to the development site, which was well screened and remarked on the enormous change to its appearance if the tree located at the front of the site was removed.  In this regard, use of materials would be an important consideration for any development at this prominent location in the village.  Finally, he expressed concern as to whether the site was large enough to accommodate two large dwellings.  Other Members shared these views.  In respect of a suggestion concerning the use of re-constituted stone, one Member referred to a development in Buckland where such material had been successfully used.  He suggested that in the event that planning permission was granted, a panel of materials should be erected at the site and due to the prominent and sloping nature of the site slab level and landscaping conditions be added.

By 11 votes to 4, it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/19891/1be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with additional conditions requiring a materials panel to be erected on site and landscaping and slab level conditions.

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

Mr P Uzzell, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He reminded the Committee that the imposition of the condition preventing the installation of garage doors to ensure that they were used for parking in the interests of highway safety.  He referred to the current level of parking on the site and claimed that the part of Faringdon Road in the vicinity of the application site was of sufficient width that on-street parking, if it did occur, would not cause a danger.  Finally, he advised that due to the lack of security it was unlikely that the garages would be used for domestic storage.

Members supported the views of the applicant’s agent and noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/3105/10 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.  

Then local Member raised no objection to the application.  Members generally agreed that the colour of the summer house should be an oak stain to match that of the boundary fence.

By 12 votes to 2 with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/7535/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

It was noted that Appendices 3, 4 and 5 to the report had been circulated separately.  In respect of the comments received from Sport England (Appendix 3), the Area Planning Officer advised that no reference had been made to national or local planning policies.   She advised that a model of the proposed development was available at the meeting for the Committee to view.  Finally, she reported three further letters of representation received, as follows:-

• Letter from Councillor Jim Moley, on behalf of a number of members of the Harwell Squash Club living in his ward, drawing attention to the letter from Sport England and statements made about the Club not being economic, when such clubs were not configured to make a profit.  He referred also to the current development of the Harwell site and considered that the Club should be allowed to develop to reflect the increased population.
• Harwell Tennis Club 
• Mr M Coates, Chairman of the Harwell Squash Racquets Club advising that the views expressed by the Chairman of the Harwell Laboratories Recreation Association (Appendix 4) were a personal view and not the views of the Association.

In respect of the draft Section 106 Agreement attached at Appendix 5 to the report, the Council’s Solicitor advised that this agreement was the old format and any new agreement would reflect the new format.

Mr M Coates, Chairman of the Harwell Squash Racquets Club made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to the views expressed by Sport England, which he considered presented a fair and balanced case for continued squash court provision on the Harwell site.  He explained that the Club currently had three teams competing in the Oxfordshire Squash League.

Mr D Summers also made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns regarding land usage at the site and the loss of both residential properties and amenity land outside of the security gate.  He considered that there was sufficient land within the Harwell Campus for the proposed development to be located, thereby avoiding the loss of residential and amenity land.  Finally, he reminded the Committee that it had previously been mindful of the impact of development of this site on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Mr C Homes, Chief Executive of the Four Pillars Hotel Group, made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that his company was the largest hotel operator in the Region and that there was significant demand for a hotel on the Harwell campus.  The provision of a hotel would create 125 new jobs, many of which would be for local people.  Furthermore, the hotel would assist UKAEA attract new businesses and have a positive impact on local businesses.  He regretted the loss of the squash courts and despite extensive efforts to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

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

Mr I Thompson, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement in respect of the application.  He placed on record his appreciation to the Area Planning Officer for allowing the Parish Council an opportunity to continue discussions regarding this application.  He welcomed the provision of a community room in addition to the extension to the village hall, increased informal open space areas and the provision of affordable housing on the site.  He stressed the need for the ownership of the informal open space and community hall to be transferred to the local community and highlighted the importance of upgrading the underpass to assist village cohesion, securing adequate funding towards improved bus services and the provision of a comprehensive landscaping scheme to assist the screening of the new development.  He supported the provision of a shop shell, referring to the increase in the number of new residents and employees that would be accommodated on the site.  Finally, he urged the Committee to seize the opportunity to provide a modern eco home residential development which the local community could be proud of.

Mrs Woollard made a statement on behalf of the residents of Severn Road objecting to the application.  She reminded the Committee that the A34 ran through the middle of the parish which made integration difficult.  She considered that the community room and children’s play area should be located close to the school and that the existing shops and post office should be relocated closer to the proposed new development.  She referred to the impact of the proposed development and urged the Committee to ensure that existing trees and boundary hedges were retained and that the rear gardens to existing properties were secure.  Finally, she reminded that the site was located in the AONB and that the southern storage area at the site was regularly used by walkers.

Ms N Green, the applicants agent had given notice that she wished to make a statement but declined to do so.

One of the local members present at the meeting welcomed, that after many months of discussion between planning officers, the Parish Council and the developer, agreement had been reached regarding the development.  He hoped that the amendments to the proposed Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Agreement would be acceptable to the Committee.  In respect of the proposed play areas he considered it was sensible that the developer undertook all the design and construction work and passed on responsibility for the maintenance to the Parish Council together with a commuted sum to cover the costs.  Finally, he asked that the second recommendation be amended to include local members.

In considering the application, members made the following comments:-

• Support the provision of eco homes built to the highest standard.
• Landscaping and planting important consideration.
• The provision of affordable housing should be set at 40%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Mr M Smith, on behalf of the Town Council, made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He considered that it was important that town and parish councils were made aware of how much weight was given to the Council’s House Extensions Design Guide by Officers and the Committee in considering planning applications.  Furthermore, he was perplexed as to what constituted permitted development and considered that the combined impact of all the extensions on the application site should be taken into account.

Ms C Riggs made a statement objecting to the application, raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report.  She considered that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance House Extensions Design Guide, adopted as part of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, was a material consideration in determining a planning application, in that it stated that “two storey side extensions should normally be at least 1m from the boundary”.  Referring to the single storey extension already build as permitted development, she advised that it was 6.6m in length contrary to guidance set out in the Design Guide, which stated that “rear extensions should not normally exceed 4m”.  She believed that the combined effect of the application and the single storey rear extension already built by the applicant under permitted development rights would be identical to the application refused by the Committee on 19 May 2005 and dismissed on appeal.  In dismissing the appeal the Inspector concluded that “the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 7 Norman Avenue”.  Referring to the Officer report, which concluded that the Inspector was referring to the single storey element of the proposal and the reasons given why, in the Officer’s opinion, the amenity of the occupiers of No 7 would not be harmed by the proposed two storey extension and that the appeal inspector had not objected to this element of the previous proposal, Ms Riggs expressed doubts as to how these conclusions could be drawn having regard to the appeal decision letter.  She suggested that by implementing a previously unacceptable proposal as a two stage process did not make the final product and effect anymore acceptable and the harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties would be just the same.  She also made the point that the very small twin opening doors, with a total width of 1m proposed for the front of the ground floor extension would add to the squeezed and cramped appearance of the development, an observation made also by the Inspector.  Finally, she referred to a previous permission granted in 2003 for a two storey side and rear extension, which had not yet been implemented and stated that this, together with the current proposal, would mean the only window in her living room would be at the dark end of a 6m long tunnel created by extensions on both boundaries.  She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The Area Planning Officer amended paragraph 5.1 to her report by confirming that the neighbour dispute regarding the boundary was a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.

One of the local members present at the meeting spoke on behalf of the resident of the neighbouring property, 24 Belmont.  She referred to the long planning history of the site, which had previously been nursery land and was concerned at over development of other plots in the vicinity of the application site.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/20178 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.