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 Tony De Vere.

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Any Member with a personal interest or a personal and prejudicial interest in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct, in any matter to be considered at a meeting, must declare the existence and nature of that interest as soon as the interest becomes apparent in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

When a Member declares a personal and prejudicial interest he shall also state if he has a dispensation from the Standards Committee entitling him/her to speak, or speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Where any Member has declared a personal and prejudicial interest he shall withdraw from the room while the matter is under consideration unless

(a)    His/her disability to speak, or speak and vote on the matter has been removed by a dispensation granted by the Standards Committee, or

(b)    members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter by statutory right or otherwise.  If that is the case, the Member can also attend the meeting for that purpose.  However, the Member must immediately leave the room once he/she has finished; or when the meeting decides he/she has finished whichever is the earlier and in any event the Member must leave the room for the duration of the debate on the item in which he/she has a personal and prejudicial interest.

Membersdeclared interests in report 97/07 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 welcomed everyone to the meeting and in doing so he introduced Claire Litchfield the newly appointed Assistant Democratic Services Officer together with Emma Parkes the recently appointed Senior Planning Officer.

The Chair asked everyone present to ensure that their mobile telephones were switched off during the meeting and he also advised Councillors and members of the public of the emergency exists.

Furthermore, for the benefit of members of the public, the Chair explained that only Members of the Committee were able to vote.  He reported that at the meeting one Ex-officio Member and two Ward Members were present.  He clarified that whilst they were able to address the Committee they could not propose any recommendations or vote on any matters.

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

The Committee was advised that two members of the public, Mr Derek Rawson and Mr John Rees had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting as follows:-

(1)      Mr Derek Rawson made a statement concerning report No 95/07 – Cumnor Hill Conservation Area - Proposal by Cumnor Parish Council.

Mr Rawson reported that he had been asked to speak on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council in view of his involvement with the preparation of the submission for the proposed Conservation Area in his former capacity as District Councillor.  He considered that it was important that this application had come from residents of the Parish, rather than being instigated by the Parish or District Councils.

Mr Rawson advised that he had been asked by a group of local residents what could be done to prevent the change in the environment of Cumnor Hill and Third Acre Rise as a result of multiple planning applications to increase the density of development in the area. Mr Rawson commented that the low density of development was part of the special character that made this area so attractive to visitors and residents.

Mr Rawson referred to his surprise at the high response and majority of residents who were in favour of the application being submitted when surveyed.

Mr Rawson responded to the comments in paragraph 5.5 of report 95/07 that suggested the area at Cumnor Hill was not based around clearly defined groups of listed buildings by highlighting that at page 8 of the English Heritage advice in Appendix 1 it was suggested that clusters of housing might be more appropriate than listing individual homes.

Mr Rawson responded to the point made in paragraph 5.5 of the report that approval of this application would result in other areas seeking similar status, by stating that this ought to be welcomed by the Vale as it showed that residents were concerned about their environment. He suggested that the approval should send a message to residents elsewhere, that the District Council supports the protection of areas that represented a particular style of housing and environment.

In response to the statement at paragraph 5.6, that the boundaries had been arbitrarily drawn, Mr Rawson said that it had been felt that to include 70 properties was sufficient.

Mr Rawson advised that the first half of the 20^th Century was not fairly represented in the list of designated conservation areas. He referred to the fact that many of the properties had been built in the 1920s and 1930s.

Mr Rawson expressed concern that the Supplementary Planning Guidance route would not provide the protection required to deal with the urgent situation of multiple planning applications in this area.  He urged the Committee to recommend that a Conservation Area be designated on the lower slopes of Cumnor Hill and Third Acre Rise as set out in Appendix 1 to report 95/07.

The Chair thanked Mr Rawson for his statement which he advised would be taken into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

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.

The Committee noted that five members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting under this Standing Order.

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 as follows:-

WAN/4581/9 Demolition of Existing Store and Erection of New Retail Class A1 Store With Associated Parking And Servicing

RESOLVED (nem com)

that the use of the following materials be approved:-

Roof Profile – Goosewing Grey

Wall Cladding – Oyster

Main Brick – Hanson Buckland Multi-Red/Brown facing brick

Detail Brick – Ibstock staffs Blue Brindle

Plinth Brick – Ibstock staffs Blue Brindle

Standing seam metal to canopy – Goosewing 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 list be received.

To receive and consider report 95/07 of the Strategic Director and Monitoring Officer. 

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Sue Marchant, Zoe Patrick, Terry Quinlan, Jerry Patterson, Margaret Turner 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.

The Committee received and considered report 95/07 of the Section Head (Environmental Planning and Conservation) which advised that Cumnor Parish Council had requested this Council to consider designating part of Cumnor Hill and Third Acre Rise, Cumnor a Conservation Area.  In considering the report the Committee had regard to the statements made earlier in the meeting by the members of the public.

The Committees’ attention was drawn to the conclusions in the report which stated that it was agreed that whilst Cumnor Hill had a mature and spacious character, it was difficult to justify that it had a character which was of special architectural or historic interest. It was noted that the Officers considered that Vale Design Guide, as a Supplementary Planning Document was considered the more appropriate method for helping to control and guide development on Cumnor Hill and other suburbs in the Vale.

Further to the report the Officer highlighted that the key point for Members to consider was whether this was an area of special character or appearance.  It was explained that a survey had been undertaken of the whole area and the surrounding street and using a check list based on the advice in “Conservation Area Appraisals” by English Heritage, the Officers had concluded that having regard to many considerations such as building; materials and their qualities; archaeology; styles; contributions; street-scape; heritage aspects; street materials etc there was nothing to say that this area was special compared to surrounding areas and other suburbs of Oxford.

The Officer reported that he had had regard to the comments of the Parish Council and commented that there was modern paraphernalia street furniture, concrete and kerbing and whilst they were pleasant they were not special.  Reference was made to the proposed designated area and Members were shown photographs looking into and out of the area.  The Officer reported that he had had difficulty in identifying any difference between the proposed area and the surrounding streets and that when compared to suburbs of similar age and style in and around Oxford and the main settlements of the Vale, these areas did not have features or characteristics that gave them special interest. 

One of the local Members commented that he agreed with the Officer’s conclusions but welcomed looking into the possibility of producing earlier informal advice which could be used in the interim for this area pending the Local Development Framework.

In response to a question raised the Committee was advised that the Conservation Officer had been the Vale’s Conservation Officer for at least 25 years and had been involved in the creation of about 10 of the current conservation areas.

One Member expressed concern at the length of time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

To receive and consider report 96/07 of the Strategic Director and Monitoring Officer.

The Committee received and considered the report 96/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which informed Members of the need for approval for enforcement action in one new case.

BY 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

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 to secure the removal of residential caravans and non-agricultural items from Foxcombe Hill Farm, Lincombe Lane, Boars Hill, OX1 5DZ [SUN/16776/-] if in his judgement it is considered expedient to do so.

The Committee received and considered report 97/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications. Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

(Wards Affected: Shrivenham)

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Anthony Hayward, Angela Lawrence, Sue Marchant, Zoe Patrick, Terry Quinlan, Jerry Patterson, Val Shaw, Margaret Turner and John Woodford had each declared personal interests in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SHR/8230/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Wards Affected: Sutton Courtenay and Appleford)

Further to the report the Committee noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application raising concerns in so far as it questioned whether the building would be ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling.  It was noted that there was planning permission for four terraced properties which was part implemented and that the extension which formed part of number four was part of that.  The Committee also noted that amended plans had been received setting out proposed fenestration and doors.  It was commented that there had been no restriction concerning windows on the application presented in 2004 and the Officers considered that there were no reasons to make restrictions now.  However, as the proposal would be habitable it was considered reasonable to require obscure glazing to avoid overlooking.  It was noted that planning permission was not required for internal walls and it was agreed that it was reasonable to restrict the ground floor to garage accommodation in view of the recent flooding.

Mr David Hignall made a statement on behalf of Sutton Courtney Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concern regarding development taking place and retrospective planning permission being granted; the proposal being out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area; the possibility that the building could easily become a separate dwelling; development onsite being not in accordance with the previous planning permission thus making it void; sill heights which were below eye level; over looking; loss of privacy; and doubt that the building lay within a recognised curtilege.  He recommended that the Committee should defer consideration of the application pending a site visit by all Members of the Committee.

Jane Lister, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that contrary to the statement made by Mr Hignall there had been no retrospective planning applications in respect of this site.  She commented that she had understood that she only needed planning permission for windows and that she had received a letter advising her that no further planning permissions were required.

The local Member referred to the history of the site advising that there had been some enforcement issues.  He advised the Committee that the main dwelling provided bed and breakfast accommodation and he was concerned that this ancillary accommodation would be used as part of that and he asked whether this could be prevented.  He welcomed that the garage block should remain as a garage block but commented that an adequate turning space should be retained.  He commented that subject to conditions to address the concerns raised he had no other objections to the application.

Further to the statements made the Council’s Solicitor advised Members that the extant planning permission was not nil and void just because development had progressed allegedly not in accordance with the plans.

The Officers reported that they were aware of the Bed and Breakfast use at the premises and enforcement action was being considered.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

(Wards Affected: Abingdon, Abbey and Barton)

Councillor Pat Lonergan had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

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

The Committee considered that the sign would acceptable given its size and location.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/12963/7-A be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Wards Affected: Harwell)

Further to the report the Committee noted that the plans had been amended.  The Parish Council had commented on the amended plans and had maintained its objection to the application raising concerns regarding increased vehicle usage of the road; access difficulties for emergency and other large vehicles; land ownership (which it was noted was not a material planning consideration); the new owner of Tudor Orchard being unaware of  the application which would impact on his land; and the setting of a precedent for similar applications which cumulatively would have a harmful impact on the character of the area.

The Committee was advised of the comments of the owner of Tudor Orchard who had raised concerns regarding the proposed access in terms of the impact on his land and his lack of knowledge of the application.

It was reported that further comments had been received from the County Council as Highway Authority raising no objection to the application commenting that the proposed access would provide improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers and two cars would be able to pass at the access point.  It was noted that the development would also include the provision of four further car parking spaces for the resident of Blenheim Terrace.

One of the local Members speaking on behalf of local residents objected to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal being misleading in that there would not be additional car parking for residents of Blenheim Terrace and Burr Cottage as only 4 spaces were proposed; the application site shown on the plans was misleading in that it incorrectly included the whole of the front garden and drive of Tudor Orchard; Tudor Orchard had undergone some underpinning in the past and there was concern that the corner of the dwelling was so close to the pinch point in the access road that damage could be caused to the property; the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan in that the site was not previously developed but was an historic orchard which was an important part of the Conservation Area; the proposal was also contrary to Policies GS1, GS5, H11, H12 and H13 in that it would be harmful to the open land within the Conservation Area and the fabric of a listed building; and concerns regarding the lack of a right of way.  He suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable the Officers to investigate these matters.

One Member expressed surprise that the County Council had raised no objection regarding the access road given the obvious pinch point on the road which did not look as if two cars could pass through. Another Member commented that having visited the site, in his opinion it would not be possible for two cars to pass at that point. Furthermore, he asked whether notice had been served on the owners of the adjoining property advising of the application or whether the owners had bought this property after the application had been made. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

(Wards Affected: Abingdon, Abbey and Barton)

Councillor Pat Lonergan had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

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 Member questioned who was to be responsible for the maintenance of the footbridge following its construction. The Officers confirmed that the bridge would either be adopted by the County Council or the developer would have the responsibility to ensure it was safe and in a good state of repair complaint with Health and Safety Regulations.

One Member supported the application subject to no gates being erected.

Members considered that a condition should be added to ensure that there was clarity with regards to the future maintenance of the bridge.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20075 be approved subject to: -

(1)      the conditions set out in the report:

(2)      a further condition requiring that prior to the commencement of construction a scheme of arrangements for the future maintenance of the bridge be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning authority.

(Wards Affected: Sutton Courtenay and Appleford)

The Committee heard representations on this matter from Mr Hignall of Sutton Courtney Parish Council, Councillor Gervase Duffield speaking in his capacity as Ward Member and Mr Bampton who wished to raise objections to the application.

Mr David Hignall made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the development would dominate the property and would have an adverse affect on the character and setting of the listed building. He particularly raised concern regarding size; adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; increased on street parking; loss of visibility; visual harm; access and un-neighbourliness. He considered that the lack of on street parking was a cause for concern as too many cars parked on pavements in the area were damaging to the Conservation Area.

Mr A Bampton, a neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding adverse impact on his property; loss of light; loss of privacy; overlooking; the lack of provision of off road parking for the development, which he considered would impact on the safety of pedestrians; overdevelopment and the development being for financial gain only.

The Officers clarified that the financial gain of the applicant as a result of planning permission was not a material planning consideration.

The local Member commented that the development would have the effect of filling in the gap between the neighbouring property which he considered was harmful and would destroy the proportions of the property  and change the character of the area.

Whilst some Members spoke in support of the application, it was commented that it would be regrettable to lose sight of the chimney which was an attractive feature in this locality.

Members supported the application subject to an additional condition to ensure that the proposed bathroom windows were obscure glazed and an informative to provide that  reclaimed hand made tiles in keeping with the rest of the property should be used.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)      that application SUT/20088/2 be approved subject to: -

(1)              the conditions set out in the report;

(2)              a further condition requiring that the bathroom windows on the first floor be obscure glazed;

(3)              an informative to provide that reclaimed hand made tiles in keeping with the rest of the property should be used.

(b)      that application SUT/20088/3-LB be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Wards Affected: Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor)

The Committee was advised that the Parish Council had objected to this application on the grounds that the proposal came too close to the existing garage block.

Claire Marks, the owner of the neighbouring property speaking on behalf of herself and other neighbours made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly raised concern regarding the adverse affect that she felt the proposal would have as she considered that the space was too small to encompass the proposal and that it would have a detrimental affect on the surrounding properties. She raised concern regarding size; loss of light; loss of privacy; overlooking; un-neighbourliness; disturbance to the neighbour and possible damage to the drive during construction; lack of parking; the setting of a precedent for similar applications which cumulatively would be visually harmful to the area and devaluation of neighbouring properties.

The Local Member spoke against the application commenting on the detrimental affect the development would have on the street scene and  the neighbouring property. She believed that this development would lead to the loss of light to the neighbouring property and that the proportions of the proposed extension were too large bearing in mind the small space available. She raised concerns that there was inadequate room to erect scaffolding and that any scaffolding was likely to encroach onto the neighbouring property causing further disturbance.

One Member commented that the proposal was unsightly and out of keeping with the other properties in the cul-de-sac. It was suggested that approval of the application would lead to an unreasonable loss of light which was unacceptable and harmful to the amenity of the neighbour.

It was proposed by the Chair that application KBA/20269 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was lost by 9 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Jerry Patterson and  by 12 vote to 3 it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/20269 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee such reasons to include the proposal having a harmful impact on the street scene; a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of dominance and loss of light and the design being out of character.

None.