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.

An apology for absence was recorded from Councillor Val Shaw.

To adopt and sign as correct records the Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 24^th September 2007 and the 15^th October 2007.

The Minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 24 September 2007 and 15 October 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. 

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.

Interests were declared in report 103/07 – 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 asked all Councillors and members of the public to switch off their mobile telephones during the proceedings.

The Chair pointed out the emergency exits and congregation point in the event of an emergency and need to evacuate the building.

The Chair explained for the benefit of members of the public that only Members of the Committee could vote on the items on the agenda for consideration, and that whilst one Ward Member was present to make a representation to the meeting he was unable to make proposals or vote on any matter.  Furthermore, the Chair explained that Officers were present to give advice to Councillors.

Finally, the Chair explained that applications had been included on the agenda for the meeting in numerical order and that applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.  He reported that at this meeting it just so happened that there were public speakers on nearly every application and he therefore apologised if members of the public had to wait some time to hear the debate on the application in which they were interested.

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 15 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.

Furthermore it was noted that CouncillorJim Moley, a Ward Member with personal and prejudicial interests had given notice that he wished to make a statement on two applications.

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

One Member suggested that the colour of the materials should be grey rather than the corporate colours of the applicant.  However, this was not supported.

By 10 votes to 3 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved:-

Signage – corporate blue and yellow colours

Lodged

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

Appeal by J Cottrell, A Cottrell and D Cottrell against the service of the Enforcement Notice relating to without the benefit of planning permission, building operations taking place involving the erection of a new building and the erection of hardstanding and also alleged change of use of the land for agriculture, all on land to the east of Woods Farm Road, East Hendred.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of one appeal which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination in respect of an appeal by J Cottrell, A Cottrell and D Cottrell against the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to, without the benefit of planning permission, building operations taking place involving the erection of a new building and the erection of hardstanding and also alleged change of use of the land for agriculture, all on land to the east of Woods Farm Road, East Hendred.

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 list be received.

The Committee received and considered report 103/07 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.

Councillor Terry Quinlan had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Richard Farrell 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.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the County Council’s Head of Early Learning and Childcare had confirmed the objections to the application which had been previously raised by the Head Teacher and Governors of Elms Road Nursery School. Also the Committee was informed that two further letters of objection reiterating the objections set out in the report had been received, together with a statement from North Hinksey Parish Council raising concerns that the block plan did not show all the school buildings and that parking for the proposal was inadequate. 

The Officers explained that the amended plans had attempted to address the concerns raised by the Architects Panel, the Crime Prevention Officer and local residents. The Officers asked the Committee to note that the key changes included steeper roof pitches, increased overhangs, deeper window reveals, pedestrian entrances directly onto West Way, decorative brickwork in the rear of the elevation of block B and fencing on the eastern boundary.  The Officers advised that the applicant had considered moving the block further away from the School, but due to constraints within the site it was not possible to move the block more than 0.4 metres further away.

The Officers advised that the application was considered acceptable, given the reasons set out in the report, notably that Block B would only run along a limited boundary with the School and that the close boarded fence along the boundary would prevent overlooking at ground level. The Officers considered that overlooking from the first floor was minimal and not considered harmful in this case and that child protection measures should be a matter for the School’s management. 

Mr Philip Stevens made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council objecting to the application. He advised that he did not believe that the application could be lawfully determined as two school buildings situated to the north of the boundary were not shown on the plans. He explained that he felt that the number of flats was excessive in proportion to the number of parking spaces. He referred to a letter received from the Planning Officers in August 2005 which suggested that Members had had to be persuaded at that time that 41 parking spaces was acceptable in this location. He argued that that there should be 70 spaces for these two bedroom flats.   He commented that block B was only 1 metre from the north boundary and its height, bulk and mass were contrary to Planning Policy DC1. Finally, he advised that he did not accept that the block could not be altered.

Alison Brockliss, the Head Teacher at Elms Road Nursery made a statement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

Councillors Matthew Barber and Richard Farrell had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Terry Cox and Terry Quinlan 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 Eric Batts made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application. He explained that the Parish Council had objected to the removal of the condition as this had been one of the key factors in influencing support for the proposal by local people at the outline planning application stage. He commented that the photograph shown of the access road had been taken on a quiet day and that there were often problems with traffic accessing the surgery and school.

One Member commented that the CountyEngineer had raised no objection to the removal of the condition and that the level of parking was considered sufficient. He commented that as such there were no grounds to refuse the application.

Another Member reported that the Condition had initially been acceptable to the County Engineer and he questioned why there now appeared to be a contrary view. 

The Officers responded that the Condition might have been requested by the Committee and it was highlighted that on street parking was not supportive of the School’s Green Travel Plan objectives of encouraging fewer children to travel to school by car.

It was noted that the Committee relied upon the advice of the County Council and if it was felt that this advice was incorrect an independent opinion could be sought.  Some Members supported engaging an independent engineer although one Member expressed his concern regarding this in view of the cost implications.

One Member raised concerns regarding traffic in the area.  She advised that as the Committee had had regard to local resident’s comments at the time of granting permission and had imposed this Condition, if the Committee was now minded to approve removal of the condition, in her view this would not be appropriate as she felt this was in someway letting those residents’ expectations down.

It was proposed by the Chair and by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention, (with Councillor Jerry Patterson voting against the resolution and in accordance with Standing Order 29(4) this being so recorded in the Minutes) it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application NHI/2653/9 be deferred pending an independent Highways report on the parking in Elms Road.

Councillor John Woodford had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers highlighted that there were amended plans. The Committee was advised that the Consultant Architect had considered that the scheme should mirror the stable building to the side of the house and it was noted that the design had been revised having regard to his comments. The Officers reported that an additional letter had been received from the applicants outlined their plans to restore the building in keeping with the stables.

It was reported that the Officers considered that the form and design of the proposal was acceptable and with quality materials and detailing would sit comfortably with the neighbouring properties.

Ian Thompson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He commented that the proposal was poor with inadequate detail. He advised that there had been three applications in respect of this building and each had failed to show the detail sufficiently to enable a judgement of the application. He expressed concern regarding the design statement and he urged the Committee to refuse the application and request a new and full application with all the information requested provided.

One Member suggested that more detail was needed although this was not supported.

Another Member noted that Condition 7 required the submission of full architectural plans. He suggested that the retention of the open areas should be required by condition.

In response to a question raised it was reported that the Conservation Officer had raised no objections subject to conditions and that it had not been necessary to refer the application to English Heritage as the proposal was for a curtilage building to a Grade II listed building.

It was proposed by Councillor Patterson, seconded by Councillor Woodford and by 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Members to approve applications CHI/5465/19 and CHI/5465/20-LB subject to the submission of further plans showing full architectural details and subject to the conditions set out in the report for each with a further condition added to both permissions requiring the retention of the open areas and the submission of a boundary treatment scheme.

The Committee was asked to note that Councillor Terry Fraser who had asked for the application to be presented to the Committee had hoped to attend and speak on this matter. However Councillor Fraser had tendered his apologies as he was unwell.

Further to the report the Committee was advised of an objection received from the owner of a neighbouring property raising concerns regarding development of the granary barn, which was a new extension, rather than the redevelopment of the existing building and that views of the countryside were important to this area.

Terry Gashe the Applicant’s Agent made a statement in support of the application. He advised that the application had been submitted following consultations with Officers. He explained that one of the buildings was in urgent need of works to ensure its retention. He considered that the reasons for refusal were not acceptable. He advised that Policy GS7 referred to development within the built up area and therefore did not apply to this application and Policy DC9 was concerned with the impact on neighbours which again was irrelevant in this case. Mr Gashe advised referred to Policy HE1, commenting that the scheme had been amended to reduce the height of the extension and had been moved towards the stable building, therefore only partially blocking the views.   Finally, he commented that Steventon did not have Conservation Area Status.

Members did not support the application agreeing that the proposal would have an adverse impact.  However, having regard to the comments of the agent it was considered that refusal of the application should be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to enable him to check the validity of the reasons for refusal and the policy references.

It was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby and by 13 votes to 1 and it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority to refuse application STE/12024/6 subject to the reasons set out in the report, with those reasons being amended to reflect the correct policy references.

Councillor Terry Quinlan had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted an amendment to the report in that there would be five parking spaces perpendicular to Montagu Road.

Philip Stevens made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application. He reported that the car parking was inadequate for four flats. He explained that the flats were situated on a steep hill with a double bend in the road and they were only 10 metres away from the junction. He expressed concern regarding vehicles reversing out of the access onto the road so close to the junction.

David Max the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that he had discussions with Officers following the commencement of work on the permitted scheme to convert the loft. He reported that a draft proposal had been rejected in relation to the car parking spaces as the spaces were proposed to be parallel to the house. He advised that this amended scheme met with the approval of the Highways Authority and that traffic was very light on this road.

One of the local Members commented that the proposal was acceptable.

It was proposed by the Chair and by 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/18957/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with conditions 1 being amended to read as follows: -

“1.     Access, car and cycle parking and bin storage in accordance with specified plan before occupation.”

One Member questioned whether it was acceptable to allow a property of this size given the current policy which aimed to increase the number of small properties in villages.

One Member considered that the eaves and the height of the proposed building were modest and that it would be difficult to refuse the application on the basis of the number of bedrooms.

Another Member raised concerns regarding the size of the site and commented that the hedge should be retained as the building would appear less imposing.  The Officers explained that the hedge was due to be retained with the exception of the stretch immediately adjacent to the house itself.

It was proposed by the Chair and by 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application LON/19452/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Jim Moley had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during the debate on the matter.

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

The Committee was advised that the plot size was considered acceptable for two dwellings and that the concerns raised were in relation to access to the site. The Officers considered that it was reasonable to require the completion of access works prior to the commencement of other works.

It was reported that in respect of the gate proposed in the Transport Statement, the Officers considered that this was an unreasonable condition to require.  Furthermore, the Officers reported that the condition suggested by the County Engineer in respect of delivery times was unenforceable.

Andrew St George made a statement on behalf of the King Alfred School Governors objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He particularly referred to concerns regarding highway safety. He confirmed that the entrance to Priory Cottage was across and against the School’s one way system. He commented that there were hundreds of journeys though this site. He asked the Committee to consider the insurance implications of having private land publicly used. He expressed his concern that a child would be injured as a result of this proposal.

Nicholas Young, the Head Teacher of King Alfred’s School made a statement objecting to the application. He disputed that the width of the access way was acceptable without modifications. He considered the width to be hazardous. He informed the Committee that King Alfred’s was a school with three sites and therefore there was a constant flow of people arriving and leaving this site throughout the day. He expressed his belief that the access should be modified in order to ensure safety.

Terry Gashe the applicant’s Agent made a statement in support of the application. He advised the Committee that until 1956 the cottage had had access to the highway.  He reported that the land had been purchased for King Alfred’s School by way of a Compulsory Purchase Order. He confirmed that Priory Cottage had a right of access over the School drive at all times. He advised that there had not been an accident at the School in 23 years, and that the School had recently introduced the one way system. He urged the Committee to understand that the traffic flow at this access point was extremely slow. He stated that there had been a good deal of survey work to address the Schools concerns. He noted that the highway consultant had concluded that there would be minimal additional traffic created by the development, at most 12 trips per day. He confirmed that the applicant was content to comply with a condition requiring speed humps and a condition requiring space for turning emergency service vehicles.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

The Committee noted that at its meeting held on 5 November 2007 it had been resolved that the application be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting.

Claire Marks, who had given notice that she wished to make a statement objecting to the application she declined to do so.

By 12 votes to 2 it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/20269 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Jim Moley, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, 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.

Councillor Tony de Vere 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.

The Officers reported that further to the report additional correspondence had been received from Environmental Health in relation to concerns from a local resident regarding noise and disturbance from the proposed flats. The Committee was advised that it was not necessary to add a condition covering noise as such matters were controlled under separate legislation.

The Officers highlighted the key issues affecting this application and explained that the principle of redeveloping the site and the impact of the development on neighbours was considered acceptable. In response to a further concern raised by a local resident regarding the compatibility of educational use and residential use, the Officers explained that residential use was an acceptable reuse of the site and one that would not adversely impinge on the day to day operation of the school in terms of noise and disturbance.

The Officers explained that it was felt that a more appropriately designed building would be sought and to this end an informative regarding design was suggested.

The Officers explained that the application was recommended for approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions.  However, should the agreement not be completed within a reasonable timescale it was recommended that the application be refused.

Parish Councillor Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He particularly raised concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to Planning Policy DC5; the proposed access presenting a traffic hazard as the current access was through John MasonSchool; pedestrian safety; traffic speed and lack of parking. He expressed his surprise that the County Engineer had not objected to the scheme.  He explained that that Wootton Road was higher than the site and therefore it was likely that drivers would have to accelerate along the access slope which was dangerous. He commented that there was inadequate car parking as although the scheme advised that there were 12 spaces, two of these were for visitors.

Mr David Dorswell made a statement objecting to the applications also raising concerns relating to matters covered in the report. He explained that he was a resident of Godwin Close and he was concerned that his property would be overlooked by the proposed flats. He reported that the plans referred to a hedge on the west side which would be trimmed back and therefore he expected that his property would be in the line of sight of the development.

Mr John Rawling made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

Councillor Jim Moley had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during the debate on the matter.

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.

Further to the report, the Officers advised that comments had been received earlier in the day from Councillor Bill Melotti.  Councillor Melotti had indicated that he had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application in so far as it related to Concords Football Club. He urged the Committee to support the application advising that the Club provided an essential service to the community with volunteer helpers who gave up their own time to support youngsters in a vital sports activity.  He reported that the provision of a permanent facility for the Club would be of benefit to the Town and he was aware of a number of people who had worked hard to get to the current position and would work harder still to make this a reality.  Councillor Melotti had commented that his only concerns had related to possible anti-social behaviour risks; disturbance from flood lighting and from nuisance from balls being kicked into residents’ gardens. However, he considered that these were minor or low risk issues, which he thought had been recognised by the Club which would address them responsibly and that the District Council would recognise its own responsibilities in terms of anti social behaviour.

Councillor Melotti had reported that he had received one objection regarding consultation with Sport England.  He had explained that whilst the comments received from Sports England were addressed in the Officer’s report, he commented that he knew that there would be a great deal of support for this application among the wider community.  Finally, Councillor Melotti had commented that the application was just the beginning of a huge task to create a great sports facility for young children in Wantage and he urged the Committee to support the application.

The Officers confirmed that no objections had been raised by Thames Valley Police or the County Engineer and reference was made to the statement received from Wantage Silver Band in support of the application as set out in the report. It was reported that further to the report, further letters of support had been received reiterating the comments set out in the report.

The Officers reported that an additional objection had been received raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report. 

The Officers advised that the building was large but had been designed for purpose and whilst it was being built in the Area of Outstanding natural Beauty (AONB), there were further examples within the AONB of built form. It was noted that the proposed landscaping scheme would also mitigate the impact of the building. The Officers therefore considered that in the context of neighbouring properties and the wider context of Wantage the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.

None.