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.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) the attendance of a Substitute Member was recorded as referred to above with an apology for absence having been received from Councillor Val Shaw.  An apology for absence was also recorded from Councillor Terry Quinlan.

In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair Councillor John Woodford was in the Chair for the meeting.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 5 November 2007 (attached).

The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 5 November 2007 were adopted and signed as a correct record.

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.

Declarations of interest were declared in report 130/07 – 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.

Councillor John Woodford who was the Vice-Chair of the Committee chairing this meeting in the absence of the Chair advised that he was recovering from a stroke and therefore sometimes had difficulty in finding his words.

The Chair asked everyone present to switch off their mobile telephones during the meeting.

The Chair explained that the Officers were present to give advice to the Committee.  For the benefit of members of the public he explained that only Members of the Committee or their substitutes could vote and that Ward Members attended the meeting to speak on an application in their area only and were not entitled to vote.

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

None.

Any questions from members of the public under Standing Order 32 will be asked at the meeting.

Les Clyne a resident of Abingdon asked Councillor Jerry Patterson, Leader of the Council the following question: -

“What progress (in terms of numbers) had been made in meeting the “dwellings on new allocations not permitted as at 01.04.05” as given in Table 8.2 of the Vale Adopted Local Plan 2011 (July 2006).(extract below); the numbers of dwellings which had had development/planning approval (rather than completions) up to 31st December 2007 and the numbers of new dwellings with development/planning approval in each of the 7 categories which were proposed to be affordable.

“Dwellings on new allocations not permitted as at 01.04.05” (Vale Local Plan to 2011): -

Abingdon - 24

Botley - 490

Faringdon - 437

Grove - 500

Didcot - 500

The smaller villages - 100

Elsewhere - 75

TOTAL – 2126”

In response, Councillor Jerry Patterson undertook to reply to Mr Clyne in writing within 10 working days of the meeting.

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 7 members of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, 2 members of the public declined to do so.

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

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

None.

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 Committee received and considered report 130/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are set out below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to make a statement were considered first.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised of two additional letters received from the neighbour raising concerns regarding the continued delays of building works at Penn House; expressing support for the proposed bricks but raising concerns regarding a belief that the Council would require the green staining of the timber.  The Officers confirmed that this was not intended. 

The Committee’s attention was draw to the concerns raised by the Parish Council and it was noted that the Parish Council had reiterated it comments and had stressed the importance of using good quality materials on this site. 

It was noted that concern had been raised previously regarding the proposed brick and the Committee was urged to consider another material namely reclaimed brick.  However, it was noted that the Officers were content with the proposal in all respects subject to conditions.  It was noted that in respect of the use of reclaimed bricks, the Council’s Conservation Officer had advised that reclaimed bricks might be appropriate in some places, but that a good quality handmade brick would appropriate on this site. It was noted that there could be difficulty in acquiring reclaimed bricks not only in terms of quantity but also quality.

Having regard to the comments made by the Conservation Officer, one Member commented that he supported the use of handmade bricks.  Furthermore, he welcomed the use of metal railings but asked that any new railings should match those existing.  The Officers explained that this would be covered by the proposed condition set out in the report concerning submission of materials.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that application CHD/713/9 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following informative: -

Informative – The District Planning Authority expects the development to be completed in the highest quality materials including handmade bricks and tiles, with no render to be used.

(b)       that application CHD/713/10 – CA be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised of the receipt of an addition letter objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and concerns regarding overlooking and impact on the character of the area.

The Committee was advised that the loss of land currently used by neighbours for parking was not a relevant planning consideration as the land was part of the street and was in private ownership.

The local Member commented that he believed that most of the objections raised had been addressed and that he considered the proposal acceptable.

One Member referred to materials and asked the Officers to ensure that the stone wall to the front should be constructed of the same or a similar stone to match the existing and that a suitable mortar should be used.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application HIN/19721/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

REPORT TO FOLLOW

(Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Sue Marchant, Jerry Patterson, Judy Roberts, 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).

Further to the report the Officers explained that most, but not all, of the open space was to be provided between the application site and the A420. It was confirmed that access was a detail under consideration as part of this application.

Details of the application were outlined and the following points highlighted: -

·                    Vision splays were to be retained and with footpaths retained behind the vision splays. 

·                    The proposed modifications to the function of Eynesham Road and Fogwell Road had passed an Independent Safety Audit.

·                    There was no technical justification for either a roundabout or traffic lights at the junction. 

·                    The right turn lane was explained.

·                    Fogwell Road was 6 metres wide which was quite generous by modern design standards.

·                    The character of the road through the estate was explained and the proposed access was shown. 

·                    Officers had visited the site at various times of the day and there had been on street parking. Members were advised that they needed to consider whether the level of on street parking observed could cause a danger.  Officers did not consider that this was the case. 

·                    There had been instances when refuse vehicles had obstructed the highway but this had been in the side roads and not along the spine road.

·                    The intentions regarding Tilbury Lane were explained.  There would be a controlled gate for people with rights of way. 

·                    There would be a pedestrian/cycle link from the site to Hazel Road.

·                    The character of Tilbury Lane was explained.  There was concern regarding additional traffic using Tilbury Lane and therefore this was why a controlled gate was proposed. 

·                    A new access to the farm was being discussed along the north side of the A420 which would result in farm traffic not using Tilbury Lane. The new access would be constructed under agricultural permitted development rights.  However it was noted that this could not be required as part of this application. 

·                    There was to be a footpath/cycle link into Hazel Road.  The character of that road was explained with photographs of the area shown at the meeting.

·                    View across the fields were displayed showing the link which had been shortened to reduce the impact of lighting required by the Council Council as part of any adoption.

·                    An illustrative layout was shown including heights of buildings.  It was noted that this included some 3 storey flats. The distances between dwellings met the Council’s standards for privacy. Some illustrative drawings of design were shown.   There were 3 small town squares within the scheme.  A suggested design motive for the site had evolved.

·                    Photographs of the site were shown.

·                    In terms of public open space it was highlighted that more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.

One of the local Members commented that she had no objection to the proposal noting that there were similar extensions in the area.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/20268/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.