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 Anthony Hayward.

An apology for absence was also recorded from Councillor Angela Lawrence.

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.

Councillors declared interests in report 126/07 – 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 thanked the School for the use of the room commenting that the meeting had been arranged in this venue as it had not been possible to book a venue in Abingdon, it being noted that it was Council policy to hold meetings in Abingdon.

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 nine 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.

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

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

None.

Appeals Allowed

The following appeals have been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Hartwell PLC against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit an extension to existing car display area at Hartwell Plc, Farringdon Road, Cumnor, Oxford OX2 9RE (CUM/1147/14).  (Decision notice attached.)  The decision to refuse the application was made by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under powers delegated to him under the Scheme of Delegation in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee on 19 December 2006.

(ii)        Appeal by Berners Allsopp Estate Management Co. Ltd. against the Council's decision to refuse to permit an application at Farmyard, Nutford Lodge, Shrivenham Road, Longcot (LON/19978-X).  (N.B. The decision notice has not been supplied.)  The application had been refused by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under delegated powers. 

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

Appeals Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Caudwell Ltd. against the Council's decision to refuse to permit an application for two dwellings with garages and parking on land at 2 Drayton Road, Sutton Courtenay (SUT/13834/3).  (Decision notice attached.)  The application had been refused by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) following consultation with the Chair of Development Control Committee under delegated powers. 

(ii)        Appeal by Mrs E O'Donnell against the Council's decision to refuse to permit an application at 42 Foliat Drive, Wantage (WAN/19614).  (N.B. The decision notice has not been supplied.)  The application had been refused by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) following consultation with the Chair of Development Control Committee under delegated powers. 

Appeals Withdrawn

(i)         Appeal by Brim Developments re land at The Pleasance, Bessls Way, Blewbury (BLE/1518/7).  

(ii)        Appeal by Forum Group re The Challows Country Club, Woodhill Lane, East Challow (ECH/2972/15). 

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of two appeals which had been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate, two appeals which had been dismissed and two which had been withdrawn.

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 report setting out a list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

Mr Morris had been due to make a statement at the meeting objecting to the application but he declined to do so.

The Committee noted the objection received from Harwell Parish Council as set out in the report.

The comments from the Environment Agency were highlighted and it was noted that it had no jurisdiction over this water course and therefore had no grounds to object to the proposal.  This view had been confirmed with the Environment Agency. It was reported that the Environment Agency had no knowledge of flooding in this area and this Council’s own report had stated that there were no reports of flooding here and no historical data regarding flooding in the past.  It was confirmed that the site was within the Conservation Area but that there were no public views of the area.  It was explained that in view of this the Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable.

One of the local Members referred to the concerns raised by the Parish Council.  She commented that whilst noting that there appeared to be no adverse impact on the Conservation Area, she was concerned regarding the visual impact of the proposal on the residents of the sheltered housing in Cherry Tree Court.  Furthermore, whilst noting the information regarding flooding reports, she expressed concern regarding the accessibility and maintenance of the watercourse.

The other local Members raised similar concerns and furthermore commented on the adverse impact should adjoining properties along the watercourse undertake similar schemes.  He referred to a pond near this property advising that a continuation of the decking could create further problems. He reported that a drainage pipe went over the stream and the applicants had wished to cover it up as it was unsightly.

Some Members spoke against the proposal making the following comments: -

·                    The decking was quite large and unsightly when viewed from Cherry Tree Court.

·                    There proposal adversely impacted on those resident in terms of visual harm. 

·                    If this application was approved it would be difficult for the Council to refuse similar applications along this watercourse which it was considered would cumulatively have a harmful impact.

·                    The entire water course was covered which it was noted the Environment Agency did not encourage.

·                    The application should be refused on the basis of the comments of the Environment Agency it being noted that it did not have jurisdiction over the watercourse but the Council did.

·                    The Council should ensure standards were maintained and agreeing to a proposal which would make maintenance of the watercourse more difficult or impossible should not be supported.

·                    Agreeing to a proposal which would restrict the ability to maintain the watercourse was unreasonable. Gibson – we should object to this. 

·                    The proposal was likely to increase the probability of the watercourse becoming blocked and that just because records were not available did not mean that flooding had not occurred in this area in the past.

·                     

The Officers referred Members to the report explaining that the Drainage Engineer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 209.

Further to the report the Officers highlighted that condition 1 in the report was a time limit.  Members were advised that should they be minded to approve the application this condition should be substituted with a condition requiring the fence height to be reduced within 4 months in accordance with the approved drawing.

One Member spoke in support of the proposal commenting that it was acceptable in this location.  However, another Member raised some concern regarding the loss of open space.

One Member referred to the time taken in considering this matter noting that permission had been refused in April for a 1.2 metre high fence.  The Officers responded that the rights of appeal procedures were lengthy and that there had been discussions with the applicant in this case. 

By 13 votes to 1 it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/5704/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report with condition 1 being amended to provide that the fence height shall be reduced within 4 months in accordance with the approved drawing.

Members recalled that this application had been considered at the meeting of the Committee held on 26 November 2007, when it had been resolved that the application be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting. 

By 9 votes to 5 it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/2653/8-D be refused for the reason set out in the report.

(Councillors Matthew Barber and Terry Cox 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 noted an amendment to paragraph 5.4 in that the parking spaces would be conditioned to remain as such as set out in condition 3 in the report and not condition 4.

David Randall, the Clerk of Sparsholt Parish Council made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the proposal being contrary to Planning Policies HE1, DC5 and DC9 and raised concerns regarding over development in that the property was once a 2 bedroom bungalow and was now a 6 bedroom detached house; adverse impact in terms of dominance and visual intrusion; overlooking of the road and surrounding properties; lack of planning and thought in terms of rain water and sewage disposal; the possibility of a septic tank which had not been declared on the application; parking; lack of availability of on-street parking; access; pedestrian safety; traffic and traffic congestion.

Dr Peter Sullivan, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that the reason for the extension was to provide a larger bedroom for his son and to provide additional accommodation for his elderly mother whom he needed to care for.  He explained that the house did not have 6 bedrooms and that the proposal was for one extra bedroom only. He explained that there would be a dressing room and study. He commented that the objections were not material planning objections and that the only substantial concern raised related to traffic which he explained was irrelevant as there would be no increase in traffic as a result of the proposal.  He commented that the sewage disposal had been a concern which had now been resolved.  He reported that there had been root damage to the existing septic tank and he had had a new soak away fitted. He commented that over dominance was not an issue.  Finally, he commented that the one substantial objection might be on the grounds of overlooking and to this end he advised that he wished to amend the application to provide for an amended design to include roof velux windows on the upper floors and a redesign of the lower windows to be in keeping with the velux windows.

In response to a question raised it was explained that the first floor windows overlooked Watery Lane and that the Officer had no objections to these as it was not unusual to have windows overlooking front gardens.  It was reported that the changes to the application described by the applicant would be materially sufficient to justify a fresh application given the location of the site in the Conservation Area.

The Officers clarified that Members should determine the plans before them.

Some Members spoke in support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

One Member expressed concern regarding the scale and accuracy of the drawings. In response the Officers explained that the uncertainty related to the site plan but confirmed that there was an accurate site plan elsewhere in the report.  Furthermore, it was clarified that the scaled drawings were accurate.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/17715/4 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that one additional letter of objection had been received reiterating the concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Furthermore, three additional representations from local residents had been received raising concerns regarding cesspools in urban areas; pollution and hygiene problems associated with cesspool emptying; the proposal being contrary to Planning Circular 03/99 in that where sewage disposal was unsatisfactory planning permission would normally be refused; and the need for non-mains sewerage to be carefully evaluated.

The Officers reported that a request had been received to protect the trees to the rear of the site by way of a Tree Preservation Order although it was noted that this would be addressed by way of a landscape condition.

The Officers reported that they considered that the proposal had addressed the refusal reasons of the previous application on this site with the exception of concerns regarding drainage.  It was reported that since the application had been submitted Thames Water had issued a statement regarding capacity issues in the area. The statement, which was read out in full at the meeting commented that there were known flooding problems down stream of this proposed development; Thames Water was currently investigating the network capacity issues in the area and anticipated more information with respect to proposed solution options which would be available in April 2008; until these investigations were complete and any identified infrastructure upgrades constructed, Thames Water considered that this proposed development would exacerbate known flooding problems and recommended refusal of the application until the existing capacity constraints could be alleviated.

It was reported that as a result of this statement, the applicants had amended the scheme so that four dwellings to the rear were served by a cesspool arrangement, with the fifth dwelling using the existing public sewer connection of No.8 Arnolds Way.  It was reported that under current regulations for non-mains sewerage drainage, the applicant needed the approval of the Environment Agency.

It was reported that in its response to the applicant the Environment Agency had made a statement regarding septic tanks which was read out in full at the meeting.  The Environment Agency had stated that the use of cesspools for the development was acceptable as a temporary solution whilst Thames Water undertook its drainage area study.  It had suggested to the applicants that once the results of this were available in April 2008, they should contact the Environment Agency with their plans to connect to the foul sewer advising that the Agency did not accept sewer capacity as an acceptable reason for not connecting.  Furthermore, the Environment Agency had stated that it did not accept the promotion or proliferation of cesspools as a viable long term sewerage option as in its view there were potential environmental, amenity or public health problems arising from inadequate operation and maintenance of these systems.

With regard to reconnection to the foul sewer, it was reported that a further letter had been received from the Environment Agency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214.

One Member referred to the conditions set out in the report and asked the Officers to give some thought to the colour of the materials to be used in this case.  The Member explained that the stone for the walls should match the existing stone and that the Conservation Officer should give an opinion on the use of “orange” bricks.  The Officers noted these comments.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/19940/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following informative: -

“The applicant should note that the application hereby permitted does not grant planning permission for any increase in height of the front boundary wall”.

(Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, 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).

Further to the report the Officers commented that the proposed scheme met concerns regarding density and impact and distances were acceptable.  In terms of affordable housing the Committee was reminded that the applicants had demonstrated that it was not possible to provide 40% and that this was supported by independent advice agreed with this.  It was noted that the provision of 6 units in this case was considered acceptable in view of the District Valuer’s comments as set out in the report.

Ken Dijksman, speaking on behalf of the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that there had been considerable discussions regarding this proposal and that there had been a number of proposals which had not been acceptable to officers. He commented that it had been difficult to agree the level of affordable housing and how it would fit into the development. He commented that there had been an exhaustive process of discussions and negotiations which had included the Housing Officer who had dictated the amount of housing. He explained that if grant funding was received six affordable housing units would be provided.  He reported that sale values had been discussed and a 50% claw back clause had been included in the S106 Agreement. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application but expressed disappointment at the level of affordable housing proposed, but they accepted the reasons for this as set out in the report.

One Member raised concern regarding the presentation of the information to the Committee commenting that whilst he was pleased to have the District Valuer’s comment the detailed financial information should be available to Members on a confidential basis. He commented that in many cases although priority was given to affordable housing, financial contributions were sought for other things such as library facilities.

The Officers sympathised with the sentiment expressed but commented that Government advice was that a development needed to mitigate its own impact on public services and that this should be a priority before the provision of affordable housing. 

One Member commented that this was an area where affordable housing was most needed. He explained than this was an urban site and there were often higher costs associated with sites like this and he was concerned that 40% affordable housing would never be achieved.  He suggested that the Officers need to consider how to address this issue in the future.

The Officers reported that 40% affordable housing had been achieved on many allocated sites of a larger scale. 

Another Member thanked the Officers for their continued efforts to secure the 40% level of affordable housing but commented that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

Further to the report the Officers emphasised that concerns raised regarding the relocation of an existing private pedestrian right of way could not be taken into account as part of this application.

Daniel Waller made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He advised that that he resided in St Nicholas Place near the application site and that the proposal would obstruct the existing established right of way which he and his neighbours enjoyed. He commented that the proposed right of way was not acceptable.  He raised concerns regarding construction in terms of impact on utilities such as gas and electric and in terms of damage to the foundations of properties in Coach Row.  He again referred to the pedestrian right of way stating that development over it would be illegal.  Finally, he commented that if the plans were amended to omit the relocation of the right of way, he would raise no objection.

Chris Sykes, the applicant made a statement in support of the application advising that the reason for the proposal was to increase the kitchen area of his property and to provide additional wash facilities.  He explained that the existing pedestrian access would not be closed until the new path was finalised. He commented on his regard to the concerns raised by the neighbours and explained that he wished to retain an access for them.  He reported that fencing was proposed and that water and gas pipes would be rerouted when still in use thus causing minimal disturbance. He reported that the proposal would not impact on parking in the area and that the new layout would make better use of the land. Finally, he commented that the proposal would improve his property and that materials would in keeping with the character of the area.

One Member supported the application but considered that an informative should be added to any permission to advise the applicant that any permission should not be seen as consent for the change of route of the footpath which was a private civil legal matter.

One Member whilst noting that the site was not in a Conservation Area expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the proposal.  He referred to the plan set out in Appendix 1 to the report and commented that as the end property in Coach Row was set well back from the neighbours, the entirety of the gable end of the application house was clearly visible from along the street.  He considered that the elevations were unattractive and that a single extension would have a harmful visual impact on the street scene in this part of East Challow.

In response to a concern raised regarding the loss of light to the neighbours on the ground floor, the Officers confirmed that the distances between the application site and the neighbouring properties were acceptable.

In response to a further comment made, the Officers clarified that relocation of the private pedestrian right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

(Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Sue Marchant, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Val Shaw, Margaret Turner, Reg Waite 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).

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/20324 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

One of the Local Members referred to the comments of the Town Council and disagreed that the proposal amounted to over development.  He commented that he had had concerns regarding access and parking but now considered that these were overcome.  He commented that the use of the site was reasonable and that he had no concerns regarding design or layout.

One Member, whilst supporting the proposal, commented that the residents would need to ensure that the turning area was kept clear.  He further commented that if a proposal generated less traffic than the extant use, then it was unlikely that the County Engineer would object to the proposal in terms of traffic generation and he suggested that the town and parish councils should be reminded of this.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20356 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

To receive and consider report 127/07 of the Strategic Director. 

The Committee received and considered report 121 of the Strategic Director which sought authority to take enforcement action in respect of 9 properties in Cumnor to cease the unauthorised residential use of agricultural land and to remove all unauthorised structures and fencing.

One of the local Members expressed his support at the proposed actions.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to take enforcement action to cease the unauthorised residential use of agricultural land to the rear (southeast) of: -

1.       31 Halls Close, Cumnor Hill,

2.       33 Halls Close, Cumnor Hill,

3.       35 Halls Close, Cumnor Hill,

4.       37 Halls Close, Cumnor Hill,

5.       21 Barn Close, Cumnor Hill,

6.       23 Barn Close, Cumnor Hill,

7.       25 Barn Close, Cumnor Hill,

8.       27 Barn Close, Cumnor Hill,

9.       29 Barn Close, Cumnor Hill,

and to remove all unauthorised structures and fencing, if in his judgement it is considered expedient to do so.

None.