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 Matthew Barber and John Woodford.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 21 April and 24 April 2008 (attached).

The Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 21 April and 24 April 2008 were adopted and signed as correct records subject to the following amendments: -

1.         Minute DC.334 – Conservation Area Appraisals

In the second paragraph the deletion of the word “to” after the words “for the support given” and the substitution thereof with the word “by”.

2.         Minute DC.336 – WHA/4310(9)

The insertion of a comma after the word “comments” in the second paragraph.

In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, the deletion of the word “undergrade” and the substitution thereof with the word “capacity”.

3.         Minute DC.338 – ABG/10612/17

In the third paragraph the deletion of the word “affect” in the second sentence and the substitution thereof with the word “effect”.

In the fourth paragraph, the deletion of the words “Mr Impney” and the substitution thereof with the words “Mr  Impey”.

In the last sentence of the fifth bullet point of the penultimate paragraph the insertion of an apostrophe in the word  “Engineers”.

4.         Minute DC.341 – CUM/16152(1)

In the third paragraph, the deletion of the word “Mr” and the substitution thereof with the word “Dr”.

5.         Minute DC.344 – GFA/19649/2-D

In the ninth bullet point of the fifth paragraph, the deletion of the word “was” and  the substitution thereof with the word  “were”.

In the twelfth bullet point of the fifth paragraph, the deletion of the word “were” and the substitution thereof with the word “was”.

The insertion of a full stop at the end of the second bullet point in the seventh paragraph.

6.         Minute DC.363 – SUT/20422

In the third sentence of the second paragraph the insertion of an apostrophe in the word “Councils”.

In the last sentence before the resolution, the deletion of the words “by 8 votes with 1 abstention” and the substitution thereof with the words “by 8 votes to nil with 1 abstention”.

7.         Minute DC.364 – Enforcement Programme

            (1)       George and Dragon Public House Upton

The deletion of the word  “contained” and the substitution thereof with the word  “container” in the second sentence of the second paragraph.

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.

Members declared interests in report 34/ 08 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 introduced himself and welcomed everyone present to the meeting.  For the benefit of members of the public he pointed out the Officers who were present to give advice and to minute the proceedings and he explained that only elected Members of the Development Control Committee could vote on the items on the agenda. He commented that local Members could address the Committee but could not vote on any applications unless they were a Member of the Committee.  The Chair reported that this was explained more fully in an information sheet circulated around the public gallery.

In the unlikely event of having to leave the meeting room, the Chair pointed out the emergency exits.

The Chair asked everyone present to ensure that their mobile telephones were switched off during the meeting.  He asked everyone to listen to the debate in silence and allow anyone speaking to make their comments without interuption.

The Chair welcomed Councillor John Morgan to his first meeting of the Development Control Committee.

Finally, the Chair congratulated Councillor Paul Burton on the recent birth of his first child.

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 sixmembers of the public had each given notice that they wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, two 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.

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the following -

(1)       Ameys Site, Appleford Road, Sutton Courtenay – SUT/19470/4-D

It was noted that an additional tile and brick were awaited and would be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.  The Committee expressed a preference for natural slate tiles.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

·        Hanson SalisburyMultistock bricks

·        Marley Acme – Farmhouse Brown

·        Natural slate

(2)       Land adj to Stainswick Lane, Shrivenham – SHR/20042 – Rural Exception Site

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

·        Ibstock Lambourn Orange Multi Stock

·        Terca Woodstock Buff feature brick

·        Marley Acme Single camber clay tiles in Farmhouse

(3)       Care Village, Letcombe Regis – LRE/957/66

It was noted that some materials in respect of this site had been approved at the last meeting of the Committee and that the materials now to be approved were in addition to those, with the exception of the clay tile which would replace the previously approved Marley Brindle clay tile.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the use of the following materials be approved: -

·        Ibstock Lambourn Orange Multi Stock

·        Marley Eternit Red Smooth clay tile

Allowed

The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

(i)                  Appeal by Mr W and Mr J Stockdale against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission in respect of the erection of new dwellings at Southfield, Old Wallingford Way, Sutton Courtney, Abingdon OX14 4AR

SUT/5851/5

(ii)                Appeal by Mr Carter against the Council’s decision in respect of The Old Forge, Lower Radley, Abingdon OX14 3AX

RAD/11540/5

Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -

(i)         Appeal by Mr O’Brien in respect of 20 High St, Abingdon OX14 5AX against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit application ABG/3061/13-LB

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

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

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 detailing forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 38/08 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 speak were considered first.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby and John Morgan had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 33 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers explained the proposal and the further amendments to Block B8, commenting as follows: -

·                    Looking at the terraces there was an intention to increase the number of units to 237 instead of 230.  This was to provide more affordable housing.  The plans of the approved terrace compared to the amended proposal were shown. 

·                    The overall scale of the terrace had been reduced with the ridge line reduced by over 1m. 

·                    The integral car parking was no longer part of the scheme. 

·                    Terrace T3 - The integral garages had been removed and it was now proposed that there would be 11 units.  The design was considered to be an improvement to the original scheme.  The scale was being reduced by 0.7m. 

·                    Terrace T15 – This would be slightly longer to provide 4 units instead of 3.  The Architects Panel believed that the appearance of the scheme was more pleasing.

·                    Regarding car parking it was noted that 6 of the 7 units in terrace T1 were being provided with 1.5 spaces per unit and Members were asked to refer to Appendix 5.  It was noted that terrace T1 would be made up of 7 social rated units.  The evidence in this regard came from the Census Data for the Charlton Ward which had shown that rented accommodation generated a lower level of car ownership.  On this basis the applicant was looking to provide less car parking.  Members were asked to note that it would be difficult to provide further car parking in this area without impacting on the listed buildings.   It was noted that the CountyEngineer had raised no objection.  It was emphasised that this applied to only 6 of 230 units and as this was a town centre site the Committee should not look for maximum provision on this site.

·                    In respect of Blocks B3 and B2 there had been a change of orientation and of the under-parking croft.

·                    Block B8 – The footprint remained the same.  There was a relocation of the centralised bin area which freed up some room. 

·                    B8 was all affordable housing.  The Section 106 agreement would be amended to include all the proposed changes to the location and size of the affordable housing units.  There would be a loss of one car parking space with visitor parking being reduced from 13 spaces to 12.

·                    There was a change to the first floor plan, in that in the original plan there had been a lean-to element over a car parking space. The building would be pulled back in line with the ground floor.

·                    Terrace T4 was to be rented units, but these were being substituted into T1.

Further to the report the Officers commented that most of the buildings on site had now been demolished. It was reported that English Heritage had no observations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Mr Philip Stevens made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application.  He commented that this had been a difficult site since the first application in 2006, in that the proposal had been overlarge and overbearing on neighbours.  He commented that it had included a very long wall and the proposal was close to the boundary. However, eventually planning permission had been granted with a requirement that prior permission to change the garage structure or its use was necessary.  The Parish Council was concerned that the applicant had acted contrary to this condition which had been imposed to retain the garage in the interests of highway safety. It was commented that conditions were imposed for definite purposes and he suggested that if the Committee now approved this application, it would demonstrate to the public that they could ignore conditions.  He commented that approval would set a precedent for similar applications, which the Committee would then be unable to refuse.  He commented that the proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbour in terms of noise and disturbance.  Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal would go against a parking condition already imposed and the reasons for that condition. He raised concern regarding design, in terms of a window instead of a garage door, which he considered would be out of keeping with the rest of Westminster Way.  He reported that the Parish Council had felt strongly that this application should be refused and that enforcement action should be taken.

One of the local Members expressed sympathy with the views of the Parish Council and local residents commenting that the window would be large.  However, in planning terms he considered that the proposal was acceptable and should be approved.  He drew the Committee’s attention to the Inspector’s comments set out in Appendix 1 to the report advising that during construction it had become apparent that the walls between the twin garages which had been set in the space between nos. 40 and 42 Westminster Way, though poor in condition, should remain in place and that this had been included in the Party Wall Award set up between the two properties.  He noted that once this had been agreed, the already very narrow garage which did not meet modern standards, had become even more narrow and impossible to use.  At that point the applicant had taken the decision to extend the insulated cavity wall on the boundary between 40 and 42 forward to form the side wall of the enclosed space.  He had insulated the floor and mono-pitch to bring this narrow space inside the habitable envelope.  The local Member suggested that the applicant should have applied for permission for a change of use at that time.   Finally, he went on to comment on the drawings set out in the report highlighting that two velux windows were shown in the front elevation.  He recommended that the plans should be corrected.  Furthermore, he requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 33 he withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the layout was illustrative only and that Members were being asked to consider whether the principle of development and two houses was acceptable.

Further to the report, the Officers confirmed that they considered that the impact on the street scene would be minimal.

The Committee noted that Faringdon Town Council had objected to the proposal raising concerns regarding over-development of the site and the lack of safety at the access.

It was noted that the CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal, but had raised concerns regarding the need for a turning area within the site.  The Officers explained that this could be accommodated within the detail

It was noted that four letters of objection had been received as set out in the report.

The Committee noted the receipt of amended plans which addressed some of original comments of the County Engineer regarding the narrow access and also allowed for the provision of a bin store.

One Member referred to the comments of the County Engineer regarding the need for a turning area.  The Officers clarified that the CountyEngineer was not objecting in principle to development on this site, as it was believed that a turning area could be accommodated within the site.  The Member emphasised that the CountyEngineer had stated that he needed to be satisfied that the turning area could be provided to which the Officers responded that they believed that it was possible to achieve this.  The Officers further commented that the houses shown on the illustrative plan were a substantial size and that it could be possible to have single fronted houses for example which were reduced in size with the garages pushed back into the site.  It was commented that the space available was large enough to provide a turning area on site, but smaller houses might result.

By 14 votes to nil with one of the voting Members having been out of the room during consideration of this matter, it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/14935/3-X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Committee noted that permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of four dwellings and garages had been allowed on appeal.  It was noted that there was a requirement that the rooms should be on the ground floor only. However, it was reported that the Officers considered that accommodation in the roof space was acceptable.  It was considered that there would be no harm arising from the dormers in the roof space; there would be no overlooking and the distances to neighbouring buildings were acceptable.

It was noted that there had been four letters of objection and that one concern which had been raised was landscaping to the rear of site.  It was reported that the applicants had discussed this with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who had advised that the indigenous hedgerow would grow which would provide adequate screening. Notwithstanding this a condition to require a landscaping scheme was proposed.

It was noted that the windows faced into the site and hence there would be no overlooking and that the closest property would be sufficiently far enough away to avoid harm from overlooking.

Mr Ian Thompson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application.  Mr Thompson explained that he also represented the views of neighbouring residents.  He raised concern relating to matters already covered in the report commenting that it was difficult to understand the Officers’ opinion.  He commented that recommendation of approval was odd having regard to the clear view of the Inspector as set out in his report.  He commented that the number of bedrooms per dwelling; the need for accommodation on the ground floor; a turning head within the site and the need for screening had been ignored.  He considered that Officers had disregarded the Inspector’s decision and Policy H12.  He raised concern regarding the number of bedrooms per dwelling, the number of dwelling and commented that the application was contrary to planning policy and should be refused.

Mr M Gallington made a statement in support of the application.  He commented that as outline planning permission had been granted there was only a need to consider design and scale. He commented that the scale was acceptable in that four very modest chalet bungalows were proposed which he considered were sympathetic to the surrounding character and environment, more so than some neighbouring properties.   He reported that the design was sympathetic to the surrounding landscape and that first floor windows would face into the village so that the roof lights facing out had a minimum impact.  He reported that the use of landscaping would create a natural boundary and that in this regard the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had been consulted.  He explained that there would be an upgrade of the lane which would be of benefit to all the other properties along the lane.  He reported that there would be an upgrade of the water and sewage supplies. He commented that there was a turning area in the development shown  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 33 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 33 he withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration.

Further to the report the Officers explained that the applicant was concerned to bring forward this scheme having regard to the current economic climate.  In addition it was noted that 3D massing drawings had been received which were presented at the meeting.

It was noted that changes had been made to the proposal as follows: -

·                    There was an increase in the amount of enclosure to reflect the comments of the Consultant Architect. 

·                    There had been a reconfiguration of the Square to make it more enclosed also to address the comments of the Consultant Architect. 

·                    Parking ratios had been increased in accordance with concerns regarding the level of public transport provision. 

·                    A plan for parking had been provided and it was suggested that this could be considered by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under delegated powers.

·                    The design had been amended to reflect properties elsewhere in Faringdon.  The design and quality were being discussed and it was proposed that there would be continued negotiation regarding this.

·                    Elevations had been altered.  Street perspectives had been submitted and these were considered.  It was noted that the buildings were to be primarily stone and brick with render. The applicant had also submitted 3 dimensional perspectives of the street level which were presented at the meeting.

·                    The on-street parking had been integrated into the design and this would be broken up with trees.

It was noted that the final comments of the consultant architect had yet to be received.  It was noted that the existing mature hedgerows would be transferred into the Council’s ownership.  The distances to neighbouring properties were explained and it was noted that the Council’s minimum distances were exceeded in terms of protecting privacy.

It was noted that the affordable housing was to be located in one area, the reasoning for which was set out in the report. However, it was explained that there would be a spread of affordable housing throughout the remaining part of the Folly Farm site. 

The Committee noted that the applicant had submitted an indicative material schedule.  It was noted that the proposed walling materials for this phase included a mix of render, stone and brick.  It was commented that the Consultant Architect and the Architects Panel had considered that there was too much red brick and that Faringdon was comprised of mostly stone and render.  It was noted that buff brick was proposed on the back of some units where it was believed that the surfaces were less conspicuous.  Members felt that the amount of red brick was acceptable, but that the use of the buff brick was not acceptable.

It was noted that the Town Council sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Further to the report the Officers advised of the receipt of a letter sent on behalf of the residents of Harlington Avenue and Glebe Gardens which was read out in full.  Concerns were raised regarding the Grove Lands Estate being intended as an open development; the spread of development giving the appearance of less density and the adverse impact that the proposal would have on this; the detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this pleasant road; the harmful impact on Harlington Avenue; access in terms of the single entrance to no 33 being altered; design in terms of the new gable end; proximity with the development being only 5ft from the highway when it should be a minimum of 20ft; the felling of a Beech tree without consent and the adverse impact through the loss of this tree; lack of parking; increased vehicles and vehicle movements; grey water disposal;  density; garden grabbing and the loss of open space; adverse impact on  wildlife; hard surfaces and possible flooding; precedent and loss of green area.

One of the local Members spoke against the application agreeing with the comments of the objectors and the Parish Council.  She referred to a decision to refuse an application for a house on this site in view of the harmful impact and she commented that she considered the circumstances now to be no different and hence the application should be refused.  She expressed concern that the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and the loss of this area of green would be harmful.  Furthermore, she referred to the footpath adjacent to the site and commented that the proposal would have a harmful impact in this regard.

One Member commented that there had been many similar proposals in Kennington and South Hinksey some of which he reported had been allowed on appeal. He asked Members to think carefully about possible material reasons for refusing the application commenting that there were none. Finally, he emphasisedthat just because a proposal was unpopular, this did not substantiate a reason for refusal.

In response to a question raised the Officers confirmed that flats did not have permitted development rights.  Furthermore, it was clarified that the car parking was at the rear of the garden where there was a garage and that there was a car parking space in front with another two additional spaces.  It was explained that reversing onto the highway was acceptable because of the nature of the road in this location.

One Member drew attention to the grass area at the side of the dwelling and noted that one of the flats had a small garden area.  He suggested that there might be an attempt to enclose the open garden area which he considered should remain open and to this end he questioned whether an additional condition could be added to any permission to require this.

The Officers explained that the proposed boundary condition was intended to secure the open space.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Further to the report, the Officers advised of the receipt of an additional letter of objection raising concerns regarding whether the applicant did have a right of access across the lane. 

Some Members raised concerns regarding the use of red brick.  However, it was considered that there was no material planning reason to refuse the application.  One Member suggested that the application should be drawn to the attention of the Enforcement Officer, it being considered that he might wish to monitor this site having regard to the nature of the proposal in terms of span and height of the dwelling.

The Chair highlighted the proposed condition to reduce the size of the dormers which was supported.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application DRA/20481 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillors Jenny Hannaby and John Morgan had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 33 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Mr I Fitzgerald made a statement in support of the application clarifying that the level of parking was adequate as there was only one vehicle at the property and that there were two properties in the vicinity which had had similar conversions.  He commented that the loss of the green area was regrettable but overall not so harmful as to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

One of the local Members noted the concerns of the Parish Council regarding parking and the loss of the garage.  However she expressed her support for the proposal.

Other Members spoke in support of the application. In response to a comment made it was considered that an informative should be added advising the applicant the use of grasscrete for the surfacing of the parking the area would be preferable in terms of visual appearance.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/20523 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and to the addition of an informative advising that grass-crete should be used for the surface of the parking area.

None.