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 Substitute Members who had been authorised to attend in accordance with Standing Order 17(1) were recorded as referred to above, with apologies for absence having been received from Councillors Matthew Barber, Paul Burton and Terry Quinlan.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 26 August 2008 (attached).

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 26 August 2008 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.

Interests were declared in respect of report 71/08 – 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 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. However, he explained that all Members present this evening were Members of the Committee.

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 interruption.

The Chair reminded Members to respond to Officers on their availability to attend the Planning Tour of the Vale scheduled to take place on 8 October 2008.  He commented that the Tour would be beneficial to all Members of the Council and the intention was to look at “ good, bad and ugly ” developments.  He further commented that it was an opportunity for Members to discuss planning generally with the officers.

The Chair announced that in addition to those speakers on the list, there was a speaker, being the applicant’s agent in respect of application HAR/20598.

Finally, the Chair announced that applications EHE/20555 and EHE/20555/1-LB had been withdrawn from the agenda.

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 eight 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.

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

(1)       SUT/20330, Asda Warehouse, Sutton Courtney

One Member commented that whilst he was content with the materials he was concerned regarding the signage at the site.  The Committee noted that advertisement consent would be required.

            By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the following materials be approved: -

(2)       WAN/2186/14 - St Mary’s, Wantage

One of the local Members commented that the use of artificial materials was unacceptable on this sensitive town centre site.  She noted the photographs submitted by the applicant commenting that the Wharf site was not in the town centre and that it was important that materials were chosen carefully for this development particularly having regard to the level of social housing proposed.  Another local Member agreed with these comments.

The Officers sought a view on further use of the orange tile in place of the red now refused.  One of the local Members commented that she was concerned that this might be overpowering with the orange concrete and suggested that a red tile might be acceptable. It was agreed that further materials be sought and presented to a future meeting.

Members considered that panels of sample Flemish Bond materials should be displayed on site, it being noted that these had not been included with previous sample panels. 

One Member suggested that it would helpful to view a panel of materials with blue brick headers to compare against the panel of the approved brick.

RESOLVED

(a)       that the use of the following materials be refused: -

-           Eternit Rivendale artificial blue slates (agreed by 10 votes to 4 with 1 abstention)

-           Redland Farmhouse red concrete tile (agreed by 10 votes to 5)

(b)               that the use of the following materials be approved: -

Flemish bond, tile hanging, herringbone brickwork panels and render as shown on drawing Nno. O.320.PL.Materials Rev B;

(c)               that sample panels of the proposed Flemish bond be provided; and

(d)               that further red concrete tile samples be presented to a future meeting of the Committee for consideration.

(3)       ABG/20033/3 - Land at 83 and rear gardens of 79 to 81 and 85 to 87 Northcourt Road, Abingdon

            By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)               that the use of the following materials be approved: -

            (b)       that the use of the following be refused: -

The Wheatfields (yellow) brick

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 71/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications, the decisions of which are recorded below.  Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

The Officers referred to the variety of house styles and sizes in the vicinity commenting that they believed that the proposal was acceptable. Also, it was noted that the ridge height was to be increased by less that 1 ½ metres which Officers felt was acceptable and that the blocking in of a side window would help alleviate existing overlooking.

Reference was made to the relationship with neighbouring properties which Officers considered acceptable.  The distance of the proposal with the neighbours was highlighted and a discrepancy in the report at paragraph 5.9 was explained in that the distance was just over 30 metres and not 60 metres as referred to. It was reported that this had caused concern to the Letcombe Regis Parish Meeting which had sought a deferral of consideration of the application.  Correspondence had been received Charles Rowe on behalf of Letcombe Bassett Parish Meeting on this issue which was read out in full at the meeting as follows: - 

Mr Rowe had commented that the Letcombe Bassett Parish Meeting had become aware of a serious and material error in the report concerning this development which would have a very substantial impact on the whole western part of the village. The Parish Meeting had therefore requested a deferment of the Committee's consideration of this application until the source of the error was determined and a re-evaluation of the application was carried out based on the correct information.  Mr Rowe had reported that paragraph 5.9 of the report stated that the properties on the other side of the road had also raised concerns about overlooking, but at a distance of some 60metres, there was not considered to be any harmful impact. As such, it was considered that the proposal did not harm the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Mr Rowe had stated that the distance of 60 metres was wrong and that the correct distance was 30 metres being half of the distance stated in the report. The Parish Meeting had considered that the whole evaluation of the impact of this development on the properties on the other side of the road had therefore been based on a false premise. Whilst realising that  30 metres might be slightly greater than the standard threshold for overlooking, considerations of amenities, appearance, layout and other matters would be different for houses 60 metres away than for houses 30 metres away. Therefore, the Parish Meeting did not have confidence in an evaluation which had such a serious error at its heart and it was considered that it would be a poor reflection on local democracy if the present evaluation was allowed to stand. Mr Rowe had commented that the Parish Meeting had hoped that common sense would prevail and that another evaluation would be requested based on the correct information.  He explained that the Parish Meeting would reserve the right to consider a legal challenge to any Committee decision based on the present evaluation.

The Officer clarified that in respect of these comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this application.

It was noted that the Town Council sought a financial contribution of £50,000 towards sports and recreation facilities in LiddiardsPark.  The Officers commented that any contribution needed to be relevant and in scale to the proposed development.

One of the local Members stated that the land formed part of the original scheme.  He commented that one bedroom flats were needed as starter homes. He explained that the nearest dwelling at 22 Berners Way had a blank wall apart from a frosted glass landing window. He commented that car parking would be an extension of the existing area between the existing properties and the development. There were open spaces alongside and to the front of the site and on the opposite side of the road.  As such he did not consider that the proposal would be out of keeping.  He commented that he agreed with the Officers that the financial contribution proposal did not meet the test for contributions.  He commented that there were flats at Cromwell Close and Jespers Hill on the route in to Spinage Close and he supported the application.

 
By 15 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 approve application GFA/636/31 subject to the submission of a Unilateral Undertaking providing £2,760 towards public transport facilities and subject to conditions relating to materials, drainage, slab levels, boundary treatment, landscaping, parking and access details.

Councillors Jenny Hannaby and John Morgan had each declared a personal interest in this application.

Two of the local Members spoke in support of the application noting that the signs were already erected and were not visually harmful.

On consideration of this application one Member referred to the siting of banners and asked the Officers to be vigilant in taking action to prevent them as banners could be unsightly and cumulatively visually harmful.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/4581/17A be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

It was noted that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the previously refused application.

Esther Wakely, the applicant made a statement in support of the application commenting that the building had been constructed only 20 to 25 years ago and was not as old as it appeared; it had been built as a boat house; the proposal would provide additional living accommodation for her family; the building had been converted and its appearance had changed; it was intended that there would be cladding to replace that previously removed; the distances from neighbouring properties was sufficient; there would be no overlooking; the proposal would not be out of keeping or visually harmful, it being noted that there were not many boats down this part of the river.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that there was only a requirement to consult the Environment Agency on new dwelling in this zone and that there was no requirement for formal consultation on extensions.  It was noted that the site was in a Flood Risk Zone 3 which was high area.

Members supported the proposal noting that the property was well screened and that some of the original features would be replaced.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/6828/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillors Richard Farrell and John Morgan had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration.

Councillors Roger Cox and Bob Johnston had each declared a personal in this application.

The Committee noted that the rear elevation had been amended showing a reduced number of windows due to the impact on the amenity of properties in Bromsgrove. There was now a single window and a small window on the end wall with a main window around the corner.

It was highlighted that the CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal and was satisfied with the access and parking arrangements.  It was reported that the applicants had been in discussion with the County Council regarding a financial contribution. The total amount sought by the County Council was £28,405.50 towards local schools and public transport.

The Officers referred to distances commenting that the reduction in window openings addressed the relationship of the proposal to the gardens in Bromsgrove being 20 metres.  It was commented that Officers considered that the relationship of the proposal to the rear of Portway was acceptable. It was noted that some concern had been raised regarding the rear garden pedestrian access.  However, Officers felt this was just a private domestic access and the proposal could not be refused on this basis.

Officers explained that the Committee was recommended to delegate authority to approve the application to the Deputy Director subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the financial contributions and in the absence of this within 13 weeks then authority to refuse the application.

John Payne made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. Whilst agreeing that the site should be used for housing, he particularly raised concerns regarding the following: -

·                    overdevelopment;

·                    the orientation of the housing blocks and car park not relating satisfactorily to the site thus having a detrimental effect on future residents, existing neighbours and the local community;

·                    orientation generally in that with the block of 5 two storey houses at rights angles to the line of the existing 8 three storey houses, problems would be created, although if sited in line with the existing frontages overlooking and traffic dangers at the site entrance and neighbours’ driveways would be overcome and better accommodation would be given to the new occupants;

·                    overlooking and overbearing with concern as to whether it was acceptable to propose replacing a two storey elderly persons block of flats with a three storey block of family flats, two metres away from a neighbours’ boundary;

·                    harmful impact from the three storey element in that the setting back of the 3 storey block by 1 metre made no difference;

·                    the lack of consideration by the Officers of the proposal from the neighbours’ perspectives;

·                    pedestrian safety in that the front doors of the block of 5 houses would lead straight into the traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Mr C Pappenheim made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the development being in the Conservation Area and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proximity of two Grade II listed buildings; the impact on Chapel House, a listed building which was not referred to in the Officer’s comments or on the application; adverse impact; the extension being due south and two storeys high; overshadowing; environmental concerns; proximity to Chapel House which was not shown on the plans; the rear corners of Chapel House and the proposal being only 2 feet away from each other; adverse impact on the character of the area; the hard-standing spoiling the setting of the cottage and green space; car parking; vehicle movements and manoeuvring; the adverse impact of the large parking area; inadequate access; and pedestrian and highway safety.  He commented that the danger could be mitigated by restricting the number of car parking spaces to tow.  He stated that the parking area had been created recently and he noted that in the report it was stated that it was substandard.

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

Mr C D Farrar-Hockley made a statement objecting to the application.  Speaking on behalf of residents he raised concerns regarding the extensive consultation undertaken across the village which had led to a village plan which included the maintenance of the village anglo saxon ring and that not mentioned of this was included in the report; retention of the green space; adverse impact of the Conservation Area; the car parking space being disproportionate in size; the need to ask the County Engineer to reconsider his comments; pedestrian safety it being noted that this was a single track road; the report containing factual errors and lack of information; proximity; overshadowing; no reference in the report to Chapel House and timing of the application being unfortunate.

One Member commented that he agreed with the comments made by the two speakers.  He explained that he had visited the site and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Chapel House it being considered that this enormous extension would severely adversely impact on the amenity of Chapel House by way of size, over dominance, over shadowing and loss of light.  He commented that the extension to the south of Chapel House would encapsulate the entire back ground of Chapel House.  Furthermore, he considered that the car parking did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Another Member commented that he had specifically taken an interest in this application at the request of one of the local Members who was not on the Development Control Committee.  He expressed concern regarding the adverse impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area and agreed that the car parking would not enhance the area. He commented that the access could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

As referred to elsewhere in these minutes it was noted that these applications were withdrawn from the agenda.

Councillor Margaret Turner had declared a personal interest in this application.

The Officers reported receipt of comments from Councillor Reg Waite on behalf of Harwell residents, which was read out in full at the meeting.  Councillor Waite had made the following comments: -

·                    He had a personal interest in so far as he was acquainted with Mr Stewart Lilly who was his neighbour but the interest was not prejudicial.

·                    He represented many residents who wished this application to be approved without any hesitation whatsoever.

·                    Harwell welcomed additional housing in this historical village and it was very rare when the Parish Council or residents opposed any application.

·                    Indeed as observed from paragraph 4.1 of the report, Harwell Parish Council did not object to this application, neither did the County Engineer or the Principal Drainage Engineer.

·                    Although three letters of objection had been submitted these were considered to be rather weak.

·                    Many residents of Harwell found the recommendation of this application difficult to believe bearing in mind that Planning Application no HAR/19966/1 relating to the construction of two detached properties off Burr Street had been approved despite the many objections.

·                    He referred to the planning policies and the comments in paragraph 3.1 of the report commenting that the local distinctiveness referred to had been ignored in the Burr Street application and it was difficult to understand its relevance in this application.

·                    With reference to paragraph 3.2 of the report, it was considered that this application would not harm the amenities of neighbouring properties and the wider environment, but the Burr Street development certainly did according to many residents.

·                    With reference to paragraph 3.3 of the report it was questioned whether Policy H11 applied in this application.  Only one property would be constructed and it could not be seen how this dwelling would materially harm the form, structure or character of the settlement.

·                    Similarly Policy H13 was questioned too, because this proposed new dwelling would not be outside of the built up area of the village, but incorporated within it.

·                    Paragraph 3.4 of the report was comprehensively difficult to understand and must give all Members present cause for thought.

·                    Local residents and Members must be asking where were the vantage points.

·                    In the circumstances it was questionable whether Policy NE6 of the adopted Local Plan was appropriate here until this and other matters were clarified.

·                    The residents of Harwell strongly recommended that Members re-examined application HAR 19966/1 Burr Street development; application HAR/14234/5 property developed off Reading Road; and the granting of application for development in Froud’s Yard, again off Reading Road.  All three cases related to land on the edge of the village and residents failed to see any sound and professional uniformity applied.

·                    In all the circumstances it was recommended that a site visit be arranged for Members before any decision was reached on this application and that this application be deferred until this and other obscure decisions and situations relating to the village of Harwell were clearly established beyond any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To receive and consider report 72/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy).

Introduction and Report Summary

This report relates to a proposed new Planning Enforcement Policy.  The Policy is being brought to Committee for consideration before it is put before Council for adoption.

The contact Officer for this report is Mike Gilbert, Development Control Manager, telephone 01235 547681

Email address mike.gilbert@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Recommendation

 It is recommended that the Enforcement Policy attached as Appendix 2 to this report is referred to Council for adoption, with the following amendment:

Paragraph 6 e) (iii) to read: “they are displayed in location(s) remote from thesite of the event being advertised – i.e. they are not on or immediately adjacent to the site; or”

The Committee received and considered report 72/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which related to a proposed new Planning Enforcement Policy.  The Policy was presented to the Committee for consideration prior to its submission to Council for adoption.

Councillor Terry Cox commented that it was essential that there were sufficient resources in the Planning and Legal Teams to ensure this policy was implemented and he asked that this comment be so recorded in the minutes.

R E C O M M E N D E D  (nem com)

that the Enforcement Policy attached as an Appendix to these Minutes be approved.

None.