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 the Provisions of Standing Order 17 (1) was recorded as referred to above with an apology having been received from Councillors Terry Cox and Terry Quinlan.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 15 September 2008 (circulated with the Council Summons and Agenda dated 22 October 2008).

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 15 September 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 107/08 – 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 proceedings and he explained that only elected Members of the Development Control Committee could vote on the items on the agenda.

He requested that members of the public listen to the debate in silence and refrain from any disorderly conduct.

The Chair announced that the section of the Enforcement Programme, item 23 relating to Abingdon Marina would not be considered at this meeting.

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 19 members of the public had given notice that they wished to make a statement, however one of the members declined to do so and another was not in attendance at the meeting.

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)               WAN/2186/14 and 17, St Mary’s School, Wantage

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the following materials be approved:-

Sandtoft concrete tiles in ‘terracotta’ and ‘rustic’; the terracotta to replace the previously approved Redland concrete terracotta tile.

Allowed

The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate.

(i) Appeal by Mr I Maconochie against the decision of the Council 52 Tyrrells Way, Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire OX14 4DF to refuse permission for the  erection of a single storey dwelling with one bedroom and one car parking space on land to the rear of 52 Tyrrells Way.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of an appeal which had been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate.

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.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

In accordance with Standing Order 32, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, Councillor Jenny Hannaby left the room during the discussion.

The Officers introduced the report and confirmed that this was a County Council matter and it came before the Committee as the Vale of White Horse District Council was a consultee.

Officers referred the Committee to several photographs of the proposed site of the incinerator and access plans together with photomontages of how the proposed building would look from various vantage points.

It was reported that since the report was drafted a further 35 letters had been received raising the following concerns:-

• the site was unsuitable given the proposed expansion of Didcot.
• the land proposed was supposed to be for agricultural use
• the proposal contravenes Council policies
• serious concerns regarding the effects of the incinerator on human health
• the adverse impact on biodiversity
• the proposal has been made as a result of a desire to avoid EU fines
• the weather data used by the applicant was not accurate, having been taken at Brize Norton

It was also reported that Natural England had raised an objection, the details of which were not yet available. Officers further reported that a letter had been received from Councillor Julia Reynolds, who was not in attendance at the meeting, urging the Committee to recommend that the County Council consider the use of Gasplasma technology. It was noted that Councillor Reynold’s letter had been circulated amongst Member prior to the meeting.

Officers stated that the Committee could consider three elements, the impact on highways/transport, the impact on the landscape and the impact on air quality, noise, contamination and flooding.

With respect to the impact on highways/transport the Committee noted Officer’s concerns that the transport assessment had not considered the redevelopment of older areas of the Milton Park site. In addition it was noted that in order to avoid unacceptable levels of additional vehicular traffic the County Council would need to have in place a comprehensive set of controls.

The Committee noted that the Officers supported the objections of the Environment Agency relating to the potential impact on biodiversity in the area and the risk of flooding.

It was noted that Officers were not satisfied with the air quality model which had been relied upon in preparing the application. It was reported that Officers were recommending that a robust independent audit be carried out on the model.

Councillor David Hignall from Sutton Courtney Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He commented that he was aware of the content of the Officers report and was pleased with the recommendations. He stated that the proposals conflict with policy plans and government guidance. He stressed that the site was not brownfield.

He commented that the Parish Council was concerned that this application would lead to increased numbers of vehicles and therefore pollution. He stated that residents were very concerned about the implications of the proposed incinerator on their health. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

This application was dealt with at the reconvened meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Wednesday 29 October 2008.

Councillor Martin Smith of Abingdon Town Council made a statement objecting to the application. He stated that the plans did not provide adequate space for emergency vehicles, would lead to loss of privacy of neighbouring properties and would lead to loss of light to neighbouring properties. He commented that the plans made inadequate provision for amenity and garden space. He stated that although planning policy H10 provided for efficient use of the land, he did not consider it was appropriate to squeeze properties into small spaces. He raised concern that there was inadequate parking provision for visitors and indeed for the property’s use.

Chris Jones made a statement on behalf of the surrounding households to Chandler’s Close in objection to the application. He also presented a petition to the Committee which contained 52 signatures opposing the plans.

He stated that he opposed this application as strongly as he had opposed the first and reminded the Committee that the previous application had been refused as being unneighbourly, detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties resulting in a harmful and over dominant impact. He advised that it had been noted that this application was for outline consent on the matters of access and layout, wherein it was identical to the previous application. He stated that the proposed changes mainly concerned the reserved matters of scale and appearance which should have no bearing on the council’s decision. He commented that the only change to the layout was a slightly shorter drive to plot 3 with the garage placed behind number 10 Chandlers Close. He commented that this would not reduce the noise nuisance for numbers 8, 9 and 10 and that numbers 7 and 8 would also be affected by noise from the main drive and ground-borne vibration from the proposed rumble strip.

He contended that the site could not accommodate additional housing without an adverse impact on one another, or adjoining properties, in terms of over-dominance, loss of light and privacy. He stated that 7a used storm drains in St Peters Road which were frequently overwhelmed by heavy rain, causing flooding. He added that during 2007, other properties adjoining the site suffered a flood surge that came within inches of their back doors which caused him concern that any further development of this site would result in regular and costly floods.

In respect of access he referred the Committee to the Oxfordshire County Council Road Design Guide which he stated was supposed to ensure safe access to new developments. He commented that the distance from the site entrance to the furthest point on plot 3 exceeded 45 metres which meant that access had to be suitable for fire tenders. He stated that the centreline radius at the entrance and turning head was less than the required 7.8 m which therefore prevented access to fire vehicles in a single movement.

He stated that the long entrance required a passing space but was not wide enough to accommodate one. He raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Mr Stuart Norman made a statement to the Committee on behalf of Upton Parish Council in objection to the application. He commented that the Parish Council had concerns regarding the access and the building itself. He stated that the proposed access from Station Road would lead to the loss of 5 or 6 trees and would have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the tree canopy. He stated his concern regarding the safety of the proposed access, given its steep incline. He expressed the concern of the Parish Council as to how the construction vehicles would access the site.

Mr Graham Dewilde spoke on behalf of the residents of numbers 2-4 Beeching Close in objection to the application. He stated that the proposed access was unsafe and inadequate and that the report had contained a number of errors and omissions. He commented that when the 2006 application was submitted the Highways Authority considered that Beeching Close should be the only means of accessing the site.  He stated that in July 2008 an application had been refused which sited the access 22 metres further along station road. He commented that the proposed access would be onto a busy and dangerous road. With regards to the design of the building he commented that although the other buildings in Beeching Close were large, they were not jammed in to the plots as this design appeared to be. He further commented that the plans were inaccurate.

Mr Mike Orr spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He commented that the site was not in the AONB, and it was not visible from points on the AONB. He reminded the Committee that the site had already been given outline planning permission. He commented that the design had little or no impact on the street scene. He made the point that the plans demonstrated that visibility splays could be achieved without the loss of other trees. He commented that the design complies with the Vale’s design guide and that this project would have little impact on the neighbouring properties.

In response to a question Officers confirmed that the Arboricultural Officer was happy with the proposals.

One Member commented that he had great doubts regarding the proposed access. He considered that the most remarkable comments appeared to come from the County Engineer. He stated that he considered that it should be rejected as the access was insufficient. He expressed concern regarding the use of the phrase “removal of a tree and vegetation” as it was unclear what the extent of the vegetation to be removed would be.

Another Member stated that he had visited the site and called upon the applicant who had explained that the preferable means of access via Beeching Close was not possible. He considered that the proposal would be acceptable were a 9^th condition added requiring the access to be agreed as acceptable by Officers prior to its use. 

One Member expressed concern in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

This item was dealt with at the reconvened meeting of the Committee held on 29 October 2008.

Councillors Tony de Vere and Mary de Vere had each declared a personal interest in this matter and in accordance with Standing Order 34 remained in the room during its consideration.

Officers referred to the variety of house styles and sizes in this part of Drayton and showed photographs of the site. It was noted that 11 letters of objection had been received and that Drayton Parish Council objected to the development.  It was noted that the letters raised a number of concerns, highlighted in the report. Officers commented that the concerns raised in respect of loss of privacy and overlooking had been addressed by the fact that the side facing first floor windows in plot 1 were obscure glazed and the ground floor windows faced the blank flank wall. Officers commented that this led to the conclusion that there were no planning grounds on which to refuse the application in relation to the impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor Jennifer Pooley of Drayton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the builder of this property had flouted the original planning permission. She advised that this development was out of keeping with the surrounding area and made a mockery of the planning process. She stated that by permitting the building a message would be sent that the Parish and District Council Planning Committees could be ignored.

She raised the following concerns:-

• The development was overbearing and large
• The plans stated that the outside finish was to be brick and tile hung. The actual building was entirely brick, which was unattractive and detrimental to the area.
• The plans made reference to two glass conservatories at the rear. The actual building had brick built rooms to the rear.
• The area of land laid to concrete in front of the property was unattractive, particularly with the bollards near the pavement.

She concluded by urging the Committee to support the objections of the neighbours and the Parish Council.

Mr Adam Barak made a statement in objection to the application. He commented that the plans for what currently lay on site had never been approved. He stated that the Vale’s planning officers had dismissed objections and considered the Officer’s report to be inaccurate.

He stated that the design was too big for the plot, was out of character and the development had resulted in a loss of amenity to his property as the boundary fences were 1.5 metres from his house. He raised further concerns that the 40 degree rule had been broken, loss of light to number 37 Sutton Wick Lane and that the development had led to cars blocking the lane.

He strongly urged the Committee to refuse this application and order the building’s demolition.

Mr Opindar Liddar made a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He stated that the plans had been approved last year.  He confirmed that materials had been approved and several conditions had been attached. He advised that the planning enforcement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

This application was dealt with at the reconvened meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Wednesday 29 October 2008.

Officers referred the Committee to the report and the recommendations therein.

Julie Mansbridge spoke in objection to the application and raised the following concerns:

• The development was unneighbourly and its appearance was domineering.
• It would have a detrimental impact on the village scene.
• Loss of privacy
• Overlooking of her property through main living windows
• Inadequate parking provision for visitors would lead to traffic problems on the street.

She concluded by urging the Committee to refuse this application.

Tony Woods spoke as the applicant in support of the application. He stated that this proposal makes a contribution towards the affordable homes market. He commented that following negotiations with Vale’s planning officers a previous similar scheme had been withdrawn. He stated that revisions had been made to the design and he considered that the current proposal in front of the Committee was acceptable.

Members commented that they were satisfied with the Officer’s recommendations.

By 14 votes in favour and 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that planning permission be granted in respect of SAH/20411/1  subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report.

The Committee noted that St Helen Without Parish Council had raised objections on the grounds of overdevelopment and that no objections had been received from neighbours.

Mr Shevchenko made a statement as the applicant in support of the application. He stated that this property would sit well with others on Landsdowne Road and the proposed design layout was very similar to them. He commented that there were 19 houses on this Road, with either the same footprint as this house or with a larger footprint and therefore did not agree that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment.

One Member commented that none of the other properties were extended at the front.

By 13 votes in favour, with 2 against it was

RESOLVED

that planning permission in respect of application SAH/20594 be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.  

The Committee heard that this application involved construction in the Cumnor Conservation Area. Officers advised that the Committee must consider whether the development could be shown to preserve or enhance the established character or appearance of the conservation area. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between the consultees, the Parish Council and the Vale’s Conservation Officer objecting to the application and the County Engineer, Drainage Engineer, Arboricultural Officer and the Architect Panel raising no objections. The supportive comments of the Consultant Architect were noted.

Giles De la Mare made a statement in objection to the application. He raised concerns that the development would affect the conservation area adversely and result in the loss of an important local space. He commented that the proposed building would be too close to the Tithe Barn, infringing the privacy of its garden and making access difficult. He stated that the design would clash stylistically with the conservation area and was unsuitable.

Keith Eddie made a statement in objection to the application. He stated that he was in support of the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and the comments of the Conservation Officer. He advised that he was a resident of High Street, Cumnor and stated that other residents of High Street had similar views.

Adrian James made a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He stated that although the recommendations seemed clear cut, there was a debate to be had. He advised that the proposed building added interest to the conservation area and enriched it. He referred the Committee to the comments of the Consultant Architect that he considered the concept to be of the highest quality. He stated that he completely concurred with the views of the Consultant Architect and recommended that the Committee grant planning permission for the application.

One Member commented that he disagreed with the Conservation Officer’s view and the recommendations of the Officers. He stated that he considered that the scheme would enhance the conservation area and that it would look terrific. He stated that he would therefore be voting against the officer recommendations.

Another Member stated that he had thought very carefully about this proposal and following a site visit he agreed with the views of the Consultant Architect, that it would enhance the conservation area.

Other Members were concerned with the close proximity of the application to the Tithe Barn.

By 6 votes in favour and 9 votes against the proposal to agree to the Officer’s recommendations was not carried.

The Chair proposed that the application be approved, subject to attached conditions to come back to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee.

By 12 votes in favour and 3 against it was

RESOLVED

that planning permission be granted for application CUM/2064 subject to conditions which would come back to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee for agreement.

To receive and consider report 109/08 of the Solicitor. 

Introduction and Report Summary

This report asks Committee to consider an application (ABG/742/43) by Builders Ede to modify clause 8 of the Section 106 planning obligation dated 3 December 1998 to permit an increase in the number of moorings at Abingdon Marina, Marina way, Abingdon from 100 to 113

The contact Officer for this report is Sarah Commins, Solicitor (01235 547613).  Sarah.commins@whitehorsedc.co.uk.

Recommendation

That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application ABG/742/43 subject to the negotiation of a Deed of Variation under Section 106A of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. 

This application was dealt with at the reconvened meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Wednesday 29 October 2008.

To receive and consider report 110/08 of the Head of Legal Services.

Introduction and Report Summary

This report asks Committee to consider an application (ABG/742/44) by Builders Ede to modify the Fourth Schedule of the Section 106 planning obligation dated 3 December 1998 as follows:

 i)         to remove the restriction of reserving 20 of the total public moorings for overnight moorings

ii)         to remove the requirement to reserve a specific area of the marina for overnight moorings

iii)        to remove reference to the restriction on charges for public moorings

The contact Officer for this report is Sarah Commins, Solicitor (01235 547613).  sarah.commins@whitehorsedc.co.uk

Recommendation

That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application ABG/742/44 subject to the negotiation of a Deed of Variation under Section 106A of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. 

This application was dealt with at the reconvened meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Wednesday 29 October 2008.

To receive and consider report number 108/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy).

Introduction and Report Summary

This report seeks the approval of Committee to take enforcement action in one new case, and at the same time up dates Members on issues still outstanding following the report considered by Committee on 12^th May 2008 (copy of report and Minutes attached as Appendix 1).

The contact Officer for this report is Paul Yaxley, Enforcement Officer (01235 540352).  paul.yaxley@whitehorsedc.co.uk.

Recommendations

(a)               That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Committee Chair and/or Vice Chair, to take enforcement action against Mr D Adlard, of 44 Cumnor Hill, Oxford, to remove the unauthorised entrance gates, pillars and wall if he considers it expedient to do so.

(b)       Total number of boats moored in the Abingdon marina exceeding agreed numbers.

That Members consider the report of the Head of Legal Services to vary the terms of the Section 106 Agreement dated 3^rd December 1998 before deciding whether to take enforcement action in relation to the number of boats moored at the marina.

(c)        Provision, location and use of the 20 overnight moorings.

            That Members consider the report of the Head of Legal Services to vary the terms of the 1998 Section 106 Agreement before deciding whether to take enforcement action in relation to the lack of overnight moorings at the marina.

(d)       Moored boats extending beyond the western limit on the Marina application site.

            That no action be taken against any boat, of less than 4 metres beam width, which may be moored directly to the western end of any of the three pontoon arms of the marina.

(e)       Storage of box trailer in the secure compound.

            That no action be taken against the box trailer in question, other than requesting that it be painted a dark green colour.

(f)         Permanent Residential Moorings.

            That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Committee Chair and/or Vice Chair, to decide whether enforcement action should be taken against Builders Ede Ltd. Abingdon Boat Marina, South Quay, Abingdon, and any individual(s) residing on a boat if it is established that any boat(s) in the marina (apart from the Marina Manager’s boat) are being used as an individual’s sole or a principal place of residence. 

It was noted that the portion of the report relating to Abingdon Marina would be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee.