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 and Sue Marchant.  An apology for absence was also recorded from Councillor Val Shaw.

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 117/08 – 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 the Chair pointed out the Officers who were present to give advice and to minute the proceedings and he explained that only elected Members of the 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. He reported that there was one local Member present at the meeting.

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 also asked everyone to listen to the debate in silence and allow anyone speaking to make their comments without interruption.  Furthermore, he asked that members of the public refrained from approaching Officers and Members sitting around the table.

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

Two members of the public each made a statement at the meeting under this Standing Order in connection with the Enforcement report regarding Abingdon Marina as follows: -

(1)       Gary Boughton-Smith, Marina Manager: -

Boats moored across the development boundary – Mr Boughton-Smith reported that this had been discussed at the previous meeting on 12 May 2008 when he had pointed out that in his opinion the invisible blue line drawn at 43 metres from and parallel to South Quay could only relate to fixed items, such as the pontoons and not moveable objects such as the boats that might or might not be tied to them.  He stated that he wished to make it clear to the Council that it was not the Marina’s intention to expand the moorings westwards or expand it further at all.  He commented that occasionally it might be prudent, for ease of marina boat movement, to moor a boat abreast of the boat at the end of a pontoon for a short period of time, as was the case in the summer of ‘Penelope Jane’ tied to ‘Bonnie Blue’.   He assured the Committee that this would be a rare and by no means permanent occurrence.

He commented that he had produced a plan, but due to the rules regarding the circulation of material at Committee meetings was unable to circulate it to Members.  He explained that the plan (a copy of which had been supplied by the planning department) had the limit to development line highlighted in blue and joining the ends of the pontoons was a red line, indicating clear divergence of the two getting wider, the further north. He commented that the difference between the blue line and the end of the first pontoon was 0.6 metres which would make the difference at the end of the third pontoon approximately 3 metres.

Permanent residential moorings – Mr Boughton-Smith commented that he believed there were no existing rules or regulations which stopped people staying on their boats in the Marina provided that they had a permanent place of residence elsewhere.  He asked that if this was correct a local resident who had complained should be informed to enable her to cross this complaint off her list.  He reported that the Inland Waterways Association had been consulted regarding this issue.  He stated that to restrict the number of nights owners were allowed to stay on their boats would put this Marina out of kilter with other marinas throughout the country.  He reported that he turned down on average three requests for residential moorings each week because only one residential mooring was allowed and apart from that one, he had land based addresses for all other boat owners; indeed the mooring agreement requested it.  He stated that people did stay on their boats very occasionally for weeks on end, but then they left until the next time they tried to go cruising.  He commented that most people would rather go cruising,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

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 six members of the public had given notice that they each wished to make a statement at the meeting.  However, on 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 Dismissed

The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate:

(i)         Appeal by Mr D Watson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of an existing garage and store and replacement with new on land at 7 Claypits Lane, Shrivenham (SHR/13450/1);

(ii)               Appeal by Minscombe Properties Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a bungalow on land adjacent to 37 Trenchard Avenue, Milton Heights (MIL/18401/15). 

(iii)             Appeal by Mr and Mrs Keaney against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of two five-bedroomed two-storey dwellings on land adjoining Beechfield House, Wantage Road, Frilford Heath (FRI/20343). 

(iv)       Appeal by Mr and Dr O’Dwyer against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the extension of an existing garage and utility room with first floor study and shower room and ground floor foot-print extended, on land at 33 North Hinksey Village (NHI/20361). 

Split Decision

Appeal by Persimmon (Thames Valley) Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit residential development with associated parking, open space and landscaping at Chawley Works, Cumnor Hill (CUM/80/30-D). 

The Inspector dismissed the appeal and refused the reserved matters application insofar as it related to the addition of first floors and external staircases to the garages on plots 1-4, 89-92, 117-119, 158 and 184-185.  However, the Inspector allowed the appeal and approved the reserved matters application insofar as it related to all other matters. 

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received. 

The Committee received and considered an agenda item detailing four appeals which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate and one where there had been a split decision. 

On considering this report, the Committee was advised that approximately 72% of appeals were dismissed against a target of 65%.

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 list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 117/08 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.

The Officers confirmed that a petrol station was a lawful use on this site.  It was commented that the design was industrial in nature but on balance it was considered acceptable as the proposal was set back from the High Street and not directly opposite the properties in Southfield Drive.

It was noted that the building was higher, but that the previous building had a flat roof.  It was explained that there would not be a harmful impact especially having regard to the orientation of the building.  It was reported that the building was single storey in part and that there were no windows directly overlooking neighbours.  It was reported that the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection to the proposal in terms of noise and disturbance.

It was reported that concerns had been raised regarding safety and it was highlighted that there were a number of conditions proposed in this regard but also that some concerns were controlled by other legislation other than planning.

It was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection but it was considered that an informative should be added regarding the access and egress to the site.

Yvonne Cocking made a statement objecting to the application.  She explained that she did not oppose the principle of a garage on this site but expressed concern regarding safety commenting that her property, no.14 Southfield Drive, had suffered damage as a result of the recent fire. She explained that she had concerns which she had reported to Officers previously regarding height; loss of light; the proposal being inconsistent with neighbouring houses and over dominant.  However, she commented that her main concern was the 1 metre strip of land which separated the site from the neighbour which was currently covered with foliage.  She reported that when this area was cleared, a condition should be imposed requiring that it be maintained as an open area and not used as a dumping ground for rubbish, tyres and other combustible materials and items.  She suggested that the strip should be sealed to prevent access.  Furthermore, she considered that a condition should be added to prevent car sales at the garage in perpetuity.  She raised concerns regarding gases being combustible and smell.  Finally she questioned whether Members had considered traffic coming from the east and turning right very close to properties.  She suggested that the entrance to the garage should be from the High Street and not in Southfield Drive.

Angela Banks, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal to retain a garage in the village had been welcomed by residents.  She referred to design commenting that it was higher for safety reasons but that the roof was further away from the neighbour at no.14 Southfield Drive. She reported that there were no windows that would result in overlooking and that the access was acceptable. She reported that the applicant was willing to keep the area at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

Some Members spoke in support of the application commenting that the signs were a sensitive way in which to advertise the restaurant.

One Member raised concern regarding light pollution to neighbouring properties.  It was thoughts that the neighbouring properties were offices, although the Officers undertook to look into this and furthermore, it was agreed that a condition to control light spillage should be added to any permission.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that application ABG/2259/20 - LB be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(b)       that application ABG/2259/21-A be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to require that the lights shall be first tested and thereafter controlled.

One Member commented that there were similar extensions on nearby properties.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/2649/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

One of the local Members spoke in support of the application but expressed some concern regarding the parking layout and achievability.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that there was a requirement for 1 parking space per 30sq m of officer space.

Another local Member noted that the parking spaces were shown up to the boundary wall, but he was aware that there was a container at the far end and he questioned whether it was necessary for the operation of the business.

In response to a further question raised the Officers reported that it would be reasonable to request that the car parking space should be kept free of any storage and that a condition could be added to any permission requiring this.  In addition it was considered that an informative advising on not parking on a classified road could also be added.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/6358/7 be approved subject to: -

(1)       the conditions set out in the report;

(2)       a further condition to require that the car parking space should be kept free of any storage; and

(3)       an informative advising on not parking on a classified road.

Councillor Paul Burton had declared a personal interest in this application.

Henry Venners, the applicant’s agent was due to make a statement but was not present at the meeting to do so.

One of the local Members commented that once the principle of development had been accepted there would be nothing to prevent another application.  He noted that although the application stated a log cabin for a daughter there was nothing to prevent the applicant selling on the property.  He noted that making any permission personal would be unreasonable.  He referred to the impact on the amenity of neighbours and the link roads commenting that provided there was no adverse impact on these he could see no reason to object to the proposal.

One Member reported that the road and driveway was narrow and of poor quality, although the proposal was for a small dwelling. He raised concern about attracting cars noting that the road would be unsuitable for lots of vehicles.

Another Member expressed concern that the proposal would set a precedent and that it would be difficult to refuse a larger proposal once the principle of development was agreed.  To this end it was considered that an informative should be added to any permission advising that the principle of this proposal was acceptable due to its low impact.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/6613/5 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an informative advising that the principle of this proposal is acceptable due to its low impact.

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Paul Burton, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Mary de Vere, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Anthony Hayward, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Margaret Turner, Laurel Symons, and John Woodford and had each declared a personal interest in this application.

By 13 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that application BLE/6636/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Mr D Randell made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council commenting that the pictures did not explain the full impact of the proposal or identify everything which was significant in considering the application.  He raised concern at the proposal in terms of its impact on water voles at Childrey Brook and other wildlife; the volume and size of the conservatory despite it being single storey; the extended footprint; adverse visual impact; the design being out of keeping and overlooking.

M Swaddling made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concerns relating to matter already covered in the report.  She particularly raised concern regarding the size of the conservatory; the extent of glazing; the proposal being contrary to Planning Policies DC1, HE4 and DC9; height; scale; mass; the proposal being out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area; proximity to neighbouring properties; adverse impact on the nearby listed building; loss of privacy; over dominance; drainage and the risk of flooding.

Some Members spoke in support of the application considering that the proposal was reasonable and acceptable.  Other Members agreed and it was commented that the colour of the conservatory would compliment the appearance of the barn in appearance.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application WCH/15381/21 be approved  subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor T Cox had declared a personal interest in this item.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that a further letter had been received from Upton Parish Council which was read out in full at the meeting.  The Parish Council had stated that it was a very diligent council which actively sought the opinion on planning applications from those living in the parish and then passed them on to the planning officers.  The Parish Council accepted that planning was a matter of opinion but it considered that it was the opinion of those currently living in the parish and in particular the nearby neighbours of the proposed buildings rather that the opinions of Planning Officers, who should be listened to.  The Parish Council had stated that planning officers had no direct interest in the parish and continued to make poor out of touch decisions which the parishioners had to look on everyday.  The Parish Council had stated that it was its local community that should have the major say on how the village would look in the future.  The Parish Council had earnestly requested that the District Council start to implement the local community involvement that was supposed to be so key to the latest planning policy; listen to the local community and say no to blue slates, timber cladding and the monstrous gable windows which were proposed for this application.

In response the Chair suggested that representatives of the Parish Council should be invited to discuss the process with planning Officers to clarify matters. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application noting that there was a mix of properties in the area and similar materials had been used elsewhere in the village, it being noted that horizontal timber boarding was a feature of the house opposite.  Members disagreed with the comments of the Parish Council considering that there were no grounds to refuse the application.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application UPT/20226/1 – D be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the first informative set out in the report should be disregarded and instead a condition added to require the submission of a method statement to retain the existing wall which would be incorporated into the existing dwelling.

By 11 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/20624 be approved subject to the conditions and the second informative set out in the report and an additional condition to require the submission of a method statement to retain the existing wall which will be incorporated into the existing dwelling.

Mr G Huntingford, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application reporting that the Village Charitable Housing Trust owned 57 houses which provided accommodation for people in working life.  He explained that the housing was affordable in that the rent was 70% of the market rate.  He commented that Ardington was a dispersed settlement but it had had infill over the last 50 years, namely the Jubilee Cottages and others built in the 1990s.  He commented that development was acceptable in the Conservation Area and that this proposal would fit in with the existing village development. He stated that the proposal would be visually acceptable in that it would be insignificant compared to properties next door. In terms of the potential for overlooking he commented that he did not see this as an issue.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that this application had not be promoted as an application under the rural exceptions needs policy and that to do so would require a needs based survey and parish council support.  Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the accommodation would be affordable.

Some Members spoke against the application commenting that the application was outside of the village settlement and was contrary to planning policy.

Other Members commented that some small development to support villages allowing people to live and work in the amenity of the area might be acceptable and that had the application been submitted as a rural exception application it might have been agreed subject to the necessary evidence and support.

In response to a question raised regarding determination of the built up area of this village, the Officers responded that at the periphery of this village the development became more loose knit which was part of its character and charm and that there was a need to follow the built form and that in this case the site was clearly outside of the village settlement.

By 10 votes to 3 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application ARD/20678 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

To receive and consider report 118/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy). 

The Committee received and considered report 118/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) which updated Members on issues still outstanding following the report considered by the Committee on 12th May 2008 in respect of the Abingdon Marina.

In considering the report, the Committee had regard to the statements made by members of the public as recorded elsewhere in these minutes.

In considering the report, Members made the following comments: -

·        It was suggested that overnight moorings should be looked into further. 

·        There was concern regarding the marina ecosystem, it being commented that it was thought that the algae might be due to nitrate and phosphate leaking into the river from farm land and not as a result of boats or houses in the vicinity. 

·        Plans for more active management of the environment should be put in place with a report back to the Committee in this regard on a regular basis.

·        In terms of the provision, location and use of the 20 overnight moorings, it was questioned what measures could be imposed.  It was also question whether it was reasonable to impose a time limit on the discussions suggested, it being commented that within 3 months would be reasonable.

·        An individual’s sole place of resident was clear but a principal place of residence was less clear, it being noted that one residence needed to be registered for council tax purposes.  It was commented that a non permanent use could still amount to a considerably long stay.

·        Knowing whether a property was a main residence or not would not help control the amount of time the boats were used.

·        The Council Officers should cease surveillance of the Marina.  The Marina was not suitable for residential use it being a long walk from any facilities such as showers or shops etc.  It was considered that this in itself would discourage boat owners from staying long periods.  It was suggested one test would be whether the boats had engines or not and that there was a presumption if they did not then they were being used for residential purposes. It was commented that notwithstanding this, what harm was being caused it being noted that there were few complaints.  It was suggested that the surveillance should cease until such time as complaints were received.

·        The Officers had spent a considerable amount of time investigating the complaints and it was unclear what public harm was arising out of the few alleged complaints made. It was commented that in agreeing the recommendations it was not being agreed that the Officer should not investigate further but that this was not a priority.

In response to the comments made the Officers reported as follows: -

·        It might be possible to look into overnight moorings further without the need for additional surveillance such as checking addresses of residents registered at permanent addresses elsewhere.

·        In terms of water in the basin there was a flow of water but that this was a matter which the Environment Agency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

None.