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.

An apology for absence was recorded from Councillor Terry Quinlan.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 6 October 2008.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 October 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.

Members declared interests in report 126/08 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 which was the last meeting of the Committee in 2008.

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 were two local Members 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 to refrain 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.

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.

Thirteen members of the public had each given notice that they wished to speak.  However, 3 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.

SUT/375/3 - Redevelopment of garage and workshop premises including tyre and exhaust fitting centre and petrol filling station with associated forecourt shop.  Sutton Courtenay Tyre and Garage Services, 144 High Street, Sutton Courtenay.

The Committee received and considered materials in respect of the above application.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that the use of Merlin grey cladding in matt finish be approved; and

(b)       that samples of other materials be sought from the applicant.

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/08/2066892

Appeal by Mr Tony Greywal against the decision of the Vale of White Horse District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission in respect of the demolition of The Lamb Public House, School Lane, West Hanney, Wantage,

Oxon OX12 0LA

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered details of one appeal which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the Lamb Public House, West Hanney.

The local Member commented that this appeal decision was interesting and Officers and Members should take note of the decision in this case.  He noted that the Inspector had dismissed the appeal as he was of the view that the pub providing a different type of facility to another pub in the same village and therefore should be retained.  The local Member was joined by other Members in welcoming the decision.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.  

The Committee received and considered details of forthcoming inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered report 126/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning application, 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.

It was noted that one main area of concern was the closure of the footpath through the site.  However, it was noted that the applicant was required to divert the footpath and that this was not part of the planning process and not part of this application.  Notwithstanding this it was suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, an informative should be added advising the applicant to note the need for a footpath diversion Order in respect of the footpath through the site.

One Member agreed with the concerns raised regarding the footpath which was well used by the residents of East Challow and commented that in her experience diversion Orders could take some time.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/5231/13 – D be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an informative advising the applicant to note the need for a footpath diversion Order in respect of the footpath through the site.

The Committee noted the proposal was a resubmission in response to an outline application scheme which was refused in May.  That application had had all matters reserved and had envisaged a 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling, whereas this proposal was for a full application for a 2 bedroom dwelling with all details for consideration.  It was noted that the car parking space had been lengthened.

The Officers advised that since writing the report, six additional letters of objection had been received reiterating concerns already covered in the report and commenting that the parking on the amended plans was still inadequate to accommodate two parked cars on the site.  Furthermore, there had been a query over the accuracy of the plans.  In response to this the Officers explained that a detailed survey drawing had accompanied the application and on site measurements had been taken by the Officers and these were in accordance with the submitted plans.

The main issues were identified in the report.  The detailed design of the dwelling and the proposed car parking arrangements as amended were considered acceptable and the proposal was considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal as detailed in the report.

In response to a comment challenging the statement in the report that the previous scheme was much larger than the scheme proposed, it was clarified that this statement was made in respect of the street scene elevation.  It was explained that the previous scheme was 1m wider than that now proposed, and filled more of the plot.  As the previous application had been outline only with all matters reserved, Officers had been concerned that granting permission in such circumstances could easily have led to pressure for a larger dwelling than that shown on the illustrative drawings.  However, in this application there was a material difference in that all details of the dwelling proposed were due for consideration now.

It was commented that in respect of development at No 7A, Plot 3 was only 18m away at ground floor level, where boundary treatments could ensure adequate privacy.  The distance from first floor windows was in excess of 21m. Consequently, the relationship of the new dwelling to that scheme was considered acceptable.  Furthermore, it was noted that the relationship between these dwellings was not a parallel back to back relationship.  The new dwelling lay to the northeast.

Finally, the Officers commented that the proposed parking and access arrangements were acceptable for the reasons set out in the report and the County Engineer had raised no objections to the amended proposal.

Mr M Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Whilst recognising there was a smaller footprint to the earlier application he expressed concern regarding over development; traffic maneuvering and hazard as a result of the parking arrangements; whilst noting the county engineer’s comments regarding the side parking the Town Council was of the view that the arrangements were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

L Cannings, the applicant had given notice that he wished to make a statement but he declined to do so.

Some Members spoke in support of the application but considered that an additional condition should be added to require the removal of the oil tanks.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ECH/9964/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to require the removal of the oil tanks.

One of the local Members commented that he was concerned regarding parking but noted that the county engineer had raised no objection.

Another Member commented that he knew the site well noting that an improvement in facilities was needed.  He commented that the area was busy in terms of traffic at school drop off and pick up times but he did not consider this to be any different to any other school and was only for short periods.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application APT/3012/8 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Anthony Hayward had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and he left the meeting during its consideration.

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

Further to the report, the Officers highlighted an amended plan which related to the provision of a cloak room and the need to restore the link between the annexe and the main house by the relocation of the cloak room.

By 13 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members having withdrawn from the meeting for this item it was

RESOLVED

that application STA/14023/4 – LB be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Officers advised that the letters of support referred to in the report were not from residents in the immediate vicinity of the site.  It was clarified that “local residents” was used in a generic sense but to clarify Officers reported that 7 letters were from residents within Abingdon, 1 from Shippon, 1 from Marcham and 1 from Wantage.

It was reported that the Officers considered that a child day care nursery in this location was acceptable and would not be out of keeping with or harmful to the locality.  Furthermore, the proposal was not considered to be so unduly harmful to neighbouring amenity to warrant refusal.  It was explained that the proposed on site parking arrangements were considered acceptable and the dropping off and picking up of children was also considered acceptable.

Mr Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the proposal commenting that he disagreed with the view of the County Engineer and that he was astonished that he had raised no objections commenting that he had obviously had no experience of taking children to a day centre, explaining that parents had to get out of their cars and therefore cars had to be parked.  He commented that the plans referred to visitor parking and not parents and he therefore expressed concern regarding displaced parking; traffic congestion and hazard in the service road; noise and disturbance to neighbours and the proposal being contrary to planning policies DC5 and DC9.

Mr S Pickles made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concerns regarding it detrimental impact; the number of children exceeding guidelines set to protect the amenity of the area; noise; traffic congestion; adverse impact; the proposal being contrary to policy and the need to move a bedroom window.

Mr M Wilkinson had given notice that he wished to make a statement objecting to the application but he declined to do so.

Mr T Peegram made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concern regarding the number of children proposed; inadequate parking; noise; a statement that there was a large amount of background noise in this area being incorrect; disturbance to neighbours; the proposal being out of keeping with this residential area; the service road already being very busy and traffic congestion.

Mr D Padalino made a statement in support of the application advising that the nursery would accommodate local children which were currently attending the Abingdon Northcourt Kindergarten which was closing; many families had built strong relationship with staff at the nursery and by approving this application these relationships would continue; the need to meet guideline requirements regarding staff, quantity of children and their development, size of rooms etc; the concerns raised being irrelevant; the views of the County Engineer in support; the arrival of children being staggered and the number of children being requested being the maximum permitted.

A Adderley made a statement in support of the application commenting that she had a child at the Abingdon Northcourt Kindergarten and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.

Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this application.

In addition to the report, the Committee had before it duplicate copies of the plans in the agenda which had not been printed clearly.

Mr Peter Biggs made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the Parish Council had consistently opposed large extension in Kennington, especially in this area.  He commented that there were 40 bungalows all about the same size with just a few small extensions.  He raised concerns regarding the current proposal in terms of over dominance; adverse impact and change to the street scene which had been relatively unchanged since the war; other similar examples elsewhere in the road being visually harmful; adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours and overlooking from the balcony.  He commented that he had thought of suggesting alterations to the plans but in this case considered that the application should be refused.

Mr Bradbury, a neighbour spoke against the application also raising concerns to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concern regarding there being no properties at this end of Manor Grove that had loft conversions; the juliet balcony resulting in overlooking; loss of privacy; adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; the roof height being out of keeping; visual impact; loss of light to No.172 Poplar Grove; over dominance and loss of amenity.

Mr Adams had given notice that he wished to make a statement but he declined to do so.

One of the local Members commented that Popular Grove still maintained the look of a 1930’s estate and he expressed concern regarding the need to retain this noting that in other areas continual extensions and alterations to properties had adversely affected the visual appearance and hence the character of the area. However, notwithstanding his desire to keep the properties in their current state he realised that this was not possible.  He drew Members’ attention to the dormer window on the front elevation commenting that every roof in the road was fully hipped and with this in mind he suggested that a condition should be added to the dormer should be fully hipped rather than a gable. 

Other Members supported the application and the Officers advised that the additional condition would be reasonable in this case having regard to the street scene and the need to preserve the overall design of the estate.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/20688 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition to hip the dormer instead of a gable.

None.