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 Richard Farrell and Val Shaw.  An apology for absence was also recorded from Councillor Jenny Hannaby.

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 136/08 – 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 were three 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 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.

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 nine members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak.

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 application: -

CUM/80/32 - Timbnet, Cumnor

It was noted that samples of materials, namely three bricks and three sets of tiles, had been available on site for Members’ perusal.

One Member commented that he did not support the use of artificial slate.  Furthermore, some Members considered that one of the bricks was too pale. It was suggested that the bricks and tiles should be considered together and that further samples should be sought from the applicant.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the applicant be requested to provide further samples of materials.

Dismissed

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

(i)         Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/08/2080488

1 Sweetmans Road, Botley, Oxfordshire, OX2 9BA

Appeal by Mrs Dee Peedell against the decision of the Vale of White Horse District Council to refuse planning permission.

(ii)      Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/08/2077722

Land adjacent to Longwall House, Northcourt Lane, Abingdon, OX141PN Appeal by Mr Impey against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit planning permission.

(iii)       Appeal A Ref: APP/V3120/A/08/2074032

22 Horsecroft, Stanford in the Vale, Faringdon, SN7 8LL. Appeal by Mr Matt Morris against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission.

(iv)       Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/A/08/2081902

2a Hilliat Fields, Drayton, Abingdon, OX14 4JE

Appeal by Mr M Pickard against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit planning permission.

Recommendation

that the agenda report be received.

The Committee received and considered an agenda item setting out details of four appeals which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.  In respect of the appeal relating to 23 Horsecroft, Stanford in the Vale, it was noted that there was a second appeal which had been allowed.

RESOLVED

that the agenda item be received.

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.  

The Committee received and considered an agenda report setting out details of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the agenda item be received.

The Committee received and considered report 136/08 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 highlighted that the County Engineer had objected to the proposal details of which were set out in the report and it was noted that the use 8 years ago was not relevant.

Mr P Waddy the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application asking the Committee to consider the application in regard to the Lockinge Estates as a whole.  He referred to matters already covered in the report explaining that the site had been used for storage since 2002 and that sustainability was the key issue in this case.  He commented that concerns regarding increased vehicle movements and parking were unfounded and that submitted with the proposal was a traffic count detailing vehicle movements.  He commented that the number of staff quoted was incorrect.  He advised that a section 106 agreement would limit the traffic.  He referred to the local businesses using the site commenting that its use was economically viable for them.  He explained that Red Barn only was used for storage but that there was no one based there.  He reported that the views of the CountyEngineer were concerning in that he had received comments saying there were no objections to the proposals.  He noted that the proposed section 106 agreement would restrict the use of the site for businesses on the estate and stated that Circular 5 of 2005 stated that planning permission should not be refused where a section 106 agreement could make a proposal acceptable.  He commented that the proposal enabled local businesses to continue and that there was a special case to approve this application particularly having regard to the local employment.

The Officers clarified that the County Engineer had submitted comments raising no objection but had then changed his view to a recommendation of refusal.  It was explained that the report referred to the most recent comments of the Highway Authority.  Furthermore, in response to the comments made regarding special exceptions and what could be contained within a section 106 agreement and what conditions were relevant, the Officers referred to Circular 11/95 and Planning Policy Guidance 4 (PPG4), relevant extracts of which were read out at the meeting.  It was noted that restricting occupancy did not make a proposal more acceptable.

Some Members spoke against the proposal noting that the proposal was contrary to planning policy as set out in the report and that the County Engineer had objected.  It was considered that there were no exceptional circumstances to approve the proposal in this case and that to do so would be unreasonable and would set a precedent for similar applications.

One Member noted the advice referred to in Circular 11/95 and PPG4 commenting what whilst not wishing to prejudice local businesses, the scale of the proposal could become quite out of proportion and it could be difficult to refuse similar applications on other sites in the open countryside. It was noted that the buildings were not of such high quality that their retention would be required.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

The Officers highlighted that this was a private road and that the main concern raised was traffic generation, although it was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal.  Furthermore, it was noted that the Environmental Health Officer had not received any complaints regarding noise.   However, it was explained that the Officers considered it reasonable to make any permission personal to the applicant having regard to the type of business on the site.

Mr David Mercer, the applicant made a statement in support of the application explaining that the concerns raised regarding vehicle movements were unfounded and that some comments made had been exaggerated. He reported that he had closed his long work room in Dunmore Court and that he and his wife were aiming towards retirement and now operated a smaller business from this site.  He explained that no other staff were employed and that the workroom was sunk down ¾ of a metre and therefore the structure was not visible from the road. He commented that there were no concerns regarding noise and that concerns raised seemed to be regarding delivery vehicles along the private road. He commented that use and upkeep of this road had been contentious for some 40 years.  He stated that residents had eventually contributed towards it resurfacing.  He explained that as he had contributed towards the resurfacing works he had regard to the need to retain the surface and would not wish to see large vehicles using it which could cause damage.  He reported that there were about 10 refuse vehicle movements per month and that there was pedestrian access to the village.  He commented that he did very little private work so very few cars visited the site.  He explained that there was little activity to disturb anyone.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SAH/653/6 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and he left the meeting during its consideration.

In response to comments raised, the Officers reported that the proposal was a valid planning application.  It was explained that the main issue was that the original plan had provided for a 1.8m footway for the entire length of the access road, whereas the revised design had only a footpath for the first 11 metres along the access with the remainder being a narrower shared surface.

It was reported that comments had been received from the County Engineer who had as confirmed that there were no objections to the proposal.  The detailed response of the CountyEngineer was explained.

It was noted that there was a holding area which would allow vehicles to wait and not reverse out onto Coxwell Road.  It was explained that the likely traffic would be 4 to 5 vehicle movements in the peak hour.  The County Engineer had been guided by the Manual for Streets, a guidance document recently published by the Government which promoted greater use of shared surfaces as it was believed that drivers would be more cautious when using shared surfaces.  This document stated that shared surfaces worked well when they served cul-de-sacs; where there would be less than 100 vehicle movements per hour at peak times and where there was designated parking, as was the case with this application.  It was noted that on this basis the CountyEngineer had concluded that the proposed shared surface design was acceptable and safe.

The Officers highlighted that another issue of concern raised was the relocation of the sub-station, it being noted that it was now proposed to be sited behind No.24 Beech Close where a new enclosure had been constructed. It was explained that a sub-station was generally permitted development when it was on operational land.  This was the subject of current investigation but it appeared that the proposed sub-station was on operational land. Therefore, it was reported that the relocation of the sub-station was within permitted development and did not require planning permission.

The Committee noted that original the intention had been that the access road would be adopted but now this was not the case although the County Council as highway authority was interested in the proposal in terms of highway safety.  It was noted that the County Engineer had deemed the proposal to be safe which was the main consideration.  The Officers therefore supported the application with the Committee being recommended to delegate authority for approval to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee subject to revised wording of the condition.

Mike Wise made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding the worsening of the access in terms of width and adverse impact on highway safety;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

Mr Kevin Appleton made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that he was the owner and occupier of Dormer House and had been since 1999 and that his house had been built in the dog yard / garden area of the former police properties which had been converted into a row of four terraced houses.  He particularly raised concern regarding over development of the original plot; loss of privacy highlighting that there had been restrictions on the design of his house in terms of height and no windows on the gable end and that the dormer would allow the occupants a full view of the whole of the front of his house as well as the rear; approval of the proposal negating the intention of the original decision in 1999; next door there was a fence and hedge which prevented overlooking but this was not the case for this site; and precedent of second story dormers along the terrace.

One of the local Members expressed his support for the application commenting that the amended dormer was acceptable and that in his view any overlooking would not be harmful.

One Member sought clarification of the height of the dormer from the floor level querying whether the overlooking could be substantially worse that the existing overlooking.  He referred to a photograph taken from the existing window where the dormer would be sited which was displayed at the meeting commenting that very little of the garden of Dormer House was hidden from view.

One Member responded that there were about 11 properties that overlooked the garden of Dormer House and that there would be no additional harm caused from the proposed dormer window.

Another Member commented that the sill height seemed very low and only some 300mm above floor level and questioned whether a Juliet balcony was needed.  The Officers responded that this was a building control matter.

The Officers explained that permitted development rights had been removed when planning permission had been granted originally and that the purpose of this was not to prevent any further development but to ensure that planning permission was granted for it.

Other Members agreed that Dormer House was already overlooked and that the current proposal would make little or no difference to the current situation and as such should be approved.

By 12 votes to nil with 2 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/15539/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Councillors Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere, Jerry Patterson and Richard Webber had each declared a personal interest in this application.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the type of seating provided was not subject to planning permission and that the Committee was being asked to consider the change of use of the area only.

One Member raised concern regarding storage of the seating, but it was noted that this was not a planning matter.  Reference was made to the condition set out in the report which it was agreed should be added as an informative to any permission rather than a condition.

By 14 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19459/2 be approved subject to an informative advising that the area between the main entrance door of the public house on Old Station Yard and the pedestrian footpath on Stert Street be kept clear of any benches.

Further to the report, the Officers reported receipt of an additional letter received from the residents on No 53 raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and requesting that there should be boundary treatment in that there should be a defined boundary line of at least 5 metres, preferably in the form of a 4ft high or less Cotswold stone wall constructed prior to the development of the site and that access for maintenance should be allowed.  Furthermore, concern was raised regarding street lighting and the adverse impact this would have on their property.

It was commented that there was a three metre buffer and this would be landscaped. It was considered that a wall would be unreasonable as it would affect the light to the window.  It was commented that the arrangement was no different to other properties along the High Street.  It was suggested that should permission be granted an additional condition should be added to restrict the use of the footpath to residents of the site only and requiring details of how this would be achieved to be submitted for approval.

Members supported the application disagreeing with the objections raised.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application SHR/19548/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition to restrict the use of the footpath to residents of the site only and requiring details of how this would be achieved to be submitted for approval.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Paul Burton, Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere, Richard Gibson, Anthony Hayward, Sue Marchant, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Julia Reynolds, Margaret Turner, Richard Webber and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that applications SHE/19759/1 and SHE/19759/2 – CA be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

Further to the report, the Officers highlighted that the Town Council had not objected to the application but had sought some form of temporary lighting to the car parking area.

Furthermore, it was reported that four letters had been received from residents, one of which was in support of the proposal; two letters raising concerns regarding the access but it was noted that these concerns did not relate to the variation of conditions and one letter raising concerns regarding the existing access and problems of people misusing the field.

It was commented that the Officers were concerned regarding the use of the car park outside of day light hours and therefore considered that it was reasonable and necessary to provide lighting to the car parking area prior to the occupation of the building or the installation of the floodlights, whichever was the soonest.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/20297/2 be approved subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report.

The Officers highlighted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal but had requested a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure.  However, the Officers commented that for a scheme of this size it was considered that there were no grounds to request the contribution which was considered unreasonable.

Further to the report it was noted that an additional letter had been received from a consultant acting on behalf of the residents of No.45 raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and in particular commenting that whilst there was no objection to infill at the front, it was suggested that there should be one dwelling or a pair of semi detached properties which were in keeping with the vernacular line of development; the principle of backland development was out of character with the immediate surroundings and the spirit of development; there would be visual intrusion and overlooking in respect of the two buildings at the rear which was not understood as the plans were only two-dimensional; there were concerns regarding traffic, access, the setting of a president for more accesses, proximity, loss of light and privacy to rear parts of existing gardens and overlooking to No.51.

The Officers reminded the Committee that this was an outline application and that the plans were illustrative only.  It was commented that the density would be 35 dwellings per hectare which would be below the recommended minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare and therefore three dwellings would not be overdevelopment of this site.

Mr Lilly representing the residents of No.45 made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters reported earlier in the meeting.  He commented that infilling at the front with one dwelling was not in question.  However, he particularly raised concern regarding the principle of development of the back garden which he commented would not be in keeping with the spirit of development for backland.  He commented that whilst there were other backland developments in Charlton Road, none had resulted in an adverse impact or un-neighbourliness and he considered this proposal would.  He stated that the plan showed two two-story houses which he considered was unacceptable commenting that this new development would not have a good relationship with existing development.  He stated that adequate open space should be retained and that he was concerned regarding overshadow and siting.   He considered that the proposal was unacceptable in the it was contrary to Planning Policy DC.9 in that development should not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenity of neighbours in terms of visual intrusion, loss of day light etc.  He suggested that if any Member had doubt about this proposal then they should defer its consideration and visit the site.  He suggested that by standing outside No.45 Members would be able to appreciate the impact that the proposal would have in terms of overdevelopment, loss light and loss of privacy.

Mr Matthew Green, the applicants agent made a statement in support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application LBA/20707 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

None.