Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements from the chairman, and general housekeeping matters.

The chairman gave housekeeping notices and outlined committee protocol for speakers and the public.

To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent.

None.

To receive an up date of housing figures relating to commitments for major housing schemes to address the council’s housing land shortfall.

Noted.

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.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 4 September 2013 (circulated separately). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2013 were accepted as an accurate record of the meeting and it was agreed that the chairman sign them.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, and other declarations, in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

Disclosable pecuniary interests

Councillor Anthony Hayward is the agent for item 18; 26 Farmstead Close, Grove. He would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of this item.

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.

The speakers’ list was tabled at the meeting.

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

None.

To consider any materials submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.

Any materials submitted will be on display prior to the meeting.

P13/V0497/RM – Lime Road, Botley

Sample panels of bricks had been constructed on site. The following were agreed:

·           Bricks – Ibstock Bridgewater Red and Ibstock Bridgewater Weathered Red;

·           Render – Parex jaune pale and blanc casse;

·           Roof tiles – the submitted sample tiles were too large and inappropriate and the use of smaller plain tiles and artificial slate as an alternative was agreed.

P12/V2048/FUL – Walnut Trees Hill, Ashbury

Sample panels of a brick and artificial stone had been constructed on site. The following were agreed:

·           Brick – Ibstock Laybrook multi orange;

·           Stone – bekstone buff.

The officer presented the report on an application for the demolition of an existing dwelling, stables and agricultural buildings and erection of a replacement dwelling (revised scheme to P13/V0176/FUL). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           the application has come to committee at the request of Councillor Matthew Barber, the local member;

·           no appeal has been decided on the previously referred scheme.

Jim Grandison a local resident, spoke in support of the application.

Ken Dijksman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 1; abstentions 1)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.         policy GS6 refusal – dwelling more than 50% larger than the one it replaces;

2.         policy DC1 – concerns regarding the sprawling nature of the new dwelling.

The officer presented the report on an application for the erection of 136 residential dwellings, infrastructure, open space and associated ancillary structures and buildings. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

• ten further letters of objection have been received re-iterating points covered in the report;
• objections to the amended plans from North Hinksey Parish Council had been received relating to inadequate consultation; out of date traffic information; impact on local drainage, and impact on the proposed three storey buildings;
• the county engineer is content with the traffic arrangements;
• Thames Water has no objections to the drainage and sewerage issues;
• designs have been approved and the number of three storey blocks has been reduced.

Julia Hammett, from North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·           the changes made from the original design are not sufficient;

·           the consultation has not been adequate;

·           the site is not sustainable, there are inadequate facilities;

·           potential traffic problems;

·           potential drainage and sewerage problems.

Alan Cook (Bovis Homes Limited), the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           the applicant has worked to address the objectors’ concerns;

·           the applicant has undertaken a landscape and visual impact survey;

·           the application includes 40 percent affordable housing.

Councillor Debby Hallett, one of the ward councillors, spoke about the application. The points she raised included the following:

·           Bovis Homes have changed their plans in response to residents’ concerns and have improved the layout and design of the application site.

Councillor Eric Batts, one of the ward councillors, spoke about the application. The points he raised included the following:

·           he was still concerned about drainage and traffic.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           there are significant s106 contributions to schools and medical facilities;

·           discussions with Oxford City Council are still ongoing, but there will not be a skyline impact from the city centre;

·           the application site is subject to a three year time limit;

·           conditions need to be redone to include slab levels and boundaries.

·            

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission subject to:

1. The completion of the consultation period on the amended plans

2. Conditions as follows:

1. TL3 – time limit – reserved matters;
2. approved plans;
3. MC3 – materials in accordance with application;
4. LS2 – Landscaping implementation;
5. HY6 – access and parking in accordance with plan;
6. the development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with chapter 7 of the protected species survey report produced by diversity (dated august 2012) and the method statement for bat migration produced by diversity (dated December 2012) in all respects. any variation shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before such change is made;
7. communal recycling and refuse bins shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 410.

The officer presented the report on an application for the proposed erection of two houses and associated parking and landscaping. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           There had originally been an application for 4 smaller houses on this plot.

 Andi Cunninham, from Longcot Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·           the parish council had been in favour of the previous application for four smaller houses which would have been more accessible to local young people: these two bigger houses would not be so accessible.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           the committee were sympathetic to the points raised by parish councillor Andi Cunningham, however, it was only able to consider applications before it, and not potential alternatives.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 1; abstentions 4)

To grant planning permission subject to:

1.         commencement three years - full planning permission;

2.         approved plans;

3.         sample materials required (all);

4.         HY3 - visibility splays (access) (full);

5.         LS1 - landscaping scheme (submission) (full);

6.         LS2[L] - landscaping scheme (implement) (full);

7.         MC9 - building details (full);

8.         MC22 - contamination (full);

9.         MC24 - drainage details (surface and foul) (full);

10.      MC25 - drainage details (surface water) (full);

11.      RE2 – PD restriction on dwels. exten/outbld;

12.      RE11 - garage accommodation (full);

13.      RE17 - slab levels (dwellings) (full);

14.      HY6[I] - access, park. & turn. in accord. plan.

The officer presented the report on an application for the erection of four new dwellings and the demolition of an agricultural barn on the land at Marfield, Kingston Lisle. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           There had been a previous refusal on the same site in May 2013.

Richard Atkins, from Kingston Lisle Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           the parish council were supporting the application as this application site was as close to infill development as it was possible to achieve in Kingston Lisle;

·           the existing site was unattractive and did not enhance the village;

·           the parish council wished to attract families to the village.

Nick Shipp, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           the application site was sustainable;

·           the proposal was heavily supported by local people.

Councillor Roger Cox, read a statement from Councillor Yvonne Constance the ward councillor, who was in favour of the application as it was locally supported and would attract families to the village.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           building on this site was considered to be ribbon development when the committee refused it in May, the situation had not changed since then;

·           the committee acknowledged local support for the proposals.

RESOLVED (for 9; against 5; abstentions 0)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.         Outside the main village boundary – The proposal site does not form part of the main village proper, and is also not ‘infill, with no frontage to extend. Therefore the creep of ribbon development proposed is not considered acceptable in this location. Contrary to local plan policies H12 and H13 and paragraph 55 of NPPF.

2.         Not a mix of accessible homes – the type and mix of the dwelling proposed would not add choice or widen opportunity to the area. Policy H12 (at para 8.57) makes allowance for “…small dwellings….not overly large…three bedrooms…”. This is not the case in this application, therefore it is contrary to local plan policies H12 and H13 and paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

3.         Not a sustainable location – Kingston Lisle has only limited range of facilities and services available to prospective occupant, therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to local plan policy H13 (at para 8.58) the NPPF, which supports only sustainable development at paragraph 197.

The officer presented the report on an application to vary condition 2 of planning permission P11/V2894, to amend the plan numbers for Plots A and B. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

Julia Hammett, from North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·           scale and mass;

·           breach of original plans;

·           requested strict guidelines for restriction of development rights in the future.

David Wyatt, on behalf of Harcourt Hill Residents’ Association, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           scale and mass;

·           the eaves line is now higher than in the original application;

·           change to the street scene.

Lynne Horne, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Her speech included the following:

·           they were self-builders and were intending to live in the homes;

·           they were advised (by planners) that additional planning permission would not be needed to dig out the basements;

·           the height of the buildings had not changed.

Councillor Debby Hallett, one of the ward councillors, spoke regarding the application. She was aware that all sides in the debate were upset.

Councillor Eric Batts, one of the ward councillors, spoke regarding the application. He made the following points:

·           the basements meant that the properties had a significantly increased footprint;

·           why had the basements not been included in the original application?

The committee considered this application in detail, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           was any physical harm caused by the addition of the basements?

·           landscaping should be controlled so that excess fill is removed from the site.

RESOLVED (for 7; against 3; abstentions 4)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans, Site Plan HA-SL-001; Ground Floor Plan 0G-001 rev 3; First Floor Plan 01-001 rev 1; Basement Floor Plan OB-001 rev 3; Front Elevations EL-001 rev 1; Rear Elevations EL-002 rev 3; Plot A Side Elevations EL-003 rev 3; Plot B Side Elevations EL-004 rev 3; Landscape Plans View 1-rev 2, View 2- rev 2 and View 4 – rev 2, except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission.

Reason: To secure the proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies.

2.         Prior to undertaking any site works an amended scheme containing details of both hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include, notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no. HA-SL-001: car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; retaining walls and boundary treatment; and any other hard surfacing materials, which shall be constructed so as to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway and retained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 413.

The officer presented the report on an application to construct a new detached dwelling. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

Daniel Scharf from Drayton Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           weight should be given to the emerging local plan, and emerging neighbourhood development plan where consistent;

Charles McMahon, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Richard Webber, the ward councillor, spoke about the application. He also felt that the emerging neighbourhood plan should be taken into consideration.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           emerging local plans have very limited weight;

·           outline permission was given last year for this site.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         commencement 3 years – full planning permission;

2.         approved plans;

3.         samples of externally materials to be submitted for approval;

4.         details of surface and foul drainage to be submitted for approval;

5.         details of access to be submitted for approval;

6.         parking and manoeuvring areas constructed as per plan and retained;

7.         garage accommodation to the retained and not adapted for other purposes;

8.         boundary details to be submitted for approval.

The officer presented the report on an application for the erection of a two storey side extension (as amended by plans received 29 August 2013) ( as amplified by additional information received by email dated 10 September 2013.) Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·                None.

Stephen Taylor, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           the applicant would be happy to widen the driveway to accommodate parking for more cars, if necessary.

Councillor Woodford, one of the ward councillors, spoke about the disadvantages of the application.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·           there had been no neighbour objections to the scheme.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1. commencement 3 years - full planning permission;
2. approved plans;
3. matching materials;
4. use of extension shall remain ancillary and not separated from main dwelling;
5. no windows or openings at first floor level in north-east side elevation;
6. drainage details (surface and foul) to be submitted for approval.

The officer presented the report on an application for an attached two bedroomed dwelling and sub-division of plot. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

Gill Beames, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Her speech included the following:

·           the application was in keeping with the street scene;

·           there were other “out of character” extensions close by;

·           the applicant did not feel that she had received adequate support from the planning department in making the proposed scheme acceptable.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons;

1.         That the shape and size of the plot and its location on the end of the terrace, the proposed development would appear cramped and out of keeping with the character of the area, contrary to policies DC1 and H10 of the adopted Vale of White Horse local plan;

2.         The site is within flood zone 3 and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development is acceptable in relation to flood risk. It is therefore contrary to policy DC13 of the adopted Vale of White Horse local plan.

NB. It is acknowledged that refusal reason 2 could be overcome with the submission of appropriate information.

Councillor Anthony Hayward left the meeting for the duration of this item as he is the applicant’s agent.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect staggered single storey garages attached to the existing house. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

Councillor John Amys, one of the ward councillors, spoke to this item. He had no objections to the application.

Councillor Sue Marchant, one of the ward councillors, spoke to this item.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 12; against 0; abstentions 1)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         TL1 - time limit;

2.         RE1 - matching materials;

3.         the garage doors forming part of the proposal shall be roller-type garage doors which do not open over the highway. Thereafter, the garage doors shall permanently remain as a roller-type door;

4.         RE11 - garage accommodation;

5.         approved plans.

Councillor Anthony Hayward re-entered the meeting.

The officer presented the report on an application for a single storey rear extension. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

·           None.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         approved plans- that the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans;

2.         materials- the development shall be built using only the external materials specified on the forms and/or shown on the approved drawings the subject of this planning permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority;

3.         time limit - the development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.

The officer presented the report on an application to erect a two bedroom flat above an existing car park. Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

One additional letter of objection had been received, re-stating concerns addressed in the report.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate.

RESOLVED (for 14; against 0; abstentions 0)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.         TL1 – time limit – full application;

2.         development to be buillt in accordance with the approved plans;

3.         MC2 – submission of material samples;

4.         MC9 – submission of building details including windows and doors;

5.         MC24 – submission of drainage details – foul and surface;

6.         LS1 – submission of landscaping details including hard surfacing;

7.         LS2 – implementation of landscaping details;

8.         HY3 – submission of plan showing visibility splays at the site access;

9.         RE11 – parking spaces underneath to be retained as such;

10.      submission of bin storage details.