Agenda and minutes

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

The chairman outlined the procedure for the meeting, asked attendees to switch off any mobile phones, and highlighted the emergency exit procedure. 

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.

The committee noted the latest cumulative housing figures. 

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 committee received apologies for absence from Councillor Sue Marchant; Councillor Richard Webber attended as her substitute. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 18 September 2013 (circulated separately). 

RESOLVED: to adopt as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 18 September 2013 and agree that the chairman signs them.  

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

No councillor declared any disclosable pecuniary interests.  However, other interests were declared as follows: 

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.

None

Erection of 150 dwellings and related works pursuant to outline permission ref: P07/V0741/O.

Recommendation

To approve the reserved matters application, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on a reserved matters application for 150 dwellings and related works on land north-east and north-west of Tilbury Lane, Botley.  The proposed housing mix was one, two, three and four bedroom units, 60 of which would be affordable homes, distributed across the site in three clusters.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. 

Updates to the report

Amended plans had been received in response to consultation responses from the tree officer and landscape officer.  This resulted in the re-positioning of the dwelling and garage at plot 144, together with the garden levels of plots 130 to 132 being reduced to protect trees along the site boundary.  The cycle / footpath link to Hazel Road had been adjusted and there were new footpath links within the site along the southern end of Tilbury Lane.  In response to representations regarding air pollution, the officer reported that council’s environmental protection team had no objections to the application.  A means of securing access along Tilbury Lane would be provided to prevent vehicular access to the housing site but would allow access to the farm to the north of the site.  This was required under a planning condition imposed on the outline application.

Public speakers

The chairman reported that the parish boundary ran along Tilbury Lane, which crossed the proposed housing site, and therefore he had invited both Cumnor and North Hinksey Parish Councils to address the committee for three minutes each. 

Harry Dickinson, from Cumnor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application and requesting its deferral.  His concerns included the following:

·        Lack of communication by the developers with the parish council and local residents

·        Adverse impact of the development on existing local residents

·        Difficulties with the access to the site through Fogwell Road

·        The need for a 20 miles per hour speed limit in Fogwell Road and into the site

·        The need for a routing agreement for construction traffic to avoid Eynsham Road

·        Difficulties with access arrangements to the farm

·        Air quality needed to be within safe limits

Andrew Pritchard, from North Hinksey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·        He wanted the best for local residents, both new and existing

·        Would local services be able to cope with increased demand?

·        The drainage survey details were not available for the public to see

·        There was no construction traffic method statement nor any traffic management plan

·        Traffic would try to access through Tilbury Lane

·        Fogwell Road was an inadequate access to the site

·        The elderly residents in the bungalows needed more protection with additional planting along the boundary

·        North Hinksey Parish Council did not support the transfer of the site to Cumnor parish

·        The footpath to Hazel Road should be extended to Elms Road

Christine Herbert, a neighbouring resident, spoke objecting to the application; her concerns including:

·        Increased traffic on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 429.

Demolition of 110 Milton Road and erection of 34 dwelling houses.

Recommendation

To grant outline planning permission, subject to s106 agreements and conditions.

The officer presented the report on an outline application for the demolition of one dwelling, the erection of 34 new dwellings, together with roads, footpaths, parking areas, landscaping, amenity space, and open space, on land to the rear of 92 to 112 Milton Road, Sutton Courtenay.  The committee had refused an application to develop this site in June 2013.  The applicants had appealed against that decision, the outcome of which was awaited. 

Consultations, representations on this latest planning application, and policy and guidance and this site’s planning history were set out in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. 

Updates to the report

The officer referred to changes to the report and additional information since its publication:

·        Almost 40 per cent of the dwellings proposed would be one or two-bedroomed properties

·        The layout of the site was not a matter for determination at this outline application stage

·        The matters for consideration at this outline stage were the principle of development on this site, means of access, highways arrangements, and drainage

·        Since the committee’s refusal of the previous application on this site in June, there had been a drainage survey at the site.  Three independent drainage engineers had given their opinion that the site was suitable for housing, subject to drainage conditions being attached to the permission

·        Thames Water had presented two sewerage options to the applicant, which had accepted both options

·        Contributions of nearly £0.25 million had been agreed by the applicant towards primary, secondary and sixth form education provision

·        The county highways engineer was content with the traffic calming proposals on Milton Road to slow traffic at the entrance to the village, and was content with the proposed vision splays on leaving the site

Public speakers

David Hignell, from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·        There should be no further development at Sutton Courtenay

·        The parish council questioned the officer’s assessment of Sutton Courtenay being the fourth most sustainable location for housing development in the district

·        The village was plagued by traffic and poor drainage

·        Further development would deteriorate the character and ambiance of Sutton Courtenay village

·        The council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply was not Sutton Courtenay’s fault so why should it suffer with new housing? 

·        The community should benefit from any new development.  Therefore, the applicant should contribute towards sports provision in the village

·        The committee should not approve this application in the fear of an award of costs from losing the planning appeal on the previous application

Harvey Rodder, a professional hydrologist, spoke on behalf of Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural objecting to the application; his concerns included:

·        The drainage report, following a survey by the applicant, contained insufficient detail

·        There were drainage problems at the site with seasonal waterlogging, making it unsuitable for housing development

·        He questioned whether the proposed soak-aways would be sufficient

·        The report had failed to consider the wider impact of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 430.

Proposed dwelling.

Recommendation

To refuse planning permission, for the reasons given in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application for a new dwelling on land to the north of Blackberry Cottage, Westcot Lane, Sparsholt.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. 

Updates to the report

The planning officer reported that further to her report, the proposed development would be visible from vantage points, and the council’s drainage engineer had lodged a holding objection pending further investigation.  As there were no special circumstances to justify this development outside the built up area of the village, the officer recommended that the application was refused but suggested alternative reasons for refusal to those set out in the report.  These related to the unsuitability of the development in the open countryside, the impact on long-range views, and drainage and highway safety grounds. 

Public speakers

Tim Comyn, from Sparsholt Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·        There had been no pre-application discussions with the applicant

·        The proposed development was in an unsustainable location for housing, outside of the village, and as such was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework

·        There were no exceptional circumstances to approve this application

·        It conflicted with the Sparsholt Parish Plan

Graham Williams, the applicant, spoke in favour of his application:

·        There had been a dwelling on the site until the 1950s

·        Sparsholt had a pattern of linear development; this application reflected that

·        The proposal met policies H10 to H13 of the adopted local plan and would help the council meet its five-year housing land supply

·        The access road served a further four homes north of the site

·        There were no highway safety objections from the parish

·        The proposal was designed to fit in with nearby properties

·        The proposal had received widespread village support

Councillor Yvonne Constance, the ward councillor, supported to the application, her concerns included:

·        The application had been supported at a village meeting

·        The proposed dwelling would not impact on any views

·        There had been a house on the site as shown on Ordnance Survey maps of 1877 and 1910

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

·        There was a highways objection

·        The site was in the countryside, outside of the village

·        It was ribbon development, not infill

·        There were no special circumstances to approve this application

·        Despite there being a house on the site up until the 1950s, the fact that there had not been a house there since was tantamount to abandonment of the site for housing; this was not a replacement dwelling

RESOLVED (by 14 votes to nil)

Refusal of planning permission for the following reasons:

1:   In the opinion of the local planning authority, the proposed new dwelling would result in an unsustainable form of development in the open countryside without special or exceptional justification, where there is no alternative mode of transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 431.

Demolish existing garage and replace with a double garage at the bottom of the garden.

Recommendation

To grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application for a replacement garage and workshop on land at Sudelna, Faringdon Road, Southmoor.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.  The planning officer had no updates to her report. 

Public speakers

Roger Papworth, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

• The proposed replacement garage had a higher pitched roof that would be detrimental to the surrounding area, and would dominate the view from his property
• There should be a flat roof on the garage
• There would be a reduction in privacy as there was a window higher up on the gable end; this window should be of frosted glass
• The garage was too large and could be converted into a domestic property

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

·        The proposed garage complied with local plan policy

·        The committee had to determine the proposal submitted and could not change its details to provide a flat roof

·        The window in the gable was to provide light to the garage

·        It was unnecessary to require frosted glass

RESOLVED (by 14 votes to nil)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement 3 years - full planning permission

2 : Approved plans

3 : Materials as on plan

4 : No garage conversion into accommodation

Demolition of existing buildings.Erection of four new houses.

Recommendation

To refuse planning permission, for the reasons given in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application to replace commercial buildings and the commercial use of the site with four dwellings on land at Dropshort Farm, Stowhill, Childrey.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. 

Updates to the report

The planning officer reported that further to his report, the sustainability of Childrey village had been downgraded following the loss of the local bus service.  He also believed that the proposed development of four larger houses on the site was inefficient use of the land and the access road was unsuitable for pedestrians, requiring the residents to rely on a car.  The county highways engineer had also objected as the access road was unsuitable for residential access and was not in the county council’s ownership.  The ownership of the access road was unknown. 

Public speakers

Andrew Winterbourne, from Childrey Parish Council, supported the application. 

Matthew Green, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application:

·        No weight should be given to the emerging local plan.  Only the existing local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework should be taken into account

·        There was a demand for larger homes

·        The proposal fitted in well with Childrey village

·        The proposal would remove ugly industrial buildings

Councillor St. John Dickson, the ward councillor, supported to the application:

·        It would be unreasonable to reject this application

·        Childrey was a sustainable location for such housing development

·        It would help meet housing need

·        The proposed density had been dictated by the developer’s inability to build more than five dwellings off an unadopted road

·        The site was close to the village centre with its shop, school, and village hall

·        There were other village homes further away from the village centre than this site

·        The proposal was welcomed locally due to loss of the hay business

·        Around 176 vehicles used the access road each week, including lorries and cars

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

·        There was no justification to approve any application on the basis of removing ugly buildings

·        The site was outside the village envelope and the proposal was against planning policy

RESOLVED (by 10 votes to 3, with 1 abstention)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.      That, having regard to the isolated nature of the application site, the proposed development would introduce new residential development into a rural location detached from Childrey.  As such, the site is poorly located in terms of access to essential facilities and any new resident would rely heavily on the use of the private car.  As such, the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development that is contrary to the provisions of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, in particular Policies GS2 and H11, and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.      That, having regard to the size of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 433.

Two storey extension at the front and single storey extension at the rear.

Recommendation

To grant planning permission, subject tot conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application for a part single-storey, part two-storey front extension and a single-storey rear extension at 157 Upper Road, Kennington.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.  The planning officer had no updates to the report. 

Public speakers

Martin Feather, from Kennington Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·        The proposed extension was large and domineering

·        It breached the building line along the frontages of Upper Road and would adversely affect other properties 

Stephen Livett, spoke objecting to the application on behalf of the occupiers of 155 and 159 Upper Road.  His concerns included the following:

·        The proposed development would dominate and overshadow the adjacent bungalow

·        The design and scale of the proposed extension were not in keeping with neighbouring properties

·        The rear extension was close to the boundary, resulting in a loss of light and outlook for the neighbour

Alisdair Rogers, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.  He believed:

·        There were larger properties in the vicinity

·        The front extension did not extend beyond the building line and was further from the road than some dwellings

·        The character of the area was variety, not uniformity

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

·        There was insufficient harm to justify refusing the application

RESOLVED (by 14 votes to nil)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement three years

2 : Approved plans

3 : Materials in accordance with application

4 : Car parking to be retained

Replace existing concrete slab decking with wooden decking to same height and incorporate a safety handrail (retrospective). Fit one velux light tunnel.

Recommendation

To grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on a retrospective application for the replacement of concrete slabs with wooden decking, and the erection of a handrail on an existing flat roof terrace, to the rear of 26 Coxwell Street, Faringdon.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.  The planning officer reported that the applicant had also constructed a 2.5 metre high wicker fence to stop overlooking of neighbouring property. 

There were no public speakers. 

The committee supported the application. 

RESOLVED (by 13 votes to nil, with one abstention)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following condition:

1 : Approved plans

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission P12/V2555/FUL.

Recommendation

To grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application to amend a previous permission to allow raised eaves and internal floor height to enable 1800mm internal height clearance, and the addition of two dormer windows, at 155 The Avenue, Kennington.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.  The planning officer had no updates to the report. 

Public speakers

Martin Feather, from Kennington Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.  His concerns included the following:

·        The proposed development was unneighbourly, overdominant and would result in overlooking of neighbouring gardens

The committee supported the application. 

RESOLVED (by 14 votes to nil)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1 : Commencement 3 yrs - full planning permission

2 : Approved plans

3 : MC3 – materials in accordance with approved details / drawings

The generation of hydro electricity from the River Thames using two Archimedes screws. In addition the site will have publicly accessible observation platform and a fish pass in the form of a meandering stream. The land has a public footpath (which will be retained) but it does not currently have any other use. (Re-submission of withdrawn application P12/V2111/FUL)

Recommendation

To grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application to construct a 100 kilowatt hydroelectricity generating facility on the western end of the wier at the River Thames, near Abbey Meadows, Abingdon.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and this site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.  The planning officer reported that there were very special circumstances to approve the application due to the energy generation proposal complying with the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Public speakers

Richard Riggs, spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant:

·        The proposal was to build an archimedes screw to generate renewable energy

·        The facility would be visible for all to see and would have educational value

·        It might attract more visitors to the Abbey Meadows also

·        Most investors were local

·        The facility would belong to the local community

The committee supported the application, noting that the Environment Agency would need to licence the facility also. 

RESOLVED (by 14 votes to nil)

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1 : TL1 - time limit

2 : Approved plans

3 : MC2 – sample materials

4 : No development shall take place until detailed designs of the fish pass have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details before development takes place.

5 : Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until detailed designs of the new foot bridges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed in full prior to the first operation of the hydro facility hereby approved.

6 : Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until detailed designs for all new foot paths have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed in full prior to the first operation of the hydro facility hereby approved.

7 : Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until detailed designs of all cable routes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed in full prior to the first operation of the hydro facility hereby approved.

8 : Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, no development shall take place until detailed designs of all sheet piling and their cappings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed in full prior to the first operation of the hydro facility hereby approved.

9  ...  view the full minutes text for item 437.

None