Agenda item

(Councillor Derek Rawson had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration).

It was reported that following the Agenda despatch, a further four letters of representation had been received, three of which had been circulated to Members of the Committee.  The letters of representation received were as follows:-

Dr P Hawtin, Chairman of Cumnor Parish Council

Dr Hawtin referred to the statement made by Mr J Phillcox, the applicant’s agent, to the last meeting of the Development Control Committee, in which he stated that the amended plans had been discussed with the Parish Council.  Dr Hawtin advised that the amended plans had never been shown to the Parish Council prior to their submission to the Vale Planning Department and asked that this factual error be drawn to the attention of the Committee.   Furthermore, Dr Hawtin further advised that there was considerable surprise within the Parish regarding resolution (b) of the draft Minute relating to this application, in that it was the recollection of those parishioners present at the meeting on 8 January that the acceptance of the principle of development, including the demolition of 40 Cumnor Hill was never formally put to the meeting.

Mr J Rees – 36 Cumnor Hill

Mr Rees made reference to his statement made at the last meeting objecting to application CUM/8320/1 advising that he did not feel that his remarks had been adequately covered in the draft Minute.

Mr R Whitlock – 26A Cumnor Hill

Mr Whitlock expressed concern that the reasons for refusal before the Committee did not cover all of the objections to the proposal and sought the support of the Committee to support the additional reasons suggested by Councillor Derek Rawson.  The additional reasons related to damage to the character of the area, harm to the Badger habitat and the established wildlife corridor and the adverse impact of the proposed development on properties in Third Acre Rise.

The fourth letter of representation concerned the accuracy of the draft Minute in respect of resolution (b) and the Committee’s decision to accept the principle of development, including the demolition of 40 Cumnor Hill.  The letter requested that the draft Minute be amended by the deletion of resolution (b).

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the suggested reasons for refusal as outlined in the report were considered by the Officers to accurately reflect the Committee’s concerns expressed in the resolution to refuse the application at the last meeting of the Committee.

The Committee noted an amendment to the draft Minute with the insertion of the words “It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Richard Gibson and” at the start of the final paragraph of the preamble.  In respect of resolution (b), Councillors Jerry Patterson, Richard Gibson and Terry Cox each confirmed that this had formed part of the proposition put to the Meeting and voted upon.  In this regard, the Committee confirmed that the draft Minute, as amended above, was an accurate record of the debate and the decision taken.

One of the local Members present at the meeting expressed the view that the Committee should only have considered the Officer report and either approved or refused the application.  Referring to the suggested reasons for refusal, he sought to expand the reasons to include defining the established character of Cumnor Hill and an additional reason regarding the impact on a Badger sett on the site and the wider established wildlife corridor.  He also sought to include the impact on the properties in Third Acre Rise in draft refusal reason Number 2.

In response, the Development Control Manager explained that it was not necessary to precisely define the character of the area, as this would be clearly explained at any appeal hearing that might be held.  In respect of the impact on the Badger sett, he explained that in the absence of an objection from Natural England, the Committee was unable to use this as a reason for refusal and to do so would be unreasonable.

Another Member referred to increased noise disturbance from vehicles entering the site and enquired whether this was covered by Policy DC9 in the second reason for refusal.  In response the Principal Planning Officer advised that increased noise had not formed part of the Committee’s resolution to refuse the application and DC9 in this instance referred to the harm to amenities relating to overshadowing, over dominance and overlooking.   Furthermore, any reason used in respect of noise disturbance would need to be supported by a report from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

It was proposed by the Chair and by 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/8320/1 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.