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.

No apologies for absence were received.

It was noted that Councillors Paul Burton and Mary de Vere were in attendance as local Members.

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.

Councillors declared interests in report 194/07 – 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 welcomed everyone to the meeting and referred members of the public to the leaflets that had been placed on the chairs which explained the procedure for the meeting. He reminded all those attending to switch off their mobile telephones.

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

It was noted that four members of the public had each given notice that they wished to speak regarding the Enforcement Programme Report.

(1)               Mr Gary Bourton Smith

Mr Bourton Smith made a statement in his capacity as Marina Manager of Abingdon Marina. He made the following points with respect to the allegation that the Marina moorings were being used for permanent residential purposes. He advised that there was provision for one residential mooring, for security purposes. He explained that the current residential mooring was used by a boat named “The Green Man”, and that the owners took the boat river cruising as often as they could. He advised that he was in possession of land based addresses for every other boat owner in the Marina.

He commented that it was his belief that one of the Directors of the Resident’s Association had considered that boat owners were not permitted to stay overnight on their boats or for several days. He advised that this was not the case as long as it could be demonstrated that the boat owners had a permanent place of residence elsewhere. He commented that the occupiers of the boats were very quiet and were mindful of their neighbours. He stated that he had invited Mr Boston, the Chairman of AMRA Ltd. to telephone him should he be disturbed by noise from the Marina, however to date he had not received such a call.

He made the point that the Marina was not set up for residential moorings, there were no showers, no hairdryers, no laundry facilities and only two toilets and an elsan disposal point.

With respect to the storage of the small caravan and box trailer in the secure compound, Mr Bourton-Smith advised that the caravan had now been removed. He stated that he did not consider that the box trailer was in breach of any planning permission, given that it sat in the car park, which was designated for cars and trailers. Furthermore, he stated that the trailer was positioned so as to have minimum visual impact.

In respect of the alleged breach of condition regarding the repair and improvement of the access road, he advised that following a recent meeting between himself, planning and enforcement officers and a representative from the county highways authority it had been agreed that the road was now up to an acceptable standard.

With respect to the moored boat extending beyond the western limit of the marina application site, Mr Bourton-Smith agreed that no action should be taken.

The Chair thanked Mr Bourton Smith for his statement.

(2)       Mrs Gail Viney

Mrs Viney spoke in her capacity as a resident of the Marina. She advised that she had lived at the Marina for almost 20 years. She stated that the final scheme which had been approved in 1998 permitted a maximum of 100 boats, equating with the 100 moorings specified in the S106 Agreement. She explained that the amendment of the first scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 368.

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.

Four members of the public had each given notice that they wished to speak at the meeting.  

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:-

CHI/20077/1 - Research Complex at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton

RESOLVED                      

that the following materials be approved: -

A list of forthcoming public inquiries and hearings is presented.

Recommendation

that the report be received.

The Committee received and considered a list of forthcoming inquiries and hearings.

RESOLVED

that the report be received.

To receive and consider report 195/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document, Future Provision.

Introduction and Report Summary

At the meeting of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group held on 22 October 2007 Members considered the Draft Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to its publication for consultation.  At a subsequent meeting of the Strategic & Local Planning Advisory Group Members considered the comments submitted during the consultation process and agreed to amending the SPD as recommended in this report.

This report summarises the comments received during the consultation period and recommends changes to the Supplementary Planning Document prior to its adoption.

The contact officer for this report is Alison Blyth, Principle Planning Officer, telephone (01235) 547633.Email address Alison.blyth@whitehorsedc.co.uk.

Recommendations

(a)         Members recommend to the Executive and to the Council to adopt the Open Space, Sport and Recreation, Future Provision Supplementary Planning Document subject to the changes set out in the appendix to this report.

(b)         the Council to implement the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Document via the Development Control function on planning application for one or more houses  once a project officer is in place.

The Committee received and considered report 195/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document, Future Provision.

It was reported that at the meeting of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group held on 22 October 2007 Members considered the Draft Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to its publication for consultation.  At a subsequent meeting of the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group Members had considered the comments submitted during the consultation process and had agreed to amend the SPD as recommended in this report.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report to the Committee and commented that the main purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document was to enable the Council to secure funds from new developments to mitigate their impact on open space, sport and recreation. She advised that the document had been produced by Officers in conjunction with external consultants.  She commented that a detailed audit of 700 sites had been carried out looking at quality, quantity and accessibility.

One Member highlighted that there were some words missing from page 15 of the document. It was also noted that the document would be going to Council on 16 July 2008, not on the 21 May 2008 as stated.

One Member welcomed the document, stating that in her experience obtaining funds from developers had proven difficult. She advised that in her opinion developers should have to provide the funds up front. Another Member commented that the Vale needed to be proactive and cited an example of where money had been received up front, yet it had taken four years to build a play area using the funds.

RESOLVED (nem com)

(a)         that the Executive be asked to recommend to the Council that it adopts the Open Space, Sport and Recreation, Future Provision Supplementary Planning Document subject to the changes set out in the appendix to report 195/07; and

(b)         that the Executive be asked to recommend to the Council that it implements the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Document via the Development Control function on planning applications for one or more houses  once a project officer is in place.

The Committee received and considered report 194/07 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) detailing planning applications, the decisions for which are set out below.

Applications where members of the public had given notice that they wished to speak were considered first.

In accordance with Standing Order 33, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, Councillor Anthony Hayward left the room during its consideration.

 In accordance with Standing Order 33, having declared a personal interest in this item, the other Members of the Committee remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers confirmed that this application sought permission for the erection of a wooden shed to the rear of Parsonage House, within the conservation area of Goosey. The Committee was shown photographs of the proposed site and it was confirmed that the construction would not be visible from the roadside or nearby open spaces.

By 14 votes to nil, with 1 of the voting Members having left the room, it was

RESOLVED

that application GOO/17829/3 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Officers advised that 8 letters of objection had been received which had raised concerns in respect of parking, sewerage, surface water drainage and loss of privacy and light. It was noted that the Parish Council had also raised objections to the application, details of which could be found in the report.

Mr Sherring made a statement in objection to the proposal, as a resident of a neighbouring property. He raised concerns in respect of loss of privacy as the proposed windows in the attic rooms looked directly into the bedroom windows of neighbouring properties. He was concerned that there was no mention in the plans of the boiler flue or the high voltage cable which cut through the site. He advised that the current application would result in ceiling heights of only 1.8 m, which was low and stated that the site lacked adequate provision for parking.

One Member advised that this application contravened policy H13 as it was effectively three buildings on an infill site and the policy permitted only two. He was also concerned about the visual impact of the development and whether there was adequate parking provision.

The Officer commented that if two properties were built on an infill site, a third could be applied for at a future date which would be considered as one property, which would comply with the policy.

One Member commented that in the plans the rooflights did not appear to be level. The Officer stated that this was a draughtsman’s error, and it was the intention to have them at the same height.  The Member advised that for the sake of clarity it should be conditioned that the rooflights should be at the same height.

Councillor John Woodford proposed that a further condition be added to require the use of permeable surfaces to address the issue of surface water drainage.

By 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application HIN/19721(4) be approved subject to:

(1)               the conditions and informative set out in the report and

(2)                further conditions to require the use of permeable surfaces, and ensure that the rooflights are inserted at the same level.

The Officers reminded the Committee that this application had been considered at its meeting of the 21 April 2008, when it had been resolved to refuse the application with reasons to be agreed at a future meeting.

By 12 votes to 3 it was

RESOLVED

that application ASH/19908/3 be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

In accordance with Standing Order 33, Councillor Angela Lawrence had declared a personal interest in this item and remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Officers advised that the proposal was sympathetic to the street scene. It was confirmed that no objections had been received from the residents of neighbouring properties or the County Engineer and that it was the Officer’s opinion that there would be no harmful impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and overshadowing. However, it was reported that the Town Council had raised concern that the proposal did not have regard to the Council’s guidelines on extensions being subordinate to the existing house.

One Member stated that she was in agreement with the Officer’s recommendations and considered the proposal acceptable.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20415 be approved subject to:

(1)       the conditions set out in the report and

(2)       a further condition to require submission of boundary treatment details.

In accordance with Standing Order 33, Councillor Jerry Patterson, had declared a personal interest in this item and he remained in the room during its consideration.

The Officers reported the receipt of a letter from Councillor Gareth Jennings, who wished his comments to be addressed to the Committee in his absence.

Councillor Jennings had stated that he was concerned by the proposal as it could potentially cause problems for the current residents of the bungalows. He advised that these people had purchased their properties in the knowledge that this was a small close specifically for older people. He considered neighbourhood factions could result should the age restrictions be removed. He stated that it had been a planning condition to introduce the age restriction in the first instance and to remove it would make a mockery of the planning system.

Mr Peter Biggs spoke on behalf of Kennington Parish Council, objecting to the application.  He referred the Committee to the letter which had been written by the Parish Clerk. He advised that allowing the age restrictions to be reduced would result in the current residents leaving their properties. He advised that it was unfair that a group of people were going to be affected because someone could not sell their property.

Mr Peedle spoke on behalf of the residents, objecting to the application. He advised that he objected to the proposed reduction of the age limit. He stated that this property could be sold within the confines of the age restriction if it were marketed properly. He raised concerns over whether there would be adequate parking at the site to encompass younger residents who were more likely to own a car. He commented that there were plenty of residential areas for young people and that this application had taken no account of the needs of the elderly.

Mr Eekelaar, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He advised the Committee that he had had the property valued by a local firm of estate agents. He stated that since November 2006 he had received only one serious expression of interest and subsequently had been advised by the estate agents that but for the age restriction, the property would have easily sold. He reminded the Committee that this was not sheltered accommodation and that government policy would not allow such a condition to be imposed on an application today.

One of the local Members confirmed that this application had come to the Committee at his request. He advised that if the removal of the age restriction was permitted in this case, it would have to be permitted for all of the bungalows. He stated that in his opinion this property could sell within the confines of the age restriction if it were properly marketed. He advised that there had been no problem in selling the properties in the past; however there was evidence of current difficulty in the housing market. He commented that he would very much regret the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 378.

To receive and consider the information relating to;

ABG/742/43-E Builders EDE. Abingdon Boat Marina, South Quay, Abingdon, OX14 5TW.                                                          

(Report to Follow )

The Committee received and considered report 4/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), which drew attention to a number of enforcement issues at Abingdon Marina. In considering this item, the Committee took into account the statements made by members of the public earlier in the meeting. 

The Enforcement Officer advised the Committee that six individual letters of concern had been received between the 9 and 30 April from residents of North Quay, West Quay and Fisherman’s Wharf. He commented that the letters reiterated the concerns raised in the report.

The Officer advised that further to the report 32 letters and 2 emails of support for the Marina Operators had been received. He commented that the letters had mainly been from the owners of boats moored in the Marina, however 5 had been received from residents of the Marina houses. He commented that the boat owners had written from their home addresses which ranged from Abingdon to West Wales. He stated that the sentiment of the letters was that boat owners were satisfied with the operation of the Marina. He advised that the boat owners considered that they contributed to the local economy and were generally welcomed by the District Council. He stated that the letters had raised concerns over the nature of the residents monitoring the use of the Marina, accusing them of covert tactics which they considered to be a breach of their privacy. He advised that some of the letters commented that the writers had never witnessed problems with noise coming from boat owners on the Marina.

He stated that the letters which had been received in support of the operators from the residents had expressed the view that the operators were excellent; Abingdon Marina was one of the best in the country for tidiness and that as members of the Abingdon Marina Residents Association they did not hold the same view as those speaking on their behalf at the meeting.

The Committee considered each matter separately as follows;

(1)               Total number of boats moored in the Marina exceeding the agreed number.

One Member commented that it was a shame that a maximum number of boats had not been explicitly stated when the plans had been approved. She advised that the maximum number of moorings had been specified; however it was possible to attach more than one boat to a mooring. She advised that it would be useful to specify an absolute maximum.

Councillor Paul Burton stated that there was a significant amount of algae on the surface of the water in the Marina and was concerned that there was recently evidence of botulism in the water. He suggested that an environmental survey be carried out in respect of the Marina in order to establish what would be a sustainable level of usage and development.

Officers advised the Committee that an application had been made to vary the terms of the 1998 Section 106 Agreement, and the Committee would have the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 379.

None