Agenda and minutes

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

The chairman gave housekeeping announcements, outlined the procedure and explained the remit of the committee. The business would be heard in the order presented on the speakers’ list. (The minutes reflect the order in which business was heard to provide a continuous narrative of the meeting, rather than the agenda order).

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 notified.

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

The latest figures were attached to the agenda and noted by the committee.

The final status column needs further updating, and all members were asked to contact the planning department with any updates of which they were aware.

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.

Apologies were received from councillors Aidan Melville, Sandy Lovatt and Helen Pighills. Councillor Tony de Vere substituted for Helen Pighills.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 24 April 2013 (circulated separately). 

The minutes of the last meeting were not available and would be circulated for the following meeting.

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

Pecuniary disclosable interests

None.

Other declarations

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.

Demolition of 110 Milton Road and erection of 34 dwelling houses with associated access.

Recommendation: To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, to grant planning permission subject to:

1.    Completion within a month’s period of a drainage strategy to address the water infrastructure issues relating to the site, together with a clear and quantified timescale for the implementation of any works required under the drainage strategy, in agreement with Thames Water, to ensure that all such works are completed prior to the commencement of development on the site within the 12 month period.

2.    Completion, within the agreed planning performance agreement period, of relevant section 106 agreements.

3.    Conditions, referenced in the officer’s report.

The officer presented his report on an application to demolish 110 Milton Road and to erect 34 dwelling houses with associated access. 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. This is a five year land supply exception site.

Updates from the report

·       A further two letters of objection had been received, reiterating the points raised by other objectors.

·       The drainage engineer has removed the holding objection (para 3.13).

·       Thames Water had confirmed that the necessary drainage works could be completed within 12 months of the grant of planning permission.

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

·           Too many houses for the village.

·           Site not previously considered acceptable by Vale of White Horse District Council.

·           The site is not sustainable: there is inadequate infrastructure, including for foul and surface drainage and highways.

Kevin Nicholls, the next door neighbour, spoke objecting to the application.

He explained to the committee how much stress the application had caused him and his wife.

Pauline Wilson, from Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural, spoke objecting to the application, her concerns included the following:

·       This was not a sustainable location due to lack of infrastructure.

·       The campaign group were disputing the highways officer’s report and were awaiting their own highways report.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework stated that housing should enhance a locality, and this proposal would not enhance the locality but rather, detract from it.

John Ashton, West Waddy ADP, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·           Sutton Courtenay was the fourth most sustainable village in the Vale.

·           The Oxfordshire County Council scheme would reduce traffic speeds in the area by 7 mph.

·           No evidence of flooding had so far been found in the area.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·           The application had caused a high level of anger and emotion amongst the locals.

·           Sutton Courtenay has taken more than its fair share of new housing in the village.

·           Sutton Courtenay already has two power stations in the village: one on a Greenfield site.

·           The application should be withdrawn or delayed to look into the conditions and issues further and to allow time for further consultation.

·           Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural should be involved in consultations.

The committee considered this application, during the discussion the following points were raised:

·       The affordable housing is clustered in one corner of the site, with its own access road, this is not policy compliant as it should be “pepper potted” round the site, but is in accordance with the wishes of the registered social landlord who will be managing the site.

·       Thames Water will be carrying out an impact study which should take six weeks to complete and should be available on 1 June 2013.

·       Keep Sutton Courtenay Rural had commissioned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269.

Erection of 98 residential dwellings with associated open space, structural landscaping and access. (Amended plans received 20 February 2013).

Recommendation:To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.    Completion, within the agreed planning performance agreement period, of relevant section 106 agreements.

2.    Conditions, referenced in the officer’s report.

The officer presented his report on an application to erect 98 dwellings with associated open space, structural landscaping and access. 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 ecologist has removed their objection as the issues raised in paragraphs 6.26 and 6.27 of the report concerning the protection of biodiverse habitats have been resolved.

Brian Forster from Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·           Over development.

·           Unsustainable location.

·           Increased road pressure.

·           Last significant open space in the village.

·           Inadequate consultation with villagers.

·           21 dwellings per hectare are too dense for this village.

Terry Gashe,  on behalf of a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       The proposed development is developer and land owner led and is not looking at the effect on the village as a whole.

·       The proposal is unsustainable, disproportionate and would be detrimental to village life.

·       There has been a 27 percent increase in development in the village over a two year period.

·       Access is from Draycot Road which already serves more than 200 houses and the proposal will result in more than the county council guideline number for a road of this type.

Steven Sensecall (Kemp and Kemp), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·       Schools and other facilities will be within walking distance of the new development.

·       Some land will be gifted to the parish council to extend open land round the village hall.

Councillor Melinda Tilley, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points she raised included the following:

·       Highways: the feeder road is already inadequate and the proposed development will make the problem worse.

·       She was concerned about the cumulative effect of all the developments recently given permission.

The committee considered this application, this included the following points:

·       The majority of recent development has been in towns rather than in rural areas.

·       Concerns were raised about the traffic volumes which will be generated on the feeder road.

·       Officers clarified the Thames Water issues: a scheme will be paid for by the developer to ensure adequate water supply and Thames Water confirm that it can be achievable within the life of the consent,

·       There will be no medical facilities.

·       Noise from the road is likely to cause a constant drone on the site.

·       Mitigation needed to protect privacy in bedrooms of house/s nearest the bridge.

·       The village plan is not part of the development plan. When the new neighbourhood plans are in place they will form part of the development plan, until then the council is guided by the NPPF.

·       No provision has been sought on broadband provision as this is a county council led strategy.

RESOLVED (for 7; against 4; abstentions 1)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

Proposed development of 28 dwellings, including affordable housing, new access, landscaping and associated works.

Recommendation: To authorise head of planning, in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission, subject to:

1.    The completion of section 106 obligations with the Vale and Oxfordshire County Council

2.    Conditions, referenced in the officer’s report

If the required section 106 obligations are not completed in a timely manner so that planning permission cannot be granted by the determination deadline of 20 May 2013; then it is recommended to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to refuse planning permission.

The officer presented his report on an application for the proposed development of 28 dwellings, including affordable housing, new access, landscaping and associated works. 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

·       Attenuation pond due to be constructed.

·       Additional information had been submitted by the applicants.

·       The arboricultural officer is now content.

·       Applicants have submitted additional information on the changes in levels.

·       Housing officer is now content with amended mix of affordable housing.

Guy Wakefield, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

·       Three surveyors had agreed that the land is unlikely to be viable as an employment site.

Councillor Roger Cox, one of the ward councillors, spoke in favour of the application. The points he raised included the following:

·       To ensure that the roads are wide enough.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 0; abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman, vice-chairman and the local member/s, to grant planning permission subject to:

i) the completion of section 106 obligations with the Vale and Oxfordshire County Council, to secure 40% affordable housing, financial contributions towards the education, the local library, youth services, social services, waste management, the county museum, maintenance of public open space, and for waste bins, street nameplates and public art; and

ii) conditions, including external materials, slab levels, details of access and parking, landscaping, works to protect trees, boundary treatments, details of surface water drainage, and a Grampian-style condition for foul water drainage, attenuation pond. (Drainage schemes to be completed prior to first occupation).

If the required section 106 obligations are not completed in a timely manner and so planning permission cannot be granted by the determination deadline of 20 May 2013, it is recommended that authority to refuse planning permission is delegated to the head of planning in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman.

Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of nine dwellings in total.

Recommendation:To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure financial contributions to offset the impact of the development on social and physical infrastructure and subject to conditions referenced in the officer’s report.

The officer presented his report on an application to demolish existing dwelling and garage and erection of nine dwellings. 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.

Mr Frost, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·       He wanted the slab levels lowered to mitigate the effect of the development on neighbours.

·       Removal of permitted development rights.

·       Inadequate visitors parking.

·       Need for greater area of permeable surfaces.

A statement was read out by Dr Williams objecting to the application.

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

The committee considered this application. And during the course of the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       The developers have agreed with the neighbours to lower the slab levels.

·       The county highways engineer is happy with the parking.

·       Permeable surfaces are covered by condition 6.

RESOLVED (for 11; against 0; abstentions 0)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure financial contributions to offset the impact of the development on social and physical infrastructure and subject to the following conditions:

1.    TL1 - Time limit.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    MC3 - Materials in accordance with application.

4.    HY6 - Access, parking & turning in accordance with specified plan.

5.    MC24 - Drainage details (surface and foul).

6.    MC29 - Sustainable drainage scheme.

7.    RE7 – Boundary details in accordance with specified plan.

8.    RE17 - Slab levels (dwellings).

9.    Landscaping in accordance with specified plan.

10. Tree protection measures.

Outline application for erection of two detached dwellings.

Recommendation: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions referenced in the officer’s report.

The officer presented the report on an application to demolish existing dwelling and garage and erect of nine dwellings. 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.

Terry Gash, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

·       He wants to build sustainable eco housing, dealing with its own foul drainage if possible.

Councillor Fiona Roper, one of the ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee considered this application.

RESOLVED (for 10; against 1; abstentions )

Grant outline planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Approved plans.

2.    Commencement – One year from outline planning permission or 3 months from the grant of final reserved matter, which must be submitted within 6 months from outline.

3.    Surface water details prior to commencement.

4.    Drainage and sewage strategy details to be submitted prior to commencement.

5.    Parking, means of access, visibility splays to be approved by OCC highways.

6.    Boundary details to be approved.