of the meeting held on 25 February 2009 (ENCLOSURE). (to follow)

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2009 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the redevelopment of the site to provide 26 affordable dwellings, comprising five four-bedroom two storey terrace houses with roof accommodation, and a three storey building comprising four one-bedroom, 15 two-bedroom and two three-bedroom self-contained flats, and the provision of refuse and bicycle stores, ten car parking spaces, and new pedestrian and vehicular access.

Officers submitted an addendum updating their report to take account of the Local Development Framework Core Planning Strategy – Proposed Submission Document, which had been approved by the Council on 2 March 2009.

In response to questions officers explained that the vacant office block on the application site could be re-occupied, in which case it would generate more traffic than the application now being considered, and determined what could replace it. The inspector for the appeal against the previous application had also commented that it had provided too much car parking and consequently the number of parking spaces had now been reduced, with a corresponding increase in the extent of the amenity space.  The applicant had provided evidence that, based on the number of affordable units in the development, there should be 11 parking spaces and they proposed to provide ten, any greater need being met by adequate on-street parking.  Officers recognised that there were differences in the extent of car ownership depending on the nature of tenure of a dwelling, but that was not taken into account in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.  It was suggested that the number of spaces allocated to disabled persons could be reduced from three to two.  There was no information to suggest that commercial vehicles associated with residents’ employment would also be parked within or near the proposed development.  The amenity space in front of the proposed houses was included in the calculation of total amenity space.  A recommended condition would require security aspects of the proposed design to be approved.

Mr John Dodwell, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr John Fleetwood replied on behalf of the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Dodwell were:-

• Only ten parking spaces would be provided which, after deducting those allocated for disabled persons, would leave just seven for 19 flats and five houses
• One parking space was allocated for each of the five houses, leaving just two for the 19 flats
• A disproportionate amount of space had been allocated for the bicycle store
• The nearest on-street parking was in Leechcroft Road
• The amenity space for the houses was 20m² less than was required
• The inspector for the appeal against the previous application had agreed that even if the minimum standard was met it would not overcome the poor level of amenity space

The principal issues raised by Mr Fleetwood were:-

• The proposal would provide 100% affordable housing for one of the Council’s registered social landlords
• The objections to the application needed to be examined critically
• 1,047 additional housing units would be required in each of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above outline application to determine access and layout for a two storey dwelling with car parking facilities, and the provision of a car port for the donor dwelling.

Officers made two corrections to their report: the distance between the proposed and the donor dwellings would be 10.5 metres and not 7.5 metres; and the reference to the bungalow under the section dealing with sustainability measures should refer to the house.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Terry Faulds.

Councillor Terry Faulds, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33 and the applicant, Mr Les Whitehouse, replied.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Faulds were:-

• The proposal represented only a small improvement on the previously refused application
• The over-riding reason for refusal was that the application was out of keeping with nearby properties and the area of special local character
• The proposed dwelling would be too close to the donor dwelling
• The proposal was only possible because there would be no garage for the donor dwelling
• No other properties in the area had a front to back relationship
• The amenity space suggested that it would not comply with policy B4, and would be wholly out of keeping with the area
• Loss of privacy because of the proximity of the donor dwelling
• The difficulty in enforcing the retention of obscure glazing in the donor dwelling
• Over-development

In response to questions Councillor Faulds said that the rear garden of the proposed dwelling would be significantly smaller than others in the area, but a member suggested that there would not be a significant difference between the rear garden of the proposed dwelling and those at Nos. 61-67 Great Woodcote Park.

The principal issues raised by Mr Whitehouse were:-

• It was the officers’ view that the proposal would be in keeping with the area of special local character
• The plot size of Nos. 61-67 Great Woodcote Park was, on average, 300m² and the proposed plot would be 375m²
• The average width of plots on the nearby Goldcrest estate was 10m, and plots opposite the application site had widths of 10m, 13.5m and 18.5m
• The width of the proposed plot would be 15m
• The proposed plot would be larger than others in the area, with the exception of the immediate neighbour
• Planning permission had been granted seven years previously for No.47 Great Woodcote Park, where the plot width was 13m
• The car port for the donor dwelling would have an opaque roof to maintain light to adjoining ground floor windows
• First floor front windows on the donor dwelling would be obscure glazed
• The officers’ report stated that car parking provision should be kept to a minimum

In response to a question Mr Whitehouse stated that the plot width of the donor dwelling would be 8m at the highway.

Some members noted that the donor dwelling was in a unique situation, and believed that the proposal was not unacceptable and that it would not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report seeking confirmation of the above tree preservation order.  The order had been made on 9 October 2008 to protect two mature yew trees along the northern boundary in the rear garden of 11 Park Hill.  By virtue of Section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the order had taken immediate effect and had to be confirmed within six months.

It was claimed that the Council had given permission to remove the two yew trees in 1999, but the work had not been undertaken.  The trees had been the subject of a previous order in 2008 that had lapsed and the current order had superseded the previous order.  The trees that were the subject of the order had been assessed against their condition, remaining longevity and public visibility, and were considered to have a high public amenity value.

The objections to the order that had been received and the Council’s response to them were reported.

In response to questions officers explained that, whilst a tree preservation order did not preclude work on the trees in future, it was difficult to prune the canopy of yew trees and retain their amenity value, but that some minor work might be possible.

Mr James Angus, the owner of the property, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.

The principal issues raised by Mr Angus were:-

• Permission to remove the trees had been granted in 1999 but the work had not been carried out because of cost
• The trees were within ten feet of the rear of the property and their branches overhung the property
• The trees dropped large quantities of seed casings
• The drains of the property were under an extension and inaccessible
• The drains had been blocked three weeks previously
• Permission had been given to remove a larger damaged tree
• The trees caused extensive shade and ground water take-up
• There were other large trees in the garden and it was felt that the removal of the two yew trees was justified

In response to questions Mr Angus claimed to have a letter confirming that he had been given permission to remove the two yew trees in 1999, although the Council’s records did not show that.  Officers explained that, nevertheless, the circumstances were now different and the trees were larger.  Mr Angus estimated that the size of the yew trees had increased by one fifth since 1999.

Members expressed some sympathy for the position of Mr Angus.  They noted the advice of officers regarding the amenity value of the trees and the consequences of carrying out work on them, but that some work might be permitted.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to confirm the tree preservation order was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To confirm

the order (5)            Councillors Moira Butt, Cliff Carter, Janet Lowne, Hamish Pollock and Graham Whitham.

Abstained (4)             Councillors Ian Chapman, Paddy Kane, John Leach and Paul Newman.

Resolved: That tree preservation order No. 2008/010  ...  view the full minutes text for item 244.

To consider scheduling an additional meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 12 August 2009.

The agreed calendar of meetings for 2009/10 provides for three meetings in July, the last being on 29 July, and for the next meeting to be on 16 September.

Resolved: That the Council’s schedule of committee meetings for 2009/10 be amended to include an additional meeting of the Development Control Committee on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 at 7:30 pm.