Agenda item

The Officers highlighted that concern had been expressed regarding traffic, traffic congestion and on street parking. However, the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal. In addition it was highlighted that this site was outside the flood plain.  Officers had consulted the Environment Agency on the application, which had responded stating that there was a low environmental risk and that it was not prepared to comment any further.  Finally, it was commented that the Officers considered the proposal acceptable for the reasons explained in the report.

Helen Wigginton made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the proposed development had been rejected by Abingdon Town Council; she represented 26 householders in the surrounding area; the Committee should take into account the strength of local feeling against the application; a petition signed by 16 residents against the proposal was handed in; there was the risk of flooding to new and existing houses; it was likely to flood again; the buildings would increase the chance of flooding; the area for absorption of rainwater could be reduced by 44%; the proposal was within metres of the flood zone; she questions the suitability of building on this site; how drainage and sewage water would be dealt with had not been detailed; the sewer and storm drainage needed modernising; there would be an increase in traffic; she had concern for pedestrian safety particularly school children; the access and traffic would be dangerous; there would be on street parking; Members should visit the site prior to determining the application; the noise from traffic would be considerable; there would be an adverse impact on wildlife; there had already been a loss of trees; it was agreed that there was a need for more affordable housing but not on this site; there was a need to maintain the character and integrity of the area; the proposal amounted to over development of the site; and the proposal was set a precedent for similar development elsewhere.

Wendy Harrison had given notice that she wished to speak objecting to the application but she declined to do so.

Victoria Butterworth the applicant’s agent had given notice that she wished to speak but she declined to do so.

One of the local Members spoke against the application raising concerns regarding the potential flood risk and concern that three additional dwellings would increase the risk of flooding due to increases surface water run off. It was noted that although the site was outside the flood zone it was located near the area most affected by flooding. He expressed surprise at the Environment Agency’s comments and suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable further clarification to be sought.

Another local Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding highway safety and increased traffic. She stated that she had concerns regarding pedestrian safety in particular and noted that this was a busy area in terms of parked vehicles, traffic and traffic congestion.  She referred to the number of school children in the area whom were being encouraged to cycle and walk to school near this busy corner and commented that the proposal would increase highway danger. Furthermore, she was concerned regarding vehicles accessing onto Sellwood Road on this busy corner and she was amazed at the County Engineer’s comments.  She suggested that confirmation of the highway comments should be sought.

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    There were concerns regarding the number of bedrooms and whether this would increase the number of vehicles per household and therefore the County Engineer’s comments.  However the Officers report that the CountyEngineer would have made a judgement regarding the size of buildings compared to what was around and would have estimated the number of bedrooms based on that.

·                    There was some concern regarding the lack of information about the design and whether there would be rooms in the roof.  The Officers explained that these were matters which would be dealt with at the reserve matters stage included the eaves height.

·                    An assurance from the Officers was sought that if parking issues arose at the reserve matters stage then the Committee would be able to control them.  The Officers reported that the Committee was being asked to agree a 2 storey and a 1 storey building but that there could be rooms in the roof space.  Parking was issue at this stage and it appeared that it would not be easy to accommodate more parking on this site.

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·                    The Environment Agency did not object to the proposal.

·                    A condition to address drainage was proposed.

·                    The CountyEngineer had already commented and raised no objection in terms of highway safety.

·                    The distances proposed were in accordance with design guidance. 

·                    The strength of feeling against the application was not a material planning consideration.

·                    There was no reason to refuse the application.

·                    There would be no over dominance as one of the dwelling proposed was to be a bungalow.

·                    There would be some overlooking but this was common when houses were back to back.

·                    The site was only a haven for wildlife as the owners had not cut back the grass.  It was just a normal garden. 

·                    There was some sympathy for the concerns of residents but the views of the County Engineer were clear and therefore an independent second opinion was suggested although this was not supported.

The scale and layout of the dwellings were explained it being reported that there would be no direct overlooking.

One Member suggested that an informative should be added to any permission stating that notwithstanding the illustrative drawings; the full application must be sensibly designed having regard to the limited parking on site.  However, this was not supported but instead a condition was agreed to prevent rooms in the roof space.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20606-X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further condition preventing the use of he roof space for additional accommodation.