Agenda item

The Officers reminded Members of the drainage issues in this particular locality reporting that to attempt to overcome this problem, the applicant had been in correspondence with Thames Water, which had agreed in principle that the same level of foul sewage could be discharged from the site to the public sewer as was discharged in respect on the previous timber yard use, which had been calculated to equate to 31 dwellings.

The applicant has suggested that condition 12 be amended as set out in paragraph 1.5 of the report.  However, for the reasons given in the report, Officers did not consider this would be acceptable and had therefore suggested the wording at paragraph 5.6 of the report.

It was reported that the plan attached to the report was an amended plan to that which had been originally submitted.  However, it had been received too late for the text of the report to be amended to reflect this.  It was explained that the plan highlighted a different allocation of the 31 units.  The differences between the 2 plans was explained it being noted that the original scheme had proposed 31 units across the front of the site and had included 5 affordable units.  The revised plan now provided for 22 affordable units and notwithstanding the comments made at paragraph 5.15 of the report, therefore addressed concerns expressed on the requirement of affordable units being provided at a greater level within the allocated 31 dwellings.

Further to the report, it was commented that the Parish Council had raised a further objection on the basis that this plan had not been subject to consultation.  The Parish Council had commented that the plan was an amendment to the planning application and that it should have been notified and given time for consultation. The Parish Council understood that there was to be little/no landscaping associated with the development of 31 dwellings and as there was nothing in the report regarding landscaping, it had concluded that the dwellings would be in an area resembling a flattened bomb site.  The Parish Council was not content that it had been given no time to consider the implications of the 31 dwellings being built in the proposed area along the NE boundary whereas it had been aware of the proposed position of the 31 dwellings in the plan included in the Glanville report for CUM/80/35 (Option D).  It was reported that the Parish Council wished the Committee to be made aware that Cumnor Parish Council considered the inclusion of Appendix 1 as an amendment to CUM/80/32 and that it should have been notified and given time for consultation.

However, the Officers reported that they did not believe that the change in the specified units was so material as to warrant further consultation.  It was explained that the plan had been submitted by the applicant in an attempt to address concerns raised over the affordable housing provision, even though there was no requirement under the existing permission for them to build the affordable units on a pro rata basis.  Furthermore there is no requirement under the extant consent for the developer to build out the site in a particular way.  In the light of this, Officers did not see a need for further consultation on this amended plan.

It was reported that in respect of landscaping, this was covered by condition 3 of the reserved matters which required the developer to submit a scheme for approval prior to the commencement of development.  Again there was no requirement in this condition for landscape works to be carried out on a pro rata or phasing basis, and as such Officers considered that it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and impractical to place such a restriction on the development above that which had already been agreed under this condition.

For the avoidance of doubt, Officers brought to Members’ attention that the removal of condition 10 and the variation of condition 12 did not negate the requirements of the other conditions imposed on the outline permission and the reserved matters approval.  It was explained that the applicant still needed to discharge those prior to the commencement of work on the 31 units.  This included the discharge of condition 11 on the outline permission which required a scheme for surface water drainage to be agreed.

Finally, the Officer recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Vanessa Cheel made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council advising that the Parish Council took the responsibility of commenting on applications seriously. It had talked to parishioners and the comments made had been on the option A plans, which were different to those presented this evening. She stated that consideration of the application should defer until everyone had had an opportunity to look at the amended plans on which a decision was being made.  She considered that work on site should not commence until such time as a foul drainage scheme had been approved beforehand and all works had been completed and any scheme was functioning completely.  She referred to the need for closure of the library due to foul water drainage problems.  She expressed the parish Council’s worry that there was no control of surface water run off and that a scheme in this regard needed to be approved.  She stated that removal of condition 10 would lessen the Council’s control and she had genuine concerns regarding surface water capacity.  She stated that in her brief view of the plans this evening it would appear that another infrastructure report was needed.  Finally, she asked for consideration of the application be deferred.

Mr Thomson made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that condition 10 should be updated rather than removed; it was considered that because of the new sewage arrangements the proposal should be treated as a separate development; the location of 31 units should be subject to the acceptance of the original conditions, (site working and site health and safety matters were emphasised); there was a preference for 35 rather than 31 units as shown in phase 1; the new plan showed 31 units but in 3 separate blocks which was not acceptable; the application should be deferred to enable comments; and condition 10 should be updated to preserve the intent of original application.

Mr Bremmer made a statement objecting to the application commenting that there were serious problems with the sewage in the area and that there should be a plan B.

One of the local Members agreed with the comments of the Officers noting that it was not possible to decide where the developer wanted to start and what it wanted to do. He disagreed that more consultation was necessary and highlighted that condition 11 covered drainage and surface water run off.  He did not considered that there was anything to consult on noting that development could not commence until a number of conditions were discharged.  However, he considered that an informative should be added requiring a landscaping scheme as some houses would be sited in advance of other houses. 

Other Members noted the views of the Parish Council but disagreed that the application should be deferred.  It was considered that it was known what was proposed.

Reference was made to a discrepancy in the plans with one showing the garage court as having garages and the other showing parking spaces.  It was noted that open fronted garages were to be fronted and this should be made clear.  To this end it was agreed that an informative should be added although it was noted that the original conditions still applied.

Another local Member spoke in support of the application agreeing that an informative should be added regarding landscaping.

In response to a comment made, the Officers confirmed that there were to be 31 units only and that this was described in the application notwithstanding the detail of the plan.

In response to a comment made regarding the access, it was noted that the

road layout was already approved.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/80/32 be approved subject to the condition set out in the report and informatives (1) stating thata landscaping scheme should be provide as some houses would be sited in advance of other houses and (2) stating that notwithstanding the plans submitted car ports shall be provided and not car parking spaces in respect of the houses adjacent to the houses Hurst Lane.