Agenda item

Councillor Martin Smith of Abingdon Town Council made a statement objecting to the application. He stated that the plans did not provide adequate space for emergency vehicles, would lead to loss of privacy of neighbouring properties and would lead to loss of light to neighbouring properties. He commented that the plans made inadequate provision for amenity and garden space. He stated that although planning policy H10 provided for efficient use of the land, he did not consider it was appropriate to squeeze properties into small spaces. He raised concern that there was inadequate parking provision for visitors and indeed for the property’s use.

Chris Jones made a statement on behalf of the surrounding households to Chandler’s Close in objection to the application. He also presented a petition to the Committee which contained 52 signatures opposing the plans.

He stated that he opposed this application as strongly as he had opposed the first and reminded the Committee that the previous application had been refused as being unneighbourly, detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties resulting in a harmful and over dominant impact. He advised that it had been noted that this application was for outline consent on the matters of access and layout, wherein it was identical to the previous application. He stated that the proposed changes mainly concerned the reserved matters of scale and appearance which should have no bearing on the council’s decision. He commented that the only change to the layout was a slightly shorter drive to plot 3 with the garage placed behind number 10 Chandlers Close. He commented that this would not reduce the noise nuisance for numbers 8, 9 and 10 and that numbers 7 and 8 would also be affected by noise from the main drive and ground-borne vibration from the proposed rumble strip.

He contended that the site could not accommodate additional housing without an adverse impact on one another, or adjoining properties, in terms of over-dominance, loss of light and privacy. He stated that 7a used storm drains in St Peters Road which were frequently overwhelmed by heavy rain, causing flooding. He added that during 2007, other properties adjoining the site suffered a flood surge that came within inches of their back doors which caused him concern that any further development of this site would result in regular and costly floods.

In respect of access he referred the Committee to the Oxfordshire County Council Road Design Guide which he stated was supposed to ensure safe access to new developments. He commented that the distance from the site entrance to the furthest point on plot 3 exceeded 45 metres which meant that access had to be suitable for fire tenders. He stated that the centreline radius at the entrance and turning head was less than the required 7.8 m which therefore prevented access to fire vehicles in a single movement.

He stated that the long entrance required a passing space but was not wide enough to accommodate one. He raised concern regarding how waste was to be collected and highlighted the problems that the access created, effectively a staggered cross roads which was the wrong orientation and less than 1 carriageway width apart.

Finally he commented that although he recognised that the council may be liable for appeal costs if it decided against the recommendation of officers, he considered a far greater liability would be incurred if the Council approved a proposal that was hazardous and contravened its own guidelines.

The Committee heard a statement from Local Member Councillor Alison Rooke, which was read by the Chair. She expressed concern regarding the lack of room for vehicles to pass, lack of parking provision, the creation of a pinch point at the boundary of the estate and the fact that the building would be domineering. She commented that the current scheme had incorporated minor amendments which did not address previous concerns. She stated that she did not see how the County Engineer had reached his conclusions as she believed that highway safety would be compromised. She was in agreement with Abingdon Town Council’s position and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

One Member commented that in considering the application and whether there were grounds to refuse, he noted that the County Engineer had made no objections, the Principal Drainage Engineer had no objections and the Waste Management Team had no objections. He stated that the plans showed that the application showed a turning circle for emergency vehicles. He commented that the design met with design guidance and did not violate the amenity or space of the other properties.

Another Member stated that the amended plans had an impact on number 10 more than the other neighbouring properties in the garage was now nearer to number 10 and the traffic still took the same route.  He expressed concern in respect of how refuse would be collected, as there was no mention of the developers providing a bin store.  

The Chair suggested a further condition be added to require the details of waste collection proposals to be submitted.

By 14 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG10185(2X) be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition to require that details of waste management proposals be submitted.