Agenda item

The Committee noted the proposal was a resubmission in response to an outline application scheme which was refused in May.  That application had had all matters reserved and had envisaged a 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling, whereas this proposal was for a full application for a 2 bedroom dwelling with all details for consideration.  It was noted that the car parking space had been lengthened.

The Officers advised that since writing the report, six additional letters of objection had been received reiterating concerns already covered in the report and commenting that the parking on the amended plans was still inadequate to accommodate two parked cars on the site.  Furthermore, there had been a query over the accuracy of the plans.  In response to this the Officers explained that a detailed survey drawing had accompanied the application and on site measurements had been taken by the Officers and these were in accordance with the submitted plans.

The main issues were identified in the report.  The detailed design of the dwelling and the proposed car parking arrangements as amended were considered acceptable and the proposal was considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal as detailed in the report.

In response to a comment challenging the statement in the report that the previous scheme was much larger than the scheme proposed, it was clarified that this statement was made in respect of the street scene elevation.  It was explained that the previous scheme was 1m wider than that now proposed, and filled more of the plot.  As the previous application had been outline only with all matters reserved, Officers had been concerned that granting permission in such circumstances could easily have led to pressure for a larger dwelling than that shown on the illustrative drawings.  However, in this application there was a material difference in that all details of the dwelling proposed were due for consideration now.

It was commented that in respect of development at No 7A, Plot 3 was only 18m away at ground floor level, where boundary treatments could ensure adequate privacy.  The distance from first floor windows was in excess of 21m. Consequently, the relationship of the new dwelling to that scheme was considered acceptable.  Furthermore, it was noted that the relationship between these dwellings was not a parallel back to back relationship.  The new dwelling lay to the northeast.

Finally, the Officers commented that the proposed parking and access arrangements were acceptable for the reasons set out in the report and the County Engineer had raised no objections to the amended proposal.

Mr M Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Whilst recognising there was a smaller footprint to the earlier application he expressed concern regarding over development; traffic maneuvering and hazard as a result of the parking arrangements; whilst noting the county engineer’s comments regarding the side parking the Town Council was of the view that the arrangements were more dangerous; access on the bend; visibility splays and restricted lines of sight if there was on street parking.  He suggested that the County Engineer’s view should be challenged.

Chris Jones presented a petition signed by 23 residents of Chandlers Close objecting to the application on the grounds of the plot being too small to accommodate a 2 /3 bedroom property; the proposal being cramped and visually harmful; the driveway being positioned at the apex of a dangerous bend and the necessary sight splays being blocked by cars parked on the drive.  Furthermore he made a statement objecting to the application also raising concerns to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the building now occupying a larger area, not a smaller area, as stated in the report; the dominate side elevation; cramped appearance; the plot being too small and the proposal being out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area in terms of spatial planning.  He commented that the original developer had not considered this plot appropriate for a dwelling and had left the clear space between the straight boundary wall and the curved path, although subsequently the area had been included as garden.  The resultant loss of visibility had created a dangerous bend which would be made worse as the proposed drive would emerge on the apex.   The parking area would still be shorter than 9.6m and that any car parked on the front space would completely obscure the necessary sight splays.  He was concerned that the rear of the drive would be enclosed by fencing making the garden gate unusable if a car was parked on the rear space and that future owners were most likely to park one car on the drive and one on the street which would create a significant hazard as the on-street parking in the locality was already fully utilised.  He commented that consent had recently been granted at No.7a and that it would be only 18m away from the new house which was less than the minimum 21m distance required to prevent overlooking.

Mr D Rollinson made a statement in support of the application commenting that the parking had been amended to accommodate two vehicles; the gateway could be put to one side; parking in Chandlers Close was a problem which the residents created themselves as they did not park at the rear of the properties where there was space.

One of the local Members speaking on behalf of residents of Hedgemead  Avenue and Chandlers Close raised concern regarding traffic safety; access; parking; pedestrian safety; on street parking and run off and drainage.  She requested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application she requested that the hardstanding be constructed of permeable materials.

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

·                    The CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal.

·                    It was not considered that the extent of the development would be no more or less than many other communities around the Vale.

·                    Once the CountyEngineer had given a professional view on the proposal in support of an application in terms of highway grounds it was difficult to refuse an application in this regard without seeking an independent view giving contrary advice, which in this case was not thought justifiable.

·                    The garden would be smaller than others in the area but this was not a reason for refusal.

·                    The minimum distance rule of 21m could not be used as a reason for refusal based on the reasoning set out in the report.

·                    A wall had already been constructed years ago resulting in the loss of the amenity value of the area.

·                    The area was already “tight” but even if one more house made the appearance and feel even more cramped this was not a ground for refusal. 

·                    On balance there were other houses in urban parts of the Vale which were similar.

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

·                    It was questioned whether the dwelling would fit on the site.

·                    The houses nearby had small gardens and the loss of the area would affect a number of those. However building the wall and including the area as garden already had resulted in a loss of the public amenity value of the area.  The access would be dangerous and would make the situation of on street parking worse. 

One Member suggested that the surrounding wall should be lowered but this was not supported

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/5566/2 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.