Agenda item

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and he left the meeting during its consideration.

In response to comments raised, the Officers reported that the proposal was a valid planning application.  It was explained that the main issue was that the original plan had provided for a 1.8m footway for the entire length of the access road, whereas the revised design had only a footpath for the first 11 metres along the access with the remainder being a narrower shared surface.

It was reported that comments had been received from the County Engineer who had as confirmed that there were no objections to the proposal.  The detailed response of the CountyEngineer was explained.

It was noted that there was a holding area which would allow vehicles to wait and not reverse out onto Coxwell Road.  It was explained that the likely traffic would be 4 to 5 vehicle movements in the peak hour.  The County Engineer had been guided by the Manual for Streets, a guidance document recently published by the Government which promoted greater use of shared surfaces as it was believed that drivers would be more cautious when using shared surfaces.  This document stated that shared surfaces worked well when they served cul-de-sacs; where there would be less than 100 vehicle movements per hour at peak times and where there was designated parking, as was the case with this application.  It was noted that on this basis the CountyEngineer had concluded that the proposed shared surface design was acceptable and safe.

The Officers highlighted that another issue of concern raised was the relocation of the sub-station, it being noted that it was now proposed to be sited behind No.24 Beech Close where a new enclosure had been constructed. It was explained that a sub-station was generally permitted development when it was on operational land.  This was the subject of current investigation but it appeared that the proposed sub-station was on operational land. Therefore, it was reported that the relocation of the sub-station was within permitted development and did not require planning permission.

The Committee noted that original the intention had been that the access road would be adopted but now this was not the case although the County Council as highway authority was interested in the proposal in terms of highway safety.  It was noted that the County Engineer had deemed the proposal to be safe which was the main consideration.  The Officers therefore supported the application with the Committee being recommended to delegate authority for approval to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee subject to revised wording of the condition.

Mike Wise made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding the worsening of the access in terms of width and adverse impact on highway safety; inadequate access for emergency vehicles noting that an ambulance would not be able get past a fire engine for example; the need for large lorries to reverse out onto Coxwell Road; the proposal being non compliant with the Oxfordshire Residential Design Guide; pedestrian safety in particular children and mothers with prams; conflict of use between pedestrians and vehicles; visibility and the proposal being put for financial reasons.

Mr D Janata, the neighbour at No.16 Coxwell Road made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concern regarding design; the width of land being misleading as a second fence to the side of the lane had yet to be erected; disagreement regarding 4 to 5 vehicle movements per hour at peak time noting that there would be 10 additional houses; the proposal to vary a condition being misleading and inadequate; the need for the road to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans; the need for a variation of the planning permission itself and not just a condition to it; surprise at the County Engineer’s comments in support of the proposal noting that the County had published its own design guide and this proposal did not comply with it; the reason for the application which was to avoid the removal of a porch which the developer owned; the application being about financial benefit; the motive of the developer; access to the site being marginally acceptable in this case prior to the proposed amendments which worsened the situation; the narrowness at the junction; the lack of pavement and pedestrian safety noting this was a school route.

Mr A Miles the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the County Council as Highway Authority had raised no objection to the road layout; the Principal Waste Officer had agreed that subject to a drainage waiver, waste could be collected from within the site; the Manual for Streets had been published after the original application had been approved; shared pedestrian, cyclists and vehicle surfaces were supported; traffic would be slow; it had been estimated that there would only be 4 to 5 vehicle movements per hour at peak times; two vehicles would be unable to pass but this was no different to the original design; the junction at Coxwell Road would be no different to that approved; visibility to the north would be the same; the relocation of the sub-station did not require planning permission and the access would be safe and would accord with national guidance.

In response to the comments made the Officers reminded the Committee that the financial benefits of the application and the motives of the applicant were not material planning considerations.

One of the local Members referred to the need for evidence of an agreement between the landowner and the electricity supplier regarding the sub-station and it was noted that this was being sought. 

One of the local Members commented that he agreed with the concerns expressed by the objector commenting that the access was inadequate and that had this design been agreed in the original proposal the application would have been refused.  He expressed concern regarding pedestrian safety noting that the access was considered marginal in the first instance.  He considered that the access was too narrow and he was concerned regarding the impact on neighbours.

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

·        Members of this Council were not experts on what was safe in highway terms and therefore there was a need to rely on experts for their comment. In this case the County Engineer had expressed his support for the proposal.

·        If there was some concern regarding the expert opinion received the Council could commission another independent highway consultant to consider the proposal but that this was not considered necessary in this case.

·        Shared surfaces were safe due to slower traffic.

Some Members spoke against the application raising the following concerns: -

·        pedestrian and highway safety;

·        vehicles parking in the passing area, near the junction of Coxwell Road;

·        the proposal did not meet newly published guidelines;

·        concerns that once the further acoustic screen and bollard lighting was provided the access would be even narrower; and

·        disbelief regarding the estimated number of vehicles at peak times.

It was noted that bollard lighting was to be provided but that this was to be outside of the carriage way.

It was proposed by the Chair that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA/4905/9 subject to revised wording of the condition.  However, this was lost by 7 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions and 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item.

By 13 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application GFA/4905/9 be deferred pending the Officers seeking: -

(1)       the views of an independent highway engineer on the safety of the revised road design;

(2)       further clarification from the CountyEngineer on: -

(i)                 his comments particularly regarding the estimated number of vehicles per hour during peak times;

(ii)               his view on concerns raised regarding parking on the passing area; and

(iii)             whether his advice would be the same if this was a private road and not adopted.