Agenda item

Mr M Chenery made a statement in support of the application.  He commented that there would be no increase in the existing footprint of the dwelling.  He highlighted the objectors’ comments in that parking was the major concern.  He advised that the proposal accorded with the Council’s maximum requirements and that Planning Policy Guidance had reduced the parking requirements further and as such there was a possibility of less parking should the application be allowed at any appeal. He referred to the extensive discussions held with the Officers and urged the Committee to support the application.

One of the local Members expressed regret that it was proposed that the house would be subdivided into flats, commenting that this would result in a noise nuisance. She indicated that adequate noise insulation measures should be included.  In addition, she expressed reservations at the comments of the County Engineer and voiced concerns regarding the proposed parking arrangements and access to the highway.

The other local Member expressed similar concerns and questioned whether the Environmental Protection Team had indicated that it had no objection to the application in terms of noise.  Furthermore, he expressed concern regarding access to the site, questioning the position of the hedge and whether there was sufficient visibility.  He queried whether it would be appropriate for the hedge to be cut back a bit further along the road.

In response, the officers advised that a further condition to require a pedestrian awareness splay could be added to any permission.

One Member expressed concern at the principle of houses being purchased for financial gain only.  She suggested that this was a policy matter which should be considered.  She commented that she could not support the application in view of her concerns regarding the loss of family homes.  Furthermore, she could not see how vehicles could access the car parking spaces in this case. Finally, she reiterated that she had difficulty in supporting these types of proposals.

Another Member advised that this type of parking arrangement did work in some places in Botley.  He commented that the Government encouraged this type of proposal and so did Planning Policy Guidance.  He suggested that if the Member had difficulty in considering these types of proposal then perhaps she should not come to meetings of the Committee.

Councillor Melinda Tilley, the Leader of the Opposition reported that the Conservative Group strongly objected to Councillor Jerry Patterson’s comments suggesting that Councillor Pam Westwood should not come to meetings of the Committee and asked that this be so recorded in the minutes.

In response to a question raised, the Officers explained that turning areas were required where access was onto a main road, but not local roads and cul-de-sacs where traffic flows were less.  Furthermore, in this case, the tandem spaces were for the occupiers of the two bedroom flats.

Some Members supported the views of the local Members and also expressed concern regarding the parking arrangements in terms of the lack of vision for drivers when reversing vehicles onto the highway. To this end it was considered that the County Engineer could be asked to look again at this proposal and give an explanation as to why it was thought that the arrangements were satisfactory.

One Member commented that tandem parking was usual throughout the District.  However, another Member questioned the adequacy of the sight lines commenting that the concerns did not only relate to tandem parking, but to the blocking of sight lines because of the number of tandem parking spaces proposed, notably four in this case.

By 14 votes to 2, with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application NHI/5147/2 be deferred to enable further advice and comments to be sought from the County Engineer with regard to the parking arrangements, visibility and access to the highway arrangements, particularly  having regard to concerns raised regarding safety.