Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling.  Erection of 11x2 bed flats and 1x1 bed flat in three separate two and three storey buildings.  Alterations and extension to existing access, 20 car-parking spaces, cycle parking, bin storage and landscaping.

Recommendation: to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The officer presented the report on an application for the demolition of one dwelling and its replacement with 12 flats in three buildings at 66 Cumnor Hill, Oxford.  The report set out the proposal, representations received following consultation, the policy position and planning guidance, and the site’s planning history. 

Updates to the report

The planning officer reported that since the publication of the report, the council had received a further three letters objecting to the application.  Following one of the late submissions, the planning officer removed reference in his report to the planning inspector’s decision in 2010 having regard to the residential design guide. He also reported that the developer had agreed to contribute a further £10,000 to the county council for transport measures. 

However, the planning officer still recommended the committee to delegate authority to approve the application subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement, but if the agreement was not completed by the target set in the planning performance agreement, then the application should be refused. 

Public speaking

The chairman invited the public who had registered to speak to this application to address the committee. 

Brian Stopps spoke on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council objecting to the application.  His concerns included:

·       the proposed density was excessive for such a small site and the development would be out of character with the surrounding area

·       the developers had not dealt with surface water drainage

·       there needed to be a hydro-geological survey of the whole Cumnor Hill area

·       too much ground disturbance would cause problems for others

Jerry Avery spoke in objection to the application.  His concerns included:

·       the proposed density was high for this area 

·       there was a danger that the construction would disturb ground conditions and the developers must guarantee to repair any damage to neighbouring properties

·       the cumulative effect of this and other developments adversely affected the area

·       there would be a loss of amenity and loss of light suffered by the neighbouring property

Simon Sharp, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.  He believed:

·       the proposed density of the development was appropriate for the site

·       there was a need for two-bedroom accommodation in the area

·       the site was in a sustainable location

·       permeable surfaces would be used to prevent excessive water run-off

·       the foundations would be carefully designed to stop disturbance to other properties

·       the majority of the planting would be retained to provide good screening

·       the design fitted in with the area

·       no habitable windows faced the neighbouring property at no 64 Cumnor Hill

Councillor Dudley Hoddinott, one of the local ward councillors, raised concerns about the application.  His points included:

·       there would be overshadowing of the neighbouring property no 64 Cumnor Hill

·       block A should be moved further away from no 64

·       the proposed development would have an adverse impact on flooding locally and would likely affect the underground water flow

·       the car parking areas should be screened

Committee debate

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate, the discussion covered the following points:

·       there might be a history of drainage problems in the area but the committee had to accept the drainage engineer’s professional opinion that there was no objection to the application subject to conditions

·       the design, albeit different from surrounding properties, was acceptable

·       potentially harmful overlooking from proposed balconies would be resolved through the use of screens controlled by condition 3.

·       the impact on the surrounding area and in particular no 64 was not sufficiently harmful to refuse the application

·       the committee could find no material planning grounds on which to refuse the application

·       the officers must check the slab levels on the three buildings before construction proceeded above those levels

RESOLVED (9 votes for, 1 against and 3 abstentions)

(a)      to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice-chairman, to grant planning permission for application P13/V0626/FUL subject to:

1.             the completion of section 106 agreements to secure financial contributions;

2.             conditions, including:

1 : Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2 : Approved plans

3 : CN8[I] - Submission of Details (Full)

4 : HY2[I] - Access in accordance with Specified Plan (F)

5 : HY7[I] - Car Parking (Full)

6 : LS1 - Landscaping Scheme (Submission) (Full)

7 : LS2[I] - Landscaping Scheme (Implement) (Full)

8 : LS4 - Tree Protection (Full)

9 : MC2 - Materials (Samples) (Full)

10 : MC24 - Drainage Details (Surface and Foul(Full)

11 : MC29 - Sustainable Drainage Scheme (Full)

12 : MC32 -  Construction of Method Statement(Full)

13 : RE17 - Slab Levels (Dwellings) (Full) (slab levels to be checked and approved by the local planning authority before construction above those levels) 

(b)      should timely progress not be made and a decision on the application is not possible within the target time set in the planning performance agreement, to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chairman, to refuse planning permission.