Agenda item

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Tony de Vere, Mary de Vere, Richard Farrell, R T Johnston, Julie Mayhew-Archer, Briony Newport, Terry Quinlan and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that Wantage Town Council had objected to the applications on the grounds of over development and that the neighbour’s privacy would be compromised.

Sarah Mitchell made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report namely overshadowing, overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light in the morning.  She questioned the usability of her garden which would be adversely affected.  She further raised concerns regarding noise and parking. Finally, she reported that there was no access and that the proposal would amount to dramatic over development of this Listed Building in the Conservation Area.

Donald Fisher had been due to make a statement at the meeting but did not.

One Member expressed concern regarding over development and adverse impact of the neighbours in terms of dominance.  He reported that the Town Council had not supported the applications. He referred to the narrowness of the plot and the lack of access, commenting also on the likelihood of overlooking and loss of privacy.

One Member expressed his concern regarding the lack of parking provision referring to the comments made at a previous meeting of the Committee which had subsequently been amended advising that only 13% of householders did not have cars.

In response, it was reported that the Officers did not feel that the extension would have an adverse impact over and above that of the existing development sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. There was a window in the rear elevation at the present time and a new window similarly would look down the garden.  There was an acceptance that there would be some overlooking because the properties were terraced.

Some Members spoke against the applications raising concerns regarding dominance, over looking and adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy and light.  It was commented that the proposal would undermine the character of the area.  Furthermore, it was difficult to accept that there was no requirement to provide parking.  It was suggested by some Members that the height of the building would be over dominant and there would be significant overlooking from the window on the second floor which would project further forward than the existing window.  It was suggested that the building would be enormously high.

However, other Members spoke in support, agreeing with the view of the Officers and commenting that there was limited privacy in terraced areas by design.  It was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection regarding parking.

One Member questioned the extent of the perceived overlooking referring to the photographs taken from the window of the neighbouring property.  It was suggested that an organised site visit would be beneficial.

Members considered the application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the buildings and agreed that this should be approved.

RESOLVED

(a)        that application WAN/13040/2-CA be approved subject to the condition set out in the report, (agreed by 15 votes to nil); and

(b)        that consideration of application WAN/13040/1 be deferred pending an organised site visit (proposed by Councillor Richard Farrell, seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere and agreed by 9 vote to 5 with 1 abstention).