Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 on planning permissions P11/V2894/FUL and P12/V2380/FUL and condition 1 on planning permission P13/V1469/FUL for the addition of roof lights, gable windows and rear dormer window to the houses on Plot A and Plot B of Greenacre. These houses are now called Courtenay House and Stanton House. (as amended by the applicants email received on 26 January 2015 including revised location plan for Stanton House and Courtenay House and a reduced number of velux windows, plus gable windows and dormer window and as revised by the additional roof plans received from the applicant on 12/02/2015 showing two additional skylights in both Stanton House and Courteney House and :- as amended by the applicants email dated 6 March 2015 and plans COURT2-Rear/REV2, COURT2-Roof/REV2, COURT2-SEC/REV2 showing a revised rear elevation at Courtenay House. The rear elevation has had its rear gable removed and now reflects what has been built on site).

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P14/V2735/FUL to vary condition 2 of permission 1 of permission P11/V2894 and P12/V2380/FUL and condition P13/V1469/FUL for the addition of roof lights, gable windows and rear dormer window to houses on Plots A and B (known as Stanton House and Courtenay House) of Greenacre, Stanton Road, in the parish of North Hinksey.  The officer also tabled an amended plan showing the rear elevation to Courtenay House.  Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting. 

Andrew Pritchard, a representative of the parish council, spoke objecting to the application raising concerns about:

·         the application being contrary to local plan policies DC1 and DC9

·         the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and would cause overlooking of adjacent property

Susan Hockey spoke in objection to the application:

·         questioning why permitted development rights had been removed

·         the development had been built too high as no slab levels had been specified by condition

·         the houses were too bulky

·         the proposed windows gave the houses a dominating appearance and were obtrusive

Lynn Horn, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application, believing that:

·         the houses had been built to the correct size and height in accordance with the approved plans

·         the roof lights and windows were not obtrusive

·         landscaping would be added

·         there would be no harm to the character of the area and no overlooking of adjacent property

·         there would be no contravention of any planning policy, guideline or precedent  

Councillor Debby Hallett, one of the local ward members, believed that:

·         application did not comply with the council’s Design Guide

·         the windows to the habitable rooms were too close to the neighbouring property

·         the dormer windows were too large

Councillor Eric Batts, another of the local ward members, questioned the large number of windows applied for. 

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

·         the application could not be refused on privacy grounds

·         but the proposed variation to add windows gave the houses a bulky and incongruous appearance in design terms

The chairman put the officer’s recommendation to permit the application to the vote but with 5 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 3 abstentions, this was lost. 

The committee then provided a reason to refuse the application. 

RESOLVED (8 votes for; none against; and 6 abstentions)

To refuse application P14/V2735/FUL for the following reason:

The proposed roof light windows, dormer windows and gable windows in both Stanton House and Courtenay House represent an unacceptable design feature in these dwellings and would result in a dominating and visually intrusive development that would be incongruous and out of character within the surrounding street scene, contrary to Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, paragraphs 5.7, 5.8 and 10.7.18 of the Residential Design Guide 2015, and the National Planning Policy Framework.  As such the proposed variation of condition 1 of planning permission P13/V1469/FUL and Condition 2 on planning approval P11/V2894 and P12/V2380/FUL is refused.