Agenda item

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised of one further letter of support reiterating comments previously raised as set out in the report.

The Committee noted that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of four dwellings with all matters reserved.  The applicant was seeking to relocate the timber business to an unspecified location with the reason for the move being to relocate what was deemed to be a bad neighbour use, due to the amount of traffic generated from that use which flowed to and from the site through the village.

It was noted that the application for four dwellings was a departure from the Development Plan and therefore Members needed to assess whether there was a special justification to set aside policy in favour of the proposal.  The applicants had suggested that the removal of the bad neighbour use was a special justification and to this end had provided details of vehicle movements during two weeks in May and June 2005, which had been calculated to be 634 and 638 respectively.  Judging by the level of support for the application, this level of traffic could be considered significant and material in supporting the proposal.  However, there had been no independent verification of these movements and no details had been recorded of the type of vehicles involved. 

Notwithstanding the likely movements stated, there was a need for the Committee to balance the relocation of the timber use against established planning policy, in particular the principle of providing new development in a sustainable manner.  In this respect, the applicants had indicated that the site was previously developed land.

The Committee was asked to bear in mind that just because the whole site could be claimed as previously developed, this did not mean that the whole area of the site should therefore be redeveloped.  Again, Members’ attention was drawn to relevant planning policy and the need for any development to be sustainable. 

Councillor M Durham, the Chairman of Great Coxwell Parish Council, made a statement in support of the application commenting that prior to the submission of the application, the applicant had sought to negotiate with members of the village via the Parish Council to ascertain whether there would be support for a small development in the village, with the existing timber business being relocated.  He advised that a large number of people had attended the Parish Council meeting and had felt that not enough consideration was being given to noise and safety issues associated with traffic.  The Parish Council and the village had considered that four dwellings with complete relocation of the timber business would be acceptable.  Details of proximity of many of the houses to the highway were explained and concerns were expressed regarding damage to property, noise and pedestrian safety.

Mr T Coss, on behalf of the applicant, made a statement in support of the application, commenting that there was special justification to outweigh any objections.  He explained that the site had been well established as a business since the 1960s and therefore was previously developed.  He referred to the significant benefits in the reduction of traffic for the village and the creation of an edge to the settlement.  He explained that there would be no noise, smell, pollution and an opportunity would be presented to use a brownfield site for the provision of new houses.  The relocation of the neighbourhood nuisance problem would be of significant benefit locally and he suggested that the proposal accorded with planning policy in that an unneighbourly business use would be removed.  He commented that a new dedicated site for the business would enable it to thrive and expand.  He commented that the proposal accorded with the aims of the Local Plan in terms of reducing the need to travel and improving the quality of life of members of the community.

One of the local Members sought clarification with regard to the number of dwellings proposed, noting that the application was for outline permission.  In response the Officers advised that the number of dwellings could be specified at this stage.  The local Member referred to the reasons for refusal, suggesting that the site was sustainable.  He commented that there was a regular bus service into Faringdon and indeed the village was only a short walk away from the Town.  He advised that he found it hard to accept that the proposal would detract from the Conservation Area in that the village would benefit from the removal of an unneighbourly business.

Another local Member spoke in support of the application, commenting that he considered the use sustainable and agreeing that the village would benefit by the removal of an unneighbourly use.

Some other Members spoke against the application, commenting that it was contrary to policy and should be refused.  However, it was recognised that the relocation of the timber yard would be beneficial to the village and it was commented that perhaps a development restricted to the footprint of the existing built form, might be appropriate.

On consideration of this application reference was made to sustainability generally and it was questioned whether this needed to be reviewed, it being commented that there were now home deliveries of shopping, shopping on the web and people working from home.

By 12 votes to 4, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application GCO/8308/11-X be refused for the reasons set out in the report.