Agenda item

Erection of a two storey and single storey side and rear extension with parking and sub-division to form an attached two-bedroom dwelling.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V1468/FUL for the erection of a two storey and single storey side and rear extension with parking and sub-division to form an attached two-bedroom dwelling at 11 Frilsham Street, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon, OX14 4AZ

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

David Hignell, from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council spoke objecting to this application, his concerns included the following:

·           Harmful to the character and appearance of the proposed development.

·           Overshadowing, dominance and over-looking.

·           Number of accesses close to the junction.

·           Unacceptable sub-division of a plot.

·           Inconsistent with recommendations and refusals elsewhere in the village.

Members of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Hignell.

Peter Quainton, the neighbour, spoke objecting to the application, his concerns included the following:

·           Amended plans were not circulated to the neighbours and therefore they were unable to submit concerns to the council.

·           Significant adverse impact on neighbours.

·           Will significantly impact on the street scene.

·           Overshadowing, dominance and over-looking.

Members of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Quainton.

Jake Collinge, applicant’s agent spoke in favour of the application, and responded to earlier comments.

·           Scale and form of proposed development almost identical in scale to one which had already been approved.

·           A terrace would not be out of character with the wider character of the area.

·           Sufficient amenity would be provided for the scale of the development.

·           No objections from highways officers.

Member of the committee asked questions of clarification to Mr Collinge.

The committee asked questions of clarification of the officers.

·           Size of amenity space: this was consistent with the Design Guide

·           Suggestion to remove permitted development rights from the existing property as well as the subsidiary property: this was acceptable if committee was so minded.

·           Bins would be retained in the rear garden.

·           The extant permission for an extension means that officers did not consider it reasonable to impose different size conditions on this property on the basis of harm to a neighbouring property.

A motion, proposed and seconded, to reject the officer’s recommendation based on the visual amenity and adverse impact on the neighbours, and also the amenity space, was put and debated by the committee.

For 2, Against 9

A motion, proposed and seconded, to accept the officer’s recommendation, was put and debated by the committee

RESOLVED (9 For, 1 Against, 1 Abstention)