Agenda item

Demolition of Crossroads Garage showroom and sales offices, retaining workshops at the rear, with one being altered to act as new reception/office. New local supermarket with associated storage/office space, plant, refuse area and parking.  4 flats above supermarket with associated amenity space and shared refuse/bike storage.

Councillor Eric Batts stood down from the committee as he was the local ward member. 

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V0446/FUL for the demolition of Crossroads Garage showroom and sales offices, retaining workshops at the rear, with one being altered to act as new reception/office, and for a new local supermarket with associated storage/office space, plant, refuse area and parking, four flats above the supermarket with associated amenity space and shared refuse/bike storage, all on land at Crossroads Garage, Faringdon Road, Southmoor. 

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.  Updating the report, the officer reported that a traffic regulation order could be made to control parking on site, if the committee required. 

Brian Forster, a representative of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. The parish council’s concerns included:

·         The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the village environment and scene

·         The design did not respect the old cottage opposite and was out of keeping with the village

·         There would be a shortfall of parking on site that could lead to traffic problems at an already busy crossroads

·         Air conditioning units would mean noise disturbance to nearby residents

·         The increased opening hours compared to the former use would give rise to long hours of disturbance for local residents

·         This was the wrong location for the proposed development

PatrinaEffer and Sarah Lewis spoke objecting to the application, their concerns included:

·         The proposed development was contrary to local plan policies DC1, DC5, DC9, and DC20

·         It was too large, out of keeping with the street scene, and detrimental to the village’s street scene

·         The parking arrangements and deliveries gave rise to safety concerns

·         The crossroads was already a hazardous junction, this development could make it worse 

·         The extra hours of operation at the site could result in noise disturbance for local residents

·         There would be overlooking of adjacent property from the first floor flats

·         Lighting of the site would have an adverse effect of the character of the area

Councillor Eric Batts, the local ward member, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         A supermarket was not a suitable use for this site, located next to a busy crossroads, and would bring increased traffic to the junction

·         The design was also inappropriate in this location and out of keeping with the village

Officers responded to the committee’s questions:

·         Each application should be considered on its merits in the context of its design and surroundings

·         If the committee was opposed to the design due to the building’s height or location, the application should be refused, not deferred to negotiate a different design that would substantially change the proposal

·         The hours of operation were suggested by the council’s Environmental Heath team and were in line with similar uses elsewhere in the district

·         The county highways team had not objected to the application nor suggested any pedestrian crossing 

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, a motion, moved and seconded to refuse the application was put on the grounds that the application was contrary to policy DC1 due to its design and impact on the surrounding area as well as not being in keeping with the council’s design guide.  The motion was declared carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to refuse application P16/V0446/FUL for the following reason:

“That having regard to the scale, mass, contemporary design, and prominent corner location, the proposed building would be incongruous with the surrounding development.  It would result in a visually harmful development that would be inappropriate and not sympathetic to the established character of the area.  As such the proposal is contrary to policy DC1 of the adopted Local Plan 2011, policy 37 (design and local distinctiveness) of the emerging Local Plan 2031 Part1, and advice in the Design Guide 2015.”