Agenda item

Redevelopment to form 39 apartments for the elderly (sixty years of age and/or partner over fifty five years of age), guest apartment, communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

Councillor Margaret Crick stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item as she arrived after the committee had begun its consideration of the application.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P17/V0321/FUL for a redevelopment to form 39 apartments for the elderly (sixty years of age and/or partner over fifty five years of age), guest apartment, communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping at Bellingers, 111 Ock Street, Abingdon.

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.

Jeanette Halliday, a representative of Abingdon Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         Unsafe access onto Mullard Way; and

·         Inadequate parking provision.

She requested the committee to commission its own independent parking survey before making a decision.

Charlotte George and Margaret Horton, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The bulk and height of the buildings were not in keeping with neighbouring properties;

·         The buildings were overbearing and would cause overshadowing and loss of light to properties on Mayotts Road; and

·         The development would generate increased traffic and more parking problems on already busy streets.

Simon Cater, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His points included the following:

·         The development was in a sustainable location with access to public transport;

·         Elderly residents of these kinds of developments did not tend to drive;

·         The highway authority had not objected to the application; and

·         It was proposed to extend the layby in front of the site to provide additional parking spaces.

Monica Lovatt and Chris Palmer, the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         Inadequate parking and unsafe access;

·         The additional parking provision could not be restricted to staff and visitors so would be used by other drivers; and

·         Increased overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

The committee discussed the application, with clarification from officers where appropriate.  In response to members’ questions and comments, officers advised that:

·         Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) did not have any guidelines for parking provision for specialist elderly accommodation;

·         Whilst some members had expressed concern about OCC’s lack of objections to the proposal, the committee had to have regard to the views of a statutory consultee; and

·         The officer report concluded that the proposal would cause some harm in terms of the design and scale of the building being not entirely in keeping with the character of the area. Furthermore, the new building would cause some harm to the amenity of existing residents, particularly those in Nos 2 and 4 Mayotts Road.  However, on balance, officers concluded that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm.

The committee did not agree that the planning benefits outweighed the harm to the character of the area or the amenity of neighbours

Contrary to the officer recommendation, a motion moved and seconded to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P17/V0321/FUL for the following reasons:

• That, having regard to the scale, bulk and close proximity of the proposed building to existing dwellings,  the proposal will cause an undue loss of light, sunlight and privacy to neighbouring properties, in particular Nos.2 and 4 Mayotts Road. It will also have an unacceptably oppressive impact on the outlook from these properties. Furthermore, the proposed parking and access arrangements will have a detrimental impact to the amenity of nearby neighbours through increased noise and disturbance. Accordingly, the harm to neighbouring amenity is considered contrary to the provisions of the Vale of White Horse Development Plan, in particular Saved Policy DC9 of the Local Plan 2011, advice in the council's Design Guide and within the National Planning Policy Framework.  The benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh this harm and no material considerations exist to warrant a departure from the Development Plan.

• That, having regard to the prevailing character of the area and the form and detailing of the proposed building, the application does not offer a suitably high quality design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings nor would it create a distinctive sense of place. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of the Vale of White Horse Development Plan, in particular Core Policy 37 of the Local Pan 2031 Part One and Saved Policy DC6 of the Local Plan 2011, advice in the council's Design Guide and within the National Planning Policy Framework. The benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh this harm and no material considerations exist to warrant a departure from the Development Plan.