Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of a new two-storey building containing 4 no. x 2 bedroom flats, provision of parking for 6 cars, covered cycle storage and enclosed bin store.

Committee chair, Councillor Sandy Lovatt, stepped down for this item as he was one of the ward councillors. Vice-chair, Councillor Janet Shelley, chaired this item.

The committee considered application P17/V0242/FUL for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a new two-storey building containing four 2-bedroom flats, provision of parking for six cars, covered cycle storage and enclosed bin store at Brookvale, 8 South Avenue, Abingdon.

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

Ted Yeates spoke in objection to this application.

Andre Botha, the agent, spoke supporting the application.

Local ward Councillor Sandy Lovatt, a ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Margaret Crick, a ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

In response to questions raised by the committee, the officers reported that:

-an objection on highways grounds was unlikely to be upheld as the highways officer had visited the site multiple times and could find no grounds for refusal;

- the access track could be conditioned to make good;

-the national width requirement for a car and lorry to pass on a highway is 4.8 metres, the officer has measured the track and can confirm that it meets this standard;

-the site is sustainable;

-car parking spaces and cycle storage are adequate;

-the highways officer considers that there is adequate access from the site onto the bridleway;

-no-one has come forward to claim ownership of the bridleway.

The committee discussed this item and concluded that:

-the development was out of character with the local area and was unneighbourly, particularly for the adjoining properties and those on the road behind;

-the application would lead to over development, as it would be too large for the site;

-the width of the road was not considered to be adequate for lorries, including bin lorries.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: To refuse planning permission on the following grounds:

·           That having regard to the proposed scale and design of the development and its relationship to nearby neighbouring properties, this development would be harmful to the amenity of nearby neighbouring properties and result in an overbearing form of development to the adjoining neighbouring properties 4 and 10 South Avenue.  It would also lead to the loss of privacy to 4 Mandeville Close and 4 South Avenue.  This is contrary to Policy DC9 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Saved Policies 2011, and Policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, the Vale of White Horse Design Guide and advice contained within paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

·           That having regard to the scale, plot coverage, design and predominance of the vehicle parking across the front of the plot, this development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and represent an overdevelopment of the plot.  As such the application is contrary to Policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, the Vale of White Horse Design Guide and advice contained within paragraphs 17 and 64 of the NPPF.