Agenda item

Councillor Julie Mayhew Archer had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration. 

It was clarified that the Committee was being asked to consider the replacement of the wood cladding with brick on the sides of the new school hall and the addition of three wind-catcher structures on the roof.  It was commented that the height and footprint of the building were identical to the permitted scheme.

Reference was made to the representations received and it was noted that some of the objections raised related to the principle of development of the school hall which had already been established.  Reference was made to the proximity of the new school hall to the neighbouring properties.  Details of the distances to the rear of the houses being at least 25 metres and to the rear garden boundaries being 5 metres were explained.  It was commented that these were considered acceptable in relation to the detailed changes now proposed. 

Mr J Laister speaker on behalf of nine neighbours made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He set out his concerns at the current application being put forward at this stage noting that the reason for the replacement of the cladding related to the costs involved.  He clarified that he had not objected to the original application as he had considered the cladding appropriate.  He explained that he considered that the use of bricks would be visually intrusive especially having regard to the distances of the hall to the neighbouring properties commenting that it was a mere 5 metres from the rear gardens which were used by the residents.  He questioned why the wind-catchers had not been included in the original application and raised concern regarding their visual impact.  He suggested that they would be seen and would detract from the beautiful appearance of the Victorian terraces.  He also raised concerns regarding possible noise.  Finally he advised that the plans showed trees in place along the boundary.  He explained that these had been attractive trees which had formed an effectual noise and visual barrier.  However, it had been agreed that three of the tree should now be removed and he questioned why.

Mr Hehir referred to correspondence he had sent to Members of the Committee asking Councillors to have regard to his comments in determining this application.  He particularly raised concerns regarding how this and previous applications had been processed.

Mr J Spurgeon had given notice that he wished to make a statement at the meeting but he declined to do so.

One of the local Members commented that she preferred the wood cladding to the brick, although she noted that the Committee had to consider the application before it.  However, she considered that the brick would be visually intrusive and suggested that trees should be planted to provide some screening.

The Officers explained that it doubtful whether requesting trees could be justified in this case.  It was explained that the trees had been removed where the new building was closest to the boundary as there was insufficient space to accommodate them.  It was commented that requesting trees had not been imposed at the time of the original application.

The other local Member also expressed a preference for the timber cladding, but accepted the views of the Consultant Architect regarding the wind-catchers.  He suggested that the extent of the brick surface might need to be mellowed by some landscaping. 

Other Members also spoke in support of tree planting it being thought that the brick would be visually intrusive.

One Member referred to the plan appended to the report commenting that tree coverage was shown along the boundary with the rear of properties at Radley Road.  He suggested that this was misleading.  The Officers clarified that this was a site plan and neither showed trees which were there or proposed.  It had been specified in the original application that tree would be removed.  Furthermore, planning permission was not required to do this.

One Member commented that the outlook from the neighbouring properties was now different  and that there was a justification for tree planting.

It was proposed by Councillor Mathew Barber and seconded by Councillor Terry Cox that should the Committee be minded to approve application ABG/1723/13 a landscaping condition be added to require tree planting along the boundary with the rear of the properties in Radley Road.  The Chair asked the Committee to indicate whether this additional condition would be acceptable to which there voted 13 for and 3 against with 1 abstention.

The Committee had regard to the comments of the Consultant Architect and considered the level of harm in this case, which was considered insufficient to warrant refusal.

On consideration of this application one Member referred to the comments of the County Engineer in terms of the proposals coming forward as part of the Abingdon Integrated Transport Strategy (AbITS).  She suggested that the County Engineer when commenting on applications in Abingdon and the surrounding area should have particular regard to the strategies of AbITS and include reference to them in any comments.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1723/13 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and a further landscaping condition to provide for tree planting along the boundary with the rear gardens of the properties in Radley Road.