Agenda item

The Committee was reminded that a revised report had been circulated prior to the meeting which set out proposed conditions.

The Committee noted that amended plans had been received omitting the garage from the site plan and omitting the roof lights from the front elevation.

It was reported that the County Engineer had no objection to the proposal but had suggested conditions requiring that the existing access be closed off; the new access be constructed to Oxfordshire County Council specifications; vision splays should be provided in accordance with the drawings and there should be no additional gates other than those shown on the plans.

Finally, the Committee was advised of an amendment to the report in that Thames water had not been consulted.  However, the Council’s engineer had been consulted, details of which were included in the amended report.

Mr D Hignall made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding further development in Sutton Courtenay regardless of whether there were material planning considerations.  He commented on the poor quality of the report which it was considered lacked balanced arguments and reference to Planning Policy Guidance, in particular PPG3.  He drew attention to the policies referred to in the report, suggesting that the proposal was in conflict with all of them.  He advised that the site was not within the built up area of the village; it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, in particular through loss of openness; would appear cramped in that the development was being “shoe horned” into the site; and would set a precedent.   Finally, he referred to an appeal on a site elsewhere in the village which had been dismissed by a Planning Inspector highlighting similarities with this application.

Mrs Buchanan the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  She referred to the consultation with Officers and the amendments made to the proposal to address the comments received.  She reported that she had been informed that the principle of an infill dwelling in this site would be in accordance with policy.  She reported that the design had been amended twice; the access revised and there were no highway objections.

The Local Member expressed his objection to the proposal, concurring with the views of the Parish Council.  He raised concern regarding the amount of traffic along Abingdon Road; the inadequacy of the screening; the “shoe horning” in of a large house into a very small area; development in the northern part of the village; the need to preserve the area; the proposal being out of character; the three storey element being out of keeping; and the need to protect the beauty of the northern part of Sutton Courtney.

One Member suggested that a bungalow might have been more appropriate as infill in this location commenting that the house would be very large.  However, it was noted that the merits of the application as presented needed to be considered.

One Member referred to the comments made by the Parish Council regarding this Council’s reluctance to oppose development in Sutton Courtenay. He commented that the curtilage of the application site was very large and that the proposed house was oddly positioned within it, but this was not a reason to refuse permission.

In response to comments made regarding planning policy, the Officers clarified that the Parish Council had referred to Policy D1 of the Adopted Local Plan relating to design which included subjective views; Policy D2 relating to demonstrable harm to neighbours such as loss of daylight and Policy H5 relating to infill in villages such as Sutton Courtenay.

Other Members spoke in support of the application noting that the County Engineer had raised no objection; whilst the building would be three storey it would be no higher than Beechfield House; the distance from adjoining properties was acceptable; the amenity land of the new house was adequate and the proposal would not be out of character.  However, it was commented that there were other larger plots in the area where similar applications could be put forward, which cumulatively could affect the character of the area. 

One Member queried the detail of the rear and north elevations commenting that there were slight discrepancies in the plans. It was therefore considered that clarification should be sought on this.  Furthermore, it was considered that a slab levels condition would be necessary in this case to ensure that the new building was no higher than the existing dwelling.

By 17 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application SUT/2124/1 subject to: -

1.         the conditions set out in the amended report;

2.         further conditions to address slab levels, the comments of the CountyEngineer; amended plans; and

3.         clarification of the elevations.