Agenda item

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the Arboricultural Officer had now advised that he had no objection to the application subject to a condition to protect a number of trees on the frontage of the site.

Mr P Uzzell made a statement in support of the application explaining that he had been asked by the applicant to carry out an assessment of the proposal and address the Committee on his findings.  He reported that the scale and design of the proposal were consistent with other frontages along Faringdon Road, which consisted of a wide variety of designs and sizes.  He commented that any impact that might result would be mitigated by existing trees and landscaping.  He considered that overlooking was not relevant in this case due to the hedging and fencing which would provide screening.  He commented that the access from the rear and the single storey design were acceptable.  He clarified that all the distances were in excess of the Council’s minimum standards and the proposal accorded with emerging Local Plan Policy H14 in terms of density.  Finally, he commented that one concern might be that plots 4 and 1 had side facing windows which might result in overlooking. However, to avoid this continuing the relevant windows could be omitted from the scheme or could be provided at a higher level.

The Local Member spoke against the application agreeing with the views expressed by the Parish Council in terms of highway safety, noting that the road speed restriction had been amended. She referred to an application for a single dwelling in the village which had been refused recently partly of the grounds of highway safety, commenting that the Committee should be consistent in its decision making and refuse this application for the same reason. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application noting the views of the County Engineer raising no objection to the proposal.  Reference was made to the concerns of the Parish Council that the buildings would be well forward of the building line.  However, this was considered to be insignificant and certainly not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.   In response to a question raised regarding building lines, the Officers explained that in terms of planning there was no real concept of building lines.  Instead in determining an application consideration needed to be given as to how harmful a proposal was in terms of the character and the street scene.  In this case there was a wide range of properties in the street and the proposal would not be harmful in that respect.

Reference was made to backland development generally and it was commented that it was necessary to demonstrate that specific harm would be caused.  It was considered that insufficient harm would be caused in this case to warrant refusal of the application.

One Member raised concern regarding the need to retain the boundary treatment at the end of the rear gardens of plots 5 and 6.  It was noted that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a condition to address boundary treatment was suggested but that an informative could be added to specifically specify the need to retain this boundary.

By 16 votes to nil with 1 abstention 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 KBA/3105/8 subject to: -

1.         conditions to address materials, access, parking, boundary treatment, landscaping, tree protection and the deletion of specified windows;

2.         an informative advising of the need to retain the boundary treatment  at the end of the rear gardens of plots 5 and 6.