Agenda item

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

Further to the report it was noted that the County Engineer had no objection in principle subject to some issues being addressed such as the applicant entering into a private road agreement.

It was clarified that the measurement from the nearest proposed gable wall to the nearest neighbour’s front wall was 40 metres and from window to window was 60 metres.

Dr P Hawtin made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the development would extend to the rear of No.111 Eynsham Road and that as there was additional land behind No.s 113 and 115 it was likely that a proposal for further development would be received for that area.  He raised concerns regarding this in terms of density and increased traffic using the access.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the affect of the proposal on the residents of No.s 117 and 111 Eynsham Road in terms of noise and disturbance from vehicles and pedestrians along the access which would be immediately adjacent to their properties.  He commented that a gated access would only increase noise and disturbance.   He commented that there were bungalows to the rear of the site, occupied mostly by old age pensioners who were not in a position to object to the proposal but probably would have done.  Finally, he asked that consideration be given to reducing the density which he considered would lessen the impact and would result in less traffic.

Mrs Weston made a statement objecting to the application.  Speaking on behalf of her parents who were the neighbours she raised concerns regarding maintenance of the existing boundary wall; the width of the access in terms of its sufficiency to accommodate a road and a footpath; use and siting of foul water waste pipes; sewage connections, it being noted that there was already a problem with the sewage system in the area; consultation and negotiation on the application; property ownership and sales and the possibility of further backland development in this area; increased traffic; and refuse collection in terms of HGV access.  Finally she commented that there was a covenant on the land restricting development.

Malcolm Jux the architect made a statement in support of the application commending the recommendation set out in the report.  He commented that the site was sustainable in terms of its proximity to shops and facilities and there were public transport connections.  He reported that the proposal accorded with PPG3 in respect of previously developed land and that the proposed density of 36 dwellings per hectare was acceptable.  He commented that the scheme would make efficient use of the site and would contribute to meeting local housing needs.  He explained that there would be no adverse impact on neighbouring properties in view of the distances involved.  He reported that boundary treatment was proposed and that the design was acceptable in view of the mixed character of houses in this area.  He commented that materials would be in keeping; and parking would be sufficient. Finally, he commented that in view of the concerns raised the applicant would be willing to remove the gated access from the scheme.

One of the Local Members reported that he agreed with the comments of the Parish Council. He referred to Policy D2 commenting that the development should not cause any harm to the neighbours. He considered that this would not be the case with this proposal and that harm would be cause in terms of noise and disturbance from traffic using the access road.  He commented that with more houses on the site there would be more traffic.  He referred to No.107 which would abut directly onto the access road.  He explained that there would be traffic next to the side wall of the house and that there was bound to be noise.   He suggested that if the Committee was minded to grant planning permission further conditions should be added (a) requiring that a substantial wall be built against the access road to an appropriate height; (b) the gates should be removed from the scheme; and (c) that any foul water drainage was separate to the existing system.

Some Members spoke in support of the application but expressed concern regarding possible adverse impact on the neighbours at No.s 107 and 111 in terms of noise and disturbance from traffic.  To this end it was considered that the gates should be removed from the access as this would result in waiting traffic at this location which would add to any nuisance. Furthermore it was considered that appropriate boundary treatment should be provided along the boundary of the houses at No.s 107 and 111, possibly a brick wall which the applicant would provide and maintain.  It was also suggested that the surface material of the road should be careful chosen to minimise the noise.

It was noted that some of the comments made by the objector such as sewage disposal and covenants, were not material considerations and should not be taken into account in determining the planning application.

It was commented that in Faringdon where an access ran by a neighbours house, an acoustic fence had been required and it was suggested that such a barrier might be appropriate in this case rather than a wall.  The Officers responded that an informative should be added to any permission advising that the Council would seek the most effective boundary treatment in terms of reducing noise and that this could be either a fence or a wall.

Consideration was given to speed restriction measures such as road humps, but it was agreed that such measures were likely to increase any noise.

Consideration was given to the width of the access and it was noted that as this would be a private road, with probably few vehicle movements even at peak times there was no intention to incorporate a pavement.  In response to a question raised, it was agreed that should the Committee be minded to approve the application a condition requiring a scheme of lighting along the access should be added.  Furthermore it was considered that a condition should be added requiring a scheme for the collection of refuse.

One Member questioned whether a condition should be added regarding the hours of construction.  However, it was noted that this was a matter dealt with un Environmental Health legislation.

Finally, in response to a further question raised it was noted that a condition was proposed regarding landscaping.

At this point in the meeting upon the invitation of the Chair 4 Members indicated that the gates should be sited further along the access and 13 Members indicated that the gates should be removed from the scheme.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/19444 be approved subject to: -

1.         the conditions set out in the report ;

2.         further conditions to

(i)         require the removal of the gates from the scheme;

(ii)        provide for the submission of a lighting scheme for the access road;

(iii)       require the submission of a scheme for dealing with refuse collection; and

3          an informative advising of the concern that noise may result and therefore appropriate surface materials should be used for the access road and that the most effective acoustic boundary treatment in terms of either fences or walls should be provided along the side boundaries with the neighbouring properties at No.s 107 and 111.