Agenda item

Erection of detached part single part 2 storey dwelling house with home workshop. Erection of bin and bike stores/energy hub building. Car parking provision. Improved visibility splays to existing vehicular access. Landscaping of the site.

The committee considered planning application P24/V0325/FUL for erection of detached part single part 2 storey dwelling house with home workshop. Erection of bin and bike stores/energy hub building. Car parking provision. Improved visibility splays to existing vehicular access. Landscaping of the site at 134 Cumnor Hill, Oxford.

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

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application had been called in by a local ward member.

The planning officer informed the committee that the proposed dwelling was located behind the existing dwelling and would be accessed from Cumnor Hill. He confirmed that the existing dwelling would be unaffected by the proposal. The proposed dwelling was to be set down from the existing ground level and screening was proposed on the flat roof to prevent overlooking. He advised there was also a proposed condition to prevent the use of the flat roof areas a balcony.

The planning officer advised that officers considered the main issues to be the impact on the character of the area and the impact on amenity. Whilst the proposal was back land development, officers were of the view that the specific context of the development in the site meant it was not harmful to the area. The planning officer confirmed the site was located in a designated low density area but that the proposal would not harm the amenity of neighbours.

Chris Westcott spoke on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Paul Munsey spoke objecting to the application.

Paul Topping, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Scott Houghton, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee asked why, when the Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan restricted backland development, did the planning officer feel this application was appropriate. The planning officer confirmed that policy said that backland development should be avoided where it was harmful to the character of the area but there was no blanket ban on this type of development. He also advised that all applications should be considered in context and that on balance the planning officers conclusion was that the development was not harmful. Officers were of the view that the context of the surrounding buildings meant that in this instance the proposal was a continuation of that development rather than needing to be in keeping with stronger character of dwellings to the east. The planning officer confirmed that the development did not conflict with policy as it was not harmful.

The committee asked the planning officer to confirm why they were of the view that overlooking was not an issue. The planning officer advised that the orientation of the proposed dwelling was unusual with the first floor looking into the bottom corner of the plot. The planning officer advised the committee that none of the first floor windows would look directly into another dwelling and that screening was proposed to prevent any direct overlooking. They went on to confirm that the angle and distance of the windows from other dwellings prevented any significant harm.

The committee asked for clarification on why the planning officer was of the view that the design of the building was not harmful to the linear character of the area. The planning officer informed the committee that, taken in the context of the surrounding built form, his view was that the proposed dwelling was not harmful. This took account of the buildings behind the proposed dwelling and he highlighted that should these buildings not exist then the proposal would be harmful and therefore contrary to policy.

A motion was moved to approve the application but was not seconded and therefore the motion fell.

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

The committee noted that the appropriateness of this proposal in the relevant context was subjective. The committee supported the view of the parish council and those who had helped to develop the neighbourhood plan noting that a clear approach had been taking to zoning areas with the proposal falling within the zone characterised by more linear development.

The committee were of the view that backland development broke up the character of the area.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P24/V0325/FUL for the following reason:

The proposed development is backland development which harms the character of the area formed by common plot shapes, sizes, orientation and building to plot ratios, and which erodes the designated low-density nature of the area, harming visual amenity and conflicting with policies DBC1 and DBC3 of the Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan, Policy CP37 of the Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the NPPF.