Lodged
The following appeals have been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-
(i) Appeal by Mr Mijrat Terzi against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a retrospective application for an arbour and additional pontoons on land at 20 South Quay, Abingdon. (ABG/17715/1);
(ii) Appeal by Builders Ede Limited against the Council’s decision to refurse to permit the erection of 18 one bed apartments, 21 two bed apartments and 23 houses on land adjacent the Police Headquarters, off Collwell Drive, Abingdon (ABG/17140/1).
Dismissed
The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -
(i) Appeal by Esmail Babaahmady against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the creation of a first floor on an existing bungalow at 61 Hurst Rise Road, North Hinksey (NHI/9096/3). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case, were the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.63 Hurst Rise Road with special regard to visual impact; and whether the submitted plans provided a sufficiently accurate basis on which planning permission might be granted.
The Inspector considered that the proposed development, given its notable proximity to the boundary with No.63 would be sufficiently beyond guideline figures as to be over dominant and intrusive when seen from this property. Added weight was given to this view in that No.63 had a lower lying element abutting the boundary with the appeal property. The proposed property would loom above this area in a domineering fashion and appear greater than single storey in height. Whilst the effect of this might currently be limited by existing garden screening, there was no guarantee that this would remain in place in perpetuity. The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposed development would detract from the living conditions of No.63 with special reference to visual impact and would be in conflict with relevant planning policies.
With regard to the accuracy of the plans, the Inspector noted that there were several instances where measurements on the application plans and elevations varied from one drawing to another. The Inspector considered that cumulatively these did not provide a sufficiently accurate basis upon which planning permission might be granted.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to cost was made with the decision letter.
(ii) Appeal by Mr and Mrs Earl against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a first floor extension over existing garage to provide a studio at 1 St James Road, Radley (RAD/15667/1). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the building and thus on the area on which it stood.
The proposal would add a first floor under a pitched roof with a wide dormer window extending virtually the entire width of the front elevation. Whilst the Inspector acknowledged that the area comprised a very considerable diversity of building form, designs and sizes, in the Inspector’s judgement the proposal would stand out as a particularly incongruous structure at a very conspicuous position near the entrance to the site. Not only would its very limited width combine with its considerable height and over dominant dormer to create visually awkward proportions, but it would stand immediately next to number 3 St James Terrace, part of a building of horizontal emphasis and considerable bulk. The Inspector considered that the smaller scale of the prominent building proposed would appear most unsatisfactory and visually uncomfortable. The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposal would harm the appearance of the existing building and that of its surroundings, contrary to planning policies.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(iii) Appeal by BP UK Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a totem sign at Buckland Service Station, Oxford Road, Buckland (BUC/3698/24-A). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Strategic Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect of the sign on the amenity and public safety of the area.
The Inspector considered that the proposal would substantially increase the service area of the sign and as a consequence it would result in a much more prominent sign than that existing at present. In such circumstances the proposed sign, particularly because of its height, would stand out as an unacceptably intrusive feature in this very pleasant rural setting, especially at night when illuminated. The Inspector considered that the existing total sign was visible from sufficient distances away to enable drivers from either direction exercising due care and attention to signal any intention to turn and carry out the manoeuvre without endangering other road users. In these circumstances, the Inspector did not consider that there was any justification for overriding the above amenity objections on public safety grounds.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(iv) Appeal by Tape Crown Limited against an enforcement notice, involving the erection of a new building on land east of Coxwell Road, Faringdon (GCO/8275/2-E) requiring:-
(a) the cessation of all further works on or to the building;
(b) the removal of the building and hard-standing; and
(c) the removal from the land all building materials, building equipment and rubble arising from compliance with requirement (b) and restoration of the land to its original condition before the breach took place.
The Inspector concluded that the development exceeded the size limit set out for permitted development in Class A of Part 6 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and constituted a building not designed for agricultural purposes. The development would therefore require express planning permission which it did not have. Accordingly, the appeal failed under Ground C. On consideration of the deemed application, the Inspector concluded that the design of the building possessed an industrial or commercial character of a kind not normally found in the countryside. It was therefore incongruous in its rural setting and Policy EN4 of the Local Plan precluded development which would unacceptably damage the local landscape. The Inspector concluded that the development carried out was contrary to the aims and objectives of national and local planning policies and in the absence of any material circumstances, sufficient to outweigh the objection, should not be granted permission. With regard to the requirements of the notice, the Inspector did not consider these excessive, although given that a substantial building was to be removed, together with substantial amounts of hardcore, the Inspector agreed that the period of one month specified in the notice to comply with its requirements was too short. The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the Enforcement Notice subject to it being varied by deleting the words “one month” and substituting them with “six months” in paragraph 6 and refused planning permission on the application deemed to have been made. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
Recommendation
that the agenda report be received.
Minutes:
The Committee received and considered an agenda item which advised of two appeals which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for determination and four appeals which had been dismissed.
One Member welcomed the Inspector’s decisions concerning the dismissed appeals. He particularly referred to the appeal in respect of 61 Hurst Rise Road, North Hinksey and asked Members to note the Inspector’s comments regarding the accuracy of plans, namely that cumulatively small inaccuracies in the plans had resulted in the plans not providing a sufficiently accurate basis upon which planning permission might be granted.
In respect of the appeal concerning the totem sign at Buckland Service Station, Oxford Road, Buckland, the Committee noted an amendment to the report in that the Inspector had considered that the proposal would substantially increase the surface area of the sign.
RESOLVED
that the agenda report be received.