Agenda item

Councillor Monica Lovatt had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Councillors Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Peter Jones, Julie Mayhew-Archer and Laurel Symons had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.  It was reported that the Section 106 obligation was not completed and therefore the Committee was asked that should it be minded to approve the application, to consider adding a Grampian condition.  Furthermore, Members were asked to add an additional condition removing permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in the side facing walls of the dwellings on plots 1, 2 and 10.

Mr A Bryden speaking on behalf of the Town Council made a statement objecting to the application.  He raised concern regarding traffic, expressing surprise that the CountyEngineer had raised no objections.  He referred to concerns regarding safety of pedestrians and cyclists along this busy road.  He reported that there were two schools in the area resulting in about 500 children of primary school age travelling along this road. He commented on the severe traffic congestion at peak times and emphasised that the proposal would result in an increase in traffic.  He advised that there were also secondary schools nearby resulting in excess of a further 900 children most of which walked or cycled in this area.  He commented that it was difficult for pedestrians to walk against the flow of children at peak times. He commented that the proposal would result in the loss of a green area which would be detrimental to the character of the area.  He advised that this was quoted as a reason for refusal of an application in Oxford Road where car parking at the front was considered harmful to the street scene. He considered that the circumstances were similar in this case.  Furthermore, he argued that approval of the application would set a precedent for other similar developments.

Mr Carne made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding increased traffic.  He reported that peaks times were between 8.00am and 9.00am and 3.00pm and 4.00pm during school terms times.  There were three schools, and the majority of children used the footpath.  He commented that the proposal would result in vehicles being required to cross the footpath to access Northcourt Road which would be extremely dangerous given the high number of pedestrians.  He argued that there would be a large increase in vehicle movements.  Finally, he reported that there had been two fatal accidents along Northcourt Road and he expressed real concerns regarding safety.

Gareth Williams also made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the affect of the proposal on the environment.  He expressed regret at the loss of green space and commented that the proposal would harm the area and adversely impact on wildlife.  He advised that this matter had not been addressed in the Officer’s report. He referred to traffic congestion and to concerns regarding car parking in the lay-by opposite which resulted in cars reversing onto Northcourt Road at busy times.  Finally, he reported that there would be a further fatal accident.

Neil Warner, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application. He commented on concerns regarding highway safety commenting that the County Engineer had raised no objection.  He reported that Northcourt Road had adequate capacity to cope with additional traffic movements.  Traffic speed was low due to the calming measures and residents were aware of the level of pedestrians at peak times.  He reported that there were two additional parking spaces in excess of parking standards. He explained that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area, which was diverse.  He commented that there were flats opposite.  He reported that the development ought to allow for a density of at least 50 dwellings per hectare.  However, only 42 per hectare was proposed.  The hedge would be retained and the dwelling would be set away from the site boundary so there would be no over looking.  He commented that there would be space for boundary treatment.  In response to comments regarding affordable housing, he explained that the number of dwellings proposed had been reduced in response to concerns raised regarding the number and not deliberately to come below the affordable housing threshold.

One of the local Members commented that the plans were inaccurate in that the nursery behind the development was not shown.   She expressed concern that there was a risk that traffic from this development would add to the existing traffic congestion and pedestrian overcrowding at peak times.  She expressed concern that drivers might try to use this development for dropping off their children which would mean that cars would cross the pavement.  She emphasised that the retention of landscaping was vital and that the hedges were visually very attractive at this site, although they might restrict visibility for drivers exiting the site.   Finally, she commented that it was regrettable that there would be no affordable housing.

Another local Member spoke against the application raising concerns regarding unneighbourliness and also that the style of housing was not in keeping on this site near the Northcourt Conservation Area.  He suggested that one of the dwellings was too close to the neighbour.  He referred to the site being near a school and college and that the proposal was too dense. Furthermore, he raised concerns regarding traffic and questioned whether the County Engineer was aware of traffic congestion on this road. He suggested that foot and cycle traffic were not recognised by the County Engineer. He referred to an Inspector’s decision to refuse permission elsewhere and commented that approval of this application should similarly be refused.  Finally, he commented that the proposal would set a precedent for further development and that this would cumulatively destroy the environment, character and appearance of the area. He suggested that this was the wrong application in the wrong place. 

The local Member commented that should the Committee be minded to approve the application he had concerns regarding the car parking being sited to the front of the plot.  He suggested that consideration should be given to the removal of the hedge to improve visibility at the access although he would wish the hedge to be retained.  Finally, he expressed his regret that there was no affordable housing and he asked whether it would be possible for the Officers to explore this with the applicant.

Some Members spoke in support of the application advising that it would be reckless and unreasonable of the Council to disregard the advice of the County Engineer who was an expert in highways matters.  It was emphasised that given that there was no objection from the CountyEngineer, it would not be possible to refuse permission of the application on highway grounds.  Furthermore, it was considered that there were no material considerations to warrant refusal of the application.  The Committee noted that the 13 week period for determination of the application would expire on 11 April.  One Member suggested that delaying determination would impact on the Council’s receipt of Planning Delivery Grant and could lead to a subsequent increase in Council Tax.  However, the Officers advised that this was not a material planning consideration.

Other Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                     The views of a highway expert were not needed in this area as it was so obvious that at peak times there was severe traffic congestion.  It was suggested that Northcourt Road was one of the busiest roads in Abingdon, if not the County. 

·                     Whilst the Council was required to consider development of brownfield sites, there needed to be a judgement made weighing up factors such as adverse impact on the environment.  It was suggested that this proposal would be harmful in this regard and that a precedent would be set for similar development in the area. 

·                     The increase in traffic would be harmful and pedestrian safety would be compromised. 

·                     A car park at the front of the site would spoil the character and appearance of the road.

·                     The CountyEngineer’s comments were technical and there was doubt that regard had been made to the complexity of traffic. 

·                     The flats should be located to the rear of the site where they would be less visible.

One Member questioned whether the CountyEngineer had regard to pedestrian and cycle traffic in making his comments.  In response the Officers advised that the CountyEngineer would be concerned with whether there was sufficient awareness and vision to allow a driver to act according to the situation on the road or pavement around the site.

It was proposed by Councillor Richard Gibson and seconded by Councillor Peter Jones that consideration of the application should be deferred to seek the views of an independent highways expert.   However, on being put to the vote, this was lost by 6 votes to 8 with 2 abstentions (with 1 of the voting Members having withdrawn for consideration of this item).

By 9 votes to 7 (with 1 of the voting Members having withdrawn for consideration of this item) it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/19126/1-X be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        a further condition to  remove permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in the side facing walls of the dwellings on plots 1, 2 and 10; and

(3)        the following Grampian Condition: -

            “the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Section 106 Planning Obligation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, covering financial contributions towards education, libraries, waste management, museum services, social and healthcare and administration and monitoring charges.”