Agenda item

The Committee was advised that the ridge height of the building had been reduced and the side of the roof amended.  Furthermore there were some key design changes.  It was noted that the proposal would resemble a large house in an “arts and crafts” style; there was a softening of the architectural details; proposed windows had been replaced with roof lights and the access would be upgraded.

Mr B Ahern made a statement objecting to the application advising that he represented the views of 70% of the residents in the area.  He raised concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and specifically expressed concerns regarding planning design; the appearance of the property; the proposal being contrary to policy; the style and design being out of keeping in an area of detached family houses; pedestrian safety; stability of the community; percentage of small units; over development of the site; the proposal being too large; loss of amenity; overlooking; noise from vehicles; light pollution; loss of privacy; adverse impact on wildlife and damage to natural habitats; refuse disposal; traffic and highway safety; the narrowness of the road; the inconvenience of rear car parking; the likelihood of on-street parking; traffic and access.

Simon Marson the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application advising that regard had been given to the character and appearance of houses in the area; there were large houses in large gardens and the proposal would be in keeping; the site was well screened with mature trees; although there would be loss of 4 trees, 10 new trees would be planted; there would be limited views only of the property; the gable and hipped bay window would be an attractive entrance feature; the design was interesting; the bulk and massing had been minimised; the proposal accorded with planning policies in terms of density; the Green Belt and open countryside were protected; the design was domestic and traditional natural materials would be used and finally, the Council’s Consultant Architect supported the proposal.

One of the Local Members explained that most of the residents were not opposed to a new large house but to the density proposed.  He referred to Policy H15 suggesting that the density should be not less than 30 houses per hectare as this site was within Cumnor village.  He explained that the character of the area was changing marginally but that such a high density development in this area was not appropriate.  He referred to Policy D6 and expressed concern regarding the impact on wildlife.  He commented that a 5m strip to protect wildlife had been demanded as part of permission granted at a house nearby and he suggested that a similar measure would be reasonable in this case.  He referred to development elsewhere in the area where small units of accommodation would be provided and that this development was not necessary.  Finally he asked that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, permitted development rights should be removed and discussions should be entered into to seek six flats rather than nine.  However, it was noted that flats did not have permitted development rights.

Another local Member raised no objection to the proposal but expressed some reservation regarding density.

In response to the comments made the Officers explained that the Local Plan was clear in that this area was one of the main built up areas identified in the Local Plan.  Reference was made to Policy H15(1) and the requirement to seek higher densities.  Members were advised that they would need to identify the harm from the proposal in terms of its design if this was to be a reason for refusal.

One Member reminded the Committee of the need to have regard to material considerations only, despite the popularity or otherwise of an application and furthermore, that the Committee should consider the application as presented and not what might be preferred.  He commented that this application was acceptable in terms of the Local Plan density requirements.  He suggested that there was no reason to refuse the application but requested that a condition requiring that a slab level to be agreed and then inspected prior to development should be added to any permission.

One Member welcomed the design.  He commented that there was a need for smaller units of accommodation.

The Officers drew Members’ attention to Local Plan Policy H15 which was read out for clarification.

Another Member welcomed the application, commenting on its high quality design which he considered in keeping in this location, but agreed that the wildlife should be protected during construction.  The Officers’ considered that condition 14 set out in the report would be sufficient.  However, Members considered that there was a need to protect the natural habitat of wildlife.

In response, the Officers explained that the exact location of any wildlife habitats was unknown and to specifically request their protection would be unreasonable without more information.  It was therefore considered that an informative should be added to any permission granted to advise the applicant of the need to maintain a corridor of a least one metre wide along the boundary of the site.

One Member whilst welcoming the application raised concern regarding the necessity of the garages.  She commented that additional parking could be provided if they were omitted from the scheme.  However, the Committee noted that the application needed to be considered as presented and that the garages were not sufficiently harmful to require removal from the scheme.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/1079/3 be approved subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        a further condition regarding slab levels to be agreed and inspected;

(3)        an informative to advise the applicant of the need to maintain a corridor of a least one metre wide along the boundary of the site to protect wildlife.