Agenda item

Further to the report the Committee was advised that car parking was a main issue to consider as part of this application.  However, the Officers explained that there were car free flats elsewhere in Oxford and that the site was contained within an area of on-street parking control.  The Committee was asked to consider how likely it was that residents of the proposed flats would have a vehicle.  It was commented that the Botley shopping centre was nearby and that there were cycle and bus routes immediately in front of the site.  Therefore, the Officers had concluded that it was likely that the residents of the flats would not necessarily need to have a vehicle.  However, should they have a vehicle the Committee was asked to consider what harm would be caused.

The Officers explained that they had made several visits to the site at different times of day to assess the parking situation. It was reported that there was parking in the area during the day but not the evening, which suggested that the area was not used for residents parking.  Where there were no parking restrictions there was on-street parking.  Therefore, the Officers had concluded that it was difficult to argue that cars from this scheme would cause on-street parking.  It was commented that the site was in a sustainable area and that the application could not be refused on highway grounds.

Mr P Stevens made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the level and continuity of traffic; parking restrictions and the lack of parking provision.  He suggested that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Guidance in view of the lack of parking proposed.  He suggested that the development would require several parking spaces and that no spaces was unreasonable and contrary to the Guidance and he suggested that there was a need for better supporting information where there was a lower amount.  He suggested that the application should be refused which was the view of the Parish Council.

Mr P Uzzell the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application advising that the key matter was that the site was in an appropriate location for a car free scheme and that it would be difficult to find another more sustainable location.  He explained that in terms of PPG3 and PPG13, the absence of any parking provision was aimed at reducing the need for parking.  He highlighted that the County Engineer had raised no objection and that there were car free scheme in similar locations in Oxford city. Notwithstanding the merits of the application in terms of the acceptability of not requiring parking provision, he advised that there was some spare capacity for parking in the evenings in the vicinity and consequently residents would not be compromised. He explained that there would be no overlooking, loss of privacy and all the windows were positioned forward of the office building.  He reported that high density developments were encouraged and that the surface water would not drain into a public sewer.

One of the local Members expressed her concern at the proposal referring to the level of traffic and parking.  She explained that she knew the area very well and that the promotion of a car free scheme was not appropriate in this location.  She raised concerns regarding flooding; the setting of a precedent; displaced parking; parking problems generally and the possibility of other similar applications in Botley. She disagreed that this was a sustainable location and disagreed that a car free scheme would be possible.

Another local Member noted that the Officers had consulted with Thames Water and commented that there was a need for an upgrading of the drainage system in this area.  He commented that he had some concerns but welcomed the principle of a car free development.  He commented that whilst he agreed that the occupiers of the flats might not have cars any visitors might.  However, he could not object to the proposal in planning terms.

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

-           There was insufficient evidence that this scheme would be appropriate.

-           Notwithstanding that this was intended as a car free development the reality of any occupiers not owing a vehicle was remote.

-           It was not possible to enforce that the residents should not have a vehicle.

-           There was insufficient parking in the locality.

-           Approval of the scheme would set a precedent for similar applications in the area.

-           Large family homes were being lost in Botley.

-           This proposal was different to a car free scheme in Abingdon where there was a public car park near by and residents were able to purchase parking permits for that car park.

-           Vehicle access to the development was restricted.

-           Even taking a view that only one space was needed for each flat, 7 or 8 spaces would realistically be needed.  There were flats in Wantage where the occupiers had more than one vehicle. 

-           There was no public car parking nearby where the occupiers could purchase a season ticket or use another parking facility.

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

-           There were many residents in the Vale who did not have a vehicle and that this scheme was achievable.

-           The County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal and therefore should the Committee be minded to refuse the application a view from an independent highway expert supporting refusal should be sought.

-           This was a unique site in that the primary roads around it were restricted, which was not a situation which was likely to be repeated elsewhere and therefore the possibility of setting a precedent was remote.  Furthermore, every application needed to be considered on its merits.

-           It was possible to obtain a season ticket for the car park in Westway.  Only people who would buy these properties would be car free.

It was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox and seconded by Councillor Briony Newport that a view be sought from an independent highway consultant regarding the car parking requirement associated with this development.  However, on being put, by 8 votes to 7 with the Chair exercising his second and casting vote the proposal was lost.

By 8 votes to 7 with the Chair exercising his second and casting vote and Councillors Terry Cox, Monica Lovatt, Briony Newport, Peter Saunders, Margaret Turner and Pam Westwood voting against and having asked that this be so recorded in the Minutes, it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/19742 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.