Agenda item

Mr E Batts, on behalf of the Parish Council made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  Furthermore, he stressed the need to ensure that the trees at the entrance to the site were protected during construction works.  In respect of parking provision, he claimed that there was no provision for visitor parking on site and that this was likely to lead to on-street parking.  Finally, he referred to the need to relocate the bus stop away from the entrance to the development site.

Mr S Pickles made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and by the previous speaker.  He referred to the scale, design and layout of the proposed development which he claimed would have a detrimental impact on 4 and 6 Cumnor Hill.  He expressed concern that access to some of the flats was from the side or rear of the development, which he claimed raised issues of personal safety for both residents and visitors.

Mr P Uzzell, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to Planning Policy Statement 3, which encouraged developers to make the most efficient use of development land.  He considered that the proposed development had been designed to overcome any local concerns regarding loss of amenity.  The provision of a natural stone wall would improve the visual impact of the development from Eynsham Road.  Finally, he referred to the proposed parking provision which accorded with County Council parking standards. 

Members sought assurances that the drainage scheme for the development would prevent surface water draining into the existing foul sewer, in view of past flooding problems locally.  In response, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that a scheme would need to be submitted prior to development commencing and agreed by the Council’s Drainage Engineer.  One Member referred to a concern raised by a local resident regarding the retention of balcony screens and considered that their retention should be a condition on any permission.  Furthermore, it was suggested that an informative be added to any permission advising that any change to the glazing of high level windows on the east elevation would require planning permission.  In respect of the proposed access to some of the flats from the side or rear of the development site, it was suggested that the views of the Thames Valley Police Architectural Liaison Officer be sought.  Finally one Member stressed that the cost of relocating the bus stop should be borne by the applicant.

The two local Members present at the meeting welcomed the comments from the objectors, in particular the concerns regarding the retention of trees at the entrance to the site and the relocation of the bus stop away from the entrance to the site.  It was recognised that this was a major development and that maximum use of the site had been achieved, with adequate parking provision.  Concern regarding flooding in the area was highlighted.

In response, the Area Planning Officer advised that the Council’s Aboricultural Officer had visited the site and had concluded that a number of trees be retained, although none were worthy of a Tree Preservation Order.  In respect of the relocation of the bus stop, the views of the County Engineer would be sought.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that authority to approve application NHI/3993/1 be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to:-

(1)                           the conditions set out in the report together with a further condition relating to the retention of balcony screens;

(2)                           clarification from the CountyEngineer regarding the need to relocate the bus stop from outside the entrance to the development site; 

(3)               the receipt of the views of the Thames Valley Police Architectural Liaison Officer regarding the access to some of the flats from the side or rear of the development site and whether this raised personal safety issues for both residents and visitors.