Agenda item

Councillor Peter Green had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during it consideration.

The Officers explained the amended details of the proposal which included the removal of a unit to improve the separation of the properties; the removal of two flats to make a parking area; and the adjustment of a unit to enable the required distances between properties in Raleigh Close to be met.

It was reported that a Tree Preservation Order had been placed on the pink Chestnut trees and that discussions had been held with the applicant regarding flood works to enable the building works to take place with a neutral impact on flooding.

Further to the report it was noted that an additional letter had been received raising concerns regarding boundary treatments and loss of privacy.

The Officers referred to the traffic appraisal commenting that in the peak hour a filling station could expect to have 100 movements per hour, whereas the proposed level of housing would generate between 45 to 50 movements.  Therefore, the effect on peak hour congestion would be less than the permitted use and on this basis the County Engineer had raised no objection.

The Officers referred to concerns raised regarding noise, reporting that because of the town scape benefits the Environmental Health Officer supported the scheme.

It was explained that the legal obligations were progressing and that the S106 obligation with the County Council was nearly completed.  However, it was suggested that if the legal obligations could not be agreed quickly, an additional condition should be attached to any permission to require that a S106 obligation be completed with the District Council prior to the commencement of development.  Furthermore it was suggested that a condition also be added regarding slab levels.

David Thomas, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He referred to the negotiations which had taken place commenting that there had been a change of architect to address concerns regarding density and footprint.  He reported that there were further minor amendments to the plans now being considered. He commented that the site was a brownfield site and therefore it was suitable for development. He drew attention to the Consultant Architect’s comments agreeing that the proposal would result in an improvement to the appearance of this disused site.  He noted that the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection to the proposal.   He referred to the level of affordable housing and highlighted that traffic generation from a residential use would be less than from the permitted use.  Hence there would be a significant reduction in potential traffic movements and consequently turning which was considered a benefit by the Highway Authority in terms of highway safety.

One of the local Members expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its density and traffic generation.  He highlighted Policy H15 noting that it referred to a density of 40 dwellings per hectare whereas the proposal being considered amounted to significantly more than that, which he commented was to enable the provision of the affordable housing.  He referred to comments made regarding a reduction in the number of vehicles turning advising that there were two filling stations, one on either side of the road and therefore there was not the necessity to turn as suggested.  He commented that there was no provision for a play area for children within the site and whilst there was the suggestion that residents from this site might make use of the Ock Meadow, this was often inaccessible due to flooding. The nearest play area was at Tower Close which was inadequate.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application commenting that the traffic congestion along Drayton Road and in Abingdon generally would be worse.

Another local Member also expressed concern at the proposal in terms of density; traffic generation and the expectation that recreational facilities for children of this development would be provided elsewhere.  He expressed concern regarding the level of traffic along the Drayton Road and emphasised that this development would result in even more traffic.

One Member expressed support for the proposal commenting that the density levels were minimum guidelines and that the extant use needed to be taken into account.  As such the proposal resulted in a reduction in potential traffic movements.  He commented that the principle of development on this site was acceptable and the designs were satisfactory although they could not be judged as a whole, particularly in terms of how they would impact on neighbouring properties.  As such he considered that a model of the development should be submitted. 

In considering the application the following comments were made: -

Principle of Development

·                     The principle of development on this site was acceptable.

·                     The proposal was on a site with an extant commercial use and a residential development would result in a visual improvement of the area.

·                     Affordable housing was needed.

Financial Contributions

·                     The Council should seek a financial contribution towards waste management it being noted that the Council would be providing a waste collection service and providing green boxes for recycling.

Traffic

·                     The assessments made regarding traffic were questionable as the levels of vehicle movements were disputed.

·                     It was questioned whether vehicles specifically went down the Drayton Road to use the garages.  It was probable that the majority of vehicles using the garages were from passing traffic anyway.

·                     Drayton Road was very congested and this proposal would further increase traffic.

·                     A traffic scheme should be considered whereby traffic entered and left the site in one direction similar to at the hospital site in Marcham Road.

Density/Impact

·                     It would be easier to assess impact with a model of the development.

·                     A model would enable an assessment of how the high density proposed would fit in and impact on the surrounding area. 

Play Area

·                     A play area should be provided as part of the development. It was unacceptable that play equipment was not to be provided on the site. 

·                     Any play area should be constructed to an adoptable standard.

·                     Play equipment elsewhere which could be used by residents of this development was essential.

·                     A suitable play area in the vicinity was needed. A short distance to a play are was not unreasonable.

·                     In terms of public open space, it was noted that a financial contribution towards offsite provision should be made. However, the proximity of such provision should be considered.  It was explained that there were two small play areas, one at Tower Drive and one on the other side of the Drayton Road.   It was commented that improvement to the play area might be the best option for the residents of this development.

·                     It was unreasonable to require the Town Council to upgrade existing play facilities elsewhere for the benefit of this development.  However, it was noted that a financial contribution to facilitate this would be given by the developer and that it was likely that the Town Council would accept the offer.

Noise

·                     The area was noisy.

Other Matters

·                     It was not clear in the report whether the matters referred to in the Consultant Architect’s report had been addressed.

·                     It was questioned whether the land was contaminated although the Officers advised that the site had been surveyed in some detail in respect of decontamination.

In response to a question raised regarding the use of a condition to require the completion of S106 obligations prior to commencement of development, the Officers confirmed that such conditions were lawful. 

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson and seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere that consideration of application ABG/1175/23 be deferred pending the submission of a model of the development.  However, on being put to the vote this was lost by 8 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.

By 9 votes to 6 it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Development) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and local Members to approve application ABG/1175/23 subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        a further condition to require that a S106 obligation be completed with the District Council prior to the commencement of development; and

(3)        a slab levels condition.