Agenda item

As referred to elsewhere in these Minutes, the Committee considered applications GFA/16464/3–X and GFA/19649/1–X together.  The discussion on both applications is recorded below.

Councillors Roger Cox and Tony de Vere had each declared a personal interest in these applications and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during it consideration.

Further to the report the Officers reported the following: -

·                     The applications were both for outline permission with access only at this stage.

·                     The County Engineer had no objection to the use of one access. 

·                     The Officers were in discussion with the applicant and the County Council to resolve the financial contributions.

·                     Since writing to the report, the Town Council had objected to application GFA/19649/1-X, but had not objected to application GFA/16464/3-X but had sought further details regarding the number of houses proposed and financial contributions.

·                     Six additional letters, (3 on each application) had been received reiterating previous objections regarding security to the rear boundary; loss of the Christmas trees (which provided a sound barrier; a visual barrier and a habitat for wildlife) and drainage.  It had been suggested that no more than 3 houses should be constructed and that a contribution towards youth centre provision should be made.

·                     The District Council was seeking a contribution towards public open space, play equipment and a work of art.

·                     Securing the provision of affordable housing could be covered by condition.

·                     If the Committee was minded to approve the applications a further condition to require the completion of a 106 obligation with the District Council prior to commencement of development was suggested.

·                     The Council’s Arboricultural Officer had inspected the Christmas trees and had advised that they were not worthy of protection by way of a Tree Preservation Order.

Clive Davis made a statement objecting to application GFA/16464/3-X raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly referred to the following concerns: -

·                     The land, which was part of the Winslow Market Garden being referred to as “garden space”.  He explained that the land was a “green field site” of approximately 42x50 yards;

·                     The original application had been for 4 dwellings after the demolition of the Winslow Bungalow.  The Winslow Bungalow was one of the original 4 and so there should now be 3 remaining;

·                     The revised application was for 4 dwellings at the rear of Winslow House, using its access off Coxwell Road;

·                     The plot was too small for 4 five bedroom dwellings;

·                     The dwelling on plot 1 would be sideways to the rear of the garden of No.6 Carters Crescent and built within a metre of the boundary wall;

·                     It was reasonable to assume that there would be windows on the first floor of the dwelling at plot 1 resulting in overlooking of the properties at No.s 6 and 7 Carters Crescent;

·                     The development shoule be limited to a maiximum of 3 five bedroom dwellings, not including Winslow Bungalow;

·                     With the possibility of 3 to 4 cars per dwelling, there could be as many as 20 cars;

·                     The number of vehicles was excessive and inappropriate for the narrow driveway;

·                     The application referred to mains drainage although Winslow Bungalow and Coxwell House has septic tanks;

·                     Previous drawings had shown a hedge along the boundaries of No.s 6, 7 and 8 Carters Crescent.  The owners of these properties would not accept the demolition of a wall to be replaced with a hedge and trees.  Furthermore, they had concerns regarding maintenance.

·                     The wall had been standing for 45 years without any maintenance and he suggested that the developers might consider capping off the wall and finishing the south side of it with a rendered Tyrolean finish.

Andrew Brown representing the view of residents from Tonnington Court and Carters Crescent made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding density which he suggested should be in keeping with the surrounding residential areas on this edge of town site; traffic and access to Coxwell Road as he believed that the traffic levels had been underestimated; safety in terms of vehicle movements and pedestrians; loss of privacy; overlooking; adverse environmental impact in that the Christmas trees currently acted as a wind brake, sound and light barrier and provided a habitat for wildlife and loss of amenity.  He suggested that if the trees were to be removed some landscaping which provided similar benefits should be provided.  He further suggested that the dwelling to be sited near to the rear boundaries of existing dwellings should be no more than two storeys to minimise impact and overlooking. Finally, he suggested that the views of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer should be sought on the design in terms of safety.

One of the local Members reminded the Committee that the applications were for outline consent only at this stage with access.  As such he considered that it was difficult to assess overlooking and impact at this stage due to lack of detail.  He referred to the trees which he considered were of little value although he accepted that they did provide a natural habitat for wildlife.  He commented that visual impact could be mitigated by any design.  He noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection.  He reported that he and the Planning Officer had met with some of the residents of Carters Crescent to discuss their concerns and to explain the planning process.   He indicated that the residents accepted the principle of development in view of the Local Plan and the Inspector’s report. However, he explained that what had caused concern locally was that the illustrative plan had shown a high density development on the site including the possibility of flats backing onto the rear gardens of the properties in Carters Crescent.  He reiterated that without any detail it was difficult to take a view on the proposal, although he did consider that the proposal might amount to over development.  Finally, he expressed concern regarding measurements and sought an assurance regarding the size of the site.

The Officers responded that in respect of application GFA/19649/1-X, the measurements had been checked using computer software and the measurement had been confirmed.

One Member referred to the illustrative drawings referred to and emphasised for the benefit of members of the public that the Committee was not considering any proposal set out in them.

One Member referred to the trees which he noted were of no intrinsic value.  However, he considered that they added value in the wider landscape and commented that if they were to be removed they should be replaced with trees which would have a similar impact on the landscape.   Furthermore, he suggested that the development should be sympathetic in design and scale to this edge of town location.

By 14 voteS to nil on both applications it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA/16464/3-X subject to: -

(1)        the completion of Section 106 Obligations for financial contributions;

            (2)        conditions regarding access;

(3)        a condition to require the completion of a 106 obligation with the District Council prior to the commencement of development;

(4)        an Informative advising the applicant of the need for a high quality and sensitive design to avoid overlooking of the properties in Carters Crescent and that this is edge of town location should be taken into account when considering density.

(b)        that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA/119649/1--X subject to: -

(1)        the completion of Section 106 Obligations with the District Council and the County Council for financial contributions;

            (2)        conditions, including the provision of affordable housing;

(3)        a condition to require the completion of a 106 obligation with the District Council prior to the commencement of development;

(4)        an Informative advising the applicant of the need for a high quality and sensitive design to avoid overlooking of the properties in Carters Crescent and that this is edge of town location should be taken into account when considering density.