Agenda item

(Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

The Principle Planning Officer reported that in response to concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans submitted, the applicant had undertaken a full site survey and confirmed that the measurements accorded with those set out on the Block Plan.   He also reported that Oxfordshire County Council had received the required financial contribution towards enhancements to the bus route and that the Officer recommendation was now one of approval subject to conditions.

Dr G Counsell made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He claimed that the plans and drawings provided with application failed to meet the standards of accuracy required by Policy DC1 of the Local Plan 2011, in that:-

(1)               the scale used in the site layout plan was in error, to the favour of the applicant by 9.2%.  The line representing 12m on the layout, corresponded to a distance of only 10.9m, as acknowledged by the Planning Officer in his report;

(2)               the site layout plan failed to indicate the extension at the rear of 3 Blenheim Way, which was an integral part of the house.

In respect of plot 3, Dr Counsell advised that the proposed development had a 2.5 storey, 9.1m high side elevation at a distance of just 9.3m from the main window to the rear extension to 3 Blenheim Way.  The Council’s Planning Advisory Note clearly stated that a main window facing a flank wall should be kept 12m away from it.  The Advisory Note made no mention that this requirement only applied to parallel distances, as suggested by the Planning Officer in his report.  He referred to the 26 multi-storey dwellings built in the village in the last 18 months, none of which were suitable for the aging population or those with impaired mobility, contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 and claimed that the application before the Committee would do nothing to redress this.  In summary, Dr Counsell considered that the Planning Officer in his assessment had failed to apply the criteria set out in the Council’s own design guidelines and advice and he urged the Committee to reject the application and instruct the developer to enter into dialogue with local residents to achieve a mutually acceptable development.

Victor Brown the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that this was a revised application which had taken on board the concerns raised with the original application.  He referred to the size of the site, which could accommodate the development proposed without giving the impression of over development and intrusion to neighbouring properties.  He confirmed that the plans submitted were accurate and stressed that the distance of the nearest property to the proposed dwellings was in excess of the Council’s design guidelines.  In respect of the 2.5 storey dwellings, he explained that the eaves height would be the same as a 2 storey dwelling, with a ridge height similar to that of the properties in Blenheim Way. Plot 4 would not overlook any of the properties in Blenheim Way.  Finally, he considered that the proposed development accorded with both national and district planning guidelines and would compliment the surrounding area and the village.

The local Member, present at the meeting, reiterated many of the concerns raised by the objectors and by Dr Counsell.  She referred to the distance from the rear window of 1 Blenheim Way to the flank of Plot 3 of the proposed development which was 12.1 metres and the distance from the kitchen window of 3 Blenheim Way to the flank of Plot 3 of 12.6 metres, both of which were perilously close to the absolute minimum of 12 metres allowed for in the Council’s Planning Advisory Note.  Furthermore, the houses proposed for Plots 1, 2 and 3 were 2.5 storey, 9.1 metres high and their visual dominance had been recognised in the applicant’s design statement.  The applicant had sought to lessen the impact of Plot 4 on the garden area of Sunny Lawn to the north but not the properties in Blenheim Way despite it having a much larger garden and set back 27 metres from the development site.   The local member considered the proposed development to be gross over-development that would cause misery for the residents of Blenheim Way for years to come.

In considering the application, the Committee made the following comments/observations:-

• The density of the development proposed for the site was below that set out in Government guidelines and the number of dwellings proposed was below the figure required to trigger the provision of affordable housing as part of the development.
• The development proposed did not meet the Council’s own planning guidance in terms of distance from the distributor road and impact on neighbouring properties.
• The development would infringe the existing gap between the parishes of Longworth and Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor.  A smaller number of dwellings on the site would retain the gap.
• A re-design of the scheme could accommodate four or five dwellings on the site without having a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
• The proposed development was out of character in terms of the layout and the proximity of the proposed dwellings and their impact on neighbouring properties.
• If the application was approved the site should be laid out prior to the commencement of development to ensure that the scheme could be built in accordance with the plans submitted.

It was proposed by the Chair that application KBA/6770/10 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 14 votes to nil.

It was then proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Richard Farrell that application KBA/6770/10 be refused on the grounds that the density proposed was below Government guidelines and that the number of dwellings proposed was insufficient to attract affordable housing.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 8 votes to 6.

Finally, it was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Councillor Monica Lovatt and by 8 votes to 5, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that application KBA/6770/10 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be agreed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to include Plot 3 being unneighbourly to properties in Blenheim Way and the impact of the development on the character and openness of this part of the village, in particular Plots 1 and 2.