Agenda item

Councillor Derek Rawson had declared a Personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that two further letters of objection had been received one of which had included an Independent Design Assessment which had been circulated to Members by the objector.  The letters reiterated concerns relating to matters covered in the report and in addition raised concerns regarding the cross section drawing not going across the whole of the site and appearing to be inaccurate; the floor areas stated in the application forms being incorrect and the building being some 200% bigger in floor area.  The Officers advised that the Independent Design Assessment was subjective and that it would be for the Committee to decide whether the scheme was acceptable or not in terms of the design, form and materials proposed.

The Officers advised that in terms of floor areas the proposed building had been calculated to have a floor area of 244.63 square metres occupying 17.5% of the site.  Whilst the floor area would be double the existing it was not considered to be an over development of the site.  Details of neighbouring plot ratios were outlined.

Finally, the Officers advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application and in view of the allegations of discrepancies over levels and gradients in the section drawing, it was suggested that condition 6 set out in the report should be negatively worded to include a requirement for full details of the whole driveway in addition to the access point to be submitted to and approved prior to the commencement of works.  An additional condition also needed to be added to ensure that the existing access was closed prior to the commencement of development.

Dr Phillip Hawtin made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding density, the sensitivity of the site, lack of car parking, size of the building on this plot, dominance, overlooking, the proposal being out of character and not in keeping with the area, the adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours and design.

Mark Sayers speaking on behalf of the neighbours also made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to PPS3 in terms of the new build not being complementary to existing development; scale; height; proximity to neighbouring properties; size; inadequacy of screening; positioning on the site; dominance; loss of sunlight; out of character; over development; lack of garden area; design; car parking layout and the proposal having a harmful impact.

Paul Southouse the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal had been put forward after lengthy consultation with the Officers and that the design process had resulted in a tailored design suiting the site and location.  He commented that the proposal was successful in terms of design, access and parking and that the drainage would be dealt with.  In terms of loss of privacy he advised that the proposal met current guidelines and that in his view the proposal would enhance the character and the quality of the area.

Mr Douglas Riach also made a statement in support of the application commenting that he understood the objections raised but explained that the design had been carefully considered to have regard to those concerns.  He commented that some inaccuracies had been raised by the objectors and he asked the Committee to have regard to the comments of the Consultant Architect and the Architects Panel in support of the proposal. 

One of the local Members raised concern at the proposal commenting that an application had been submitted seeking to establish the area as a Conservation Area and he suggested that that was a material consideration.  He referred to a recent publication by English Heritage commenting that the application was premature.  He referred to a previous decision of the Committee to request a report from Thames Water on the impact of development in Cumnor Hill.  He explained that to his knowledge this was still awaited and he noted that in a letter from Thames Water previously, it had been stated that any further applications should be treated with caution.  He commented that he was worried that a significant problem could result in the future noting the geology of the area, the natural drainage, the undersized piping and the undersized sewerage system.  Finally, he referred to access noting that planning permission had been granted for a number of dwellings in Dean Court and that there would be increased traffic on the access road.

Another local Member raised no objection to the principle of development on the site but raised concerns regarding design.  He referred to the architectural integrity of the proposal and despite the views of the Architects Panel and the Consultant Architect he had reservations regarding the proposal.  He suggested that the proposed materials were unsuitable in this area and that in his view the application should be refused on design grounds.

The Officers advised the Committee that the test was not whether an alternative design was preferable, but whether the proposal caused harm which was significant enough to justify refusal.  Furthermore, in terms of the application for Conservation Area status, Members needed to have regard to the impact of the proposal on the character of the area as it was designated at the moment.  The proposal for Conservation Area status had been put forward recently and was not a material planning consideration as it had not yet been given proper consideration.

Other Members spoke against the proposal in terms of design, impact on the character and appearance of the area, size, proximity and drainage.  However, other Members spoke in support of the application welcoming the design and the carefully laid out parking.  It was commented that whilst the building would be higher than the existing house it was set at a lower level because of the land gradients and there would be adequate screening. 

By 9 votes to 5 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/19879/1 be approved subject to:-

(1)        the conditions set out in the report with condition 6 being amended to include a requirement for full details of the whole driveway in addition to the access point to be submitted to and approved prior to the commencement of works; and

(2)        an additional condition to ensure the existing access is closed prior to the commencement of development.