Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Faringdon and the Coxwells)

Councillors Roger Cox and Jerry Patterson had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that the applicant’s objectives in developing the site were primarily to address the lack of small and flexible workspace for new businesses in the area, as little commercial development had been undertaken within Faringdon in recent years, and to provide start up units in the face of continual pressure for employment land to be used for other uses such as housing.

Details of the development were explained.

Ms Andrea Storey made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  She particularly raised concern regarding volume of traffic and car parking.  She explained that the access was not wide enough to accommodate additional traffic and that she had concerns regarding vehicle movements; traffic congestion and cyclist and pedestrian safety. She referred to the existing car parking problems associated with the adjacent Health Centre commenting that the current proposal would exasperate this.  In addition she raised concerns regarding the design; elevations; height and materials.  She considered that the two storey element would be out of keeping and over dominant.  She considered the proposal overbearing; out of keeping; incompatible in terms of materials in that red brick would not compliment the existing houses.  Finally, she raised concerns regarding security and management of the site.  She suggested that the lack of visibility of the area would attract local youths resulting in antisocial behaviour.

Mr T Gashe, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the applicant regarded this development as an important part towards sustainability in Faringdon.  He explained that the applicant would be making a financial contribution towards highway improvements and that as the proposal was for small units, which were usually occupied by very low numbers of people, the proposed level of parking was satisfactory. In terms of design he commented that whilst the towers were two storey, they were flat roof and as such would not be over dominant on the adjacent residential development.  In terms of security, he considered that this would be managed by the occupiers of the units.

One of the local Members considered that the proposal did not amount to overdevelopment in terms of scale and size which in his view was subjective. He agreed that the Health Centre car park was well used but that the County Council had raised not objection on highway ground.  He agreed that there was traffic congestion onto the A420 but noted that a financial contribution was to be made towards highway infrastructure. He welcomed materials being reported back to Committee for approval and commented that in his view the proposal was acceptable.  However, he expressed some reservations regarding car parking but noted that the level proposed was considered acceptable by the Officers.

Other Members spoke in support of the application commenting that the proposal would be beneficial to Faringdon.  It was considered that parking for this development would be adequate in view of the small units proposed which were unlikely to generate high traffic levels.  It was commented that the parking problems experienced at the Health Centre were not relevant as the proposal needed to provide parking for its own purpose and not that elsewhere.    It was suggested that the Officers should discuss parking requirements for health centres generally, with the County Council, especially when those centres covered rural areas.  Finally, it was considered that care was needed regarding materials to ensure that they complimented the existing houses.

One Member whilst supporting the application commented that in future Officers should seek to obtain financial contributions towards waste collection and recycling.

In response to a comment made, the Officers clarified that the applicant would maintain the building and landscaping and would also manage the site.  It was also highlighted that the Crime Prevention Advisor had raised no objections to the application.  Furthermore, the Officers reported that there would be a financial contribution in the sum of £4,780 towards bus service provision and a further £500 to amend the Traffic Order requiring restrictions.

By 14 votes to nil 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/19758/1 subject to: -

(1)        the conditions set out in the report;

(2)        the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the required highways financial contribution; and

(3)        a panels of materials being erected on site with details of those materials coming back to Committee for approval.

(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 refuse application GFA/19758/1 should the Section 106 agreement not be completed within the 13 week period (which ends on 28 June 2007), with the reason for refusal being based on the lack of necessary financial contributions towards improving local highway infrastructure.