Agenda item

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that the plans had been amended from those originally submitted and that Faringdon Town Council had raised the same concerns regarding the amended plans.   In addition 4 letters of objection reiterating the same concerns as those previously raised had been received.

The Committee was reminded that the County Council had submitted a holding objection due to the site being inaccessible for waste vehicles and that the bin store was inadequate. The County Council had been asked to consider the issue again and its response was read out in full at the meeting.  It was noted that the County Council had no objection to the access arrangements. 

It was reported that in terms of waste collection, the Officers had consulted the waste management team who had indicated that from an operational standpoint there would be no objection to waste being deposited at a collection point for collection on the day of collection.  However it was explained that the Officers had concerns regarding this as the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had indicated that waste being deposited at a collection point could result in an environmental nuisance.  It was commented that the applicant had confirmed that there would be a private waste collection service with a management company running the site. If this was the case, the Officer reported that they would look to secure this service by way of a section 106 agreement.

In terms of the lack of access for fire engines it was noted that a sprinkler system was being proposed. 

Dr C Kinsey made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding noise; increased traffic; lack of footpaths in the neighbouring Walnut Court; pedestrian safety; accessibility for large vehicles due to on-street parking; lack of parking; the inadequacy of the parking survey; access for service and emergency vehicles; environmental issues in terms of waste being left uncollected; damage to roads during construction; contractors using the car park; loss of open space and impact on local wildlife.

One of the local Members commented that the amended plans addressed concerns raised regarding over looking but he considered that further car parking would be welcomed.  He suggested that the carriage way would need resurfacing.  He expressed support for the application noting that the access would be widened; the site was close to the Town centre; it did not amount to overdevelopment and that a sprinkler system was proposed.  He considered that the issue of concern was refuse collection and subject to this being resolved he felt the application was acceptable.

Another local Member commented that he would welcome extra car ports commenting that it was inevitable that parking would spill into the adjoining area. He expressed some concern regarding access.  He suggested that the fire issue could be overcome but that he was not entirely satisfied with a private waste collect service.  He therefore considered that the application should be refused.

Another Member commented that whatever refuse collection scheme was adopted, the scheme should allow for recycling and not just waste collection. He expressed concern that the residents of the new development might feel aggrieved in that they could feel as if they were paying for a refuse collection service twice as they would still be required to pay Council Tax.  He suggested that this issue needed to be considered carefully.  Finally, he referred to the current waste collection service advising that smaller refuse vehicles were used to collect waste from some areas. 

On consideration of this matter it was suggested that the Opposition Spokesman and the Executive Member with the portfolio for Environmental Health should be included in any delegation.

One Member suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable the Officers to resolve the outstanding matters and added that the Officers should look at a condition to require permeable surfaces where possible.

One Member referred to the poor state of the road surface of Walnut Court questioning whether it would be reasonable to add a condition to require its resurfacing.  The Officer responded that this was dependent on the ownership of the road but that the matter could be looked into.

It was proposed by Councillor John Woodford, seconded by Councillor Sue Marchant and by 8 votes to 6 it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application GFA/10178/2 be deferred to enable the Officers to discuss further with the applicant and local Members:

(1)       refuse collection arrangements;

(2)       additional car parking spaces instead of car ports; and

(3)       resurfacing of the road surface of Walnut Court.