Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Harwell)

Further to the report the Committee noted that the plans had been amended.  The Parish Council had commented on the amended plans and had maintained its objection to the application raising concerns regarding increased vehicle usage of the road; access difficulties for emergency and other large vehicles; land ownership (which it was noted was not a material planning consideration); the new owner of Tudor Orchard being unaware of  the application which would impact on his land; and the setting of a precedent for similar applications which cumulatively would have a harmful impact on the character of the area.

The Committee was advised of the comments of the owner of Tudor Orchard who had raised concerns regarding the proposed access in terms of the impact on his land and his lack of knowledge of the application.

It was reported that further comments had been received from the County Council as Highway Authority raising no objection to the application commenting that the proposed access would provide improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers and two cars would be able to pass at the access point.  It was noted that the development would also include the provision of four further car parking spaces for the resident of Blenheim Terrace.

One of the local Members speaking on behalf of local residents objected to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal being misleading in that there would not be additional car parking for residents of Blenheim Terrace and Burr Cottage as only 4 spaces were proposed; the application site shown on the plans was misleading in that it incorrectly included the whole of the front garden and drive of Tudor Orchard; Tudor Orchard had undergone some underpinning in the past and there was concern that the corner of the dwelling was so close to the pinch point in the access road that damage could be caused to the property; the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan in that the site was not previously developed but was an historic orchard which was an important part of the Conservation Area; the proposal was also contrary to Policies GS1, GS5, H11, H12 and H13 in that it would be harmful to the open land within the Conservation Area and the fabric of a listed building; and concerns regarding the lack of a right of way.  He suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable the Officers to investigate these matters.

One Member expressed surprise that the County Council had raised no objection regarding the access road given the obvious pinch point on the road which did not look as if two cars could pass through. Another Member commented that having visited the site, in his opinion it would not be possible for two cars to pass at that point. Furthermore, he asked whether notice had been served on the owners of the adjoining property advising of the application or whether the owners had bought this property after the application had been made. He believed that this access road was a problem as it appeared that it would encompass a large portion of the adjoining property’s garden.

The Officer confirmed that there was a pinch point on this access road but that the County Council as Highway Authority had raised no objection to the proposal. Furthermore, it was confirmed that notices had been served on the adjoining owner.

One Member commented that ownership did seem uncertain, although it was noted that this was not a material planning consideration. He agreed that the bathroom window should be obscure glazed. Furthermore, he asked whether if permission was granted the developers could be required to create the car parking for the Blenheim Terrace residents.  To this end it was considered that a Section 106 Agreement to secure the use of the car parking by the residents of Blenheim Terrace would be appropriate.

One Member expressed concern regarding the extent of the proposed works to the bank of the neighbouring land to provide the access.  The Officers clarified that the proposal included the removal of the wall and the setting back of the boundary.  It was explained that elevation details of what was proposed had yet to be provided,

It was proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber and seconded by Councillor Terry Cox that consideration of application HAR/19966/1 be deferred pending an agreement being entered into regarding the car parking spaces and clarification regarding the application site.  On being put to the vote, this was lost by 8 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.

One Member referred to a window on the first floor of the west elevation which he considered should be obscure glazed to avoid overlooking.  He suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an additional condition be added requiring this.

It was proposed by the Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby and by 12 votes to 2 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application HAR/19966/1 subject to the following:-

(1)      the conditions set out in the report;

(2)      an additional condition to require that the west facing bathroom window on the first floor be obscure glazed;

(3)      a further condition requiring details of boundary treatments to include elevations showing how the frontage will be treated by the driveway; and

(4)      the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the use of the proposed four parking spaces for residents of Blenheim Terrace.