Agenda item

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

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Committee was advised that the County Council’s Head of Early Learning and Childcare had confirmed the objections to the application which had been previously raised by the Head Teacher and Governors of Elms Road Nursery School. Also the Committee was informed that two further letters of objection reiterating the objections set out in the report had been received, together with a statement from North Hinksey Parish Council raising concerns that the block plan did not show all the school buildings and that parking for the proposal was inadequate. 

The Officers explained that the amended plans had attempted to address the concerns raised by the Architects Panel, the Crime Prevention Officer and local residents. The Officers asked the Committee to note that the key changes included steeper roof pitches, increased overhangs, deeper window reveals, pedestrian entrances directly onto West Way, decorative brickwork in the rear of the elevation of block B and fencing on the eastern boundary.  The Officers advised that the applicant had considered moving the block further away from the School, but due to constraints within the site it was not possible to move the block more than 0.4 metres further away.

The Officers advised that the application was considered acceptable, given the reasons set out in the report, notably that Block B would only run along a limited boundary with the School and that the close boarded fence along the boundary would prevent overlooking at ground level. The Officers considered that overlooking from the first floor was minimal and not considered harmful in this case and that child protection measures should be a matter for the School’s management. 

Mr Philip Stevens made a statement on behalf of North Hinksey Parish Council objecting to the application. He advised that he did not believe that the application could be lawfully determined as two school buildings situated to the north of the boundary were not shown on the plans. He explained that he felt that the number of flats was excessive in proportion to the number of parking spaces. He referred to a letter received from the Planning Officers in August 2005 which suggested that Members had had to be persuaded at that time that 41 parking spaces was acceptable in this location. He argued that that there should be 70 spaces for these two bedroom flats.   He commented that block B was only 1 metre from the north boundary and its height, bulk and mass were contrary to Planning Policy DC1. Finally, he advised that he did not accept that the block could not be altered.

Alison Brockliss, the Head Teacher at Elms Road Nursery made a statement objecting to the application raising concern relating to matters already covered in the report. She explained that the School accommodated children aged from 0 to 5 years old and as such the School operated outside regular term times with children in the school premises all year round. She advised that block B would overshadow the School’s play area and would have repercussions for the entire outside area. She raised concerns regarding loss of light to the garden and the school building. She raised concern in respect of child protection issues, in particular the Officer’s comment that this was a matter for the School. She stated that the kitchens and balconies of the proposed flats would overlook the playground and the School had genuine concerns regarding children safety.

In response to a question raised regarding whether the plans could be lawfully determined, the Officers confirmed that the plans were acceptable and that the Block was shown on the boundary. In respect of the comments in the letter from the Planning Officer in 2005, the Officers commented that the application should be considered on its merits at this time.

Some Members raised concern regarding the proposal in terms of the adverse impact of Block B by way of overlooking, over dominance, loss of light and loss of privacy. However, it was considered that the provision of the solid wooden fence went some way towards blocking the view directly into the School garden and it was noted that a canopy covered a portion of the School garden.

Another Member raised concerns regarding child protection issues and commented that these were community issues, not just a management issue for the School. She advised that loss of light was very important and that there should not be windows overlooking a school playground. She considered that Block B could be redesigned.

One Member expressed concern that proposed Block B would abut the school boundary and that in his opinion this was too close to the School in that it would overshadow the garden. He said that a three storey building this close was unacceptable.

One Member highlighted that the scheme had outline planning permission and that there were many developments near school premises. He suggested that overlooking from kitchen windows and balconies was not sufficient justification to refuse the application. Furthermore, the Member commented that as Block B was adjacent only a small part of the boundary he did not consider that this would result in a significant loss of light.

Another Member commented that child protection was an important consideration. He advised that he could not support a proposal which in his view did not minimise the risk identified. He reported that there was no way of controlling who lived in the flats, which concerned him in view of their proximity to the School. He considered that the windows and balconies should not overlook the School and that the proposal could be redesigned to address this. He suggested that there could be a condition to require obscure glazing to the kitchens windows and screens could be placed at the end of the balconies to prevent overlooking. With reference to the car parking he reminded Members that concern had been raised at the outline planning application stage regarding this.

One Member commented that as the Crime Prevention Design Advisor had raised no objections to the scheme, he considered that there was no reason to refuse the application.

One Member agreed that child protection was an issue but he was unconvinced that the overlooking amounted to a reason to refuse the application. However he commented on his concerns regarding the level of car parking and sought an assurance that the County Engineer had commented on the amended plans. In response, the Officers confirmed that the County Engineer had been sent the amended plans.

One Member questioned whether there should be more affordable housing in this development. However, the Officers responded that the affordable housing element had been secured by way of a legal agreement, which was based on the former Local Plan threshold which had been in place at the time of negotiations.

Councillor Terry Cox suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, an additional condition should be added requiring obscure glazing to the first floor windows facing the School and the provision of screens on the balconies to prevent overlooking of the School garden. The Chair put this to the meeting by way of a straw poll and this was supported by 8 votes to 5.

The Chair proposed that application NHI/2653/8-D be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, together with further conditions requiring obscure glazing to the first floor windows facing the School and the provision of screens on the balconies.  However this was lost by 9 votes to 4.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Roger Cox and seconded by Councillor Jerry Patterson that consideration of application NHI/2653/8-D be deferred to enable negotiations with the applicant with a view to securing a redesign or reposition of Block B to reduce its adverse impact in terms of overlooking.  However, this was lost by 7 votes to 6.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Richard Gibson, seconded by Councillor Sue Marchant and by 7 votes to 6 it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/2653/8-D be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee such reasons to include the adverse and unneighbourly impact of the proposal in terms of overshadowing and overlooking from Block B.