Agenda item

Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Jim Moley, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Margaret Turner and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Tony de Vere 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.

The Officers reported that further to the report additional correspondence had been received from Environmental Health in relation to concerns from a local resident regarding noise and disturbance from the proposed flats. The Committee was advised that it was not necessary to add a condition covering noise as such matters were controlled under separate legislation.

The Officers highlighted the key issues affecting this application and explained that the principle of redeveloping the site and the impact of the development on neighbours was considered acceptable. In response to a further concern raised by a local resident regarding the compatibility of educational use and residential use, the Officers explained that residential use was an acceptable reuse of the site and one that would not adversely impinge on the day to day operation of the school in terms of noise and disturbance.

The Officers explained that it was felt that a more appropriately designed building would be sought and to this end an informative regarding design was suggested.

The Officers explained that the application was recommended for approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions.  However, should the agreement not be completed within a reasonable timescale it was recommended that the application be refused.

Parish Councillor Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He particularly raised concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to Planning Policy DC5; the proposed access presenting a traffic hazard as the current access was through John MasonSchool; pedestrian safety; traffic speed and lack of parking. He expressed his surprise that the County Engineer had not objected to the scheme.  He explained that that Wootton Road was higher than the site and therefore it was likely that drivers would have to accelerate along the access slope which was dangerous. He commented that there was inadequate car parking as although the scheme advised that there were 12 spaces, two of these were for visitors.

Mr David Dorswell made a statement objecting to the applications also raising concerns relating to matters covered in the report. He explained that he was a resident of Godwin Close and he was concerned that his property would be overlooked by the proposed flats. He reported that the plans referred to a hedge on the west side which would be trimmed back and therefore he expected that his property would be in the line of sight of the development.

Mr John Rawling made a statement on behalf of John Mason Governors objecting to the application. He considered that the development raised significant concerns in terms of highway safety. He considered that Wootton Road was substandard for the amount of traffic it carried and that the road had been developed to avoid multiple access points. He expressed his own concern regarding the accuracy of the County Engineer’s comments and recommended that the Committee should defer consideration of the application pending a second opinion from an independent highway consultant.

One Member expressed his regret that the applicant did not wish to keep the existing building and commented that the proposed building was unacceptable in terms of design. He noted that more detailed plans were required in order to consider whether overlooking would be an issue. He considered that the main objection was whether the proposed access was dangerous.

Another Member agreed that an informative regarding design was necessary and expressed his unease about the County Council commenting on its own application.  The Officers advised the Committee that this was unavoidable and that the County Engineer would not have had regard to this but would have commented on the highway implications regardless of ownership.  It was pointed out that this authority determined its own applications.

One Member commented that the objectors had not commissioned their own independent report.  He referred to the costs involved and stated that the Council did not have limitless resources for such matters. He expressed his belief that an independent highway report would not come to a different conclusion than the County’s Engineers in this case. Finally, he commented that he considered that there should be an informative regarding design and commented that a building of quality should occupy this site.

It was proposed by Councillor Richard Gibson, seconded by Councillor John Woodford and by 10 votes to 3 votes (with Councillor Jerry Patterson voting against the resolution and in accordance with Standing Order 29(4) this being so recorded in the Minutes) it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/20273/3-X be deferred to enable the Officers to seek an independent Engineer’s report to assess the safety of the site.