Agenda item

Further to the report the Committee was advised of the receipt of an amended site layout plan.  Reference was made to the comments of the Parish Council and it was clarified that the Parish Council had objected to the application stating that the proposal was contrary to H17 and H4 of the Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 regarding affordable housing. 

 

The Officers reported the amendments to the layout plan explaining that some of the plots had changed around.  It was reported that there was a footpath link within the site to the bus stop on Cumnor Hill; the design changes to the houses were described; the design of the surrounding blocks had been amended; there were amenity spaces to break up the car parking; there were more houses over looking the public open space area; windows had been added; a footpath link had been added to the public open space; proposed elevations compared with those previously refused were described; there were better proportioned gables; chimneys had been repositioned; a focal point had now been included with a subordinate extension; more variation had been added to break up the massing; the style was more akin to Arts and Crafts style with more steeply sloping roofs; roof massing had been brought down; block B had been completely redesigned; the Consultant Architect’s comments had been taken on board with the doorway altered; the level of car parking had been increased; water butts would be included; there would be some solar panelling; and there was a more even spread of affordable properties across the development. 

 

It was explained that drainage was covered by condition 12 of the original planning permission.  The Officers suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an informative should be added advising the applicants that they must comply with the conditions on the original application.

 

It was reported that it was considered that the concerns of BBOWT and Natural England had now been addressed.

 

Dr P Hawtin made a statement on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that: -

·                    dwellings on the site were needed but he urged refusal of this application as the improvements necessary had not been included;

·                    the proposal needed to be sympathetic to its surroundings and in accordance with the Local Plan;

·                    the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan in that development was proposed outside of the site’s boundaries which formed a comprehensive development boundary;

·                    the proposal amounted to off site development with a large balancing pond and a car park in the Green Belt;

·                    failure of the Police to comment on the application did not amount to its support;

·                    the Officers’ report was biased;

·                    there were no significant changes in detail or in principle to the previous refused proposal;

·                    the affordable housing was clustered across the middle of the site and readily distinguishable from the rest of the housing, contrary to policy;

·                    he clarified the comments of the Consultant Architect in that he considered that this proposal would not be a prize-winning scheme architecturally, and even within its own terms could be improved without a great deal of effort;

·                    there would be costs in maintaining the un-adopted roads and he asked how this would be achieved by those in the affordable housing;

·                    on the sensibility of having the recently repositioned Locally Equipped Area of Play approached via an un-adopted road;

·                    on the bad design, access and lack of consideration regarding the inadequate community infrastructure; and

·                    the need to refuse the application.

 

Susan Davidson made a statement objecting to the application reminding the Committee that this application was a resubmission, as the original application had been refused. She raised concerns regarding the application making the following comments: -

·                    the form of the development was over intrusive and inappropriate;

·                    the proposal would be detrimental to the character of Cumnor Hill;

·                    the application failed to exploit the site’s potential and concern that the application was contrary to plan policies;

·                    there was little difference between the revised application and the application which had been refused;

·                    the revised application did not amount to a material alteration although this was recommended for approval and she questioned how this could be right;

·                    a fresh new scheme should have been submitted not minor improvements on a refused application;

·                    a block of flats on the eastern boundary bordering the Green Belt was inappropriate; .

·                    the removal of the current sheds would improve the visual amenities of the Green Belt and its openness but the erection of flats in their place would not result in any improvements;

·                    the application should be refused.

·                    objections raised had not been addressed;

·                    there would be over-looking;

·                    there was a lack of boundary treatment;

·                    the proposal was unneighbourly and harmful to neighbours’ amenitiy;

·                    although surface water drainage was not part of this application, it depended upon an attenuation facility outside the “comprehensive development boundary this meant that development of the site must be within “the red line” and that the off-site proposal was therefore contrary to the Local Plan;

·                    the comment of the Environment Agency that there were viable on-site alternatives, which would enhance the amenity value of the site, yet the report predicated an off site drainage scheme for surface water; and

·                    that the Committee should have regard to the advice of the Environment Agency and refuse the application on the basis that it lacked adequate provision of on site surface water drainage.

 

Mr G Rider the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that

·                    the original proposal had been designed to respond to features of the site, namely site levels and access;. 

·                    the idea was to work within existing site levels and the street scene;

·                    there had been detailed changes to houses and flats and they reflected the character of houses on Cumnor Hill;

·                    the design presented an interesting street scene with spaces;

·                    there had been attention to the design and layout along the eastern side of the site;

·                    there were smaller more intimate spaces;

·                    the original scheme had larger areas of shared parking;

·                    there was more interest and variety;

·                    properties had been rotated to face the open space areas to the south of the site; and

·                    roof designs had been altered.

 

One of the local Members spoke against the application advising that the proposal was a rushed re-submission of the refused scheme. She expressed concern regarding: -

·                    the lack of comments from the Crime Prevention Officer particularly in respect of lighting and the garage blocks;

·                    the Consultant Architect not being supportive and she asked Members to have regard to his specific comments;

·                    the design, particularly the flats was unacceptable;

·                    the parking and the need for a balancing pond;

·                    the need for a 3D model or computer walk through of the proposal; and

·                    a number of matters concerning the affordable housing and the need for the proposal to be in keeping  with the surrounding environment.

 

Some Members agreed that a model of the proposal should be sought.

 

One Member noted the Consultant Architect’s report and considered that the answers received did not provide the information necessary.  It was explained that it was essential for Members to know whether the current proposal was a noticeable improvement to the earlier scheme.  He suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to clarify this matter and to seek a visual aid (model or computer walk through) to assist in determining the application. He also suggested that the views of the Crime Prevention Officer should be sought.

 

Other Members agreed that a model of the proposal was essential and that the design needed further consideration, it being commented that the affordable housing should be spread throughout the development.

 

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    Further information on the play areas should be provided by the applicant.

·                    More information should be provided to help the Committee determine the application.

·                    A report from the Crime Prevention Officer should be obtained.

·                    The situation regarding the roads to be adopted was unclear.

·                    A condition to address boundary treatment should be added.

·                    The design and layout were not acceptable notably in terms of the larger houses being at the front of the site with a significant number of properties squeezed in the middle and all the affordable housing in the central area. 

·                    The design of the blocks of flats in the middle of the development were not appropriate.

·                    A high quality design was needed.

 

The Officers responded that further comments had been received from the Consultant Architect on the amended drawings. It was reported that in terms of the play area, the Leap had been included within the scheme. The location of the play areas was shown.  It was noted that private drives would not be adopted but some roads would.   It was explained that a number of matters such as boundary treatment had been addressed at the outline application stage.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor John Woodford and by 10 votes to 4 with 1 abstention it was

 

RESOLVED

 

that consideration of application CUM/80/29- D be deferred to enable the following: -

 

(1)      clarification of the Consultant Architect’s comments in terms of design; how the development linked together; the relationship of the proposed housing to existing properties; the street scene; a view of the high quality or otherwise of the design;

 

(2)      comments from the Crime Prevention Officer;

 

(3)      a redesign of the scheme to provide for the spread of affordable housing throughout the development;

 

(4)      the seeking of a visual aid such as a model or a computer generated walk clearly showing the proposal, how it links together and its relationship with existing properties.