Agenda item

(Councillors Matthew Barber and Roger Cox had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

 

The Officers displayed the latest plan advising that the consultation period had not yet expired and therefore should the Committee be minded to approve the application it was asked to delegate authority to the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee subject to the expiry of the consultation period and to the receipt of no new matters.

 

Further to the report the Officers: -

-                outlined the financial contributions;

-                reported that there would be 40% affordable housing which equated to 13 units;

-                advised of the receipt of massing drawings which were displayed at meeting;

-                explained the amendments to plots 2 - 10, 20 - 25, and 31 - 35 which included reductions in height to plots and amendments to elevations and gables;

-                explained the objections received notably objections to the rear passageway; The Officers commented that the Crime Prevention Officer had advised that he did not consider that the rear passageways would create a security risk and that there was less of a security hazard in this location than if the site was close to the town centre.

-                outlined the changes to plot 30 in respect of the gable wall and repositioning of a bedroom window to a side wall in response the comments of the Consultant Architect; The Officers commented that the window to the dressing area on plot 30 could be made obscure glazing.

-                described the amendments to plot 31 and advised that an additional plot had been included reflecting the Consultant Architect’s comments;

-                described in detailed the heights to ridge of the plots it being noted that concerns had been expressed locally in this regard; and

-                Explained that the tall fir trees were all to be removed which it was noted the Inspector had supported.

 

Members were advised that concern had been expressed in terms adverse impact on neighbours.  However the Officers asked Members to consider the likely harm having regard to there being no windows overlooking the neighbours which were detached dwellings some distance away. 

 

The Committee noted that local residents had been concerned about the density of the development and height of the proposed buildings.  However, Members were informed that the applicant had argued that the proposal was a traditional high density development reflecting the local distinct architecture in the Town.  It was specifically commented that there were high houses on the edge of the Town in Church Street and the applicant had argued that the proposal was an improvement on existing development elsewhere in the Town in that the development was open. 

 

Furthermore, the Officers reported that there was some concern regarding the road type and in particular a shared surface.  This meant that there was shared use of the road way and footway by vehicles and pedestrians However, the Committee noted that the County Council was prepared to adopt this type of road for this site.

 

Further to the report, the Committee noted that 5 additional letters of concerns raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report had been received.  In particular concerns were raised regarding the increase in the number of units from 35 to 36 thus causing further harm; adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; impact on the rural entrance to the Town; road levels; the need for a bund to screen the development which it was reported had been a requirement on the opposite development site; and alleged errors made by the Inspector in terms of the site he was considering.

 

The Officers reminded the Committee that an informative had been added to the outline consent regarding the need for a high quality design that represented its edge of town setting and overlooking of neighbours.  It was noted that the distances between the proposed and existing housing more than exceeded the minimum requirements and therefore harm could not be argued on the basis of adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.  Furthermore, in terms of design, it was noted that the Consultant Architect and the Architects Panel supported the scheme. The Committee was advised that the Officers therefore considered that any argument in terms of harm could not be sustained.

 

Dr Mike Wise made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the location of the three storey buildings being out of character with this part of the Town and with adjacent properties which were mainly two storey houses and bungalows on large plots; the development being located on rising ground; the height of the three storey dwellings on the ridge which would be greater than that of the existing screen of trees thereby dominating the skyline and changing the appearance of Faringdon from the South and West in an area of high landscape value; the need to preserve the countryside; the loss of trees which provided a windbreak; the proposed buildings creating wind vortices potentially resulting in damage it being noted that this was a windy area; the number of proposed dwellings; the high density being out of keeping in this rural area; design in terms of living rooms being on the second floors overlooking the rear of the dwellings in Carters Crescent, Tollington Court and Coxwell House; overlooking generally; loss of privacy; fenestration namely 21 windows overlooking neighbours; access through the site in that the long thin spine road would provide for a roadway only 4.25 metres wide which would result in a restriction in the ability for vehicles to pass each other without larger vehicles encroaching on the footpath, hence causing a hazard to pedestrians; lack of on-street parking; access and egress to the site leading to the likelihood that vehicles would need to back on to Coxwell Road; inadequate parking provision; access at the junction with Coxwell Road which was on a brow and blind corner on the edge of a 30 mph speed limit zone; vehicle speeds being higher than 30 mph resulting in a considerable risk of collision for vehicles entering and exiting the site; traffic movements possibly being in excess of 200 per day; the costs involved in the re-orientation of Coxwell Road because of the relative heights of the roadway and footpaths, the relocation of drainage ditches and the overall length required; the footpath being lower than the roadway and maintenance being an issue of concern; potential problems of sewerage and water supply in this part of Faringdon where there were already instances of low water pressure; the lack of arrangements with the Town Council regarding Section 106 agreements and the general over-development of this inappropriate site.

 

Mr D Belcher representing the residents of Carters Crescent and Tollington Court made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding gross overdevelopment of the site; the proposal being out of keeping with the nearby large detached properties; the scheme being out of character with this part of Faringdon; the need to have regard to the Informative attached to the outline consent in terms of a high quality design; three storey properties with lounge areas on the first floor resulting in over looking and loss of privacy; adverse impact in terms of visual outlook to the residents of 4 and 5 Tollington Court who would view a complete row of houses; loss of sunlight; fenestration; proximity of the proposed buildings to existing houses; density and a view that there should be a maximum of 31 units on this site; the shared use of the roadway and footpath in terms of safety; and the security concerns associated with the passageway.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application which he considered would have a harmful affect on a number of existing residents in nearby houses.

 

One of the local Members made the following comments: -

·                    Residents had been concerned that the Committee would determine the application before the expiry of the consultation period.

·                    The informative on the outline permission referred to a high quality sensitive design to avoid overlooking on this edge of town site.

·                    The residents of Coxwell House had claimed that they had not been consulted on the application.

·                    The proposal was mainly for terraced houses.

·                    The area was close to other existing houses and the design should be compatible with those houses.

·                    The height of some of the proposed buildings would be similar to the existing trees on the site.

·                    Great Coxwell Parish Council had expressed concern regarding the impact on views from the countryside into the Town.

·                    The existing entrance and access to the site would be difficult.

·                    The views of the Consultant Architect and the Architects’ Panel in support were noted but in his view this proposal was overdevelopment on the site.

·                    The design and style were not suitable for this edge of town site.

 

Another local Member made the following comments: -

·                    Comparing the density and style of the development to properties in Church Street was misleading.  He explained that Church Street was part of the town centre which was located to the north east.  He considered that Church Street was completely different to the site being considered.

·                    Gravel Walk was also not a fair comparison.

·                    Coleshill Drive was the nearest development and extensive boundary treatment had been required for that site.  He commented that this demonstrated how important the Committee had considered the views into Faringdon at that time.

·                    The proposal was out of keeping.

·                    There would be adverse impact in terms of visual appearance when entering the town.

·                    He referred to the decision to locate the public open space on the southern boundary, commenting that the housing was pushed to the back of the site which impacted on the neighbouring properties.  He considered that this layout did not soften the view of the development in that views would be straight through to the 3 storey houses.

·                    He noted that the Crime Prevention Officer regarding the passageway but commented that it would become enclosed as residents would erect fences along their boundaries. 

·                    There would be overlooking and loss of privacy.

·                    He had concerns regarding parking and road layout, including the lack of on-street parking within the site.

·                    The 3 storey element would be clearly visible and he asked whether the development could be rotated on the site to reduce the impact on the amenity of the existing houses. 

 

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·                    The site was an allocated site for development.  The Council had not wished to develop this site but the principle of development had been agreed by the Inspector.

·                    There were no grounds to refuse the application

·                    The applicant’s arguments regarding the views into Faringdon from Radcot Road were acceptable.  It was not disputed that Church Street was the centre of the town, but it was also the approach into Faringdon. 

·                    The bund on the opposite site should not be repeated for this development.

·                    The heights of the buildings were not consistent and therefore the appearance would not be that of a whole row of houses.  There would be 11 metre high peaks.

·                    The distances of the proposed buildings to existing houses exceeded minimum requirements.

·                    In terms of design and style, the Consultant Architect and Architects Panel were supportive.

·                    The development was for a higher density than neighbouring developments but this was what the Government was encouraging.

·                    The access and roadway was supported by the County Engineer who was the expert in these concerns.  Furthermore, the County Council had indicated that it would adopt the roadway.

·                    As much planting as possible to screen the development should be provided to address concerns regarding views and to soften the views on the edge of the town.

·                    The 3 storey elements would be partially hidden by the larger blocks.

·                    Parking would be adequate it being noted that concerns had been raised regarding similar road proposals elsewhere but these concerns had subsequently been unfounded.  However, one Member disagreed with this comment reporting that the development referred to was not similar in that it related to a retired persons development.

·                    Access had been approved at the outline stage.

·                    The affordable housing was welcomed.

·                    The distances of 36 and 37 metres exceeded the 21 metres minimum standard.  The nearest property was in Tollington Court with a window to window distance of 23 metres.

 

It was proposed by CouncillorMatthew Barber and seconded by Councillor Roger Cox that consideration of application GFA/19649/2-D be deferred to enable the expiry of the consultation period and to seek amendment to the scheme to address the concerns raised.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 7 for and 8 votes against with the Chair having exercised his casting vote.

 

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

·                          The proposal amounted to over development of the site.

·                          The buildings would be overcrowded.

·                          The design was out of keeping.

·                          Parking was inadequate which would lead to neighbour disputes.

·                          There was concern regarding pedestrian safety.

·                          There was concern regarding the adequacy of footpaths in terms of safety.

·                          Not withstanding with the comments of the Crime Prevention Officers there were concerns regarding the passageway in terms on noise, security and nuisance.

 

One Member commented that a condition should be added to require bollards to prevent the public open space being used as a parking area.  Furthermore, it was suggested a condition to address slab levels and bin and cycle stores for the flats.

 

One Member noted the concerns raised by the speaker regarding the area being windy and he asked that these concerns be brought to the attention of the developer.

 

One Member commented that there were a number of gable walls in the scheme which might look very bland.  It was suggested that some detailing should be provided and the Officers undertook to discuss this with the applicant.

 

By 13 votes to nil with 1 abstention it was

 

RESOLVED

 

(a)      that, subject to the outcome of further discussions concerning the design detail and safety of the proposal, it is recommended that authority to grant approval of reserved matters of application GFA/19649/2-D is delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and Local Members subject to: -

 

(1)              the expiry of the consultation period on the amended plans and the consideration of issues raised in any further representations that are received;

 

(2)               the conditions set out in the report;

 

(3)      further conditions to require bollards to prevent the public open space being used as a parking area and to address slab levels and bin and cycle stores for the flats;

 

(b)      that, if any of the Local Members are not content with the outcome of the further discussions on design and safety, the application be brought back to the Committee for further consideration.