Lodged
The following appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate:-
Appeal by Mr and Mrs Wilson against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a first floor extension at Struan Faringdon Road, Frilford Heath (FRI/11397/2);
Allowed
The following appeal has been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate: -
Appeal by Mr Chris Brotherton against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the conversion of roof space to provide a two bedroom apartment at 10 Cumnor Hill, Oxford (NHI/3243/13). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was whether the proposed development made adequate provision for car parking.
The Inspector noted that the Council had revised its parking standards in response to the guidance in PPG3 and PPG13. These were now expressed as a maximum of one car parking space for each one-bedroomed unit and two car parking spaces for each two-bedroomed unit. These standards equated to a requirement of 11 on-site car parking spaces to serve the existing and proposed development on the site. 12 car parking spaces existed. The standard did not define any ratio between resident and visitor parking.
The Inspector considered that the appeal site lay within a highly sustainable location within reasonable walking distance of shops, school, health and other community facilities. The site lay on the route of a frequent bus service to Oxford and Abingdon. The Inspector was satisfied that the development would not result in additional danger to road uses or interference with the free flow of traffic by encouraging parking on Cumnor Hill. The Inspector therefore considered that the proposal accorded with Local Plan Policies D3 and TR9 and relevant national policy guidance in PPG3 and PPG13. The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
Dismissed
The following appeals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate: -
(i) Appeal by Tapecrown Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the cessation of the existing lorry park use, the construction of a new building for business use (648m squared) and the formation of new turning area and operational parking to serve the proposed development at Chowle Farm, Great Coxwell (GCO/2087/18). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that there were two main issues in this case, namely the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the impact of the scheme on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the A420.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed new building was designed for its purose, and although taller than the existing building, the Inspector considered that with the use of dark colours it could be rendered acceptable within the landscape. The Inspector considered that it would hide much of the clutter which was clearly visible which would be a particular benefit of the scheme. Subject to an appropriately worded condition the Inspector concluded that the appeal should succeed in relation to this issue.
However, the Inspector was concerned about the means of access. The Inspector was not clear as to the number of vehicle movements relating to lorries. The possibility of a meaningful comparison being made in relation to traffic generation was further complicated by the Council’s use of an estimate based on a 1000 sq m development and the appellant’s consultant engineer using 1500 sq m. Notwithstanding this, the Inspector saw that the route through the estate could not be easy for the drivers of large vehicles, including a difficult manoeuvre just inside the entrance. The appellant’s own consultant had drawn attention to the incline at the entrance which could impede the ability of heavy vehicles to pull out of the access onto the A420 and there was concern the impact of right turning traffic. The Inspector agreed with these observations and noted in addition that the A420 was the main Swindon to Oxford road and was very busy.
The Inspector considered that the appellant’s fall back case (legal issues currently still under consideration) remained unconvincing and he concluded that the revised scheme remained in conflict with Policy T18 of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan and Policy D3 of the Local Plan, both which sought to promote highway safety. The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(ii) Appeal by S Browne, J Drury and V Gilholm against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of two new dwellings on land to the rear of 42 and 44 Swinburne Road, Abingdon (ABG/17366/1). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case were the effect of the proposal of the character and appearance of the area and whether the development made adequate provision for access.
The Inspector considered that the proposed development would not reflect the design context and provide an environment in keeping with the character of the area. Furthermore, the Inspector was not convinced that the development would not be viewed in isolation with the wider location. The Inspector therefore concluded that the development would be out of character with its surroundings, contrary to Local Plan Policies H16 and D1, together with PPG3.
The Inspector considered that the width of the access would be insufficient to service the development in a safe manner and that there would be a potential for vehicles being reversed into Swinbourne Road, should two vehicles meet on the access. This would represent a clear danger to pedestrian and highway safety, contrary to Local Plan Policies H16 and D3. The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to cost was made with the appeal decision.
(iii) Appeal by Wye House Limited against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a single detached dwelling with parking on land adjacent to “The Stone House”, Faringdon Road, Kingston Bagpuize (KBA/10073/1). The decision to refuse permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that although the proposed dwelling’s careful design and siting would minimise its visual impact and create a more sympathetic appearance than other nearby development, it would nonetheless replace existing trees and much of the garden with a permanent building of considerable size. Bearing in mind the character, style and scale of the Stone House, such a reduction in the remaining undeveloped space around it would unacceptably diminished its setting.
In terms of access, the Inspector considered that this would be narrow and restricted around a tight bend and that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment. However, the Inspector did not consider that the neighbours’ living conditions would be unduly harmed. The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
(iv) Appeal by Mr Lester against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a two bedroomed bungalow and garage at 51 Northcourt Road, Abingdon (ABG/18244/1). The decision to refuse planning permission was made by the Director under powers delegated to him.
The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
The Inspector considered the four options put forward by the appellant to provide access to the site and discounted all of them. The Inspector considered that the proposal would lead to harm to highway safety and the free flow of traffic and that none of the options would overcome this. The Inspector dismissed the appeal as contrary to Policy D3 of the Local Plan and D5 of the second deposit draft Local Plan. No reference to costs was made with the appeal decision.
Withdrawn
The following appeals have been withdrawn: -
(i) Appeal by Mr W L Gray against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the erection of a 6 metre high aerial mast at 23 Ballard Chase, Abingdon (ABG/12729/2).
(ii) Appeal by Mr and Mrs P Dyer against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit the demolition of existing bungalow and the erection of a two bedroomed bungalow with double car port at The Bungalow, Hinksey Hill Farm, South Hinksey (SHI/17832/2).
(iii) Appeal by Thomas and Co against the Council’s decision to refuse to permit a conversion of roof space to provide a two bedroom apartment at 10 Cumnor Hill, Oxford (NHI/3243/14).
Recommendation
that the agenda report be received.
Minutes:
The Committee received and considered an agenda report which advised of one appeal which had been lodged, one which had been allowed and four which had been dismissed. A further three appeals had been withdrawn.
RESOLVED
that the agenda report be received.