Agenda item

Councillor Roger Cox had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 33 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Richard Farrell had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 33 he withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration.

Further to the report the Officers explained that the applicant was concerned to bring forward this scheme having regard to the current economic climate.  In addition it was noted that 3D massing drawings had been received which were presented at the meeting.

It was noted that changes had been made to the proposal as follows: -

·                    There was an increase in the amount of enclosure to reflect the comments of the Consultant Architect. 

·                    There had been a reconfiguration of the Square to make it more enclosed also to address the comments of the Consultant Architect. 

·                    Parking ratios had been increased in accordance with concerns regarding the level of public transport provision. 

·                    A plan for parking had been provided and it was suggested that this could be considered by the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) under delegated powers.

·                    The design had been amended to reflect properties elsewhere in Faringdon.  The design and quality were being discussed and it was proposed that there would be continued negotiation regarding this.

·                    Elevations had been altered.  Street perspectives had been submitted and these were considered.  It was noted that the buildings were to be primarily stone and brick with render. The applicant had also submitted 3 dimensional perspectives of the street level which were presented at the meeting.

·                    The on-street parking had been integrated into the design and this would be broken up with trees.

It was noted that the final comments of the consultant architect had yet to be received.  It was noted that the existing mature hedgerows would be transferred into the Council’s ownership.  The distances to neighbouring properties were explained and it was noted that the Council’s minimum distances were exceeded in terms of protecting privacy.

It was noted that the affordable housing was to be located in one area, the reasoning for which was set out in the report. However, it was explained that there would be a spread of affordable housing throughout the remaining part of the Folly Farm site. 

The Committee noted that the applicant had submitted an indicative material schedule.  It was noted that the proposed walling materials for this phase included a mix of render, stone and brick.  It was commented that the Consultant Architect and the Architects Panel had considered that there was too much red brick and that Faringdon was comprised of mostly stone and render.  It was noted that buff brick was proposed on the back of some units where it was believed that the surfaces were less conspicuous.  Members felt that the amount of red brick was acceptable, but that the use of the buff brick was not acceptable.

It was noted that the Town Council sought an alternative access into the site.

Further to the report it was noted that there had been two additional letters of objection reiterating the concerns addressed in the report.  The letters also raised concerns that the whole development would result in the loss of natural habitats which would have a harmful impact on some species; the development was too large; there would be an adverse impact on the local infrastructure; there would be congestion on roads; the scheme could attract a new shopping development which would be harmful; there would be a loss of open space; the skateboard park was not required; there had been a lack of consultation; there was a risk of an increase in flooding and drainage problems and the reduced screening would reduce the noise barrier of traffic on the A420.  The Officers commented that these matters mostly related to the principle of development which Members were reminded had already been agreed.

Ms B Disborough had given notice that she wished to make a statement at the meeting but she declined to do so.

One of the local Members made the following comments in support of the application: -

·                    The design was interesting and sympathetic to the existing dwellings in Faringdon.

·                    Pre-application discussions with local people and the Town Council had been beneficial and well received.

·                    Although this would be an extension of the modern development next door, the scheme was excellent.

·                    The layout of parking needed to be addressed.

·                    The use of the proposed materials, including red brick and render was acceptable and would break up the development.

·                    The distances to neighbouring properties were exceeded.

·                    The existing facilities at the Health Centre could cope with the additional residents.

·                    There were some reservations regarding the affordable housing which it was considered should be spread throughout the whole development.

Other Members made the following comments: -

·                    The overall quality of the scheme was important and the design work was welcomed to break up the bulk and mass of the proposal.

·                    Care should be taken to ensure that the scheme did not provide for cars to be parked in big blocks. 

·                    Quality materials would be used where seen but the proposal to use cheaper materials in other areas was unacceptable in terms of the long term quality of the development which it was considered essential to retain. The Officers clarified that some units would be fronted with artificial stone and some of red brick.

·                    A panel of materials should be erected on site.

·                    The buildings were well separated. 

·                    There was concern regarding the proposed parking area which it was considered needed to have windows overlooking it.  This was to prevent antisocial behaviour.

·                    It would be preferable if the affordable housing could be spread throughout the entire development but the reasons why this was not possible were noted.  The Officers reported that the mix and location of affordable housing had been agreed with the Housing Officers and that the most demand was for smaller housing units.

·                    The quality of the affordable housing was essential.  The Officers reported that affordable housing was usually built to a higher standard with a higher specification. However, it was suggested that the developer could be asked to look at the detailing and gables of the affordable units.

·                    There should be as much landscaping as possible. 

In response to comments raised the Officers clarified that the Section 106 obligation had been agreed at the outline stage.

By 14 votes to nil with 1 of the voting Members having left the room during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Members to approve application GFA/19883/3-D subject to conditions, including external materials; architectural detailing; highway surface materials; landscaping and car parking.