Agenda item

Further to the report the Officers advised of the receipt of a letter sent on behalf of the residents of Harlington Avenue and Glebe Gardens which was read out in full.  Concerns were raised regarding the Grove Lands Estate being intended as an open development; the spread of development giving the appearance of less density and the adverse impact that the proposal would have on this; the detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this pleasant road; the harmful impact on Harlington Avenue; access in terms of the single entrance to no 33 being altered; design in terms of the new gable end; proximity with the development being only 5ft from the highway when it should be a minimum of 20ft; the felling of a Beech tree without consent and the adverse impact through the loss of this tree; lack of parking; increased vehicles and vehicle movements; grey water disposal;  density; garden grabbing and the loss of open space; adverse impact on  wildlife; hard surfaces and possible flooding; precedent and loss of green area.

One of the local Members spoke against the application agreeing with the comments of the objectors and the Parish Council.  She referred to a decision to refuse an application for a house on this site in view of the harmful impact and she commented that she considered the circumstances now to be no different and hence the application should be refused.  She expressed concern that the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and the loss of this area of green would be harmful.  Furthermore, she referred to the footpath adjacent to the site and commented that the proposal would have a harmful impact in this regard.

One Member commented that there had been many similar proposals in Kennington and South Hinksey some of which he reported had been allowed on appeal. He asked Members to think carefully about possible material reasons for refusing the application commenting that there were none. Finally, he emphasisedthat just because a proposal was unpopular, this did not substantiate a reason for refusal.

In response to a question raised the Officers confirmed that flats did not have permitted development rights.  Furthermore, it was clarified that the car parking was at the rear of the garden where there was a garage and that there was a car parking space in front with another two additional spaces.  It was explained that reversing onto the highway was acceptable because of the nature of the road in this location.

One Member drew attention to the grass area at the side of the dwelling and noted that one of the flats had a small garden area.  He suggested that there might be an attempt to enclose the open garden area which he considered should remain open and to this end he questioned whether an additional condition could be added to any permission to require this.

The Officers explained that the proposed boundary condition was intended to secure the open space. It was commented that to impose a condition to require that the area permanently remain open would be unfair it being noted that the neighbour had grown a hedge.

The Member noted this but commented that cumulatively the loss of open areas would alter the character of the area and could be harmful.

The Officers clarified that the test as to whether to impose conditions or not was reasonableness and in this case a condition to retain the open space was considered not reasonable.  However, it was suggested that an informative could be attached to the permission advising the applicant that there should be no fences or walls in order to retain the open feel of the area and that preferably a low hedge might be planted. 

By 13 vote to 2 it was

RESOLVED

that application GRO/19964/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an informative advising that there should be no fences or walls in order to retain the open feel of the area and that preferably a low hedge might be planted.