Agenda item

The Committee noted that the Town Council had not objected to the proposal but had asked for a financial contribution towards the play equipment in Marlborough Gardens.  However, it was explained that the Officers did not consider that this was reasonable in view of the proximity of the play equipment to this development.

It was noted that the County Council sought a financial contribution towards infrastructure such as fire and rescue, libraries and schools.  The Committee was advised that should it be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation.

The Committee noted that the Officers considered the layout acceptable and could not see that any harm would be caused. It was noted that there had been concern raised regarding the loss of vegetation because of the new access.  However, amended plan had been submitted which had brought the dwellings back and no trees would be lost.  Furthermore, there would be new planting. It was considered that providing the dwellings were reasonable in height the proposal would not be harmful and the access acceptable.

Ms L Norton a neighbouring resident opposite the application site made a statement on behalf of other residents objecting to the application.  She raised concerns regarding the access and the harmful impact of this on the area; pedestrian safety it being noted that there were many children in the vicinity and there was a crossing nearby; parked cars; increased traffic; parking generally; the site already having access off Fernham Road and a lack of understanding as to why a new access was required; loss of vegetation; loss and lack of screening; adverse visual impact; loss of outlook and the proposal being out of keeping in this part of Faringdon near the countryside.

One of the local Members spoke in support of the application noting that the vision splay was adequate; the drainage was acceptable subject to conditions; the trees were to be retained; a financial contribution was to be made; the County Highway Authority had no objection; landscaping was to be provided; density was in accordance with PPS3; the parking was sufficient and whilst there was a significant amount of traffic along Coxwell Road, the traffic could be equally as busy along Fernham Road and therefore the use of the access was acceptable.

Another local Member considered that whilst an alternative access onto Fernham Road would lessen the impact on the speaker, it would not be preferable.  He considered that from a safety point of view, the access off Coxwell Road would be better particularly having regard to the positioning of the crossing further down the road.  On consideration of this matter he asked whether Officers could liaise with the County Council to secure a speed activation device along this road.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice- Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application GFA/20534 subject to the conditions set out in the report and to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution to the County Council towards infrastructure requirements; and

(b)       that the Officers discuss with the County Council the possibility of a speed activation device along Coxwell Road.